Softpanorama

May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Home Switchboard Unix Administration Red Hat TCP/IP Networks Neoliberalism Toxic Managers
(slightly skeptical) Educational society promoting "Back to basics" movement against IT overcomplexity and  bastardization of classic Unix

Iran saber-rattling: Trump as Israel stooge is not  a part of the solution, he is a part of the problem.

Even for those who support American empire it is now clear that Trump is a dangerous, malleable idiot with gasoline and matches and needs to be removed ASAP

The point is: Trump is loose cannon. No-one knows what the narcissistic jackass decides next. No good prospects for the world.
 

 

News Full Spectrum Dominance doctrine Recommended Links Shoot-first-ask-questions-later: Trump ME policy Mike "we killed up to 200 Russians" Pompeo Energy Geopolitics Soleimani assassination opened Pandora box in the Middle East The Role of Pro-Israel forces in US Iran Policy New American Militarism
Media-Military-Industrial Complex Neocon foreign policy is a disaster for the USA  Trump as America’s First Zionist President  History of American False Flag Operations American Exceptionalism China factor in Cold War II and the possibility of China-Russia military alliance Mark Esper - Wikipedia National Security State Demonization of Putin
 Zombie state and coming collapse of neoliberalism Trump after his Colin Powell moment Hillary Clinton and Obama created ISIS   Audacious Oligarchy and "Democracy for Winners" Doublespeak Neocolonialism as Financial Imperialism Neoliberalism as Trotskyism for the rich Militarism and reckless jingoism of the US neoliberal elite Blowback against neoliberal globalization
Israel lobby Predator state Nation under attack meme Non-Interventionism Trump2016 foreign policy platform Resurgence of neo-fascism as reaction on neoliberalism Skeptic Quotations Humor Etc
 
“Pompeo’s been caught lying, which horrifies me,” said Fred Wellman, a 1987 grad who retired as a lieutenant colonel and has been one of the more vocal detractors of his fellow cadets now running the government. “So I’ve been discouraged by what I’ve seen coming out of the military academy graduates involved in the administration.”

Trump’s ‘West Point Mafia’ Faces a Loyalty Test - POLITICO

They had a handshake agreement, which was why Soleimani wasn’t under protection. The Solemiani killed Americans stuff cracks me up. He was a military advisor for the Shia militia’s who were attacked by US forces during a unsanctioned war in 2003………….uh derp derp. There have been many other generals that have committed “death of American” crimes that the Trump Admin seems to love.

As my father used to say “homosexuals make great commie fighters” (homosexuals like Joe McCarthy of Wisconsin agree lol). The Zionists so badly want this war in the Trump administration, but Trump doesn’t have the guts to just invade like Iraq.

Bert Schlitz, January 10, 2020 3:46 pm

Killing of General Soleimani  on what looks to be a diplomatic mission (or in other version to visit burial of fighters killed previously by US strikes) was the act of war.  He was a high level Iran official.  Which make his assassination a very cowardly act on the part of Trump, Pompeo, and Esper. Which rabid exceptionalisms like Mike  "We lie, cheat and steal" Pompeo do not care one bit, relying of the USA unquestionable military superiority.

Which  does exist, but without nuclear weapons is no longer absolute, because we are taking about fighting on the local to Iran battlefield with the 80 million nation which can get 10-20 million army and which might well be supported by both Russia and China (making this for the USA the second Vietnam). Iran definitely can inflict Vietnam size  losses on the local US contingent.  The USA will win but it will be Pyrrhic victory and the end of the USA-centered global neoliberal empire as we known it.  Including possible liberation of Europe from the USA occupation.

With oil prices jumping  above two  hundred dollars per barrel (assuming Iran, KSA, Iraq and all Gulf state oil infrastructure bombed out) economically this means a serious economic crisis in all Western countries. So this will be a Pyrrhic victory in one more sense. The USA will finally manage to capture Iranian oil, but not before crashing its own and its allies economy.

This event might signify the start of gradual replacement of dollar with euro dollar as the main world reserve currency (assuming that EU will be intact.) But his can happen only if Saudis, Iran and Iraq facilities will be completely destroyed in the process. In most case we also can expect that Israel might suffer serious losses in both people and infrastructure.

Looks like malleable and incompetent Trump was lured into this trap by West Point 86 graduates gang of greedy military contractors (Pompeo and Esper). Esper previously was disloyal to Trump, when he stood up for Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a senior staff member on the NSC, who at the time was involved with formulating Ukraine policy and who has testified to House investigators in the probe against Trump. The Secretary of State’s behavior has been  neoconish for all his tenure 

Trump, the cowardly bully that he is, probably would have avoid this step, if Pompeo was less insistent (he and Esper flied to Florida).   Now Pompeo head is on the block and he is engaged in face saving PR campaign appearing on all major MSM and trying to hide that Trump administration really has  zero intelligence on "eminent threat" that would somehow justify this cowardly act and to hide as much as possible from public view.  Meanwhile Iraq Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi confirmed that he was scheduled to meet Soleimani, making effectively Soleimani a diplomatic envoy MoA - Iraqi Parliament Expels Foreign Militaries From Iraq

"Before the vote Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi told the parliament that he was scheduled to meet with Soleimani a day after his arrival to receive a letter from Iran to Iraq in response to a de-escalation offer Saudi Arabia had made. The U.S. assassinated Soleimani before the letter could be delivered by him. "

This killing raises again an important question: Why the USA invaded Iraq and what are geopolitical goals of continuing Iraq occupation? Most political analysts single out two major factors: control of Iraq oil and Israel interests in the region.

Killing of Soleimani clearly plays into Israel hands. Chris Matthews once asked the question of the level of contorl of neocons of the USA forign policy and David Corn said it is close to 100% and the goal of the neoconservative is to protect Israel.  Here’s part of the exchange:

Matthews: Why were the people in the administration like [Paul] Wolfowitz and the others talking about going into Iraq from the very beginning, when they got into the white house long before there was a 911 long before there was WMD. It seemed like there was a deeper reason. I don’t get it. It seemed like WMD was a cover story.

Corn: I can explain that. For years. Paul Wolfowitz and other members of the neocon movement had talked about getting rid of Iraq and there would be democracy throughout the region that would help Israel and they came to believe actually a very bizarre conspiracy theory that al Qaeda didn’t matter, that Saddam Hussein was behind all the acts of violence…

Matthews: The reason I go back to that is there’s a consistent pattern: the people who wanted that war in the worst ways, neocons so called, Wolfowitz, certainly Cheney.. it’s the same crowd of people that want us to overthrow Bashar Assad, .. it’s the same group of people that don’t want to negotiate at all with the Iranians, don’t want any kind of rapprochement with the Iranians, they want to fight that war. They’re willing to go in there and bomb. They have a consistent impulsive desire to make war on Arab and Islamic states in a neverending campaign, almost like an Orwellian campaign they will never outlive, that’s why I have a problem with that thinking. … we’ve got to get to the bottom of it. Why did they take us to Iraq, because that’s the same reason they want to take us into Damascus and why they want to have permanent war with Iran.

Because Soleimani is by-and-large byproduct of imperial wars the USA wages in Middle East we can state that the USA created the man and then killed him, creating a symbol of struggle against military American presence in the region.   And now as a martir he  will inflect even heavier damage on the occupying fouces then  when he was alive.  First of all he now is powerful recruitment force to anti-American groups in Iraq (Soleimani brigades).

Paradoxically with one masterful  strike Trump achieved the situation which existed at the height of Iraqis fight againt US occupation: until the hysteria connected with Soleimani murder subside no American (military contractor,  or civilian) outside fortified areas like military bases can feel safe in Iraq.  and probably several other Middle East countries.

It is worse than a crime, it is a mistake ~Talleyrand (attributed)

  C'est pire qu'un crime, c'est une faute.
It is worse than a crime, it is a mistake.

Reaction to the 1804 drumhead trial and execution of Louis Antoine de Bourbon, Duke of Enghien, on orders of Napoleon. Actually said by either Antoine Boulay de la Meurthe, legislative deputy from Meurthe (according to the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations) or Joseph Fouché, Napoleon's chief of police (according to John Bartlett, Familiar Quotations, 10th ed. (1919), http://www.bartleby.com/100/758.1.html).

In other words, what Trump committed  is worse the a crime. It was a blunder. He pained the USA in the corner as a rogue state ( which actually it has been since 1991). The Trump impeachment now comes into play as part of a WEspern realignment or restructuring of the USA Mid-Wast position.  As somebody said   “There are decades when nothing happens, but there are weeks when decades happen” I would not be  now surprised if Trump will lose 2020 re-election bid.   He is now considered dangerous rogue by a strata of independents, those who are able to think about the insanity of the USA foreign policy (and voted for Trump mainly duie to his 2016 anti-war stance). The policy which push the money to MIC while domestic infrastructure, jobs  and wages crumbles  (which is not the majority of the USA electorate) impoverishing most Americans like in classic over-extended empire scenario.  The last such case was the USSR. How it ended we now from history.

What is likely to be happening is that the US will not quit Iraq willingly, despite the  resolution of Parliament. Which will lead to increased public and armed resistance to the US, as indeed happened under Bush-Cheney regime. Moqtada al-Sadr, a powerful Shia cleric whose parliamentary alliance holds 54 of the 329 seats in Iraq’s legislature, called on militants inside and outside Iraq to create “International Resistance Legions” to end America’s military presence in the country, by force if necessary( Iraqi Parliament Backs Expulsion of US Troops Background and What to Expect Next - Sputnik International)

Rephrasing Kissinger: " Assassination is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one".

What is now clear is that Trump is a neocon, or, worse, incompetent and malleable neocon puppet. And appointment of a Rapture obsessed warmongering Secretary of State was not accidental.

But it is kind of ironic to have as the top diplomat a person, who in addition to being a former military contractor (with the appropriate circle of the West Point friends, some of them probably killed or injured during Iraq invasion/occupation) is a big friend of the current head of Mossad (that's probably was the origin of his love of assassinations :-)

He is much better suited for MIC lobbyist position, than for diplomacy. Killing one person even talented and high ranking commander of the Iran army will have no effect on the total direction/methods/capabilities. It is just empower Iran hawks.

But the deep irony of Trump-Pompeo-Esper trio assassination gambit is that Soleimani was one of the key figures in defeating ISIS in Iraq and Syria and used to work with US high command. If this is not the "destruction of credibility" I do not know what is. It feels like ""The Moor has done his duty, the Moor can go."

So the vote of Iraq Parliament should not come as a huge surprise; this was logical consequence of this action. Iran surprised me attacking some objects in Iraq. This was a signature event: looks like the official end of the period of "Full spectrum Dominance". Of course, Iran incompetence with shooting down the Ukrainian airliner spoiled the broth, but still...

Reports are the Pompeo was after Soleimani for a long time, and that the neocon duo of Pomeo-Esper pushed Trump, who felt impeachment pressure and wanted to wag the dog in any case.

But again we can talk about consequences we need to wait for the 2020 elections. I do not think that this action was positive for Trump re-election chances. His base is glued to him no matter what.

But Trump with one masterstroke lost all anti-war republicans and most probably a substantial part of army vote. The army is overextended and is tired of imperial wars. With the proper candidate that may play into Democrats hands in 2020 elections.

Especially, if Tulsi will be on the ticket as a VP (there is almost zero chance for that; and IMHO little chances for Sanders or Warren to be the candidate from Neoliberal Dems )

Can the USA continue to occupy Iraq

There's no doubt that the US can hold out for a while, but a renewed US full military occupation would not be appreciated back home, especially if new flow of the body-bags is implied.

Iraqi parliament resolution about status of the foreign forces in the country is just one small step that now complicated the USA policies in the Middle East. And while the USA will ignore it (and probably it does not have binding legal power, as the government of Iraq is a marionette government who can't act against the USA) the consequences of such a vole are net negative for Trump administration -- the USA forces now clearly viewed as an occupying, hostile force.  Still I see Iraq as a US territory. Like Guam or Puerto Rico. Or Europe for that matter.

augrr | Jan 5 2020 20:23 utc | 102

One can speculate on and debate all kinds of alternative actions and outcomes for Iraq to take if the US refuses to leave, or more importantly, ignores any “no-fly” orders. As I think most of the readers of this blog put a very low probability on US compliance with whatever Iraq officially requests.

Without an ally with the clout to get the US's attention and respect Iraq's wishes will be swatted aside like a pesky mosquito.

There is exactly one – and only one – military opponent at this moment that can credibly challenge the US if Iraq were to ask for help with enforcing the will of its government. A showdown between the old hegemon and a new multipolar power constellation has been on the cards as a future event for some time, with “future” being the operative word.. The current series of events creates the potential to accelerate this transition. I would not be at all surprised if the phone lines between Moscow, Beijing and Teheran have been buzzing fulltime for the past 24 hours. President Putin is essential in this potential team, having the military means, Iran is a given as they are the ultimate US target here, which leaves China. China also knows that at some time it will have to face and defeat the US – but would prefer a time and cause of its choosing. It may be sufficient to get the US out of Iraq if all three together declare their support for Iraq and its decisions.

I knew 2020 would bring interesting times.

Tom_LX | Jan 5 2020 21:00 utc | 113

@juliania | Jan 5 2020 19:53 utc | 96

Lets face it. The US government is captured. Voting will not undo what has been done since at least 1963, assassination of John F. Kennedy. He was the last clear headed US President we had (Carter was not bad) which did not save him from the killing team in Dallas. From that point on we have been on a slow (so as to keep the sheep asleep) downward trajectory. At a minimum we would need to reverse this graph to give any hope of waking up the populace before it is too late.

https://www.personalgrowthcourses.net/images/media-ownership.gif
MSM has people's minds completely frozen to the narrative coming out of DC while Hollywood sends out subtle signals "We are watching and listening to you" with movies like "The Conversation". Perhaps I am wrong and they are awake. Perhaps they are simply too afraid to express what they think. I don't know. I'm just one soul behind a keyboard.

and reassert the need for Trump and his administration to be impeached on treasonous grounds.
"The Buck Stops Here" always operates. Trump is behind the Big Desk because he wanted to be there so he must take the responsibility. But I remind everyone that in the case of Syria Trump initially signaled pulling out all US troops. Then suddenly he stayed "For the Oil". That reversal I interpret as him being on an Israeli leash. He got a Bibi offer he could not refuse and he had to stay under the excuse of Oil, as befitting a business guy. Shallow, stupid for sure but no one would argue.

So Trump is not enough. Clinton (Yugoslavia), Bush Jr., Cheney, Rumsfeld, Colon Powell, ..... did more of the damage to get us where we are today. Later facts came out showing them to be lying to the Nation and what happened ? -----> NOTHING. Trump impeachment was a Show from the word GO. Clinton was played the same way. To play nice at the end of his term he pardoned a poor guy named Mark Rich. That's how the game is played. What's funny, all this information is out there !!!!

Why Trump-Popeo-Esper decided to Soleimani. Why now?

When we are analyzing recent actions of the USA on Middle East that  are two competing explanatory hypothecs

Nowhere those two completing hypothesis are visible more clear then in analysis of Soleymani murder. For example Scott Ritter clearly prefer the second hypothesis He does not even mention  that role of Israel in Soleimani assassination ( The US unwittingly helped create Qassem Soleimani. Then they killed him. — RT Op-ed.

 Colonel Lang takes similar position  in his opinion peace and opinion peace of TTG: 

As usual, Philip Giraldi see Israel influence as the primary factor in this despicable act.  The Soleimani Assassination, by Philip Giraldi - The Unz Review

Donald Trump rode to victory in 2016 on a promise to end the useless wars in the Middle East, but he has now demonstrated very clearly that he is a liar. Instead of seeking detente, one of his first actions was to end the JCPOA nuclear agreement and re-introduce sanctions against Iran. In a sense, Iran has from the beginning been the exception to Trump’s no-new-war pledge, a position that might reasonably be directly attributed to his incestuous relationship with the American Jewish community and in particular derived from his pandering to the expressed needs of Israel’s belligerent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

His views are supposed by a sizable part of commentarial from the Moon of Alabama. The site that usually provide a high quality geopolitical analysis. For example

Nathan Mulcahy | Jan 5 2020 17:06 utc | 50

I am reposting this because the recent developments all point finger to this. BTW, in no way am I excusing Trump as a victim.

The Ziocon-Deep State-Kosher Nostra Mob has the disposable President, aka the Orange Man aka Drimpf by the balls. The Mob was going to get its war with Iran anyway - most likely after the re-election of Drumpf. But now Satanyahu desperately needs a war to stay out of prison. So the ZOG neutered Drumpf by impeaching him out of thin air (while ignoring many legitimate grounds). Drumpf now needs every vote in Senate, and the war with Iran is the ticket. With this war Drumpf just lost his practically guaranteed reelection chance. Of course this is the preferred outcome for the Mob anyway. Now the Mob will have its cake and eat it too. It will get its preferred President (another Bush or another Obama or another Clinton - of either gender, etc. ).as well as have its Iran war.

Was Soleimani on Diplomatic mission?

Several commenters at Moon or Alabama share the view that Soleimani was of some kind of official mission (which might be a trap) or even at the time of his killing enjoyed a diplomatic status of envoy:

"Before the vote Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi told the parliament that he was scheduled to meet with Soleimani a day after his arrival to receive a letter from Iran to Iraq in response to a de-escalation offer Saudi Arabia had made. The U.S. assassinated Soleimani before the letter could be delivered by him. Abdul-Mahdi also said that Trump had asked him to mediate between the U.S. and Iran. Did he do that to trap Soleimani? It is no wonder then that Abdul-Mahdi is fuming."

Saker views on the issue

Noted military analyst Saker hold position that  consequences for the USA of this killing will high highly negative. But,while an excellent analyst, he often exaggerate negative consequences for the USA or its actions.

Well, my first though when reading these bullet points is that General Qasem Soleimani has already struck out at Uncle Shmuel from beyond his grave . What we see here is an immense political disaster unfolding like a slow motion train wreck. Make no mistake, this is not just a tactical "oopsie", but a major STRATEGIC disaster . Why?

For one thing, the US will now become an official and totally illegal military presence in Iraq. This means that whatever SOFA (Status Of Forces Agreement) the US and Iraq had until now is void.

Second, the US now has two options:

The main problem with the current (and very provisional) outcome is that both the Israel Lobby and the Oil Lobby will now be absolutely outraged and will demand that the US try to use military power to regime change both Iraq and Iran.

Needless to say, that ain't happening (only ignorant and incurable flag-wavers believe the silly claptrap about the US armed forces being "THE BEST").

Furthermore, it is clear that by it's latest terrorist action the USA has now declared war on BOTH Iraq and Iran.

This is so important that I need to repeat it again:

The USA is now at war, de-facto and de-jure , with BOTH Iraq and Iran.

I hasten to add that the US is also at war with most of the Muslim world (and most definitely all Shias, including Hezbollah and the Yemeni Houthis).

Next, I want to mention the increase in US troop numbers in the Middle-East. An additional 3'000 soldiers from the 82nd AB is what would be needed to support evacuations and to provide a reserve force for the Marines already sent in. This is NOWHERE NEAR the kind of troop numbers the US would need to fight a war with either Iraq or Iran.

Finally, there are some who think that the US will try to invade Iran. Well, with a commander in chief as narcissistically delusional as Trump, I would never say "never" but, frankly, I don't think that anybody at the Pentagon would be willing to obey such an order. So no, a ground invasion is not in the cards and, if it ever becomes an realistic option we would first see a massive increase in the US troop levels, we are talking several tens of thousands, if not more (depending on the actual plan).

No, what the US will do if/when they attack Iran is what Israel did to Lebanon in 2006, but at a much larger scale. They will begin by a huge number of airstrikes (missiles and aircraft) to hit:

Iranian air defenses Iranian command posts and Iranian civilian and military leaders Symbolic targets (like nuclear installations and high visibility units like the IRGC) Iranian navy and coastal defenses Crucial civilian infrastructure (power plants, bridges, hospitals, radio/TV stations, food storage, pharmaceutical installations, schools, historical monuments and, let's not forget that one, foreign embassies of countries who support Iran). The way this will be justified will be the same as what was done to Serbia: a "destruction of critical regime infrastructure" (what else is new?!)

Then, within about 24-48 hours the US President will go on air an announce to the world that it is "mission accomplished" and that "THE BEST" military forces in the galaxy have taught a lesson to the "Mollahs". There will be dances in the streets of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem (right until the moment the Iranian missiles will start dropping from the sky. At which point the dances will be replaced by screams about a "2nd Hitler" and the "Holocaust").

Then all hell will break loose (I have discussed that so often in the past that I won't go into details here).

In conclusion, I want to mention something more personal about the people of the US.

Roughly speaking, there are two main groups which I observed during my many years of life in the USA.

Group one : is the TV-watching imbeciles who think that the talking heads on the idiot box actually share real knowledge and expertise. As a result, their thinking goes along the following lines: " yeah, yeah, say what you want, but if the mollahs make a wrong move, we will simply nuke them; a few neutron bombs will take care of these sand niggers ". And if asked about the ethics of this stance, the usual answer is a " f**k them! they messed with the wrong guys, now they will get their asses kicked ".

Group two : is a much quieter group. It includes both people who see themselves as liberals and conservatives. They are totally horrified and they feel a silent rage against the US political elites. Friends, there are A LOT of US Americans out there who are truly horrified by what is done in their name and who feel absolutely powerless to do anything about it. I don't know about the young soldiers who are now being sent to the Middle-East, but I know a lot of former servicemen who know the truth about war and about THE BEST military in the history of the galaxy and they are also absolutely horrified.

 

Iran leadership position should be very reserved as time is working in their favor.

From military and strategic perspectives the deal the  General Soleimani means the declaration of war. But the rule is if your enemy made a mistake do not interrupt him. And this was not a mistake, this was a blunder -- creating martyr who now will recruit thousands of young Iranians and Iraqis to fight the USA presence in the region.  

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

Of course, logically Iran should not rush into retaliating. No one in a military hierarchy is irreplaceable. Soleimani’s aides and high officials in the intelligence ministry are certainly more than capable of picking up his mantle and continuing his policies. He was in his position for 20 years, which is a way too much and counterproductive.

It more likely that Iran keep the US waiting for a possible attack on many fronts, exhausting its finances and security measures to protect its forces, its commanders and VIPs. They will seek to avoid dragging Iran and the Middle East into an all-out-war.

The war in which Iran can inflict heavy casualties to the USA allies in the region buy pay a heavy price by itself -- be  destroyed.  Continental USA is out of reach for Iran.

So quit work on enhancing its suverainity via defense treaties with Russia and China should be done  instead of noise statements. Iran can't afford the war with the USA (and Trump can't afford the war in election year iether)

But direct losses of Iran are limited: again, General Soleimani was in change qi quid forces for 20 years and that means  that  his re-assignment was long overdue as any such force need fresh blood in leadership. He probably would move up, but how good he could be  as a politician remains unclear. So while symbolically this is clearly type of Sarajevo assassination it would be stupid for Iran leadership to play it that way.  He was replaced by a very similar general, of the same age and career, who was mostly involved in operations in Afghanistan (Meet Qassem Soleimani's Replacement Esmail Ghaani Is Iran's New Top Military Leader Zero Hedge)

..."We are children of war,” Ghaani once said of his relationship with Soleimani, according to Iran’s state-run IRNA news agency. "We are comrades on the battlefield and we have become friends in battle."

...Like Soleimani, he first deployed to put down the Kurdish uprising in Iran that followed the shah’s downfall. Iraq then invaded Iran, launching an eight-year war that would see 1 million people killed. Many of the dead were lightly armed members of the Guard, some of whom were young boys killed in human-wave assaults on Iraqi positions.

...Volunteers “were seeing that all of them are being killed, but when we ordered them to go, would not hesitate,” Ghaani later recounted.

...He survived the war to join the Quds Force shortly after its creation. He worked with Soleimani, as well as led counterintelligence efforts at the Guard. WEspern analysts say that while Soleimani focused on nations to Iran’s west, Ghaani’s remit was those to the east like Afghanistan and Pakistan. However, Iranian state media has not elaborated on his time in the Guard.

...Also in 2012, Ghaani drew criticism from the U.S. State Department after reportedly saying that “if the Islamic Republic was not present in Syria, the massacre of people would have happened on a much larger scale.”

“The U.S. and Israel are too small to consider themselves in line with Iran’s military power,” Ghaani said at the time. “This power has now appeared alongside the oppressed people of Palestine and Gaza in the form of missiles and weapons.”

Now, Ghaani is firmly in control of the Quds Force. Yet while Iran’s leaders say they have a plan to avenge Soleimani’s death, no plan has been announced yet as the country prepares for funerals for the general starting Sunday.

Whatever that plan for revenge is, Ghaani will be leading it.

"That Qaani survived at such high ranks in the (Guard), and remained Soleimani’s deputy for so long, says a lot about the trust both Khamenei and Soleimani had in him," said Afshon Ostovar, the author of a book on the Guard. "I suspect he’ll have little difficulty filling Soleimani’s shoes when it comes to operations and strategy."

The first statement of show some level of diplomatic and strategic skills, especially by stating that "Tehran will avenge the assassination of Qassem Soleimani by driving the US out of the region." This is much better strategy then any tit-for-tat measures

Tehran will avenge the assassination of Qassem Soleimani by driving the US out of the region, his successor said shortly after another Revolutionary Guard commander warned that dozens of American targets are “within our reach.” 

“We promise to continue martyr Soleimani’s path with the same force... and the only compensation for us would be to remove America from the region,” Esmail Qaani said on Monday in an interview to local media ahead of the general’s funeral in Tehran.

Qaani was appointed new leader of the Quds Force – the secretive arm of the elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) – on January 3. His comments come just days after General Gholamali Abuhamzeh, who heads the IRGC in Iran’s southern Kerman province, said 35 US targets in the region as well as Tel Aviv were identified “long ago” and are “within our reach.”

Washington responded with a similarly-worded message, with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo threatening “lawful strikes” targeting “actual decision makers” if any American asset is in danger.

Excessive noise about retaliation plays into Israel hand  and allow then to use the USA as the enforcer of their agenda and that not what Iran wants.

The US extremely hawkish  policy toward Iran was in place for a long  time

Iran and the Fallacy of Saber-Rattling The National Interest Blog by Paul R. Pillar

January 10, 2013

Among several broadly held misconceptions about Iran is that to get Iranians to make concessions we want them to make at the negotiating table the United States must credibly threaten to inflict dire harm on them—specifically, with military force—if they do not make the concessions. Some in the United States (and some in Israel) who are especially keen on promoting this notion would welcome a war. If war preparations and brinksmanship used to communicate such a threat lead the two nations to stumble into an accidental war—and there is a real danger they might—so much the better from their point of view. But the belief in saber-rattling as an aid to gaining an agreement in the negotiations over Iran's nuclear program extends to many who actually want an agreement and are not seeking a war. We have heard more about this lately in connection with Chuck Hagel's nomination to be secretary of defense. People ask whether this nominee, who has evinced an appreciation of the huge downsides of a war with Iran, would be able to rattle the saber as convincingly as the same people think a secretary of defense ought to rattle it.

Even the usually thoughtful David Ignatius has adopted this line of thought. In his latest column he makes a comparison with nuclear deterrence in the time of Dwight Eisenhower. Under the doctrine of mutual assured destruction, a “bluff” of “frightening the Soviets with the danger of Armageddon” was used to dissuade them from overrunning WEspern Europe. “Obama,” says Ignatius, “has a similar challenge with Iran.”

No, he doesn't. One situation was deterrence of what would have been one of the most epic acts of aggression in history. The other is an effort to compel a far lesser country to curtail or give up an avowedly peaceful program, and to do so by threatening what itself would be an act of aggression. Thomas Schelling has taught us that deterrence and what he called compellence have significant differences, with the latter generally being harder to accomplish than the former. And this is in addition to all the other vast differences in scale, subject matter and morality between nuclear deterrence during the early Cold War and the current standoff with Iran.

These and other differences get to one of the problems with the common notion about threatening military attack in response to Iran not crying uncle at the conference table: a difficulty in making such a threat credible no matter how energetic a saber-rattler the secretary of defense might be. This is related also to the question Mr. Obama posed during the election campaign, about whether his opponent wanted a new war in the Middle East. At the level of public sentiment, most Americans do not want to become engaged in a new war in the Middle East. At the more sophisticated level of policy analysis—if that analysis is done thoroughly and objectively—such a war would be seen to have enormous costs and disadvantages. One of those disadvantages would be—as members of the opposition in Iran have repeatedly warned—to strengthen politically Iranian hardliners whose position is based partly on implacable hostility from the United States and who would benefit from a rallying around the flag in response to foreign attack. Another disadvantage would be the directly counterproductive one of leading the Iranians to make the decision they probably have not yet made, which is to build a nuclear weapon.

That last consideration is in turn related to another problem with the notion about threatening military attack, which concerns the reasons Iranians have for being interested in nuclear weapons. The chief reason almost certainly involves the presumed value of such weapons as a deterrent against major, regime-crushing foreign attack. The more that the brandishing of the threat of military attack makes such an attack seem likely, the greater will be the Iranian interest in developing nuclear weapons and the less inclined they will be to make concessions that would preclude that possibility.

As if all of this were not enough to discard the notion about the efficacy of saber-rattling, there are the central realities of the nuclear negotiations themselves and how Tehran perceives them. Inducing the Iranians to concede is not just a matter of hurting them more. They already are hurting a lot, from the economic consequences of international sanctions. What is missing from the negotiations is any reason for them to believe that the hurt will be eased if they make concessions. The P5+1 have yet to place on the table any proposal that includes any significant relief from sanctions. Without such an incentive, there is no reason for the Iranians to cry uncle or even to make lesser concessions, no matter how much more they are made to hurt.

The Iranians have good reason to be suspicious of ultimate U.S. and WEspern motivations, and threats of military force figure into that in an unhelpful way too. The Iranians do not have to look far to see ample evidence in favor of the proposition that the primary U.S. goal regarding Iran is regime change. And they do not have to look far into the past to see a recent U.S. use of military force—participation in the intervention in Libya—that overthrew a Middle Eastern regime after it had reached an agreement with the United States to give up all its nuclear and other unconventional weapons programs. What reason would Iranian leaders have to make any concessions if they believe the same thing is likely to happen to them? This is already a problem; rattling the saber only makes it worse.

Top Visited
 Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

[Jun 03, 2021] US March Oil Production Rebounds Strongly From Winter Storm Low

Jun 03, 2021 | peakoilbarrel.com

RON PATTERSON IGNORED 06/03/2021 at 7:34 am

Dennis,

If all sanctions on Iran are lifted, very soon, they may reach 3.5 million barrels per day by Q1 2022, but no way before then. I doubt they will ever reach 3.8 million again.

At any rate, to get to 29.54 million bpd by Q4 OPEC would need to increase production by 4.5 million bpd from April's production level. Dennis, we both know that is not going to happen.

[May 03, 2021] Escobar- US, Europe, The Vienna JCPOA 'Shadowplay'

May 03, 2021 | www.zerohedge.com

Few people, apart from specialists, may have heard of the JCPOA Joint Commission. That’s the group in charge of a Sisyphean task: the attempt to revive the 2015 Iran nuclear deal through a series of negotiations in Vienna.

The Iranian negotiating team was back in Vienna yesterday, led by Deputy Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi. Shadowplay starts with the fact the Iranians negotiate with the other members of the P+1 â€" Russia, China, France, UK and Germany â€" but not directly with the US.

That’s quite something: after all, it was the Trump administration that blew up the JCPOA. There is an American delegation in Vienna, but they only talk with the Europeans.

Shadowplay goes turbo when every Viennese coffee table knows about Tehran’s red lines: either it’s back to the original JCPOA as it was agreed in Vienna in 2015 and then ratified by the UN Security Council, or nothing.

Araghchi, mild-mannered and polite, has had to go on the record once again to stress that Tehran will leave if the talks veer towards “bullyingâ€, time wasting or even a step-by-step ballroom dance, which is time wasting under different terminology.

Neither flat out optimistic nor pessimistic, he remains, let’s say, cautiously upbeat, at least in public: “We are not disappointed and we will do our job. Our positions are very clear and firm. The sanctions must be lifted, verified and then Iran must return to its commitments.â€

So, at least in the thesis, the debate is still on. Araghchi: “There are two types of U.S. sanctions against Iran. First, categorized or so-called divisional sanctions, such as oil, banking and insurance, shipping, petrochemical, building and automobile sanctions, and second, sanctions against real and legal individuals.â€

“Second†is the key issue. There’s absolutely no guarantee the US Congress will lift most or at least a significant part of these sanctions.

Everyone in Washington knows it â€" and the American delegation knows it.

When the Foreign Ministry in Tehran, for instance, says that 60% or 70% has been agreed upon, that’s code for lifting of divisional sanctions. When it comes to “secondâ€, Araghchi has to be evasive: “There are complex issues in this area that we are examiningâ€.

Now compare it with the assessment of informed Iranian insiders in Washington such as nuclear policy expert Seyed Hossein Mousavian : they’re more like pessimistic realists.

That takes into consideration the non-negotiable red lines established by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei himself. Plus non-stop pressure by Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, who are all JCPOA-adverse.

But then there’s extra shadowplay. Israeli intel has already notified the security cabinet that a deal most certainly will be reached in Vienna. After all, the narrative of a successful deal is already being constructed as a foreign policy victory by the Biden-Harris administration â€" or, as cynics prefer, Obama-Biden 3.0.

Meanwhile, Iranian diplomacy remains on overdrive. Foreign Minister Javad Zarif is visiting Qatar and Iraq, and has already met with the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim al Thani.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, virtually at the end of his term before the June presidential elections, always goes back to the same point: no more US sanctions; Iran’s verification; then Iran will return to its “nuclear obligationsâ€.

The Foreign Ministry has even released a quite detailed fact sheet once again stressing the need to remove “all sanctions imposed, re-imposed and re-labeled since January 20, 2017â€.

The window of opportunity for a deal won’t last long. Hardliners in Tehran couldn’t care less. At least 80% of Tehran members of Parliament are now hardliners. The next President most certainly will be a hardliner. Team Rouhani’s efforts have been branded a failure since the onset of Trump’s “maximum pressure†campaign. Hardliners are already in post-JCPOA mode.

That fateful Fateh

What none of the actors in the shadowplay can admit is that the revival of the JCPOA pales compared to the real issue: the power of Iranian missiles.

In the original 2015 negotiations in Vienna â€" follow them in my Persian Miniatures e-book â€" Obama-Biden 2.0 did everything in their power to include missiles in the deal.

Every grain of sand in the Negev desert knows that Israel will go no holds barred to retain its nuclear weapon primacy in the Middle East. Via a spectacular kabuki, the fact that Israel is a nuclear power happens to remain “invisible†to most of world public opinion.

While Khamenei has issued a fatwa clearly stating that producing, stockpiling and using weapons of mass destruction â€" nuclear included â€" is haram (banned by Islam), Israel’s leadership feels free to order stunts such as the sabotage via Mossad of the (civilian) Iranian nuclear complex at Natanz.

The head of Iran’s Parliament Energy Committee, Fereydoun Abbasi Davani, even accused Washington and London of being accomplices to the sabotage of Natanz, as they arguably supplied intel to Tel Aviv.

Yet now a lone missile is literally exploding a great deal of the shadowplay.

On April 22, in the dead of night before dawn, a Syrian missile exploded only 30 km away from the ultra-sensitive Israeli nuclear reactor of Dimona. The official â€" and insistent â€" Israeli spin: this was an “errantâ€.

Well, not really.

Here â€" third video from the top â€" is footage of the quite significant explosion. Also significantly, Tel Aviv remained absolutely mum when it comes to offering a missile proof of ID. Was it an old Soviet 1967 SA-5? Or, rather more likely, a 2012 Iranian Fateh-110 short range surface-to-surface, manufactured in Syria as the M-600 , and also possessed by Hezbollah?

A Fateh family tree can be seen in the attached chart. The inestimable Elijah Magnier has posed some very good questions about the Dimona near-hit. I complemented it with a quite enlightening discussion with physicists, with input by a military intel expert.

The Fateh-110 operates as a classic ballistic missile, until the moment the warhead starts maneuvering to evade ABM defenses. Precision is up to 10 meters, nominally 6 meters. So it hit exactly where it was supposed to hit. Israel officially confirmed that the missile was not intercepted â€" after a trajectory of roughly 266 km.

This opens a brand new can of worms. It implies that the performance of the much hyped and recently upgraded Iron Dome is far from stellar â€" and talk about an euphemism. The Fateh flew so low that Iron Dome could not identify it.

The inevitable conclusion is this was a message/warning combo. From Damascus. With a personal stamp from Bashar al-Assad, who had to clear such a sensitive missile launch. A message/warning delivered via Iranian missile technology fully available to the Axis of Resistance â€" proving that regional actors have serious stealth capability.

It’s crucial to remember that when Tehran dispatched a volley of deliberately older Fateh-313 versions at the US base Ayn al-Assad in Iraq, as a response to the assassination of Gen Soleimani in January 2020, the American radars went blank.

Iranian missile technology as top strategic deterrence. Now that’s the shadowplay that turns Vienna into a sideshow.

[Mar 28, 2021] China Signs 25-Year Deal With Iran in Challenge to the U.S-

Mar 28, 2021 | www.msn.com

A draft copy of the accord that surfaced on media last year showed plans for long-term supply of Iranian crude to China as well as investment in oil, gas, petrochemical, renewables and nuclear energy infrastructure.

Lured by the prospect of cheaper prices, China has already increased its imports of Iranian oil to around 1 million barrels a day, eroding U.S. leverage as it prepares to enter stalled talks with Tehran to revive a nuclear deal.

The Biden administration has indicated that it's open to reengaging with Iran after then-President Donald Trump abandoned the accord nearly three years ago and reimposed economic sanctions, but the two sides have yet to even agree to meet. Iran exported around 2.5 million barrels of oil a day before American penalties resumed.

Iran's closer integration with China may help shore up its economy against the impact of the U.S. sanctions, while sending a clear signal to the White House of Tehran's intentions. Wang Yi, who arrived in Tehran on Friday, also met with Rouhani to discuss the nuclear deal.

In a televised speech, Rouhani raised the prospect of restrictions being eased before the end of his second and final term as president in early August.

"We're ready for the lifting of sanctions," he said on Saturday. "If obstacles are removed, all or at least some sanctions can be lifted."

[Mar 28, 2021] Iran, China sign strategic long-term cooperation agreement

Mar 28, 2021 | www.politico.com

No additional details of the agreement were revealed as Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and Chinese counterpart Wang Yi took part in a ceremony marking the event.

me title=

The deal marked the first time Iran has signed such a lengthy agreement with a major world power. In 2001, Iran and Russia signed a 10-year cooperation agreement, mainly in the nuclear field, that was lengthened to 20 years through two five-year extensions.

Before the ceremony Saturday, Yi met Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and special Iranian envoy in charge of the deal Ali Larijani.

Saeed Khatibzadeh, spokesman for Iran's Foreign Ministry, on Friday called the agreement "deep, multi-layer and full-fledged."

The deal, which had been discussed since 2016, also supports tourism and cultural exchanges. It comes on the 50th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and Iran.

The two countries have had warm relations and both took part in a joint naval exercise in 2019 with Russia in the northern Indian Ocean.

Reportedly, Iran and China have done some $20 billion in trade annually in recent years. That's down from nearly $52 billion in 2014, however, because of a decline in oil prices and U.S. sanctions imposed in 2018 after then-President Donald Trump pulled the U.S. unilaterally out of a nuclear deal between Iran and world powers, saying it needed to be renegotiated.

Iran has pulled away from restrictions imposed under the deal under those sanctions in order to put pressure on the other signatories -- Germany, France, Britain, Russia and China -- to provide new economic incentives to offset U.S. sanctions.

[Mar 28, 2021] Iran, China sign strategic long-term [25 yr] cooperation agreement

Mar 28, 2021 | peakoilbarrel.com

HICKORY IGNORED 03/28/2021 at 12:29 pm

Thanks Dennis.
It is easy for us to discount the production capacity of Iran, however this could be a mistake.
If China needs oil it will fund production in Iran, regardless of the 'worlds' concern over Iranian nuclear and regional ambitions [very aggressive ambitions that are largely theocratically driven].

This weekend-
'Iran, China sign strategic long-term [25 yr] cooperation agreement
The agreement covers a variety of economic activity from oil and mining to promoting industrial activity in Iran, as well as transportation and agricultural collaboration.'
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/27/iran-china-agreement-478236

[Jan 20, 2021] Pompeo's twitter has become full of China hysterics

Jan 20, 2021 | www.moonofalabama.org

Norwegian , Jan 18 2021 11:12 utc | 78

@Passer by | Jan 18 2021 1:26 utc | 52

Pompeo's twitter has become full of China hysterics. A snake becomes crazy when it is wounded and nears its demise.

What POMPEO Does After TRUMP Administration https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv-DG8l_wqU

[Jan 19, 2021] Trump was a desperate "Murica must have the biggest dick" imperialist massively triggered by the US decline and trying to save the US Empire. Like a rabid dog that is wounded, he attacked anything that moves, including those who helped him get into power.

Jan 19, 2021 | www.moonofalabama.org

Passer by , Jan 19 2021 21:57 utc | 36

Posted by: teri | Jan 19 2021 21:31 utc | 33

>>Today, the Trump administration filed an appeal against the UK decision not to extradite Assange. I must imagine that means that Trump has no intention of pardoning Assange.

Trump was a desperate "Murica must have the biggest dick" imperialist massively triggered by the US decline and trying to save the US Empire. Like a rabid dog that is wounded, he attacked anything that moves, including those who helped him get into power.

Anyone who thought that he will help the likes of Russia or Assange does not understand the psychology of elite US WASPs.

These people thought that they and the US should rule the world and that they are the cream of the cream. Anything denying them that would lead to crazed reactions, hysteria, rabid animalistic behavior, and snarling and gnashing of teeth at anything that moves.

Simply put, their decline caused them to go rabid. A rabid dog attacks anything that moves, whether friendly or not. Unfortunately for the likes of Russia and Assange.

[Jan 19, 2021] US expands sanctions against Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, targeting ships Russian firms working on vital pan-European projec

Jan 19, 2021 | www.rt.com

46 Follow RT on RT Outgoing US President Donald Trump has delivered his "parting gift" to the Moscow-led Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, with newly announced sanctions targeting a pipe-laying vessel and companies involved in the multinational project.

The specialist ship concerned, named, 'Fortuna,' and oil tanker 'Maksim Gorky', as well as two Russian firms, KVT-Rus and Rustanker, were blacklisted on Tuesday under CAATSA (Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act) as part of Washington's economic war on Moscow. The same legislation had been previously used by the US to target numerous Russian officials and enterprises.

Russian energy giant Gazprom warned its investors earlier on Tuesday that Nord Stream 2 could be suspended or even canceled if more US restrictions are introduced.

ALSO ON RT.COM Gazprom warns investors that Nord Stream 2 could be canceled as Trump announces more US sanctions in 'parting gift'

However, Moscow has assured its partners that it intends to complete the project despite "harsh pressure on the part of Washington," according to Kremlin press secretary Dmitry Peskov. Reacting to the new package of sanctions on Tuesday, Peskov called them "unlawful."

Meanwhile, the EU said it is in no rush to join the Washington-led sanction war on Nord Stream 2. EU foreign affairs chief, Josep Borrell, said that the bloc is not going to resist the construction of the project.

"Because we're talking about a private project, we can't hamper the operations of those companies if the German government agrees to it," Borrell said Tuesday.

Nord Stream 2 is an offshore gas pipeline, linking Russia and Germany with aim of providing cheaper energy to Central European customers. Under the agreement between Moscow and Berlin, it was to be launched in mid-2020, but the construction has been delayed due to strong opposition from Washington.

ALSO ON RT.COM One more European firm caves to US pressure on Nord Stream 2 project – media

The US, which is hoping to sell its Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) to Europe, has hit the project with several rounds of sanctions over scarcely credible claims that it could undermine European energy security. Critics say the real intent is to force EU members to buy from American companies.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

46 Follow RT on RT Trends:

Fatback33 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:20 AM

The group that owns Washington makes the foreign policy. That policy is not for the benefit of the people.
DukeLeo Fatback33 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:06 PM
That is correct. The private banks and corporations in the US are very upset about Nord Stream - 2, as they want Europe to buy US gas at double price. Washington thus introduces additional political gangsterism in the shape of new unilateral sanctions which have no merit in international law.
noremedy 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:22 AM
Is the U.S. so stupid that they do not realize that they are isolating themselves? Russia has developed SPFS, China CIPS, together with Iran, China and Russia are further developing a payment transfer system. Once in place and functioning this system will replace the western SWIFT system for international payment transfers. It will be the death knell for the US dollar. 327 million Americans are no match for the rest of the billions of the world's population. The next decade will see the total debasement of the US monetary system and the fall from power of the decaying and crumbling in every way U.S.A.
Hanonymouse noremedy 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 01:37 PM
They don't care. They have the most advanced military in the world. Might makes right, even today.
Shelbouy 3 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 12:25 PM
Russia currently supplies over 50% of the natural gas consumed by The EU. Germany and Italy are the largest importers of Russian natural gas. What is the issue of sanctions stemming from and why are the Americans doing this? A no brainer question I suppose. It's to make more money than the other supplier, and exert political pressure and demand obedience from its lackey. Germany.
David R. Evans Shelbouy 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 01:58 PM
Russia and Iran challenge perpetual US wars for Israel's Oded Yinon Plan. Washington is Israel-controlled territory.
Jewel Gyn 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:34 AM
Sanctions work both ways. With the outgoing Trump administration desperately laying mines for Biden, we await how sleepy Joe is going to mend strayed ties with EU.
Count_Cash 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:20 AM
The US mafia state continues with the same practices. The dog is barking but the caravan is going. The counter productiveness of sanctions always shows through in the end! I am sure with active efforts of Germany and Russia against US mafia oppression that a blowback will be felt by the US over time!
Dachaguy 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:24 AM
This is an act of war against Germany. NATO should respond and act against the aggressor, America.
xyz47 Dachaguy 42 minutes ago 19 Jan, 2021 03:20 PM
NATO is run by the US...
lovethy Dachaguy 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 01:04 PM
NATO has no separate existence. It's the USA's arm of aggression, suppression and domination. Germany after WWII is an occupied country of USA. Thousand of armed personnel stationed in Germany enforcing that occupation.
Chaz Dadkhah 3 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 12:19 PM
Further proof that Trump is no friend of Russia and is in a rush to punish them while he still has power. If it was the swamp telling him to do that, like his supporters suggest, then they would have waited till their man Biden came in to power in less than 24 hours to do it. Wake up!
Mac Kio 3 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 12:34 PM
USA hates fair competition. USA ignores all WTO rules.
Russkiy09 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 01:33 PM
By whining and not completing in the face of US, Russia is losing credibility. They should not have delayed to mobilize the pipe laying vessel and other equipment for one whole year. They should have mobilized in three months and finished by now. Same happens when Jewtin does not shoot down Zio air force bombing Syria everyday. But best option should have been to tell European vassals that "if you can, take our gas. But we will charge the highest amount and sell as much as we want, exclude Russophobic Baltic countries and Poland and neo-vassal Ukraine. Pay us not in your ponzi paper money but real goods and services or precious metals or other commodities or our own currency Ruble." I so wish I could be the President of Russia. Russians deserve to be as wealthy as the Swiss or SIngapore etc., not what they are getting. Their leaders should stand up for their interest. And stop empowering the greedy merchantalist Chinese and brotherhood Erdogan.
BlackIntel 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:27 PM
America i captured by private interest; this project threatens American private companies hence the government is forced to protect capitalism. This is illegal
Ohhho 3 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 12:15 PM
That project was a mistake from the start: Russia should distance itself from the Evil empire, EU included! Stop wasting time and resources on trying to please the haters and keeping them more competitive with cheaper Russian natural gas: focus on real partners and potential allies elsewhere!
butterfly123 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 01:58 PM
I have said it before that part of the problem is at the door of the policy-makers and politicians in Russia. Pipeline project didn't spring up in the minds of politicians in Russia one morning, presumably. There should have been foresight, detailed planning, and opportunity creation for firms in Russia to acquire the skill-set and resources to advance this project. Not doing so has come to bite Russia hard and painful. Lessons learnt I hope Mr President!
jakro 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:37 AM
Good news. The swamp is getting deeper and bigger.
hermaflorissen 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:49 AM
Trump finally severed my expectations for the past 4 years. He should indeed perish.
ariadnatheo 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 03:06 PM
That is one Trump measure that will not be overturned by the Senile One. They will need to amplify the RussiaRussiaRussia barking and scratching to divert attention from their dealings with China
Neville52 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:01 PM
Its time the other nations of the world turned their backs on the US. Its too risky if you are an international corporation to suddenly have large portions of your income cancelled due to some crazy politician in the US
5th Eye 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:03 PM
From empire to the collapse of empire, US follows UK to the letters. Soon it will be irrelevant. The only thing that remains for UK is the language. Probably hotdog for the US.
VonnDuff1 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:10 PM
The USA Congress and its corrupt foreign policy dictates work to the detriment of Europe and Russia, while providing no tangible benefits to US states or citizens. So globalist demands wrapped in the stars & stripes, should be laughed at, by all freedom loving nations.

[Jan 11, 2021] "We are all Taiwanese now" stunt is Pompeo's act of petty spite for getting outfoxed in the Hong Kong colour revolution play.

Jan 11, 2021 | www.moonofalabama.org

LittleWhiteCabbage , Jan 11 2021 15:19 utc | 128

@84:
As sometimes said: don't sweat the small stuff.
This "We are all Taiwanese now" stunt is Pompeo's act of petty spite for getting outfoxed in the Hong Kong colour revolution play.
Empire's useful idiots were let loose to trash the hapless city, fired up by the Western propaganda machinery.
Now Beijing is putting the stock on those pompous minions with the National Security Law, and their foreign masters can't do nuffin' except squeal human rights and apply some nuisance sanctions.
The West fails because it looks at China through ideological lenses and sees Communists, who can fall back on 5000 years of statecraft to push back at interlopers.
Beijing's moves can be likened to two classic strategies.
1. Zhuge Liang fools the enemy to fire all their arrows at straw men, which become ammunition against them.
2. The Empty City strategy. Invaders take over an ostensibly abandoned city, only to be trapped inside.
Global Times is cantankerous and sometimes risible, but even a broken clock is right, twice a day.
So when it says that crossing Beijing's red line on the Taiwan issue is not in the island's best interests, the incoming BiMala administration should take note.

[Jan 02, 2021] PATRICK LAWRENCE- Trump's Foreign Policy Explained Consortiumnews

Notable quotes:
"... International Herald Tribune ..."
"... Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century ..."
"... The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News. ..."
Jan 02, 2021 | consortiumnews.com

rump the New Yorker was a stranger in a strange land, having nothing of the sensibility of the insular, self-serving swamp-dwellers in Washington and no grasp whatsoever of the power of the Deep State, whose ire he quickly aroused. Trump was a terrible statesman, too seat-of-the-pants, but what was to him dealmaking was at bottom diplomacy, an activity Washington has little time for.

Why did Trump surround himself with people who opposed him and not infrequently sabotaged those few foreign policy ideas one can approve of -- constructive ties with Russia, an end to wasteful wars, peace in Northeast Asia, sending "obsolete" NATO into the history books? What were H.R. McMaster, John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, and numerous others like them but of lesser visibility doing in his administration?

I am asked this not infrequently. My reply is simple: It is not at all clear Trump appointed these people and at least as likely they were imposed upon him by the Deep State, the permanent state, the administrative state -- whatever term makes one comfortable. Let us not forget, Trump knew nobody in Washington and had a lot of swivel chairs to fill.

We must add to this Trump's personal shortcomings. He is by all appearances shallow of mind, poorly read (to put it generously), of weak moral and ethical character, and overly concerned with appearances.

Put these various factors together and you get none other than the Trump administration's nearly illegible record on the foreign policy side.

Trump is to be credited with sticking to his guns on the big stuff: He held out for a new-détente with Russia, getting the troops out of the Middle East and Afghanistan, making a banner-headline deal with the North Koreans. He was scuttled in all cases.

Complicating the tableau, the prideful Trump time and again covered his impotence by publicly approving of what those around him did to subvert his purposes. A year ago, the record shows, Pompeo and Mark Esper (then the defense secretary) concocted plans to assassinate Qasem Soleimani, the Iranian military leader, flew to Mar–a–Lago, and presented Trump with a fait accompli -- whereupon Trump acquiesced as the administration and the press pretended it was White House policy all along.

Now We Come to Iran

Hassan Rouhani, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, addresses the 74th session of the United Nations General Assembly's General Debate, Sept. 25, 2019. (UN Photo/Cia Pak)

Pulling out of the Iran nuclear accord a year into his administration was among the most destructive moves Trump made during his four years in office. It was afterward that the shamefully inhumane "maximum pressure" campaign against Iranians was set in motion.

Trump's intention, however miscalculated, was the dealmaker's: He expected to force Tehran back to the mahogany table to get a new nuclear deal. As secretary of state, Pompeo's was to cultivate a coup or provoke a war. It was cross-purposes from then on, notably since Pompeo sabotaged the proposed encounter between Trump and Rouhani on the sidelines of the UN GA.

Now we have some context for the recent spate of Iranophobic posturing and the new military deployments in the Persian Gulf. We have just been treated to four years of a recklessly chaotic foreign policy, outcome of a war the Deep State waged against a pitifully weak president who threatened it: This is the truth of what we witness as Trump and his people fold their tents.

Trump the dealmaker a year ago now contemplates an attack on Natanz on the pretext Iran is not holding to the terms of an accord he abandoned two years ago? The only way to make sense of this is to conclude that there is no sense to be made of it.

Who ordered the B–52 sorties and the Nimitz patrols? This question promises a revealing answer. It is very highly doubtful Trump had anything to do with this, very highly likely Pompeo and his allies in hawkery got it done and told the president about it afterward.

Trump is out in a few weeks. The self-perpetuating bureaucracy that made a mess of his administration -- or a bigger mess than it may have been anyway -- will remain. It will now serve a president who is consonant with its purposes. And the eyes of most people who support him will remain wide shut.

Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International Herald Tribune , is a columnist, essayist, author and lecturer. His most recent book is Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century . Follow him on Twitter @thefloutist . His web site is Patrick Lawrence . Support his work via his Patreon site .

The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.

Ed Rickert , December 31, 2020 at 10:06

A first rate analysis of the inconsistent and inchoate policies of Trump as well as an acute assessment of his psychology, notably his weakness when challenged. Equal cogent is Lawrence's trepidation and concern over the policies and potential actions of the administration that is to replacement Trump. Thank you for your thoughtful work.

Pierre Guerlain , December 31, 2020 at 06:51

I would just like to have a linkto the sources for Pompeo hoodwinking Trump for the assassination of Soleimani.

Linda , December 30, 2020 at 18:42

Thank you, Patrick, for this very clear article summarizing Trump's clumsy attempts at making peace with other countries (a campaign offering to voters) and the Deep State's thwarting of those attempts. My friends and I intuitively knew the people taking roles around the Trump presidency were put there by the "system". Trump had been made into a pariah by the Press, his own Republican Party, and shrieks for 'Resistance' by Hillary Democrats in the millions across the country even before he was inaugurated. There was no 'respectable' person in Washington DC who would dare help Trump make his way in that new, strange land. Remember one of the Resistanace calls to the front? . "Become ungovernable!!!!" Tantrums, not negotiations, have become the norm

So long, any semblance of Washington DC respectability. It was nice to think you were there at one time.

Jerry Alatalo , December 30, 2020 at 16:52

Dear readers and supporters of Consortium News around the Earth,

Please pass the following important message along to the genuine war criminals United States President Donald Trump and United Kingdom Prime Minister Boris Johnson:

"Do the right & moral thing for once in your hideous, miserable & pathetic lives, – and free genuine peacemaker Julian Assange."

***

Please consider making the (1st ever in history) establishment of genuine Peace on Earth the absolute overwhelming #1 New Year's Resolution worldwide for 2021. The quality of life for future generations depends on the good actions of this generation.. Thank you.

Peace.

Patrick Lawrence , December 30, 2020 at 14:32

I thank these commentators, a couple of whom read these pieces regularly, and all others who've taken the time this year gone by to put down their thoughts. I read them always and almost always learn things from them. Blessings to all and wishes for a superb new year! -- Patrick.

Lee C Ng , December 30, 2020 at 14:02

I agree 100% with the writer. Example; if Bolton, probably pushed into the administration by the Deep State, didn't sabotage Trump's talks with the N. Koreans in Vietnam, we might've had a peaceful settlement on the Korean peninsular by now. And it's no surprise that Trump on several occasions prevented the success of US-China trade talks – it was more than likely he was forced to do so. Trump wasn't a politician, much less a statesman. But he wasn't an orgre either, despite the hostility of the corporate press towards him (and I'm no fan of Trump).

Biden will represent better the real forces behind all US administrations – the forces responsible for the over 200 wars/military interventions in its 242 years of Independence.

Jeff Harrison , December 30, 2020 at 00:19

Thank you, Patrick, you have made some sense out of a nonsensical situation. "We have just been treated to four years of a recklessly chaotic foreign policy, outcome of a war the Deep State waged against a pitifully weak president who threatened it: This is the truth of what we witness as Trump and his people fold their tents." What is it that the Brits call their Deep State? It's something like the civil service but it's actually called something else.

You called Donnie Murdo a deal maker. Donnie Murdo is a New York hustler. His "negotiation" style only works when his interlocutor must make a deal with him. If his interlocutor can walk away, he will and Donnie Murdo will go bankrupt. The real problem is that the US doesn't need a deal maker – we have people for that. The Prezzy & CEO is frequently called that, the chief executive officer. But that's an administrative title. He is also frequently called the commander in chief but that really only applies if we are at war which we should be at as little as possible. What the prezzy really is supposed to be is a leader. If Donnie Murdo were, in fact, a leader, John Bolton would have been taking a commercial flight back to the US after his little stunt in Vietnam. But he didn't. So the question isn't what could Donnie Murdo do in the next three weeks, it's what can Donnie Murdo's henchmen do in the next three weeks?

Casper , December 29, 2020 at 18:19

One of the other personal things about Donald Trump, was that he had no skill nor experience in leading and manipulating a bureaucracy. He had basically directed a family business and his personal publicity machine. To the extent that Trump hotels had thousands of employees, Trump hired managers to do that. It would appear that the Trump family business largely concentrated on making of new deals for new hotels.

Thus, Donald Trump arrived in Washington completely unprepared to be the leader of a bureaucracy and completely unskilled at being able to get it to do what he wanted it do do.

I'm not a Joe Biden fan, but he's been in Washington since the 1970's. He's seen the bureaucracy from the Senate point of view for 40 years, then got at least a view of what it was like to try to direct it from watching as Veep. I still suspect the real power lies with the military command, and has since the 1950's, but this administration is going to come in with at least some skills in terms of trying to get a government to do what it wants.

PEG , December 29, 2020 at 17:46

Perfect article – and epitaph on Trump's foreign policy record.

Anne , December 29, 2020 at 14:00

Indeed, Patrick, they (the eyes of most of the electorate) will remain shut, eyelids deftly closed Only other peoples commit barbaric, heinous war crimes, invade other cultures completely without cause, bomb other peoples to death, devastation, loss of livelihood, home water supply We, the perfecto (along with one other group now ensconced – illegally, but apparently western acceptably – in the ME) people do what we do because, well, we are perfecto and thus when we commit these barbarisms, they aren't such. And are, it would seem, totally ignorable. Wake me in the morning style .

Truly, the vast majority of those – whatever their skin hue, ethnic background – who voted for the B-H duo are comfortably off, consider themselves oh so bloody "liberal" (do they really know what that means, in fact? Or don't they care?), so to the left of Attila the Hun (which obviously doesn't mean much, Left wise) .and what the MICMATT does to other people in other societies matters not flying F .After all, aren't they usually of "swarthy" skin hue and likely not western and of that offshoot religion of the one gawd, the third go around?

The west (US, UK, FR, GY etc ) really and truly need to develop a Conscience, a real morality, humanity but I fear that that is all too late

[Dec 20, 2020] Et tu, Brutus?

Dec 20, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

vk , Dec 19 2020 13:39 utc | 40

Et tu, Brutus?

Pompeo Claims Russia is 'Pretty Clearly' Behind Major Hack Attack on US

[Nov 18, 2020] Chinese reaction on Pompeo recent "talking points" about China, issued by State Department

Nov 18, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 , Nov 18 2020 20:12 utc | 13

Here's China's unofficial response via this Global Times editorial . I wish I could reproduce the art at the editorial's header as it's very spot-on:

"There is no new wording in the report, which can be seen as a collection of malicious remarks from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and other anti-China US politicians and senators. Right now, only a little more than 60 days are left for the current US administration. An official from the State Department explained that the report is not meant to constrain the next US administration. But the fact is the Department of State fears that the Biden administration will adjust US-China relations, and the release of the report is part of their efforts to consolidate the current extreme anti-China path.

"But most Chinese scholars who have read the report believe it is an insult to Kennan by labeling the report as Kennan-style. Kennan, then US charge d'affaires in Moscow, sent an 8,000-word telegram to the Department of State detailing his views on the Soviet Union. At least, there was no special political motive in Kennan's report. But the latest report is trying to leave a legacy for the extreme anti-China policy adopted by the Trump administration and fawning on Pompeo, which is evil in essence .

"The impulsive and capricious governing style of Donald Trump leaves sufficient room for politicians like Pompeo to give free play to their ambitions. The Department of State has become the governmental organ that has the most serious clashes with China, outperforming the CIA and the Department of Defense.

"Diplomats are supposed to be communicators, but Pompeo and his team have chilled the communication atmosphere with China. In the China direction, today's US Department of State can close its door.

"Surrounded by such deep hostility and prejudice toward China and the wild ambition of the secretary of state, how could the Department of State's Office of Policy Planning make out anything objective about China? Their observation ability, cautious attitude toward research, and sense of responsibility for history have been severely squeezed. They are just currying favor from their seniors and manipulating extreme paths, pretending to be 'thoughtful....'

"Chinese diplomatic and academic circles look down upon the Pompeo team, which lacks professionalism, and acts like a group of gangsters suddenly taking official positions. They not only have messed things up, but also hope to build their nonsense as legacy. Pompeo's choice of opportunists like Miles Yu as advisor in particular has increased Chinese people's doubts over the 'amateurism' and 'immorality' of the Pompeo team's China policy....

"The US' China policy is very much like 'drunk driving' internally while on the international stage it's like sailing against the current." [My Emphasis]

There's not much more to add aside for asking barflies to read the entire editorial.

[Nov 18, 2020] Pompeo besides being neocon and is a fanatic, crackpot 'Christian'

As any warmonger he is a fake Christian
Nov 18, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
TominAZ , Nov 18 2020 19:54 utc | 5
Pompeo, if not shamed out of politics soon, will be as bad or worse than Trump, because besides being nuts is a fanatic, crackpot 'Christian'.

Dave , Nov 18 2020 19:56 utc | 6

7-10 each sound fine but given the record of recent US leaders I wouldn't expect them to be implemented with the good of mankind in mind.
karlof1 , Nov 18 2020 19:59 utc | 7
I posted this to the Biden thread, but it belongs here.

RT op/ed analysis of Pompeo's China containment policy plan, "The Elements of the China Challenge" :

"Although it is hardly atypical of the President Trump administration, the document is significant because it represents yet another attempt by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to immortalize his Cold War confrontation between the US and China, bind the succeeding administration to it and most strikingly, institutionalize anti-Beijing ideas into American bureaucracy.

"The push against China by the Trump White House is not designed to be a passing phase, but a permanent and defining change of direction, for which this entire term in office has sought to prepare. This document aims to be a blueprint for long-term ideological struggle and a series of aspirations for maintaining hegemony, an affirmation of priority and a statement that things cannot " go back to normal ". But it makes no guarantee that the US can ever adequately understand China, or that it will succeed in its aims.

"The reference to George F. Kennan in pitching this document is appealing given the historical parallels, but it is not an exact fit and this, in turn, helps shine a light on Pompeo's own ignorance of China. It might be described in one simple sentence: China is not the Soviet Union and the ideological stakes are not quite the same." [Emphasis Original]

While I'd agree that differences in ideology exist between China and the Outlaw US Empire, it is the Empire that's constructed upon and is living the Big Lie inherent within Neoliberalism, while China continues to perfect its already very efficient system of Collective Libertarianism through its revamped Democratic Centralism. The really big fundamental difference is that China has absolutely no need to lie to its people, whereas the exact opposite's true within the Neoliberal West. After a lengthy period of public input, the government meets and eventually publishes its 5-year plan of development, which is contained within an even larger plan that's also been devised with public input and once put together is also published for public consumption. And since 2010, all plans have existed within China's UN 2030 Development plan, which is also available to the public. In a great many respects. China is a more open society than the Outlaw US Empire. Why? Because it doesn't need to lie to its citizens because it fights against the corruption that provides the reason for such lies--China has no Financial Parasitism it must mask from its citizens whereas the Outlaw US Empire is drowning in a massive sea of corruption that is killing it. Clearly, Pompeo wants that to continue.

[Nov 07, 2020] U.S. Foreign Policy is a Failure, Whoever's President

It is not a failure. It is struggle for Full Spectrum Dominance, whoever is the President.
Nov 06, 2020 | www.counterpunch.org

The world recognizes what U.S. elites don't: the utter, total American failure to contain Covid-19 has damaged U.S. standing and will do so until the virus is controlled. Meanwhile, regional powers, China and Russia, cooperate and share resources, particularly vaccines. Cuba provides treatments, but the U.S. turns up its nose at Cuban medicine, even if it means more American covid patients die – this, though Cuba's pharmacopeia for this plague appears superior. China sends doctors and medicines across the globe. Russia opts for sane herd immunity – through vaccination. These countries act like adults. Not a good look for the U.S.

The Obama regime's deplorable trade and military "pivot to China," along with its sanctions against high-ranking Russians and Russian energy, financial and defense firms and the Trump regime's provocations, sanctions and insults aimed at both countries have now born fruit: There is talk of a military alliance between China and Russia. Both countries deny that such is in the offing, but the fact that it is even discussed reveals how effectively U.S. foreign policy has created enemies and united them. Even if they would have drawn closer anyway, China and Russia cannot ignore the advantage of teaming up in the face of U.S. hostility. A more idiotic approach than this hostility is scarcely imaginable. Remember, not too long ago the U.S. had little problem with its chief trading partner, China, and there were even reports some years back of actual military cooperation in Syria between the U.S. and Russia. All that is gone now, dissolved in a fog of deliberate ill-will.

So what are some of the absurd U.S. policies that have reaped this potential whirlwind? An utterly unnecessary trade war with China, with tariffs that were paid, not by China, but by importers and then passed on to American consumers. There is the Trump regime's assault on China's technology sector and its attempt to lockout Huawei from the 5G bonanza. Then there are the attacks on Russian business, like its deal to sell natural gas to Germany, attacks in which the U.S. insists Germany buy the much more expensive U.S. product to avoid becoming beholden to Russia. And of course, there are the constant mega-deals involving sales of U.S. weapons to anyone who might oppose China, Russia, North Korea or Iran.

Aggravating these economic assaults, the U.S. navy aggressively patrols the South China Sea, the Black Sea and more and more the Arctic Ocean, where Russia has already been since forever. Russia has a lengthy Siberian coast, making U.S. talk of Russia's so-called aggressive posture there just plain ludicrous. And now a NATO ally, Turkey, stirs the pot by egging on Azerbaijan in its war against Armenia, which has a defense treaty with Russia. Azerbaijan is famous for the oil fields of Baku.

Never has it been clearer that the U.S. deploys its military might to advance its corporations' interests, international law be damned. As General Smedley Butler wrote of his military service way back in the early 20 th century, he was "a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank Boys to collect revenues in," and on and on. Nothing has changed since them. It's only gotten worse. Indeed now we're in a position where it is Russia that abides by international law, while the U.S. flouts it, instead following something bogus it calls the "rules of the liberal international order."

The biggest and most consequential U.S. foreign policy failure involves nuclear weapons. Here the Trump regime has outdone all its predecessors. It withdrew the U.S. from the Intermediate Range Nuclear treaty, which banned land-based ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and certain missile launchers and which it first signed in 1987. It withdrew from the Open Skies Treaty, inked in 1992. That agreement allowed aircraft to fly over the signatories' territory to monitor missile installations.

Trump has also made clear he intends to deep-six the 2010 New Start Treaty with Russia, which limits nuclear warheads, nuclear armed bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles and missile launchers. The Trump regime has made the ridiculous, treaty-killing demand that China participate in START talks. Why should it? China has 300 nuclear missiles, on a par with countries like the U.K. The U. S. and Russian have 6000 apiece. China's response? Sure we'll join START, as soon as the U.S. cuts its arsenal to 300. Naturally that went over like a lead balloon in Washington.

And now, lastly, the white house has urged nations that signed the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons – which just recently received formal UN ratification – to withdraw their approval. The U.S. spouted doubletalk about the TPNW's dangers, in order to head off international law banning nuclear weapons, just as it has banned – and thus stigmatized – chemical weapons, cluster bombs and germ warfare. Doubtless the Trump regime's panic over the TPNW derives from its desire to "keep all options on the table" militarily, including the nuclear one.

What is the point here? To make the unthinkable thinkable, to make nuclear war easier to happen. The Pentagon appears delighted. Periodically military bigwigs are quoted praising new smaller nuclear missiles, developed not for deterrence, but for use. Indeed, scrapping deterrence policy – which has, insofar as it posits no first use, arguably been the only thing keeping humanity alive and the planet habitable since the dangerous dawn of the atomic era – has long been the dream of Pentagon promoters of "small, smart nuclear weapons" for "limited" nuclear wars. How these geniuses would control such a move from escalating into a wider nuclear war and planetary holocaust is never mentioned.

Before he assumed office, Trump reportedly shocked his advisors by asking, if we have nuclear weapons, why can't we use them? Only someone dangerously ignorant or profoundly lacking in basic human morality could ask such a question. Only someone eager to ditch the human-species-saving policy of no-first-strike nuclear deterrence but willing to risk nuclear extinction could flirt with such madness. Later in his presidency, Trump asserted that he could end the war in Afghanistan easily if he wanted, hinting that he meant nukes, but that he did not incline toward murdering 10 million people. Well, thank God for this shred of humanity.

Some assume a Biden presidency would chart a different course, but they may be counting their chickens before they're hatched. Biden has made very hostile noises about Russia, China and North Korea and has surrounded himself with neo-con hawks. He has so far made no promise to return to the nuclear negotiating table for anything other than START. Would he try to resuscitate the INF and Open Skies treaties? Would he end Trump regime blather aimed at scotching TPNW? Maybe. Or he may have imbibed so much anti-Russia and anti-China poison that he, like Trump, sees the absence of treaties as a green light for nuclear aggression.

Biden's official Foreign Policy Plan says that he regards the purpose of nuclear weapons as deterrence, thus endorsing this at best very flawed compromise for survival. That he, apparently unlike Trump, abjures a nuclear first strike is a huge relief, but how long will it last? The Pentagon has been very persuasive over many decades of center-right rule and there is no reason to assume that it will suddenly adopt a hands-off policy with Biden just because he favors nuclear deterrence. Some military-industrial-complex sachems regard the no-first-use principle as a mistake. Also, remember, Obama okayed a trillion-dollar nuclear arms upgrade. Biden was his vp. What about that? This is no minor, petty concern. Russia is armed to the teeth with supersonic nuclear weapons and China has concluded from U.S. belligerence that it better arm up too. We are in dangerous waters here. Let's hope they don't become radioactive.

Eve Ottenberg is a novelist and journalist. Her latest book is Birdbrain . She can be reached at her website . New from
CounterPunch CounterPunch+
Member Area

Weekend Edition
November 06, 2020
Friday - Sunday RICHARD D. WOLFF
Why Capitalism Was Destined to Come Out on Top in the 2020 Election EVE OTTENBERG
U.S. Foreign Policy is a Failure, Whoever's President JEFFREY ST. CLAIR
Roaming Charges: the Fog of Bores ROB URIE
Two Capitalist Parties Compete, Humanity Loses KIM SCIPES
The AFL-CIO's Foreign Policy Program: Where Historians Now Stand RON JACOBS
The Election and the Empire PAUL STREET
An Omaha Stake in the Heart of Orange Satan? Early Reflections on the Election ROBERT HUNZIKER
A Troubling Discovery in the Arctic JOSEPH NATOLI
Nothing Sacred RAMZY BAROUD
Macron's Incitement: 'Crisis in Islam' or French Politics? DEAN BAKER
Donald Trump and Being Deplorable ROGER HARRIS
Leveraging the Ruling Class's Loss of Legitimacy JOSEPH SCALIA III
Terra & Demos: A Unified Ethics for Conservation and the Human Quest DANIEL LAZARE
At Breaking Point: Why the Constitutional Crisis Will Only Get Worse MANUEL GARCÍA, JR.
Death-Grip by Fungal Ideas JOHN FEFFER
U.S. Democracy: the Four-Year Rule? NICK PEMBERTON
It's Not Populism, It's Voter Suppression RICHARD C. GROSS
Aftermath DANIEL BEAUMONT
Prison, the Plague, Writing and Exile: an Interview With Aslı Erdoğan AJAMU BARAKA
Confronting Bipartisan Repression and the US/EU/NATO Axis of Domination Beyond Election Day ROBERT FANTINA
Amy Coney Barrett: the Latest Supreme Court Travesty PRABHAT PATNAIK
India's Move Toward a De Facto Unitary State LOUIS PROYECT
The Origins of Commercial Capitalism REBECCA GORDON
In a Looking Glass World, Our Work is Just Beginning OLIVIA ALPERSTEIN
Ending the Nuclear Age PRABIR PURKAYASTHA
Why Google is Facing Serious Accusations of Monopoly Practices ROBERT KOEHLER
Trump Talk TOM MOUNTAIN
Western Civilization? SUSAN BLOCK
RIP Betty Dodson, Sex Revolutionary NICKY REID
Democracy as Mental Illness: Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Cross 2020 ERIK MOLVAR
Killing Fields: the Seamy Side of Idaho's Wildlife Agency FRANCES MADESON
Arsonist of Three Black Louisiana Churches Sentenced to 25 Years in Prison B. R. GOWANI
Trump and the US CHRISTOPHER BRAUCHLI
When Trump Takes Advice DAVID YEARSLEY
Bach the Poll Worker JOHN KENDALL HAWKINS
Invasion of the Mental Snatchers ED SANDERS
Oi-Joy Teeter Totter: a Glyph November 05, 2020 PATRICK COCKBURN
Trump's Bid to Stop the Count Risks Turning America into an 'Illiberal Democracy' like Turkey VIJAY PRASHAD
U.S. is Doing Its Best to Lock Out China From Latin America and the Caribbean DAVID ROSEN
Police Violence: a Crisis of Masculinity? KATHLEEN WALLACE
Thanks Obama! LEIA BARNETT
A Call to Reclaim Our Awareness for the Wild SUSIE DAY
That's Not Gangster, That's Love: Eddie Conway and Jose Saldaña Talking KENN ORPHAN
Trump Was Never the Real Problem DOUG JOHNSON HATLEM
Biden Appears to Have Won, Why He Must be Primaried in 2024 CounterPunch
  • Tells the Facts and Names the Names
  • Published since 1996
  • Copyright © CounterPunch
  • All rights reserved.
  • [email protected]
Administration
  • Becky Grant
  • Administrative Director
  • Deva Wheeler
  • Membership and Order Support
  • [email protected]
Editorial
  • Jeffrey St. Clair, Editor
  • Joshua Frank, Managing Editor
  • Nathaniel St. Clair, Social Media
  • Alexander Cockburn, 1941 -- 2012
Mailing Address
  • CounterPunch
  • PO Box 228
  • Petrolia, CA 95558
  • Telephone
  • Nichole Stepehns, Administrative Assistant
  • 1(707) 629-3683

CounterPunch delivered to your inbox.

Get news updates from CounterPunch Sign Up

[Nov 06, 2020] Is Mike Pompeo the Worst Secretary of State in History by DOUG BANDOW

Nov 05, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Home / Articles / Realism & Restraint / Is Mike Pompeo The Worst Secretary Of State In History?

With his laughable attempts at diplomacy and general hawkishness, he's certainly in the runnings for the honor. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo speaks at a press conference at the State Department in Washington, DC, on October 21, 2020. (Photo by NICHOLAS KAMM/POOL/AFP via Getty Images) |

12:01 AM

Is Mike Pompeo the worst secretary of state ever? He's been awful, no doubt. However, there are 69 other contenders for that title.

Among modern secretaries, Colin Powell was misused by George W. Bush, who defrauded the country in selling the tragically misbegotten invasion of Iraq. Madeleine Albright, her mindset permanently stuck in Adolf Hitler's world, stands out for her enthusiastic embrace of war for others to fight. Alexander Haig achieved little beyond claiming to be in charge in the wake of the assassination attempt against Ronald Reagan. William Rogers was overshadowed by National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger, who eventually took the latter's position.

https://lockerdome.com/lad/13045197114175078?pubid=ld-dfp-ad-13045197114175078-0&pubo=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com&rid=www.theamericanconservative.com&width=838

Going back a bit further, Robert Lansing helped maneuver the U.S. into World War I, one of the dumbest, most counterproductive moves in American history. The earlier one looks, the more circumstances diverge, making any comparative judgment more difficult.

Still, about the best that can be said of Pompeo is that he has not gotten America into any new wars, despite his best efforts. Most often he has played the anti-diplomat, determined to insult, hector, demand, insist, dictate, threaten, harangue, and impose. But never persuade. The results speak for themselves: the administration's record lacks any notable successes that benefit the U.S, the supposed purpose of an "America First" foreign policy. There was a bit of good, a lot of bad, and some real ugly.

A solid good was President Donald Trump's most important diplomatic initiative: his opening with North Korea. Pompeo took over in March 2018, with the first summit already planned. That initiative faltered the following year at the second summit in Hanoi, which was Pompeo's responsibility.

Alas, the secretary lost points by apparently doing nothing to disabuse the president of the belief that Pyongyang was prepared to turn over its entire arsenal with the hope that Washington would look favorably upon its future aspirations. That was never going to happen, especially after the allied double-cross of Libya, which yielded its missiles and nascent nuclear program, and after Trump dumped the nuclear accord with Iran, demanding that Tehran abjectly surrender its independent foreign policy. The North can easily imagine similar mistreatment, by this or a future administration.

me title=

00:36 / 00:59

Washington has also pursued better relations with India, which is a positive. As elsewhere, however, concern about human rights violations is almost entirely absent from Pompeo's portfolio unless it operates as a weapon against an adversary. The secretary cheerfully holds the coat of allied dictators as they jail, torture, and murder. Such is the case with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who has abetted if not aided rising religious persecution.

The Abrahamic accords between Israel and Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates were a tepid good. Improved relations between Arabs and Israelis are useful, though strengthening two authoritarian regimes is not. The Bahraini Sunni monarchy sits atop a Shia population with the backing of the Saudi military, while the Emirates, nicknamed "Little Sparta," by the Pentagon -- as if that's a compliment -- has used its military to commit murder and mayhem against Yemen in a war of political aggression and economic exploitation. The related negotiations with Sudan have been worse, using an unjust terrorist state designation to force recognition of Israel, which will undermine the democracy that has yet to be fully born after last year's popular revolution.

Examples of bad are far more common. For example, Pompeo has worked to thwart the president's evident desire to exit "endless wars." Nineteen years of nation-building in Afghanistan is enough. The U.S. does not belong in the Syrian civil war. Iraq and its neighbors are capable of and should deal with whatever remains of the Islamic State.

The secretary has played an equally malign role in Europe, undercutting his boss -- and, not incidentally, the American people -- by working to spend more on, and place more troops in, the continent, even as Trump pushed the Europeans to do more on their own defense. This is an inane strategy: Washington should cut defense welfare to states with the capability to protect themselves and allow them to decide how to proceed.

Much the same policy has played out with America's relationship to South Korea. Japan has escaped most of that pressure. Yet consider the defensive capabilities against China for Japan and the region if Tokyo spent not 1 percent of GDP on its military, but 2 or 3 percent. And why shouldn't it do so, instead of expecting Americans to do the job for it?

The secretary turned human rights into a political weapon, sacrificing any credibility on the issue. He tears up while criticizing Iran but kowtows to the Saudi royals, who are far more brutal killers. He is horrified by the crimes committed by Venezuela's Maduro regime, but spreads love to Egypt's Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who has punished the slightest criticism, and Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who is turning Turkey into an autocracy. Pompeo actually introduced a new initiative in support of unalienable rights with the support of countries like Saudi Arabia and other assorted tyrannies.

Then there is the ugly. Using sanctions to try starve the people of Syria and Venezuela in order to force their governments to yield to America is not just immoral but ineffective. Both regimes have survived much and are not inclined to surrender.

At least Venezuela is a matter of geographic interest to Washington. Syria has never mattered to U.S. security and Pompeo should have backed the president's effort to bring home all American troops. Today, U.S. and Russian troops are clashing there over the administration's bizarre and illegal seizure of Syrian oilfields. Also inexplicable is reinforcing six decades of failure by tightening sanctions on Cuba; the private business community there has suffered badly as a result, reducing what was becoming a sharp challenge to the political authorities during the waning days of the Obama administration.

The fixation on Iran, which appears to come more from Pompeo than Trump, can best be explained as turning Mideast policy over to Saudi Arabia and Israel. The result of abandoning the nuclear accord has been nothing short of catastrophic. The Iranians have refused to negotiate. Instead they ramped up nuclear reprocessing, interfered with Gulf tanker traffic, attacked Saudi oil facilities, and attacked U.S. bases and the embassy in Iraq. Far from reestablishing deterrence, as claimed, the secretary was left to whimper and whine that he might have to close America's embassy in Baghdad.

Pompeo has taken the lead in the administration's shameful policy toward Saudi Arabia, aiding it in its war of aggression against impoverished Yemen. That nation has been at war within and without for most of its existence. Riyadh decided to invade to restore a puppet regime to power, turning typical internal discord into a sectarian war in which Tehran was able to bleed the ineffective Saudi armed forces, which were armed and aided by the Pentagon. In this way, the secretary has made the American population into accomplices to war crimes.

Even more foolish geopolitically, Pompeo has matched Albright's retreat to World War II clichés with a stroll back into the Cold War. Russia is an unpleasant actor but doesn't threaten American security. Europe is capable of defending itself. Alas, constantly piling on sanctions without providing an off-ramp ensures continued Russian hostility and a tilt toward China in that burgeoning struggle. How does this make any sense for America?

Finally, Pompeo has been his blundering, maladroit, offensive self in seeking to launch an American-led campaign against the People's Republic of China. Beijing poses a serious challenge, but not primarily a security issue. No one believes that the PRC plans to launch an armada across the Pacific to conquer Hawaii. The issue is Washington's willingness to pay the cost to forever treat Asia-Pacific waters as an American lake.

As for other issues, the U.S. needs work in concert with friendly powers. Pompeo has done his best to drive away potential partners: for instance, the G-7 refused his demand to call COVID-19 the Wuhan Virus and even allies such as South Korea have remained far more measured in their relations with China, determined not to turn their large neighbor into an enemy. In what promises to be a long and complicated relationship, genuine and serious diplomacy, which obviously lies beyond Pompeo's limited capabilities, is required.

On the personal side, he appears to have abused his position for both personal and ideological advantage. For example, so committed to showing his fealty to Riyadh, he declared an "emergency" to thwart congressional opposition and rush munitions to the Saudi military so it could kill more Yemeni civilians. He then sought to impede a departmental investigation, pressuring and firing the inspector general. What prompted his determination to so avidly assist a ruler who is ostentatiously vile, reckless, and even criminal is one of the greatest mysteries of his tenure.

Tragically, Pompeo proved to be one of the greatest obstacles to the best of the president's international agenda. In a speech delivered last year in which he claimed to be implementing the Founders' foreign policy vision, he denigrated diplomacy and its successful fruits, such as opening up both Cuba and Iran to potentially corrosive outside influences, which is the most likely strategy to induce change over the long term. This approach would be more in sync with Trump's desire to deal with countries such as North Korea and Iran.

Indeed, left to his own devices, Pompeo would likely have America at war with Iran and perhaps beyond -- Venezuela, China, and/or Russia. His belligerence serves the American people badly. As does his consistent campaign, conscious or not, to thwart the president's brave but incompetent attempts to escape largely braindead practices enforced by what Ben Rhodes termed "the Blob," the foreign policy establishment that dominates the field.

The secretary has forgotten that his job is not to push his personal ideological line. Rather, it is to advance the interests of the American people, with a special emphasis on defending their lives, territory, liberties, constitutional system, and prosperity. In this, he has failed consistently. Maybe he isn't the worst secretary of state in history. But surely he is one of the worst.

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is the author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire .

[Nov 06, 2020] Did the Iraq War Cause the Great Recession?'

Highly recommended!
Iran war might be too much for the US economy
Apr 07, 2013 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Moscow Exile ,

April 7, 2013 at 12:46 am
Western hypocrisy revealed 10 years after the event in today's Independent: "Tony Blair and Iraq: The damning evidence" . And they go on and on about those wicked, evil Russians and their tyrannical leader causing death and destruction Syria by their "support" of the Assad government whilst the West arms the "freedom fighters" there.

[Nov 02, 2020] Jackrabbit

Nov 02, 2020 | jackrabbit.blog

| Nov 1 2020 16:17 utc | 5

[Oct 21, 2020] How Trump Got Played By The Military-Industrial Complex by Akbar Shahid Ahmed

Highly recommended!
Tramp was essentially the President from military industrial complex and Israel lobby. So he was not played. That's naive. He followed the instructions.
Oct 21, 2020 | www.huffpost.com

On March 20, 2018, President Donald Trump sat beside Saudi crown prince Muhammed bin Salman at the White House and lifted a giant map that said Saudi weapons purchases would support jobs in "key" states -- including Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida and Ohio, all of which were crucial to Trump's 2016 election victory .

"Saudi Arabia has been a very great friend and a big purchaser of equipment but if you look, in terms of dollars, $3 billion, $533 million, $525 million -- that's peanuts for you. You should have increased it," Trump said to the prince, who was (and still is) overseeing a military campaign in Yemen that has deployed U.S. weaponry to commit scores of alleged war crimes.

Trump has used his job as commander-in-chief to be America's arms-dealer-in-chief in a way no other president has since Dwight Eisenhower, as he prepared to leave the presidency, warned in early 1961 of the military-industrial complex's political influence. Trump's posture makes sense personally ― this is a man who regularly fantasizes about violence, usually toward foreigners ― and he and his advisers see it as politically useful, too. The president has repeatedly appeared at weapons production facilities in swing states, promoted the head of Lockheed Martin using White House resources, appointed defense industry employees to top government jobs in an unprecedented way and expanded the Pentagon's budget to near-historic highs ― a guarantee of future income for companies like Lockheed and Boeing.

Trump is "on steroids in terms of promoting arms sales for his own political benefit," said William Hartung, a scholar at the Center for International Policy who has tracked the defense industry for decades. "It's a targeted strategy to get benefits from workers in key states."

In courting the billion-dollar industry, Trump has trampled on moral considerations about how buyers like the Saudis misuse American weapons, ethical concerns about conflicts of interest and even part of his own political message, the deceptive claim that he is a peace candidate. He justifies his policy by citing job growth, but data from Hartung , a prominent analyst, shows he exaggerates the impact. And Trump has made clear that a major motivation for his defense strategy is the possible electoral benefit it could have.

Next month's election will show if the bargain was worth it. As of now, it looks like Trump's bet didn't pay off ― for him, at least. Campaign contribution records, analysts in swing states and polls suggest arms dealers have given the president no significant political boost. The defense contractors, meanwhile, are expected to continue getting richer, as they have in a dramatic way under Trump.

Playing Corporate Favorites

Trump has thrice chosen the person who decides how the Defense Department spends its gigantic budget. Each time, he has tapped someone from a business that wants those Pentagon dollars. Mark Esper, the current defense secretary, worked for Raytheon; his predecessor, Pat Shanahan, for Boeing; and Trump's first appointee, Jim Mattis, for General Dynamics, which reappointed him to its board soon after he left the administration.

Of the senior officials serving under Esper, almost half have connections to military contractors, per the Project on Government Oversight. The administration is now rapidly trying to fill more Pentagon jobs under the guidance of a former Trump campaign worker, Foreign Policy magazine recently revealed ― prioritizing political reasons and loyalty to Trump in choosing people who could help craft policy even under a Joe Biden presidency.

Such personnel choices are hugely important for defense companies' profit margins and risk creating corruption or the impression of it. Watchdog groups argue Trump's handling of the hiring process is more evidence that lawmakers and future presidents must institute rules to limit the reach of military contractors and other special interests.

"Given the hundreds of conflicts of interest flouting the rule of law in the Trump administration , certainly these issues have gotten that much more attention and are that much more salient now than they were four years ago," said Aaron Scherb, the director of legislative affairs at Common Cause, a nonpartisan good-government group.

The theoretical dangers of Trump's approach became a reality last year, when a former employee for the weapons producer Raytheon used his job at the State Department to advocate for a rare emergency declaration allowing the Saudis and their partner the United Arab Emirates to buy $8 billion in arms ― including $2 billion in Raytheon products ― despite congressional objections. As other department employees warned that Saudi Arabia was defying U.S. pressure to behave less brutally in Yemen, former lobbyist Charles Faulkner led a unit that urged Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to give the kingdom more weapons. Pompeo pushed out Faulkner soon afterward, and earlier this year, the State Department's inspector general criticized the process behind the emergency declaration for the arms.

Red Crescent medics walk next to bags containing the bodies of victims of Saudi-linked airstrikes on a Houthi detention cente MOHAMED AL-SAYAGHI / REUTERS
Red Crescent medics walk next to bags containing the bodies of victims of Saudi-linked airstrikes on a Houthi detention center in Yemen on Sept. 1, 2019. The Saudis military campaign in Yemen has relied on U.S. weaponry to commit scores of alleged war crimes.

Even Trump administration officials not clearly connected to the defense industry have shown an interest in moves that benefit it. In 2017, White House economic advisor Peter Navarro pressured Republican lawmakers to permit exports to Saudi Arabia and Jared Kushner, the president's counselor and son-in-law, personally spoke with Lockheed Martin's chief to iron out a sale to the kingdom, The New York Times found.

Subscribe to the Politics email. From Washington to the campaign trail, get the latest politics news.

When Congress gave the Pentagon $1 billion to develop medical supplies as part of this year's coronavirus relief package, most of the money went to defense contractors for projects like jet engine parts instead, a Washington Post investigation showed .

https://schema.org/WPAdBlock

"It's a very close relationship and there's no kind of sense that they're supposed to be regulating these people," Hartung said. "It's more like they're allies, standing shoulder to shoulder."

Seeking Payback

In June 2019, Lockheed Martin announced that it would close a facility that manufactures helicopters in Coatesville, Pennsylvania, and employs more than 450 people. Days later, Trump tweeted that he had asked the company's then-chief executive, Marillyn Hewson, to keep the plant open. And by July 10, Lockheed said it would do so ― attributing the decision to Trump.

The president has frequently claimed credit for jobs in the defense industry, highlighting the impact on manufacturing in swing states rather than employees like Washington lobbyists, whose numbers have also grown as he has expanded the Pentagon's budget. Lockheed has helped him in his messaging: In one instance in Wisconsin, Hewson announced she was adding at least 45 new positions at a plant directly after Trump spoke there, saying his tax cuts for corporations made that possible.

Trump is pursuing a strategy that the arms industry uses to insulate itself from political criticism. "They've reached their tentacles into every state and many congressional districts," Scherb of Common Cause said. That makes it hard for elected officials to question their operations or Pentagon spending generally without looking like they are harming their local economy.

Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, a Democrat who represents Coatesville, welcomed Lockheed's change of course, though she warned, "This decision is a temporary reprieve. I am concerned that Lockheed Martin and [its subsidiary] Sikorsky are playing politics with the livelihoods of people in my community."

The political benefit for Trump, though, remains in question, given that as president he has a broad set of responsibilities and is judged in different ways.

"Do I think it's important to keep jobs? Absolutely," said Marcel Groen, a former Pennsylvania Democratic party chair. "And I think we need to thank the congresswoman and thank the president for it. But it doesn't change my views and I don't think it changes most people's in terms of the state of the nation."

With polls showing that Trump's disastrous response to the health pandemic dominates voters' thoughts and Biden sustaining a lead in surveys of most swing states , his argument on defense industry jobs seems like a minor factor in this election.

Hartung of the Center for International Policy drew a parallel to President George H.W. Bush, who during his 1992 reelection campaign promoted plans for Taiwan and Saudi Arabia to purchase fighter jets produced in Missouri and Texas. Bush announced the decisions at events at the General Dynamics facility in Fort Worth, Texas, and the McDonnell Douglas plant in St. Louis that made the planes. That November, as Bill Clinton defeated him, he lost Missouri by the highest margin of any Republican in almost 30 years and won Texas by a slimmer margin than had become the norm for a GOP presidential candidate.

President Donald Trump greets then-Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson at the Derco Aerospace Inc. plant in Milwaukee on July MANDEL NGAN VIA GETTY IMAGES
President Donald Trump greets then-Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson at the Derco Aerospace Inc. plant in Milwaukee on July 12, 2019. Trump does not appear to be winning his political bet that increased defense spending would help his political fortunes.

Checking The Receipts

The defense industry can't control whether voters buy Trump's arguments about his relationship with it. But it could, if it wanted to, try to help him politically in a more direct way: by donating to his reelection campaign and allied efforts.

Yet arms manufacturers aren't reciprocating Trump's affection. A HuffPost review of Federal Election Commission records showed that top figures and groups at major industry organizations like the National Defense Industrial Association and the Aerospace Industries Association and at Lockheed, Trump's favorite defense firm, are donating this cycle much as they normally do: giving to both sides of the political aisle, with a slight preference to the party currently wielding the most power, which for now is Republicans. (The few notable exceptions include the chairman of the NDIA's board, Arnold Punaro, who has given more than $58,000 to Trump and others in the GOP.)

Data from the Center for Responsive Politics shows that's the case for contributions from the next three biggest groups of defense industry donors after Lockheed's employees.

https://schema.org/WPAdBlock

One smaller defense company, AshBritt Environmental, did donate $500,000 to a political action committee supporting Trump ― prompting a complaint from the Campaign Legal Center, which noted that businesses that take federal dollars are not allowed to make campaign contributions. Its founder told ProPublica he meant to make a personal donation.

For weapons producers, backing both parties makes sense. The military budget will have increased 29% under Trump by the end of the current fiscal year, per the White House Office of Management and Budget. Biden has said he doesn't see cuts as "inevitable" if he is elected, and his circle of advisers includes many from the national security world who have worked closely with ― and in many cases worked for ― the defense industry.

And arms manufacturers are "busy pursuing their own interests" in other ways, like trying to get a piece of additional government stimulus legislation, Hartung said ― an effort that's underway as the Pentagon's inspector general investigates how defense contractors got so much of the first coronavirus relief package.

Meanwhile, defense contractors continue to have an outsize effect on the way policies are designed in Washington through less political means. A recent report from the Center for International Policy found that such companies have given at least $1 billion to the nation's most influential think tanks since 2014 ― potentially spending taxpayer money to influence public opinion. They have also found less obvious ways to maintain support from powerful people, like running the databases that many congressional offices use to connect with constituents, Scherb of Common Cause said.

"This goes into a much bigger systemic issue about big money in politics and the role of corporations versus the role of Americans," Scherb said.

Given its reach, the defense industry has little reason to appear overtly partisan. Instead, it's projecting confidence despite the generally dreary state of the global economy: Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun has said he expects similar approaches from either winner of the election, arguing even greater Democratic control and the rise of less conventional lawmakers isn't a huge concern.

In short, whoever is in the White House, arms dealers tend to do just fine.

[Oct 20, 2020] George Koo linked to a Youtube video of Mike Pompeous and the Croatian Prime Minister Andrej Plenkovic at a press conference in Dubrovnik. Watch how Plenkovic deals with Pompeosity!

Oct 20, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

MARK CHAPMAN October 19, 2020 at 4:41 pm

YES!! This.

https://asiatimes.com/2020/10/pompeos-record-a-litany-of-failure/

We all like to have our worldview affirmed by a corroborating voice, even if that, too, is an opinion. This, for me, was like lying back in a hot bath.

I have said as far back as I can remember, during Pompeo's tenure as Giant Blasphemous Cream Puff of State, that the damage he was doing to the relationship between America and her allies was significant and perhaps irreparable. The article, if accurate, reveals a China which is quite a bit like Russia in its official treatment of minorities – subordinate ethnicities are recognized as distinct societies if their population meets a reasonable threshold, and where an ethnic population is regionally dominant, an autonomous government is established to facilitate local governance by people of the same ethnic background.

I was not aware that during the term of China's one-child policy – a dreadful time which led to the abortion or other more-horrible disposals of unwanted baby girls – mothers among ethnic minorities were permitted two or even three children.

The article is obviously written in defense of China, but the authors seem to have substantiated their claims satisfactorily where such material is offered. Unsubstantiated opinion is often a close match with those offered by commenters on this forum.

JEN October 19, 2020 at 5:51 pm

George Koo linked to a Youtube video of Mike Pompeous and the Croatian Prime Minister Andrej Plenkovic at a press conference in Dubrovnik. Watch how Plenkovic deals with Pompeosity!

https://www.youtube.com/embed/0SakMXPwTtk?version=3&rel=1&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&fs=1&hl=en&autohide=2&wmode=transparent

I swear I saw the Pompous One deflate considerably after Plenkovic's speech about China's BRI initiative. Good thing the wind was up and active otherwise the smell would have been horrific and everyone would have been knocked unconscious.

PATIENT OBSERVER October 19, 2020 at 4:51 pm

Mike Pompeo, otherwise known as the international man of catastrophe,

You knew it was going to be good from the first sentence.


[Oct 14, 2020] The Vatican's calculated snub of Mike Pompeo exposes the limits of his evangelical, ideological, China-hating foreign policy -- RT Op-ed

Oct 14, 2020 | www.rt.com

The Vatican's calculated snub of Mike Pompeo exposes the limits of his evangelical, ideological, China-hating foreign policy 30 Sep, 2020 16:19 Get short URL The Vatican's calculated snub of Mike Pompeo exposes the limits of his evangelical, ideological, China-hating foreign policy FILE PHOTO: U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo © Getty Images / Alex Wong 182 1 Follow RT on RT

Tom Fowdy is a British writer and analyst of politics and international relations with a primary focus on East Asia.

His Holiness declining to meet the US secretary of state when he visited the Vatican on his European tour further proves that his misguided America-first chauvinism is alienating more nations than it's winning as friends.

Pompeo, everyone's favourite Cold Warrior and American chauvinist, is on a European tour . Visiting Greece, Italy, Croatia, and notably, the Vatican, the secretary of state is on a roll to win support for American security and energy interests across the region. But he wasn't welcomed by all. Attending the Holy See today, the US' 'top diplomat' found himself snubbed by the Pope as he rolled into town peddling his vitriolic anti-China agenda, and demanding the Church take on Beijing and refuse to renew a deal that gives it a say in the appointment of bishops within that country. Pope Francis wasn't too impressed and refused to meet him accordingly.

The snub is significant, because it reflects more broadly how Pompeo's highly aggressive and evangelical foreign policy agenda is being received around the world. In short, it's a shambles. Rather than respectfully and constructively engage with the interests of other countries, on his watch, the State Department does nothing but pressure other nations. And it does this while parroting the clichéd talking points of American exceptionalism, hysterical anti-Communism, and a refusal to take into account the interests and practicalities faced by its partners. The Vatican has its differences with Beijing, but how would embarking on a collision course help it or the cause of Catholics in China? It wouldn't.

ALSO ON RT.COM US' failure to recognize Cuba's medical efforts during Covid is due to an innate fear of linking socialism with anything positive

Pompeo is repeatedly described by major US newspapers, the Washington Post among them, as " the worst secretary of state in American history," and it's no surprise why. Diplomacy requires the skills of understanding, prudence, compromise, calibration, and negotiation. The current man in charge of America's relations with the rest of the world has none of those in his armoury – only a one-sided diatribe about how every nation Washington holds a grudge against is evil and a threat to the world, and the US' own political system is far superior (as demonstrated by last night's presidential debate, perhaps ?). Pompeo repeatedly positions himself as speaking on behalf of other nations' people against their governments, while pushing a policy that amounts to little more than bullying.

A look at Pompeo and the State Department's Twitter feed shows it to be a unilateral, repetitive loop of the following topics: 'The Chinese Communist Party is evil and a threat to the world', 'Iran is an evil terrorist state', American values are the best', 'We stand with the people of X', and so on, ad nauseam. To describe it as hubris would be generous, and, of course, it does nothing to support the equally inadequate foreign policy of the United States in practice. This is further distorted by the unilateralist and anti-global governance politics of Donald Trump, which place emphasis only on the projection of power to force other countries into capitulating to American demands.

Against such a backdrop, it's no surprise that a toxic mixture of foreign policymaking has led to other countries not being willing to take notice of Washington. It's winning neither hearts nor minds, and it's this that has set the stage for not only the Vatican snub, but the largely fruitless outcomes of his European adventures. Pompeo's visit to Greece produced no meaningful agreements or outcomes of note , and he failed to get Athens to publicly commit to any anti-China measures or even statements. A similar non-result was achieved from his visit to the Czech Republic a month or so ago – the Czech prime minister even came out and played down Pompeo's comments , after he engaged in a spree of anti-Beijing vitriol.

So, what's at stake for the Vatican? Undoubtedly, religion is a sensitive topic in mainland China. The Chinese state sees unfettered religion as a threat to social stability, or as a potential vehicle for imperialism against the country, and thus has aimed to strongly regulate it under terms and conditions set by the state.

ALSO ON RT.COM Oxford University's 'scholarly' RT hit piece has no room for the mundane reality of how the world's news organisations work

This has caused tensions with the Roman Catholic Church, which maintains a strict ecclesiastical hierarchy, answering to the Vatican and not national governments. With China being the world's most populous country, having among its vast population nine million Catholics, this means the Church has had to negotiate and compromise with the Beijing government to maintain its influence and control, and to secure the rights of its members to worship. This has resulted in a 'deal' whereby the Vatican can have a say in the appointment of its bishops in China, rather than the Church being completely subordinate to the government.

But Pompeo doesn't care about these sensitivities – he wants one thing: Cold War. He wants unbridled, unrestrained, and evangelical condemnation of China and, as noted above, is utilizing his 'diplomatic visits' to push that demand. However, building a foreign policy on preaching America First unilateralism, chauvinism, and zero compromise not surprisingly has its limitations. As a result, Pompeo is finding himself isolated and ignored in more than a few areas. Thus it was that, rather than completely squandering the Vatican's interests in diplomacy with China, Pope Francis simply refused to meet him. For someone as fanatically religious and pious as Pompeo, that's a pretty damning indictment of the incompetence within the US State Department right now.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

[Oct 11, 2020] Islamist-Marxist MEK's history, including spying on Iran on behalf of Saddam Hussein when he invaded Iran, destroying its western cities. After murdering Americans - but the Lobby always gets what it wants, so MEK is now off the terrorist list and instead being funded by the U.S., and housed in a training camp in Albania.

Oct 11, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

>

mick • a month ago

MOSSAD UNIT 8200 at work, the tail that shakes the dog. Trying to get the US to start another war for their further domination of the Middle East.

Carpenter E • a month ago

Islamist-Marxist MEK's history, including spying on Iran on behalf of Saddam Hussein when he invaded Iran, destroying its western cities. After murdering Americans - but the Lobby always gets what it wants, so MEK is now off the terrorist list and instead being funded by the U.S., and housed in a training camp in Albania.

The MEK was founded in 1965 by three Islamic leftists with the goal of toppling the U.S.-supported regime of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

In the 1970s it undertook a campaign of assassinating U.S. advisers and bombing U.S. corporations in Iran. It supported the 1979 Revolution in Iran, but in 1981 it turned its guns against the Tehran government and began a campaign of assassinations and terrorist operations that resulted in the death of thousands of Iranians, including the executions of its own supporters by government officials, soldiers, police officers, and ordinary people.

It then moved its headquarters to Iraq, made a pact with the regime of Saddam Hussein, which was fighting a ferocious war with Iran. The MEK spied on Iranian troops for Iraq, attacked Iran at the end of Iran-Iraq war with Hussein's support, and helped Hussein put down the uprisings by the Iraqi Kurds in the north and Shi'ites in the south after the Persian Gulf War of 1990-91.

The MEK is despised by the vast majority of Iranians for what they consider to be treason committed against their homeland.

kouroi • a month ago

So funny. I remember reading Gore Vidal's novel "Creation", which deals with the Persian Empire, Zoroastrism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Socratic philosophy and morals.

The historical details in the book are relatively well researched, albeit one does get some literary licence for building up characters and story lines, etc. Now the Persian Imperial court is presented in the novel as being choke full of Greek Dissidents clamoring to the King of Kings to attack and subdue Greece/Athens, or what not. Marathon, Salamina, Thermopylae, Plateia follow... The Iranian "dissidents" should learn from their past...

The Athenian "wooden wall" (their ships) is Iran's missile force...

reaganite88 • 21 days ago

IF TRUE... a big if... this would be somewhat disturbing. One would hope that news outlets in their never-ending search for "content" would vet the authors just a tad.

But still... the rationale for going to war (with Iran or anyone else) rises or falls on its own merits. The arguments raised by these authors are of far more importance than whether the authors are real or fake. Think of how often we have seen academic credentials or military service exaggerated by AMERICAN academics and authors to goose their relevance. They may fall to the wayside as proponents of one thing or another when exposed but their arguments may still be true or false. Same goes for people who do NOT exaggerate their credentials.

I would think it would be far more dangerous if Twitter and other outlets were allowing our ADVERSARIES to create fake personalities promoting PEACE when in fact we need to take action against them.

[Oct 10, 2020] Tell me again how Trump "doesn't want to start a new war": If Trump thinks that he can win re-election by panding to Zionist lonny, he might be mistaken

It time to make him accountable at the election box. Not that it matter much as Biden is yet another neocon and Zionist, but stil...
American people are tied of sliding standard of living, permanent wars and jingoism. Trump might share Hillary fate in 2020, because any illusion that he is for common fold, who voted for him in 2016 now disappeared. So he is not better then neocon Biden and Biden is new bastard. So why vote for the old bastard if we have new, who might be slightly better in the long run
This is a very expensive foreign policy, that doesn't benefit the USA. It has potential to raise the price of oil significantly.
Notable quotes:
"... Behind the move was pressure from the Zionist lobby. President Trump is in need of campaign funds and the lobby provides those. ..."
"... I can also see this green lighting Israeli or joint American-Israeli strikes on alleged Iranian nuclear weapons development sites and other military and petro-state assets. ..."
"... It's disgusting to watch the people of the US/UK/EU go along with this. Western elites are fat, lazy, vicious, and cruel. ..."
"... Paul wrote: "Perhaps a Biden administration would be just as much a Zionist captive as the Trump administration." Yes at least as much or more zionist. Nothing about Harris or Biden (or the DNC) says they won't be. ..."
"... I nominate president Eisenhower as slightly less zionist on one occasion: during the Anglo,French, Zionist Suez invasion of 1956 Eisenhower remarked after numerous UN resolutions condemning the bandit state's aggression ' Should a nation which attacks and occupies foreign territory in the face of United Nations disapproval be allowed to impose conditions on its withdrawal?' ..."
"... "The EU is trying to prop up the US Empire in response to its decline, instead of trying to free itself. " ..."
"... Donald Trump talked up his Iran policy in a profanity-laden tirade on Friday, telling conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh that Tehran knows the consequences of undermining the United States. ..."
"... "Iran knows that, and they've been put on notice: if you fuck around with us, if you do something bad to us, we are going to do things to you that have never been done before." ..."
Oct 10, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
" Why U.S. Elections Do Not Change Its Foreign Policies | Main | The Ceasefire In Nagorno-Karabakh Is Unlikely To Hold " October 09, 2020 Europe And The New Sanctions On Iran

The U.S. has imposed new sanctions on Iran which will make ANY trade with the country very difficult:

[T]he Trump administration has decided to impose yet further sanctions on the country , this time targeting the entirety of the Iranian financial sector. These new measures carry biting secondary sanctions effects that cut off third parties' access to the U.S. financial sector if they engage with Iran's financial sector. Since the idea was first floated publicly , many have argued that sanctioning Iran's financial sector would eviscerate what humanitarian trade has survived the heavy hand of existing U.S. sanctions.

Behind the move was pressure from the Zionist lobby. President Trump is in need of campaign funds and the lobby provides those. The move is also designed to preempt any attempts by a potentially new administration to revive the nuclear agreement with Iran:

This idea appears to have first been introduced into public discourse in an Aug. 25, 2020, Wall Street Journal article by Mark Dubowitz and Richard Goldberg urging the Trump administration to "[b]uild an Iranian [s]anctions [w]all" to prevent any future Biden administration from returning to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the nuclear accord between Iran and the world's major powers on which President Donald Trump reneged in May 2018.

The new sanctions will stop all trade between the 'western' countries and Iran.

The Foreign Minister of Iran responded with defiance:

Javad Zarif @JZarif - 17:30 UTC · Oct 8, 2020

Amid Covid19 pandemic, U.S. regime wants to blow up our remaining channels to pay for food & medicine.

Iranians WILL survive this latest of cruelties.

But conspiring to starve a population is a crime against humanity. Culprits & enablers -- who block our money -- WILL face justice.

In response Iran will continue its turn to the east. Russia, China and probably India will keep payment channels with Iran open or will make barter deals.

The Europeans, who so far have not dared to counter U.S. sanctions on Iran, are likely to be again shown as the feckless U.S. ass kissers they have always been. They will thereby lose out in a market with 85 million people that has the resources to pay for their high value products. If they stop trade of humanitarian goods with Iran they will also show that their much vaunted 'values' mean nothing.

The European Union claims that it wants to be an independent actor on the world stage. If that is to be taken seriously this would be the moment to demonstrate it.

Posted by b on October 9, 2020 at 16:37 UTC | Permalink

Thomas Minnehan , Oct 9 2020 17:11 utc | 3
Unconscionable but what is new with pompass and his ghouls; treasury dept responsible for cranking up the sanctions program was formerly headed by a dual citizen woman who resigned suddenly after being exposed as an Israeli citizen-not hard to understand that sentiment in that dept has not changed.

The other aspect here is the FDD as key supporter of these severe sanctions; very virulent anti-Iranian vipers nest of ziocons with money bags from zionist oligarch funders.

karlof1 , Oct 9 2020 17:14 utc | 4
Ho-hum. As I wrote earlier, just the daily breaking of laws meaning business as usual. As noted, Russia has really upped the diplomatic heat on EU and France/Germany in particular, and that heat will be further merited if the response is as b predicts from their past, deplorable, behavior.

Much talk/writing recently about our current crisis being similar in many ways to those that led to WW1, but with the Outlaw US Empire taking Britain's role. I expect Iran's Iraqi proxies to escalate their attacks aimed at driving out the occupiers. IMO, we ought to contemplate the message within this Strategic Culture editorial when it comes to the hegemonic relationship between the Outlaw US Empire and the EU/NATO and the aims of both. The EU decided not to continue fighting against the completion of Nord Stream, but that IMO will be its last friendly act until it severs its relations with the Outlaw US Empire. With the Wall moved to Russia's Western borders, the Cold War will resume. That will also affect Iran.

james , Oct 9 2020 18:33 utc | 13
thanks b... it is interesting what a pivotal role israel plays in all of this... and why would there be concern that biden would be any different then trump in revoking the jcpoa? to my way of thinking, it is just pouring more cement and sealing the fate of the usa either way, as an empire in real decline and resorting to more of the same financial sanctions as a possible precursor to war.. frankly i can't see a war with iran, as the usa would have to contend with russia and china at this point... russia and china must surely know the game plan is exactly the same for them here as well.. as for europe, canada, australia and the other poodles - they are all hopeless on this front as i see it... lets all bow down to the great zionist plan, lol...
Daniel , Oct 9 2020 18:48 utc | 14
Yeah but at least Trump didn't start any new wars. /s

The Eurotools in Brussels are absolutely disgusting. A weaker bunch of feckless, milquetoast satraps is difficult to imagine. The EU perfectly embodies the 21st century liberal ethic: spout virtue signaling nonsense about peace, freedom, human rights and the "rules based international order" while licking the boots of Uncle Scam and the Ziofascists and going along with their war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Russia and China need to step up their game and boldly circumvent the collective punishment sanctions that are choking the life out of Iran, Syria and Venezuela. They still let the rogue states of the west get away with far too much.

augusto , Oct 9 2020 18:52 utc | 15
The Teheran men will not surrender to the yankee herds and hordes. And less so the telavivian.
It s easy to see that in the medium run this cruelly extended crime plays in chinese, russian and shia hands.
And they must start immediately a backlash handing hundreds of special forces and weapons opver to the Houthi hands.
Paco , Oct 9 2020 18:54 utc | 17
the Cold War will resume

The Cold War never ended.

Stonebird , Oct 9 2020 19:20 utc | 20
Of course there is a war on, and it has been gathering force for some time.

Iran is but one more skirmish or battle. However, Xi and Putin are using what I call the "Papou yes". You must always say "yes" as this way you avoid direct conflict, but then you go and do exactly what you were going to do in the first place . The person who does the demanding - having had his/her demands "met" has nothing further to add and will go away. (I have seen this effective technique in action).

At the moment it appears that the aim of the subversive (military/CIA/NGO) wings of the Empire are to start as many conflicts as possible. To isolate and overextend Russia, leading to it's collapse. (As they claim to have done before.)

The "Alternative axis" is just carrying on with it's own plan to overextend and eventually let the US dissolve into its own morasss. The opposition are trying to follow their own plan without giving an opening for the US/NATO to use its numerical military advantage, by not taking the bait.

The ultimate battle is for financial control of the worlds currency, or in the case of the US, to halt the loss of it's financial power. To avoid that The next step could be the introduction of a Fed. owned controlled and issued "digi-dollar", When all outstanding "dollar assets" are re-denominated into virtual misty-money which is created exclusively by the Fed. Banks become unnecessary as the Fed becomes the only "lender" available, Congress redundant, debts no longer matter and so on. Who cares about the reserves held by China and overseas "investors" if their use or even existence can be dictated by the Fed?
They have already published a "trial balloon" about introducing a digi-dollar.

Iran? the US is throwing ALL its cards into what looks like it's final battle to preserve the dollars supremacy. Why cut ALL the Iranian financial system out of their sphere of influence? Because it (thinks) it can and by doing so cower the wavering into obeying.

AtaBrit , Oct 9 2020 19:28 utc | 21
Thanks 'b', very well timed. I was actually heading to the open thread with this article until I saw your piece. This Asia Times article focuses on three key points:

- Iran has replaced the dollar with the Yuan as its main foreign currency
"This may become the east wind for the renminbi (yuan) and provide a new oil currency option for traders in oil-producing countries, including Iran," an editorial on qq.com said. "

- Several large banks in Iran are developing a gold encrypted digital currency called PayMon and had issued more than 1,000 crypto-currency mining licenses, which could promote the development of crude oil. Domestic traders use cryptocurrency to import goods and bypass American banks.

- The Iranian-Swiss Joint Chamber of Commerce
"Switzerland had received a special exemption from US supervisory authorities to allow the SHTA operations."

It remains to be seen how effective the Swiss Humanitarian Trade Agreement actually is. Some say it is nothing but a US propaganda stunt. Hopefully, that is not the case.

Richard Steven Hack , Oct 9 2020 20:37 utc | 31
Sure. Tell me again how Trump "doesn't want to start a new war." Morons.
William Gruff , Oct 9 2020 20:50 utc | 32
What does Iran need that they cannot get from China and Russia? The USA has cheap corn, and the EU has... what, cheese? Other than that I don't see why Iran needs to trade with the empire and its more servile vassals anyway.
Tollef Ås/秋涛乐 , Oct 9 2020 20:55 utc | 33
Strange, that ther is a jewish or Israeki ´ animosity agains Iran (or agains tthe Medtans -- as thy are all named in all Greek records(H, that theer is a jewish animosity against, that ther is a jewish anikisit agains Iran (or the Medtans -- as thy are old ptt in all Greek Strenge(Hellemistic) tales, Cyrur+s the Great is reported to have liberatet the Jews of Babilon end sent them back to Jerusalem . So, "PRIMO SON VENETANO, SECUNDO SON CHRISTANO" -- STILL A COMMONLY ACCEPTED SAYING INVENEZIA WHEB I VISITED ABD AKED IT IN THE THE YEAR OF 1´2917! Iran (or the Medtans -- as thy are old ptt in all Greek Strenge(Hellemistic) tales, Cyrur+s the Great is reorted to have liberatet te´he Jews of Babilon end sent them back to Jerusalem . So, "PRIMO SON VENETANO, SECUNDO SON CHRISTANO" -- STILL A COMMONLY ACCEPTED SAYING INVENEZIA WHEB I VISITED ABD AKED IT IN THE THE YEAR OF 1´2917! ellenistic) tales, Cyrur+s the Great is reorted to have liberatet te´he Jews of Babylon end sent them back to Jerusalem . So, "PRIMO SON VENETANO, SECUNDO SON CHRISTANO" -- STILL A COMMONLY ACCEPTED SAYING INVENEZIA WHEB I VISITED ABD AKED IT IN THE THE YEAR OF 2017
Paco , Oct 9 2020 21:05 utc | 34
Quite impressed with all the theories about Europe and its behavior. The answer is very simple, Europe is occupied by a foreign power, it is a colony. And all the qualifiers are quaint.
davenitup , Oct 9 2020 21:09 utc | 35
It's the world's loss that great cultures like the Persians have been suppressed for so long. The madness needs to end.
Passer by , Oct 9 2020 21:11 utc | 36
Posted by: Red Ryder | Oct 9 2020 20:06 utc | 23

I disagree. What did the EU did on Iran, compared to Russia and China? It stopped most trade with Iran, including the purchase of iranian oil, and it stopped all investment projects. INSTEX is a joke. Meanwhile Germany recently banned Hezbollah.

Yes, they did vote for the JCPOA in the UN. I look at actions rather than words though, and EU has imposed de facto sanctions on Iran.

Moreover, German FM Maas told Israel recently that efforts are underway to keep the Iran arms embargo. (He is also a big "Russia fan" - sarc off)

In other words, we "support" the JCPOA, but in practice with arms and trade embargoes on Iran continuing.

Yeah right.

Posted by: powerandpeople | Oct 9 2020 20:15 utc | 24

No, its not so simple, unless you claim that european russophobia started with the US and did not exist before it. Guy Mettan has a good book on it. It is a thousand years old issue, involving Catholicism, France, Germany, Sweden, Britain, and others.

Yes, the US wants to divide the EU and Russia. But the EU itself is rotten from within.

Politics are more important than the economy, German Chancellor Merkel said in relation to Russia.

"Drang nach Osten" - "Drive to the East".

Germany dreams of capturing Eastern Europe and using is as some sort of colonised labor pool similar to what Latin America is for the US.

And this is why the EU, without any prodding, eagerly took the lead in the attempt of colour revolution in Belarus, where it played far bigger role than the US.

m , Oct 9 2020 21:24 utc | 37
I have to disagree with your assessment.

Signing and adhearing to the JCPOA turned Europe and Iran from opponents into partners. This is a great diplomatic achievement. However, no part of the JCPOA made the two allies or obliged the European side to wage an economic war with the USA on behalf of Iran. On the contrary, the Iranians would be the first to say they are no friends of Europa. They have been complaining about "Western meddling" in their region for years. (Note that they don`t differentiate but always speak collectively of "the West").

So that`s their chance to show the world how much of a sovereign nation they are and that they can handle their problems without the "meddling" of the "despicable" Europeans. There is no obligation - neither legal nor moral - for Europe to take the side of Iran in the US-Iran conflict.

And actually it is both sides - both Iran and the USA - who are unhappy with the current European neutrality.

_K_C_ , Oct 9 2020 21:31 utc | 38
Thanks to MoA for being one of the only honest brokers of news on Iran in the English language. As an American citizen living abroad (in EU) I have a more jaded and at the same time worried feeling about this.

Along with all the other stuff, including the current threat to close the U.S. embassy in the Iraqi "Green Zone" and the accompanying military maneuvers, which would spark war in the region, I see this hardening and expansion of sanctions as yet the next clue that the U.S. and Donald Trump's regime are looking toward re-election and a hot war with/on Iran. Rattling the cage ever more and backing Iran into the corner with brutal, all-encompassing sanctions is already an act of war, usually the first prior to bombs falling. I can also see this green lighting Israeli or joint American-Israeli strikes on alleged Iranian nuclear weapons development sites and other military and petro-state assets.

I hope I'm wrong but we've all seen this before and it never ends well. If the EU shows a spine, or more likely Russia and/or China step in directly, perhaps the long desired neocon/neolib/Zionist hot war against Iran can be avoided.

Perimetr , Oct 9 2020 21:32 utc | 39
I think it is very important for the US to kill another 500,000 children via sanctions, in order to demonstrate the importance of freedom and democracy and observing international law.
AriusArmenian , Oct 9 2020 21:48 utc | 40
While reading this post I was thinking what MoA wrote in the last two paragraphs. And also that Iran will just continue to turn to China, Russia, and others in the East.

It's disgusting to watch the people of the US/UK/EU go along with this. Western elites are fat, lazy, vicious, and cruel.

claudio , Oct 9 2020 22:17 utc | 41
@17 passer by
(and others)
"Europeans can not be helped. Ironically, it is their own rejection of their WW2 past that causes them to reject the multipolar world and sovereignty as "primitive things from the past"

plus, as you point out elsewhere, there are longer histories at play: the Crusades against the Slavs, the Moors and the Turks (and the Arabs, in fact), the invention of "western civilization" in the 19th century (Arians vs Semites, Europe vs Asia, ecc) ...

plus, there is the persisting aspiration for world domination, partly frustrated by WW1 and the upheavals of the XXth century, which transformed the UK and the whole of Europe (with Japan, Australia, etc) in a junior partner of the new US Empire

(that's the other lesson learned from WW2: no single european power could dominate the continent and the world, but they could dominate as junior partners under the new young leader of the wolf pack, the US)

plus, there are is a class war that can be better fought, by national oligarchies, within globalist rethoric and rules

plus, there are the US deep state instruments of domination over european national states

but Europeans (and Usaians) do understand the language of force, and they have - at the moment - encountered a wall in their attempts at expansion, in Iran, China, Russia, Venezuela, ecc; an alternative multipolar alliance is taking shape

so they might attempt to win a nuclear war by 20 million deaths to 2 (or 200 to 20, who cares), but they might also decide to tune down their ambitions and return to reality; maybe

wj2 , Oct 9 2020 23:28 utc | 45
@m (#35)
EU promised to uphold JCPOA. They can't because of the US and they are doing next to nothing to change that. EU isn't neutral. They are stooges. Iran is right to complain about it, the US isn't.
Boss Tweet , Oct 9 2020 23:54 utc | 48
Trump is a man of peace, he hasn't started any new wars - whatever that means, lol.

As far as I know economic blocade is tantamount to war. If he wins reelection expect renewed kinetic attacks on venezuela and Iran. He's already lined up his zionist coalition with arabic satraps to launch his Iran quagmire. Trump is a deal maker, he understands the economy and will bring back manufacturing jobs to Murikkka, lol. I'm sure Boeing execs in deep trouble would love to sell plane to the Iranians but Mr. MIGA just made that impossible. Nothing to worry about, there's always the next socialist bailout for Boeing funded by taxpayers - suckers as Trump would call them. So much for winning, can't fix deplorable and stupid...

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/08/iran-deal-fallout-boeing-may-lose-20-billion-in-aircraft-deals.html

Btw b, Trump's opposition to the Iran deal has nothing to do with money or the zionist lobby. Stable genius opposed JCPOA in 2015 even before announcing his run for the presidency. It's not about the mula but all about the mollah's, lol: The Donald in his own words at a tea party event in 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIDNonMDSo8

kooshy , Oct 10 2020 0:00 utc | 49
Ever since the Iranian revolution of 1979 multiple US regimes in DC have been totally successful in making majority Iranian people everywhere in the world, understand that the US is their chronic strategic enemy for decades to come. At same time, these US regimes have equally been as successful in making American people believe Iran is their enemy.
The difference between this two side's belief is, that, Iranian people by experiencing US regime' conducts have come to their belief, but the American people' belief was made by their own regime' propaganda machinery. For this reason, just like the people to people relation between the US and Russian people, Before and after the fall of USSR the relation between US and Iran in next few generations will not come to or even develop to anything substantial or meaningful. One can see this same trajectory in US Chinese relations, or US Cuban. Noticeably all these countries relation with US become terminally irreparable after their revolutions, regardless of the maturity or termination of the revolution. As much as US loves color revolutions, US hates real revolutions. The animosity no longer is just strategic it has become people to people, and the reason and blame goes to Americans since they never were ready to accept the revolutions that made nations self-servient to their interests. The bottom line truth is the US / and her poodles in europe know, ever since the revolution Iran no longer will be subservient to US interests.
Hermius , Oct 10 2020 0:23 utc | 51
This is leverage to bargain away the oil pipeline to germany. That is what is behind it. You scratch my back, the US is saying to the EU, in particular, Germany....
karlof1 , Oct 10 2020 0:25 utc | 52
It's an Economy based on Plunder! , so that's why sanctions here, there and everywhere!! But the real problem is we aren't participating in the Plunder!! Sometimes you gotta use extreme sarcasm to explain the truth of a situation, and that's what Max and Stacey do in their show at the link. 13 minutes of honest reporting about the fraudulent world in which we live. As for Jerome Powell, current Fed Chair, he's complicit in the ongoing criminal activity just as much as the high ranking politicos. Bastiat laid it out 180 years ago, but we're living what he described now. And that's all part of what I wrote @40 above. The moral breakdown occurred long ago but took time to perfect.
joey_n , Oct 10 2020 0:34 utc | 54
Patrick Armstrong did a Sitrep article last month
https://patrickarmstrong.ca/2020/09/24/russian-federation-sitrep-24-september-2020/
where he cited an article on Sputnik titled "Macron: Europe 'Will Not Compromise' With Washington on Iran Sanctions"
https://sputniknews.com/world/202009221080541258-macron-europe-will-not-compromise-with-washington-on-iran-sanctions/
Make of it what you will.
Xingu , Oct 10 2020 0:46 utc | 55
I think it is crazy that EU allows US to manage SWIFT to the point they invent new entities to sidestep SWIFT and US sanctions (which are weak and ineffective, but that is the trajectory of their weak attempts at independence). Force SWIFT to equally service all legal transactions according to EU law, and let US cut itself off from all international financial transfers if it doesn't like using EU's SWIFT. US corps won't allow that to happen, it's just that EU refuses to call US bluff. Of course they are now praying for Biden presidency, but if they can't assert themselves it is all ultimately the same thing.
dh , Oct 10 2020 1:17 utc | 58
These 'foreign policy experts' think the trade war with China has been a mistake. But they think Trump is too soft on Russia and he hasn't been tough enough on NK, Iran and Venezuela.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/foreign-policy-experts-rebuke-trump-administration-for-policies-that-emboldened-rivals-alienated-allies-135205214.html

Paul , Oct 10 2020 1:34 utc | 59
It has become a standard trick for outgoing US administrations to saddle the incoming administration with set in stone policies and judicial appointments.

"Behind the move was pressure from the Zionist lobby. President Trump is in need of campaign funds and the lobby provides those. The move is also designed to preempt any attempts by a potentially new administration to revive the nuclear agreement with Iran."

Perhaps a Biden administration would be just as much a Zionist captive as the Trump administration.

The danger for the world is the Trump administration may go even further than additional sanctions. So I refer to the previous post, US policy remains the same whatever bunch are the frontmen.

Theodore Herzl even tried to drag Kaiser Wilhelm11 into the Zionist spider web: https://middleeastrealitycheck.blogspot.com/2008/07/theodor-herzl-first-photoshopper.html

When that attempt failed they worked on convincing the Sultan of Turkey to give them someone else's homeland. The Zionist Zealot Mr Kalvariski became the administrator of the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association with the aim of establishing a jewish suprematist ghetto. Following that flop the Zionists turned to the hapless British and were rewarded by Balfour with his notorious British government double cross of the Arabs. Now it's the turn of the US and assorted captive nations to uphold and support tyranny and Talmudic violence.

Crush Limbraw , Oct 10 2020 1:59 utc | 60

I am SLOWLY coming to the conclusion that DaTrumpster understands DaDeepState better than any of us armchair pundits. His patient - and yes, perhaps faulty strategy - he's still standing after ALL DaCrap that's been thrown at him.
All the 'EXPURTS' - including MoA - can only see part of DaPicture at best.

I've been as hard on DaTrumpster as anyone on DaConservative side - but I am SLOWLY coming to understand WTF just might be going on.

Point - don't be too sure of your immediate inclinations - we ALL see through DaGlass DARKLY!

Don Bacon , Oct 10 2020 2:27 utc | 61
SWIFT is only a messaging system – SWIFT does not hold any funds or securities, nor does it manage client accounts. Behind most international money and security transfers is the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT) system. SWIFT is a vast messaging network used by banks and other financial institutions to quickly, accurately, and securely send and receive information, such as money transfer instructions.
Sunny Runny Burger , Oct 10 2020 2:29 utc | 62
Paul wrote: "Perhaps a Biden administration would be just as much a Zionist captive as the Trump administration." Yes at least as much or more zionist. Nothing about Harris or Biden (or the DNC) says they won't be.

And hasn't it always been that way from one president to the the next? Was there ever one that was less zionist than the predecessor? (Maybe they're all so close this is an impossible question to answer, that too could be the case).

The sitting executive branch gives the favors right now and anyone incoming gives the favors after they win and thus each election becomes a double windfall for the lobby group?

A zionist double dip . Maybe most US voters could grasp it like that.

I can't back this up (much like my previous comment in this thread) but it's my impression. It would probably take a lot of work to make sure it's right; one would have to scrutinize so much over so many decades.

Paul , Oct 10 2020 3:29 utc | 63
@Sunny Runny Burger 60

I nominate president Eisenhower as slightly less zionist on one occasion: during the Anglo,French, Zionist Suez invasion of 1956 Eisenhower remarked after numerous UN resolutions condemning the bandit state's aggression ' Should a nation which attacks and occupies foreign territory in the face of United Nations disapproval be allowed to impose conditions on its withdrawal?'

This could be a useful quote for todays world.

Later, in 1964, Eisenhower approved his hand picked emissary's US $150 million so called Johnston Plan to steal the waters of the Jordan River and further marginalize the Palestine Arabs and surrounding Arab states.

ARI , Oct 10 2020 3:36 utc | 64
Sanctions aren't the story. Once all the players have left the JCPOA, either Israel or the US can claim Iranians are at the point of producing a nuclear weapon. Without the JCPOA and inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities it will be impossible to prove or deny the allegations. Thus giving either the US or Israel justification it wants to conduct military strikes against Iran. The only things stopping this from happening is if the EU stays in the JCPOA...
_K_C_ , Oct 10 2020 3:53 utc | 65
Fully agree with ARI | Oct 10 2020 3:36 utc | 62

Exactly the aim. I said so in an earlier post. This is all part of the program to create a false justification to conduct military strikes inside Iran. At this point, I'm really surprised that the U.S. even tries to construct these narratives after Obama's Syria and Libya operations didn't even really bother, save for a few probably fake "chemical weapons" attack they alleged Assad committed. Libya I don't remember hearing anything. The embassy maybe? After the Soleimani strike and the shootdown of the U.S. drone, not to mention the alleged Iranian attacks on ARAMCO's oil facilities, I'm really quite surprised something more serious (not to minimize the awful acts of war which the sanctions definitely are) hasn't already happened. It will soon, especially if Trump gets re-elected. Wonder what all of his "no new wars" supporters will say then?

Everybody reading knows what SWIFT is. That's a nice attempt to circumscribe the overall sanctions regime and paint it as "no big deal."

Crush Limpbro - Checked out your site. You've got a long way to go before you can criticize MoA. Hope that comment draws a few clicks to keep you going, but I would caution other barflies to use a proxy; could be a honey trap to collect IP addresses.

El Cid , Oct 10 2020 4:10 utc | 66
This United States imposed and Zionist inspired siege on Iran and its people will only further strengthen the political and economic bonds with Russia and China. Meanwhile, the US collapses from its internal social limitations and its abandonment of public healthcare responses to the Corvid 19 pandemic. Europe it close behind the US in this respect.
ARIES , Oct 10 2020 4:17 utc | 67
IRGC Commander-In-Chief: U.S. Is Incapable Of Waging War Against Iran, Its Weapons Are Outdated:

https://toranja-mecanica.blogspot.com/2020/10/irgc-commander-in-chief-us-is-incapable.html

Paul , Oct 10 2020 4:20 utc | 68
ARI @62

What exactly is this 'Justification'.. . 'to conduct military strikes against Iran' that you refer to hasbara boy? Failure to obey foreign imposed zionist diktats?

Would this 'justification' apply to the bandit state if it refused to abide by the NNPT for example?
No double standards pass the test here.

kiwiklown , Oct 10 2020 4:42 utc | 69
Yet another proof that "Western values" and their "rules based international order" mean exactly nothing.

In the past, the West at least kept up some pretense that it was wrong to target unarmed civilians (still, they flattened Driesden; Hiroshima; North Korea, Vietnam, Laos). Today, they do not care to be seen openly, cruelly, brutally, sadistically killing civvies. These American bastards say, "... it is not killing if the victims drop dead later, like, not right now. " Or, "... it became necessary to destroy Iran in order to save Iran."

Iran is perfectly correct to call this a crime against humanity for the West to starve a population of food and medicine. This will boomerang just as the opium-pushing in China will boomerang on the West.

Meanwhile, just as those drug-pushing English bastards earned themselves lordships and knighthoods; just as presidential bastards retire to their Martha Vineyard mansions; so the current crop of bastards in American leadership will retire to yet more mansions, leaving the next couple generations to meet Persian wrath. The American way is to "win" until they are tired of winning, no?

But in truth, in objective reality, only those who have lost their human-ness are capable of crimes against humanity.

michaelj72 , Oct 10 2020 4:50 utc | 71
The US is cruising for a bruising in the middle east fucking with Iran like this. Not that the US hasn't deserved a good knockout punch the past 19 years since invading and destroying Afghanistan and Iraq, etc, etc. Regardless of their rhetoric, how the European rogues and rascals (France, Germany and the UK) can sleep at night is beyond me.
snake , Oct 10 2020 7:00 utc | 75
Yes Psychochistorian @ 1, At the nation state level, EU support for blockade terror and sanction torture (BT&ST), against reluctant nation states and non compliant individuals within those nation states, logically suggests EU nation states are not independent sovereign countries <=EU nation states exist in name only? Maybe its just like in the USA, these private monopoly powered Oligarcks (PMPO), own everything (privately owned copyrights, patents, and property) made possible by rules nation states turn into law. The citizens of those privately owned EU nation states are victims <=in condition=exploitable. Maybe PMPOs use nation states <=as profit support weapons, to be directed against <=any and all <=competition, whereever and however <=competition appears.

The hidden suspects <=capital market linked crowds through out the world..

Media is 92% owned by six private individuals, of the seven typical nation state layers of authority and power: 5 are private and two are public. Additionally, few in the international organizations have allegiance to historic cultures of the nation state governed masses. It is as if, the named nation states are <=threatened by knee breaking thugs, but maybe its not threat, its actual PMPO ownership.

If one accepts PMPO <=to be in control of all of USA and all of allied nation state, one can explain <=current BT&ST events. But private Oligarch scenarios <=raise obvious questions, why have not the PMPO challenged East eliminated <=Israel, MSM propaganda repeatedly blames or points to Israel <=to excuse the USA leaders for their BT&ST policies. Seems the PMPO are <=using the nation states, they own <=to eliminate non complying competition.

What is holding the East back? Russia and China each have sufficient oil, gas and technology to keep things functional, so why has not the competition in the East taken Israel out, if Israel is directing the USA to apply BT&ST against its competitors? Why is the white House so sure, its BT&ST policies will not end up destroying Israel? Maybe because Israel has no real interest <=in the BT&ST policy <=Israel is deceptions:fall guy? The world needs to pin the tail on the party driving USA application of BT&ST because no visible net gain to Governed Americans seems possible from BT&ST policies?

I think Passer @ 17 has hit the nail on its head. "The EU is trying to prop up the US Empire in response to its decline, instead of trying to free itself. "

Norwegian , Oct 10 2020 7:11 utc | 76
@ARI | Oct 10 2020 3:36 utc | 62
Sanctions aren't the story. Once all the players have left the JCPOA, either Israel or the US can claim Iranians are at the point of producing a nuclear weapon.

So you put that forward as a justification for attacking Iran militarily, but that means according to your logic you also have justification for attacking Israel or the US militarily. The rules are the same for all, right?

robin , Oct 10 2020 8:12 utc | 77
Economic warfare is certainly effective. However, time is running out for these weapons as America's lock on the world economy grows weaker. With a rapidly approaching expiry date, the word out may be to use em or lose em.

In a zero-sum great game, it makes sense to deploy such weapons now insofar as an opponent's loss is always a gain for oneself.

jscott , Oct 10 2020 9:26 utc | 79
Donald Trump talked up his Iran policy in a profanity-laden tirade on Friday, telling conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh that Tehran knows the consequences of undermining the United States.

"Iran knows that, and they've been put on notice: if you fuck around with us, if you do something bad to us, we are going to do things to you that have never been done before."

Uncle Samuel is setting up a provocation for war.

uncle tungsten , Oct 10 2020 9:45 utc | 81
psychohistorian #1
What a shit show we are seeing. What is the next phase of this civilization war that is not a war because there are not enough dead bodies for some I guess?...but it sure looks like war to me.

Well for the first time in history Iran's symbolic "Red Flag" is still flying above the popular Jamkaran Mosque Holy dome. Perhaps the USA and its running dogs body count has risen in Iraq and Afghanistan? How would we know. These things are disguised from the fearless press in those countries ;)

Perhaps the dead and mangled are many but we do know that the US chief killer in Afghanistan was reduced to ashes immediately following General Shahid Qassem Suleimanis murder by the USA whilst on a diplomatic mission in Iraq.

In respect of b's observation above, the illegal occupier of Palestine is more likely tipping millions into the Harris Presidency as well as the possible Trump Presidency. I doubt either Harris or the biden bait and switch stooge would restore the JCPOA. Besides they would not be invited to sit at the table any time soon IMO. They would likely refuse to any conditions of reversing the sanctions and then carry on about all that 'unreasonable demands by a terrorist state' stuff etc etc.

No, Iran will be getting on with its future in a multilateral world where the United Nations has been reduced to pile of chicken dung by the USA while most other nations go along with global lunacy.


Circe , Oct 10 2020 12:56 utc | 87
You know what's telling about the bootlickers who hem and haw about U.S. policy with the T Administration, but never mention Trump as the real source of it even when profuse Zionist shit spills from his mouth on Limbaugh's show proving he's a Ziofascist pig?

What's telling is that these usual suspects jumped all over ARI @64 for zeroing in on Trump's precise intentions with Iran but they gave a pass to the real HASBARIST in the room, Crush Limbraw @60, exposing himself, putting his HARD-ON FOR TRUMP on full display.

@60 we ALL see through DaGlass DARKLY!
Speak for yourself- you Zionist MORON!

Ahhhhhh, you can always count on the DUPLICITY of MOA'S weathervane james and friends. Me, I ain't here to win a popularity contest like weathervane; I'm here to kick ass when I witness duplicity in action. My friend here is the truth that I'll defend to the grave.

********

Noooo, dum-dums Putin will not come to Iran's rescue when he's warm in bed with his Zionist Oligarchs and Russian squatters whom he pays homage to from time to time when he visits Ziolandia thanking them for choosing the stolen West Bank over Russia.

Iran knows that, and they've been put on notice. That's Trump blowhard driving the drumbeat.

Just rescue me from my self-destructive self for 4 more years, oh kings of Zion and Wall Street, and I'll give you WAR!!! all in CAPS with three exclamation points. The GREATEST war you've ever seen.

Linda Amick , Oct 10 2020 13:07 utc | 88
When I read the Great Reset article on the World Economic Forum website it seems to me that the western Globalists, in concert align the US and EU. That accounts for the basic vassal arrangements that predominate but allow for some nonalignments on certain issues.
Paco , Oct 10 2020 13:24 utc | 89
Posted by: vk | Oct 10 2020 0:58 utc | 56

That is precisely what the Belarusian authorities announced when Tikhanovskaya left Minsk, that she was helped in her way out, but we know how the MSM acts, they stick to their own script, just like a Hollywood movie.

The Belarusians must be watching with great attention what is happening in Kirguizia, riots and complete chaos, and thinking how lucky they were to avoid the color rev that was in the menu for them, which the same methods, discredit the oncoming election, claim fraud after it, use similar symbols like the clenched fist and the heart, new flag, start transliterating family and geographical names to a mythical and spoken by a very small minority language and then nobody knows if to spell Tikhanovskaya, Tsikhanouskaya or like the politically incorrect but street wise Luka called her, Guaidikha. And that is Kirguizia, how about a shooting war in Armenia and Azerbaijan, all those conflicts were unimaginable when the USSR existed, but the empire even on his way down is insatiable.

Circe , Oct 10 2020 13:25 utc | 90
@88 Linda Amick

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=RDPIAXG_QcQNU&feature=share&playnext=1

Paco , Oct 10 2020 13:35 utc | 91
Posted by: Circe | Oct 10 2020 12:56 utc | 87

There is over a million jews of Russian origin living in Israel, 20% of the population, with deep roots in Russia, language, culture and relatives. Do not let partisanship for the Dems blind you, a true successful leader is someone that defends his country's interests while at the same time tries to have good relations with everybody else, obviously that balance is not easy to achieve in a world full of conflicting interests, but so far Putin seems to be balancing his act while not loosing sight of the main thing, Russia.

Circe , Oct 10 2020 13:52 utc | 92
Paco, strange name for a Russiabot, oh well...

Nice way of putting: Putin belongs to the Zionist Club.

FYI, I'm not blind. I'm one of those special beings who was born with two extra eyes...in the back of my head.

Jackrabbit , Oct 10 2020 13:56 utc | 93
Circe @Oct10 12:56 #87
Putin will not come to Iran's rescue when he's warm in bed with his Zionist Oligarchs

If Putin is so close to Zionists, then why does Russia block the Zionist regime-change in Syria? Why has Russia denied Israel and USA entreaties to allow them to bomb Iran?

Russia Warns U.S. and Israel That Iran Is Its 'Ally' and Was Right About Drone Shoot Down

!!

Paco , Oct 10 2020 14:03 utc | 94
Posted by: Circe | Oct 10 2020 13:52 utc | 92

Not as strange as a mythological demigoddess that turned sailors into swain and that now enjoys to plunge into the mud with her creatures. A bot, what an easy label, it has lost any meaning.

Paco , Oct 10 2020 14:12 utc | 95
special beings who was born with two extra eyes...in the back of my head.

Alaska yellow fin sole, not bad, from Bristol Bay, but the Melva -a tunafish species with more oil in its meat- I cooked for lunch, just caught, has a lot more fish oil with its rich contents of vitamin D, add sunny Mediterranean weather and that is my pill for today, trying to keep the bug at bay.

expat , Oct 10 2020 14:39 utc | 96
Circe, why don't you do what your namesake would have done and whip yourself up some meds to calm down? You're starting to lapse into excessive use of upper case, italics, exclamation points, bolding, profanity, and of course, insults.

This may help. It looks like the orange man is in fact going down, so you will soon have Joe and Kamal empowered to dismantle the evil Putin-Netanyahu-Trump axis, and put the US back on the path to truth and justice.

Circe , Oct 10 2020 14:41 utc | 97
@93 Jackrabbit

It's called... lip service.

@94,95 Fransisco

A bot by any other name will smell as fishy. 🤭
Just messing with you!

ptb , Oct 10 2020 14:44 utc | 98
The unilateral and illegal-under-JCPOA sanctions mean it's time for EU to either confront the extraterritorial US policy it has clearly rejected in principle, or (more likely) acknowlege that it remains in practice just a collection of 'client states'. A sad moment for me, but useful for clarity.
Paco , Oct 10 2020 14:48 utc | 99
Posted by: Circe | Oct 10 2020 14:41 utc | 97

Hard to understand but you guys are incapable of spelling the name of a once great US city, San Francisco. I heard it has changed a lot, got to see long time ago, before the digital craze.

juliania , Oct 10 2020 15:51 utc | 100
This is a brief but subtle post by b, with quiet but telling headline. Perhaps, just guessing, a new take on the post he was having difficulty with earlier? The question of the EU is an interesting one - not to be considered as virulent as the former Soviet Union, but somehow as tugged at by the components thereof...

Sanctions on Iran? We do know what Iran is capable of; surely we have not forgotten? Indeed, by pressing these sanctions at this late date, the Trump administration surely has not forgotten either the effect sanctions had on Russia. They were postive to that country's independent survival, though the immediate effect was demonstrably harsh. So now, sanctions on Iran? One doesn't have to be a world leader to suppose similar cause, similar effect.

Ah, Paco has a wonderful meal of a beneficial fish called the Melva! Bravo, Paco; all is not lost! But you have hooked the sea-serpent as well -- take care! That one - carefully remove the hook and set it free ;)

p> next page "

Post a comment Name:

Email:

URL:
Allowed HTML Tags:

<B>Text</B> → Text
<I>Text</I> → Text
<U>Text</U> → Text
<BLOCKQUOTE>Text</BLOCKQUOTE>
<A HREF="http://www.aclu.org/">Headline (not the URL)</A> → Headline (not the URL)

" Why U.S. Elections Do Not Change Its Foreign Policies , Main | The Ceasefire In Nagorno-Karabakh Is Unlikely To Hold "

next page "

Post a comment Name:

Email:

URL:
Allowed HTML Tags:

<B>Text</B> → Text
<I>Text</I> → Text
<U>Text</U> → Text
<BLOCKQUOTE>Text</BLOCKQUOTE>
<A HREF="http://www.aclu.org/">Headline (not the URL)</A> → Headline (not the URL)

" Why U.S. Elections Do Not Change Its Foreign Policies | Main | The Ceasefire In Nagorno-Karabakh Is Unlikely To Hold "

[Oct 10, 2020] psychohistorian

Oct 10, 2020 | www.lettinggobreath.com

1

next page " Nice posting b

Yes, it is time for EU countries to show their true colors which will be ass kissers for empire, most likely.

Folks are saying Nord Stream II is being finished but will it ever go into use?

And of course this is not war because Trump hasn't started any wars, right?

What a shit show we are seeing. What is the next phase of this civilization war that is not a war because there are not enough dead bodies for some I guess?...but it sure looks like war to me.

bevin , Oct 9 2020 17:07 utc | 2
The next phase would appear to be Kyrgyzstan: from Belarus east to Sinkiang and Hong Kong the subversion and the attempts at regime change are constant.

While Eurasia seeks to unite for peace and prosperity, the United States and its sleazy satrapy is constantly trying to divide and weaken, to undermine and to intimidate. In doing so it relies heavily on abusing the tattered lineaments of democracy- electioneering and propagandising, the relics of a western culture which has become nothing more than a hollow shell containing an increasingly totalitarian plutocracy.

Joseph Dillard , Oct 9 2020 17:32 utc | 5
All this simply moves Iran into closer confederation with Russia and China and strengthens its resolve to send US middle eastern troops packing. Soon there will be a strong Russia-China-Iran axis that is immune to all Western sanctions. Those countries who are part of the BRI will get privileged economic treatment. The advantages will become increasingly apparent and the economic disadvantages of staying allied with the US will become increasingly apparent as well, particularly in light of the approaching collapse of the dollar. As long as we manage to avoid a hot war the civilizational die is cast; the US has chosen its destiny, in the dustbin of history, at least as a neoliberal oligarchy. When and how it will reinvent itself is an open question, but it is not unreasonable to think it will take decades. While Europe will eventually align with Eurasia, it will take another generation of politicians before that happens.
Loftwork , Oct 9 2020 17:36 utc | 6
If Iran isn't self-sufficient now, it will be by the time the US is finished with it. That isn't a comfortable place to be but with key sector support from the Eastern bloc it's at least as manageable as Cuba. The question is whether and how fast the Eastern bloc can consolidate its resources by e.g. petrodollar replacement and better shared infrastructure. The Eastern bloc isn't ideal, but when the West is apparently encouraging something like a holocaust of suffering humanity, it's the only other game in town.
Nathan Mulcahy , Oct 9 2020 17:39 utc | 7
No, this is not the moment. This is the last chance. Oh, these vassals with zero integrity and character!
Hoyeru , Oct 9 2020 17:40 utc | 8
High time for both Russia and China and Iran/Cuba/Venezuela to really get together and start speaking with one voice and show the despicable USA/West/NATO that they will stand together and defend each other. Otherwise it's all over.

Specific steps to implement:
1. create and begin using an alternative to the SWIFT and invite anyone who is being sanctioned by USA/West to join them
2. openly and officially declare that their currencies are backed by gold
3. openly and officially begin to speak against USA's actions around the world at the UN and invite anyone who is being sanctioned by USA/West to join them
4. get together and openly declare to the world they stand as one and to invite
anyone else who is being harassed by USA/West/NATO to join them
5. immediately begin clean up of all the terrorists/CIA Operatives in in Central Asia otherwise they will be in deep trouble

what are Putin and Xi doing?? Come on guys, wake up!

MichaelW , Oct 9 2020 17:46 utc | 9
EU and US. Just playing classical
And Trump don't make Amerika "Too big to fail" alone. But double down
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-a510221c9228a7d1b9f383b3428db349
When you owe 5000€, you're afraid of your crédit or but when You owe 5000 T$, Who is afraid ?

Financial House of Card let them no choice but to S***MyD***, and wait

David G , Oct 9 2020 18:14 utc | 10
In March, Germany announced that the first transaction had been completed using Europe's INSTEX system to skirt sanctions -- more than a year after the scheme had supposedly been put in place.

I haven't seen anything further about it. Has it enabled any significant level of trade?

One Too Many , Oct 9 2020 18:20 utc | 11
Now I understand why Javad Zarif is in China for a two-day meeting:

http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-10/08/c_139426303.htm

I guess it wasn't for the National Holiday?

Don Bacon , Oct 9 2020 18:28 utc | 12
Why would anyone need anything not Made in China? Plus China is the EU's second highest trade partner (after US) so Iran could have access to some of that if for some reason they needed an EU product. . . .Meanwhile Iran will be even more self-sufficient, as Russia has become with EU sanctions. . . .The US has been trying self-imposed "sanctions" (China uncoupling) to become more self-sufficient but it's not working.
Caliman , Oct 9 2020 18:53 utc | 16
EU continues its self-imposed slide into irrelevance. I suppose a servant's life is an easier life: you don't have to think for yourself and just need to please master. But it can hardly be a satisfactory experience, can it? Especially when the collar is held by such as Trump and Pompass.

The winds of change are coming and they will be interesting. China's economy is already greater than the US and that will expand many fold over the next few decades. The $ economy will not survive this, especially not as the US has shown it will use its power corruptly. The EU batter consider this; do they want to be part of the past or the future?

Passer by , Oct 9 2020 19:09 utc | 19
There is something much more significant happening with Europe, that is more than the Iran issue.

The EU is trying to prop up the US Empire in response to its decline, instead of trying to free itself.

The EU has chosen the side of the US against the multipolar world. It will be trying to prop up the Empire.

It is becoming increasingly hostile to any country that isn't a puppet to the US, like itself, and is lashing out at those countries. Like a zombie, it wants to infect others with its infection, and turn every other country into US puppets too. It thinks that this is normal and it wants to spread that "normality" to the rest of the world too.

Many analysts are already mentioning that the EU is becoming increasingly hostile to Russia.

Recently, serious statements came from Russian officials:

"Russia will not follow EU and US rules".

"There will be no more business as usual between Russia and France and Germany".

"France and Germany are now leading the anti-russian block within Europe".

"Russia will no longer be dependent on the EU".

"Europeans have delusions of grandeur".

These are all statements by Lavrov and Zacharova.

Recently, we have seen Germany and France banning Huawei, Europe together with US blocking the OPCW investigation at the UN, and Germany leading the charge at the UN stage against China. EU also took the lead in the colour revolution in Belarus.

There are two recent statesments by the french foreign minister and by the EU commision chief:

"Europe needs to unite against Russia and Turkey".

Surveys also show rising levels of anti-chinese hatred in Europe, and not only in the US.

What has happened is far more serious than the europeans being "feckless U.S. ass kissers". It is worse than that.

The EU chose the side of the US against the multipolar world. It does not want to free itself from the US. Actually it thinks that it is normal to be a puppet, that others should be US puppets too, and that a joint EU-US Empire should be supported, so that some kind of world wide liberal utopia can be build by it.

Europeans are psychologically damaged by WW2 and this is affecting their geopolitical behavior, turning them into forever puppets of the US.

They can not free themselves because when they were free once, they "did very bad things". Therefore they should always follow their "better" and "Big Daddy" US, who "freed them from themselves" and "put them in the right way".

Europeans can not be helped. Ironically, it is their own rejection of their WW2 past that causes them to reject the multipolar world and sovereignty as "primitive things from the past", and thus support a transnational globalist western empire that is here "to bring Utopia on Earth". For them Russia, China, Iran, India, Turkey etc. are just a bunch of primitives that are tryng to turn back the clock.

And thus it will increasingly start to lash out at any country that isn't a US puppet as those countries prevent the coming of Utopia.

[Sep 28, 2020] No wonder Pompey and his friend Jeffries won't give up on Syria! No wonder

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Virtually every aspect of the Syrian opposition was cultivated and marketed by Western government-backed public relations firms, from their political narratives to their branding, from what they said to where they said it. ..."
Sep 28, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

"Western government-funded intelligence cutouts trained Syrian opposition leaders, planted stories in media outlets from BBC to Al Jazeera, and ran a cadre of journalists. A trove of leaked documents exposes the propaganda network."

"Leaked documents show how UK government contractors developed an advanced infrastructure of propaganda to stimulate support in the West for Syria's political and armed opposition.

Virtually every aspect of the Syrian opposition was cultivated and marketed by Western government-backed public relations firms, from their political narratives to their branding, from what they said to where they said it.

The leaked files reveal how Western intelligence cutouts played the media like a fiddle, carefully crafting English- and Arabic-language media coverage of the war on Syria to churn out a constant stream of pro-opposition coverage.

US and European contractors trained and advised Syrian opposition leaders at all levels, from young media activists to the heads of the parallel government-in-exile . These firms also organized interviews for Syrian opposition leaders on mainstream outlets such as BBC and the UK's Channel 4.

More than half of the stringers used by Al Jazeera in Syria were trained in a joint US-UK government program called Basma, which produced hundreds of Syrian opposition media activists.

Western government PR firms not only influenced the way the media covered Syria, but as the leaked documents reveal, they produced their own propagandistic pseudo-news for broadcast on major TV networks in the Middle East, including BBC Arabic, Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya, and Orient TV .

These UK-funded firms functioned as full-time PR flacks for the extremist-dominated Syrian armed opposition. One contractor, called InCoStrat, said it was in constant contact with a network of more than 1,600 international journalists and "influencers," and used them to push pro-opposition talking points.

Another Western government contractor, ARK, crafted a strategy to "re-brand" Syria's Salafi-jihadist armed opposition by "softening its image ." ARK boasted that it provided opposition propaganda that "aired almost every day on" major Arabic-language TV networks."

"The Western contractor ARK was a central force in launching the White Helmets operation.

The leaked documents show ARK ran the Twitter and Facebook pages of Syria Civil Defense, known more commonly as the White Helmets.

ARK took credit for developing "an internationally-focused communications campaign designed to raise global awareness of the (White Helmets) teams and their life saving work."

ARK also facilitated communications between the White Helmets and The Syria Campaign , a PR firm run out of London and New York that helped popularize the White Helmets in the United States.

It was apparently "following subsequent discussions with ARK and the teams" that The Syria Campaign "selected civil defence to front its campaign to keep Syria in the news," the firm wrote in a report for the UK Foreign Office." thegreyzone

--------------

Using really basic intelligence analytic tools; Occam's Razor, Walks like a duck, Smileyesque back azimuth's, etc. it has been clear that the UK government has been deeply involved in sponsoring and influencing the Syrian/ jihadi opposition in that miserable country. The wide spread British Old Boys network of aspirants to the tradition of imperial manipulation has been visible just below the surface if you had eyes to look and a brain to think.

A lot of the money for this folly came right out of USAID.

pl

https://thegrayzone.com/2020/09/23/syria-leaks-uk-contractors-opposition-media/

ISL , 27 September 2020 at 04:03 PM

Dear Colonel agreed.

I object to the line in the article that they "played the media like a fiddle" - as it implies the mainstream media is a victim as opposed to willing accomplice.

The American public very strongly told Obama they didn't want another invasion and war in the middle east (red lines or not) so rather ineffective propaganda.

Moreover, I suspect that given the US public inattention to overseas events that do not involve much US blood (in places they can not find on a map). Today's mess would be where more or less the same if the entire IO had never happened - though maybe with less cynicism of US/UK gov'ts and media.

OTH, it is curious how well the British Old Boys network (and US) aligns with Israeli interests (and runs counter to US or British interests). Maybe grayzone will investigate that (impressive) IO campaign. I think a small country in the middle east played US and UK elites like a fiddle.

The Twisted Genius , 27 September 2020 at 04:48 PM

I've only given this article a cursory reading so far and it is clear that the Brits are going balls to the wall on the PSYOPS/perception management front. This campaign flows naturally from the strong material support for the Syrian "moderate rebels" provided by the US, the Brits and probably others for years. We may still be blowing up IS jihadis, but we're also supporting our own brand of jihadis around Al-Tanf, giving free hand to Erdogan's jihadis along the Turkish-Syrian border and doing our best to stymie R+6 efforts to crush the remaining jihadis and unite Syria.

The article focuses on the contractors role in PSYOP. I'm not sure if it mentions the British government's role in this. The GCHQ's Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG) probably manages most of those contractors. The British Army also has the 77th Brigade. This brigade's slogan is: "behavioural change is our unique selling point". Gordon MacMillan, a reserve officer with the 77th Brigade, is now Twitter's head of editorial operations for the Middle East.
The 77th was formed in 2015 and subsumed the 15th Psychological Operations Group which was headed by Steve Tathan, who went on to head the defence division of SCL, the now defunct parent of Cambridge Analytica. I'm sure the 77th is capable of managing some of those contractors, as well. I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few of contractors were also reservists in the 77th.

I bet we're not letting the Brits have all the fun. The CIA Special Activities Center (formerly SAD) includes the Political Action Group for PSYOP, economic warfare and cyberwarfare. That dovetails nicely with what CENTCOM is doing in Syria. I knew some of those guys a while back. I remember scaring them with some of my own anarchist hacker rantings when I was penetrating those hackers.

Our Army has fours PSYOP groups brigade-sized), two active and 2 reserve. I would think they have advanced their methodology since I took the course at Bragg. For a few years, they were called military information support operations (MISO) groups rather than PSYOP groups. They have since reverted to their PSYOP name although their activities are referred to as MISO. I don't know what the difference is.

Babak makkinejad , 27 September 2020 at 05:10 PM

ISL

No, no, no.

There is no such small country as you describe in the Near East.

There is an self-disciplined proxy force masquerading as a state which is mostly funded by the United States to further the religious policies of the WASP Culture Continent.

It is no accident that in this context, the names of US and UK occur often in the same sentences; one declared a crusade to wrestle control of Plastine from Muslims, and the otber one carried out that crusade and escalated it.

That is also the reason that US cannot end the war over Palestine or leave Islamdom

(Oil, Geostrategic considerations, arms sales, Realpolitik are just pseudo-rationications to obscure the real war.)

Diana Croissant , 28 September 2020 at 07:45 AM

Where is Candide (aka Voltaire) when we need him?

BABAK MAKKINEJAD , 28 September 2020 at 09:14 AM

Ishmael Zechariah

How WASP-dom has arrived in this crusade is not, in my opinion, as significant as that it has been waging it for more than a hundred years.

fakebot , 28 September 2020 at 10:43 AM

"WASP Culture" is into golfing, not crusading. Erik Prince and the religious fundamentalists, maybe, but they don't drive US policy.

Russia and/or Chinese dominion over Eurasia cannot be permitted. Their means to achieve that would be less ethical, not that the US or UK have been prince among men and salts of the earth, as noted in the article.

The US has tried in vain to win over hearts and minds. It has been a mostly noble effort to bring countries like Iraq and Afghanistan into the 21st century, but it was always more of a losing game. The problem lies too much in Islam and tribal rivalries.

[Sep 25, 2020] I see Pompeo as the quintessential opportunist of this moment (beyond his spiritual master of course, B-Nut.)

Sep 25, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

vinnieoh , Sep 22 2020 21:41 utc | 27

Probably counting on the desperate vanity and ego of Trump with the looming election to not shorten the length of the leash on Pompass. Pompass must also have noticed that Trump is willing to shove the homeland into civil war in order to claim victory, so maybe Pompass finally has the latitude to slake his bloodthirstiness.

Since I'm wondering down the path of speculation, a bit further into the murk. If there is one thing that characterizes the US today from the highest to the low, it is corruption. I submit that this corruption finds its zenith in the military, and especially the procurement train: any engagement with a near-peer (or the coalition/bloc we're talking about here,) and the rot and corruption will collapse this empire in upon itself. I've had this suspicion for some time, and believe if the going got rough the collapse would come rather quickly and completely.

[Sep 25, 2020] US standard "negotiating" techniques

Highly recommended!
Sep 25, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Ashino , Sep 23 2020 9:23 utc | 67

http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2020/09/russia-steals-everything.html
Comment by Reader Dark Fate
EXCERPTs

Following a long line of very arrogant american imperial "negotiators", mr oblivion billingslea used standard "negotiating" techniques like

(a) accusing the other side of crimes Americans have committed first and forever, eg, extreme lying, bad faith argumentation, military aggression, foreign government security breaching, assassination and poisoning [as in american presidents and independent thinkers], and of course, electoral cheating;

(b) putting the opponent in the "negotiation process" on the defensive or back foot by stating false news allegations amplified by the media controlled by the american empire;

(c) offering nothing useful or commitable to be done by the empire, and yet "magnanimously" demanding the moon as opponents' concessions, eg, russian, iranian and chinese nuclear weapons limits, but not for nato's development and deployment, and; (d) after making impossible demands, the imperials accuse the opponents of hostility and unwillingness to "negotiate".

The russians can skillfully agree by stating that they only require the americans to reduce their nukes to 320 pieces like china, and in less than five years.

This is why it is very important for sovereign nations to read the guidebook, called the "idiot's guide on running the american empire", and developing deep and lasting solutions.

As for the other american imperial military "advantages", eg, constellation of "aggression" satellites, andrei forgot to mention that these can be shot or burned down in minutes easily by russia, china and even iran, as these stations cannot hide or run away in earth orbits.

Replenishment of weapons and military supplies after 3 months is rather doomed as the cheap, mass production and manufacturing facilities do not exist. Which must be re-created somehow but now
American lands are the targets. Much, Much Different Than WW2 !!

And of course, russia can always nuke down the USA and its vassal countries, and thus permanently ruin their economies for a decade or more, they don't know how to run defense -- this was always the fatal weakness of all bullies - if they'll have enough time to "learn it"... let's see... I doubt this.

Let's see americans try to start and conduct a nuclear war after too many spy, internet and gps satellites are shot down. Russia can even do this today using conventional explosives, and the world will be shocked how helpless the american military and economy can be made even without using russian nukes.

There are countries still immune to the numerous american imperial diseases that are already documented daily in zerohedge postings. The better countries still have lots of parents telling their kids to study and work hard so they can have better lives than their ancestors.

In oregon and california, they teach unemployable kids to burn something or somebody sometime before dinner.

CdVision • 11 hours ago
I was about to say that what now comes out of the US & Trump's mouth in particular, is Orwellian. But that credits it with too much gravitas. The true comparison is Alice in Wonderland:
"Words mean whatever I want them to mean".

Ashino , Sep 23 2020 9:29 utc | 68
Reminiscence of the Future.. ( http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2020/09/russia-steals-everything.html)
Russia "Steals Everything" !! (Not just China, oops... ???!!!!)
And Jesus Christ was an American and was born in Kalamazoo, MI. It is a well-known fact. So Donald Trump, evidently briefed by his "utterly competent and crushingly precise aids", knows now that too! !!! LOL

Time For Daily Auto-Hypnosis, Comrades. !!!

https://vz.ru/news/2020/9/19/1061259.html
https://www.Путин-сегодня.ru/archives/108431
https://vk.com/deebeepublic?w=wall-197487820_23447
(Digital Translation)

> US President Donald Trump claims that Russia developed hypersonic weapons after allegedly stealing information from the United States.

> According to him, "Russia received this information from the Obama administration," Moscow "stole this information." Trump said that "Russia received this information and then created" the rocket, reports TASS.

> "We have such advanced weapons that President Xi, Putin and everyone else will envy us. They do not know what we have, but they know that it is something that no one has ever heard of. "

->We are the foremost and always number one. Everything is invented only by us, the rest can only either steal, or be gifted with our developments for good behavior. This situation is eternal, unchanging, everyone lags behind American Tikhalogii at least 50 years (the time frame was chosen so that even a 20-year-old would lose heart, "what's the point of trying to catch up, it won't work anyway, in my lifetime"). It was, is, and will be, this is the natural course of events.

All this is delivered in the format of the classic Sunday sermon of the American provincial Protestant church, coding the parishioners for further deeds and actions. And it worked effectively, creating in some basalt confidence "we are better because we are better", in others - "I don't mind anything for joining this radiant success, I'm ready for anything, I'll go for any hardships and crimes, if only There".

Only now it worked. In a situation where the frequency of pronouncing such mantras is more and more, emotions are invested in them too, but in fact everyone understands that this is what autohypnosis does not work.

The poor have stolen from the United States, if you look at it, literally everything. And 5G and the superweapon of the gods. Moreover, a pearl with a characteristic handwriting is not copy / paste, but move / paste, you bastards. Therefore, the United States does not even have any traces of developments left - the guys just sit in an empty room, shrug their hands, "here we have a farm of mechanical killer dolls, with the faces of Mickey Mouse overexposed, and now look - traces of bast shoes and candy wrappers from "Korkunov" only, ah-ah-ah, well, something like that, ah. "

At the same time, there are no cases of sabotage, espionage - whole projects were simply developed, developed, brought to a working product, and then the hob - and that's it, and disappeared. And this became noticeable only after years. And all the persons involved are like "wow, wow."

Psychiatric crazy fool of the head, no less.

But due to the fact that all of the above theses are driven very tightly into the template for the perception of the world, both those who voiced these theses and the listeners are satisfied.

Because the post-American post-hegemonic world is not terrible because in some ratings another country will be higher there, and Detroit will never be rebuilt "as it was". It is scary because it is not clear how to live for people who had no support in the form of global goals, faith, philosophy of life, and all this was replaced by narcissism on the basis of "successful success is my second self".

This means that the moment when this issue has to be resolved must be delayed to the last. Leaving the whole topic on the plane "we were offended, we are offended, we were dishonest, which means we have the right to any action" is not a bad move.

It's a pity that it doesn't really affect the essence of what is happening.

< >

[Sep 22, 2020] Americans had talent in diplomacy but they've lost it, Russian FM Lavrov says, as US triggers 'null and void' Iran sanctions -- RT Russia Former Soviet Union

Sep 22, 2020 | www.rt.com

US diplomacy is turning into the not-so-subtle art of making demands and ultimatums, Sergey Lavrov has lamented, as the Americans go it alone in restoring anti-Iran sanctions under a 2015 deal that no longer legally applies.

Washington's reasoning behind bringing back the UN sanctions against Iran looks "funny," as the majority of UN Security Council members – 13 out of 15 – do not support activating the 'snapback' mechanism, the Russian Foreign Minister said, in an exclusive interview with the Al Arabiya news channel.

The council "clearly stated that there is no legal position or moral reasons for anything close to the snapback and all the statements to the contrary are null and void," he reminded his audience. The 'snapback' issue leaves Washington at loggerheads with even its closest allies.

ALSO ON RT.COM US faces 'more' isolation after 'null & void' move to unilaterally reimpose UN sanctions, Tehran warns

Earlier on Sunday, the three European signatories to the Iran deal – Germany, France and the UK – stated the return of the sanctions will have no legal effect whatsoever.

However, the Trump administration continues to insist Washington now has the authority to target any country breaching the "re-imposed" sanctions. For Lavrov, this is telling, in terms of understanding the quality of US diplomacy.

The Americans lost any talent in diplomacy, unfortunately; they used to have excellent experts, [but] now what they're doing in foreign policy is to put a demand on the table, whether they're discussing Iran or anything else.

If their counterpart disagrees and refuses to toe the line, "they put an ultimatum, they give a deadline and then they impose sanctions, then they make the sanctions extra-territorial." Regrettably, the European Union also "is engaging in the same tricks more and more," Lavrov noted.

On Saturday, Washington moved to bring back sweeping UN sanctions against Tehran, insisting it was acting within its own right to do so as an original party to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the 2015 pact Iran sealed with major world powers. The US left the deal in 2018 following a decision by President Donald Trump.

ALSO ON RT.COM 'We've been through this in the Skripal case': West's Navalny poisoning claims driven by 'sanctions itch', Sergey Lavrov says

"I can only remind them that they should respect the hierarchy of the American administration, because their boss, President Trump, has personally signed an official decree withdrawing the United States from the JCPOA," Lavrov added sarcastically.

Sanctions aside, Washington is also busy trying to prevent the lifting of the UN arms embargo on Iran, set to expire on October 18. This endeavor doesn't make much sense either, the Russian minister commented. "There is no such thing as an arms embargo against Iran," he clarified. The UN Security Council reiterated the embargo will end on that date, and "there would be no limitations whatsoever after the expiration of this timeframe."

[Sep 21, 2020] Pompous Pompeo continues his antics: Pompeo mocked for saying 'no other state' can block MULTILATERAL sanctions US wants to impose on Iran despite UNSC pushback

Sanctions will cost money not only to Iran, but to the USA too.
Sep 21, 2020 | www.rt.com

"If at any time the United States believes Iran has failed to meet its commitments, no other state can block our ability to snap back those multilateral sanctions," Pompeo declared in a statement posted on his official Twitter account on Sunday evening.

The top US diplomat was referring to the avalanche of sanctions Washington has been hellbent on slapping on Tehran after the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) overwhelmingly rejected the US resolution to extend a 13-year arms embargo against the Islamic Republic past October earlier this week.

The humiliating defeat , which saw only one member of the 15-nation body (the Dominican Republic) siding with the US, while China and Russia opposed the resolution, and all other nations, including France and the UK, abstained, did not discourage Washington, which doubled down on its threat to hit Iran with biting sanctions.

... ... ...

"Of course other states can block America's ability to impose multilateral sanctions. The US can impose sanctions by itself, but can't force others to do it," Nicholas Grossman, teaching assistant professor at the Department of Political Science, University of Illinois, tweeted.

"That's what 'multilateral' means. Is our SecState really this dumb?" Grossman asked.

Daniel Larison, senior editor at the American Conservative, suggested that Pompeo might be having a hard time grasping the meaning of the word 'multilateral'.

Some argued that Pompeo could not be unaware of the contradictory nature of his statement. Dan Murphy, former Middle East and South Asia correspondent for the Christian Science Monitor, called it "one of the most diplomatically illiterate sentences of all time."

"I guess the end game here is [to] alienate the rest of the world even further to feed his persecution complex?" Murphy wrote.

John Twomey, 16 August, 2020

Explanation. What Pompeo understands and what many others can't grasp is that the US decides if their sanctions are "multilateral" because the USA speaks for all other countries whether they like it or not.

My Opinion, 17 August, 2020

Reminiscing of his shady past as a new CIA recruit he said. "We lied, we cheated and we stole". Apparently, Mikey didn't do all too well in his literature classes, either and that's why the most suitable candidate from zionists perspective.

[Sep 18, 2020] Middle East Peace and Trump's New Art of the Deal by Larry Johnson - Sic Semper Tyrannis

Notable quotes:
"... He thinks the Palestinians will accept permanent helot status? Maybe so... But is that something we should relish? ..."
"... And what of Syria? What of Syria? Evidently Trump considered murdering President Assad two years ago. Is he going to abandon regime change now? is he going to abandon the policy of Pompeo and Jeffries? ..."
"... My guess is that the acceptability for Helot status of Palestinians will depend on how much worse it is compared to the status of Palestinian equivalents elsewhere. Syria and Lebanon certainly look far less attractive. ..."
"... Also, from my admittedly limited experience, Palestinians aren't exactly homogenous, Gaza =! West Bank. ..."
"... If the Israelis are smart (and I think they are), they will continue to exploit Palestinian disunity by not having one helot status but several, with privileges to repress and boss around the lesser helots (perhaps even some less desirable Israelis) awarded to the higher helots. ..."
"... The neocons have been firmly ensconced in ME policy since Reagan. At least Trump made a little bit of lemonade. Nothing earth shattering IMO but moved the ball forward 10 yds and away from own goals under the so-called experts & strategists of the past decades. ..."
"... Support for Israel and its maximalist dreams has always been bipartisan. ..."
"... The colonel has a much more realistic take on this: the intention is to co-opt the Arab states into forcing the Palestinians to accept permanent helot status. Not quite slaves but closes to it. ..."
"... There would be many ways to describe that, but I suspect "peace plan" would rank amongst the less accurate ones. ..."
"... I also remember when the Trump admin killed the Gen. Suleimani late last year the same people also touted it a national security success. This is shameful pattern. ..."
"... Just because Jared Kushner, Berkowitz (Kushner's mini-me), David Friedman and the Zionist anti-American paid shills of Christians United For Israel et.al put Israel's interest first does not make it a success for American interests abroad. Trump does not know two things about the ME. He just obeys orders from this outside 'advisors' when it comes to ME policy. ..."
"... When I read that " If you look at relatively successful integration/assimilations in history, jointly overcoming something that was threatening to both typically ranked pretty highly as a cause." I think that The Islamic Republic of Iran is what is being offered or used as that cause. ..."
"... But if the present and future Israelis believe this means that the total advantage is totally theirs to press, then present and future Palestinians will continue searching for ways to make their unhappiness felt. But that outcome would not be Trump's fault. That outcome would be the majority-likudnic Israelis' choice. ..."
"... the problem with "outside in" strategy is that implies that if conditions are bad enough for the Palestinians, they will agree to any deal Trump can force down their throats. Instead, Palestinians have been offered terrible deals since 2000 (ie., a state that is never going to be a real state with permanent Israeli control over its borders, air space, and water tables ..."
"... The smarter plan is to acknowledge that the Zionists killed the Two-State Solution, and Palestinians might as well push this into an anti-Apartheid struggle. ..."
Sep 18, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

turcopolier , 16 September 2020 at 08:52 AM

All

It is clear that the heat has gone away in the fabled "Arab Street" over the issue of Israel. If that were not so, the rulers would not have dared to do this. That being so ... It will be very interesting to see how many people from these two countries go to Israel to visit holy sites like the al-Aqsa Mosque. There have not been many religious tourists from Egypt and Jordan. This is what the Israelis call pilgrims. Trump thinks that he can bring Saudi Arabia into such a deal? Good! Let's see it. He thinks that Iran can be brought into such a deal? Wonderful! Let's see it.

He thinks the Palestinians will accept permanent helot status? Maybe so... But is that something we should relish?

And what of Syria? What of Syria? Evidently Trump considered murdering President Assad two years ago. Is he going to abandon regime change now? is he going to abandon the policy of Pompeo and Jeffries?

I suggest that security should be very tight on airline flights from Bahrein and the UAE.

eakens , 16 September 2020 at 10:03 AM

I suspect this has less to do with peace and more to do with lining up a coalition against Iran. He's signing peace deals at the white house the same day he not only threatens Iran for a make believe assassination plot against our South African Ambassador, but admits he wanted to assassinate Assad.

He's making a big mistake though if he thinks Iranians will behave and respond similarly to the Arabs, and they are certainly not North Koreans.

He's being frog marched into a war with Iran while his ego is being stroked under the guise of a Nobel peace prize.

nbsp; tjfxh , 16 September 2020 at 11:17 AM

What say about Alastair Crooke's "Maintaining Pretence Over Reality: 'Simply Put, the Iranians Outfoxed the U.S. Defence Systems'" at Strategic Culture Foundation?

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/09/14/maintaining-pretence-over-reality-simply-put-iranians-outfoxed-us-defence-systems/

A.I.S. , 16 September 2020 at 11:49 AM

@ turcopolier:

Excellent questions.

My guess is that the acceptability for Helot status of Palestinians will depend on how much worse it is compared to the status of Palestinian equivalents elsewhere. Syria and Lebanon certainly look far less attractive. The other issue is the degree with which Arab elites can "reroute" Anti Israeli into Anti Iranian sentiments on the Arab street.

Also, from my admittedly limited experience, Palestinians aren't exactly homogenous, Gaza =! West Bank.

If the Israelis are smart (and I think they are), they will continue to exploit Palestinian disunity by not having one helot status but several, with privileges to repress and boss around the lesser helots (perhaps even some less desirable Israelis) awarded to the higher helots.

I think this will be fairly hard though. Various Historical, religion and cultural issues specific to the situation make it quite hard for Arabs to actually assimilate into Israeli society. There is also a lack of a unifying foe to unite against. If you look at relatively successful integration/assimilations in history, jointly overcoming something that was threatening to both typically ranked pretty highly as a cause.

Leith , 16 September 2020 at 12:01 PM

"I suggest that security should be very tight on airline flights from Bahrein and the UAE."

Bingo! I won't be flying on Gulf Air or FlyDubai.

Jack , 16 September 2020 at 02:12 PM

The neocons have been firmly ensconced in ME policy since Reagan. At least Trump made a little bit of lemonade. Nothing earth shattering IMO but moved the ball forward 10 yds and away from own goals under the so-called experts & strategists of the past decades.

The TDS afflicted media couldn't bear that some lemonade was made. Wolf Blitzer interviewing Jared Kushner was all about pandemic nothing about the implications or process to having couple gulf sheikhs recognize Israel. The fact is that these gulf sheikhs only paid lip service to the plight of the Palestinians in any case. This formalizes what was reality. The "Arab Street" have always been a manifestation of whatever were powerful manipulations. The manipulators have been coopted in the current lemonade making. In any case Bibi must be very pleased. He didn't have to give up anything in his difficult domestic political predicament.

Jack , 16 September 2020 at 02:44 PM

https://twitter.com/partynxs/status/1306015487273377792?s=21

Support for Israel and its maximalist dreams has always been bipartisan.

Serge , 16 September 2020 at 05:18 PM

The arabs simply do not care anymore, from Morocco to Oman. Their spirit totally broken by the "Arab spring", youth disillusioned and jobless. The only dream left for most is to ape the western lifestyle. The others are fighting in wars.

I can see one of two futures, a Clean Break: Securing the Realm-style one in which all of the arabs live life as helots under the thumb of a Greater Israel. This would bring relative economic prosperity to most of the helots.

Yeah, Right , 16 September 2020 at 06:03 PM

I think I see the flaw in this article: ..."If that turns out to be the case and this maneuver succeeds in ultimately bringing about a two state solution for Israel and the Palestinians,"...

Surely you don't believe that these maneuvers are intended to bring about a Palestinian state?

The colonel has a much more realistic take on this: the intention is to co-opt the Arab states into forcing the Palestinians to accept permanent helot status. Not quite slaves but closes to it.

There would be many ways to describe that, but I suspect "peace plan" would rank amongst the less accurate ones.

Polish Janitor , 16 September 2020 at 06:14 PM

One running theme that I have been seeing from the former so-called neocon critics and ME wars opponents (Michael Scheuer comes to mind) is their uncontrollable exhilaration for any terrible so-called F.P. 'success' that the Trump admin achieves in the ME.

I also remember when the Trump admin killed the Gen. Suleimani late last year the same people also touted it a national security success. This is shameful pattern.

Just because Jared Kushner, Berkowitz (Kushner's mini-me), David Friedman and the Zionist anti-American paid shills of Christians United For Israel et.al put Israel's interest first does not make it a success for American interests abroad. Trump does not know two things about the ME. He just obeys orders from this outside 'advisors' when it comes to ME policy.

It it exactly what it is. Israel normalized relations with the most notorious dictatorships and wants to implement Pegasus spying program and wide-scale surveillance (among other nefarious things) in UAE and Bahrain. How is that a success for America? America should stay out of these Israeli-first trouble making schemes and stay neutral or out of there.

Let me tell you what a F.P. success is, OK? It would have been a huge success if America was able to lure Iran into its orbit to fend of the Chinese communists out of the region and out of our lives and have a stronger alliance with regards to its upcoming Cold War with China.

It would have been successful for America to balance China out with Iran, India, Turkey and Afghanistan, and not let China to invest billions in Haifa port (close to U.S. military forces there) a major hub of its Belt and Road initiative and a huge blow to U.S. new Cold war effort against China.

Think about it.

Allow me to raise a few points: first of all , every single one of these brutal backward Arab dictatorships has had low key but crucial relations with Israel since the Cold War and they just made it open, Big deal! Second, this joyfulness for a hostile anti-american country is quite sad for two reasons:

1. that Larry touts it as a success for America, which is anything but a success for America. It is a success for Bibi and Trump's evangelical/zionist sugar daddies to cough up some Benjamins for Trump's campaign and his GOP/Likudniks. I guess nowadays our judgement is so clouded and inverted that MAGA and MIGA are considered inseparable.

2. The delusion that dems are bitterly angry and anti-Israel (because they are anti-Trump) and therefore it automatically becomes an issue of partisan support for Trump and whatever he does. This idea is so absurd that I won't get into it. Dems were the first to congratulate Israel.

I would like Larry to tell me what he thinks of H.R. 1697 Israel Anti-Boycot Act which punishes American citizens for practicing their god-given 2nd Amendment rights. or the 3.8 billion of aid, or the the gifting of Golan heights to Bibi? Are these big foreign policy success too?

What the Arab-Israeli normalization means:

*The U.S. wants out of the ME to focus on China, a wet dream that Israel favors especially post Cold War. It does not want secular, (semi) democratic sovereign states around it, and if anyone pays attention close enough they do whatever they can to prevent any kind of political reform and change of government to occur among Arab nations. Israelis are staunch supporters of Saudi, Bahraini, UAE, Jordanian, and Egyptian dictatorships in the MENA region.

Israel will now be better positioned to roll-back any kind of grassroots reform in the ME with the help of their now openly pro-Israeli Arab rulers by directing policies to these backward rulers to divest from human development and political reform and instead invest more in security, tech, surveillance.

This trend also explains Israeli constant opposition to the Iran Deal, which would have had further ramifications for political reform and accelerated weakening of Hardliners in Tehran and a better position for America to pivot to China with the help of a moderated Iran. Israel does not want a powerful democratic nation near its borders, and especially not in Iran. Just take a look at Israel's neighbors and tell me how many of them are democratic and friendly with Israel and how does Israel behave when there are secular Arab democratic states around it?

  • There is a developing coalition of powerful states as a reaction to the Arab-Israeli normalization that observers call "the rejectionists". They are, Turkey, Qatar, Pakistan (impending), Malaysia (impending), Iran, and EU (impending).
  • It is true that Iran has now a target on its back and if it were smart, it would try its best to develop some kind of alliance with the secular democratic humanists in EU to try to remove itself from isolation, save what is left of the Iran Deal, and try to isolate and condemn Israelis, Arab dictators and their cohorts internationally and through diplomacy back portraying them as illiberal and anti-democratic or similar things. Although I am not too hopeful that Iran is be able to do this for a number of obvious reasons.
  • This Arab-Israeli normalization is a MIGA (Make Israel Great Again) vision of very tightly controlled development for the MENA region and extremely' special' attention has been given to the cyber tech development (call it surveillance) to control the 'Arab Street' from social revolt and the prevention of next rounds of Arab Springs, which again goes back to Israel's long-standing regional doctrine of propping pro-U.S. and now pro-Israeli Arab dictatorships in the region.
John Merryman , 16 September 2020 at 10:17 PM

In the end, it's all just tribal superstition. Logically a spiritual absolute would be the essence of sentience, from which we rise, not an ideal of wisdom and judgement, from which we fell. The fact we are aware, than the myriad details of which we are aware.

One of the reasons we can't have a live and let live world is because everyone thinks their own vision should be universal, rather than unique. So the fundamentalists rule.

The reason nature is so diverse and dense is because it isn't a monoculture. Irrespective of our technology, we are still fairly primitive, in the grand scheme of things.

different clue , 17 September 2020 at 02:42 AM

A.I.S.,

When I read that " If you look at relatively successful integration/assimilations in history, jointly overcoming something that was threatening to both typically ranked pretty highly as a cause." I think that The Islamic Republic of Iran is what is being offered or used as that cause.

If this all ends up in the longest run leading to today's and tomorrow's Israelis accepting the lesser Israel that Rabin ended up deciding would be necessary for a lesser-but-still-real Palestine to emerge as a real country resigned with both resigned enough to that outcome that they would tolerate eachother's separate independence over the long term, then this will go somewhere good.

But if the present and future Israelis believe this means that the total advantage is totally theirs to press, then present and future Palestinians will continue searching for ways to make their unhappiness felt. But that outcome would not be Trump's fault. That outcome would be the majority-likudnic Israelis' choice.

Mathias Alexander , 17 September 2020 at 04:53 AM

To have a two state solution Israel will have to leave enough of Palestine without Jewish settlement for there to be room for another state. Their actions show that they have no intention of doing that.

Matthew , 17 September 2020 at 09:26 AM

Larry: the problem with "outside in" strategy is that implies that if conditions are bad enough for the Palestinians, they will agree to any deal Trump can force down their throats. Instead, Palestinians have been offered terrible deals since 2000 (ie., a state that is never going to be a real state with permanent Israeli control over its borders, air space, and water tables)

The smarter plan is to acknowledge that the Zionists killed the Two-State Solution, and Palestinians might as well push this into an anti-Apartheid struggle. The gerontocracy that rules the PA will soon pass away. The younger generation of Palestinians are much more sophisticated.

As a trial lawyer, I see this type of behavior all the time. If you offer someone essentially nothing, they lose nothing by rejecting it. The Arab dictators will not be around forever. And before Camp David, the Palestinians have suffered far worse than they are suffering now.

BABAK MAKKINEJAD , 17 September 2020 at 09:55 AM

Matthew:

For any kind of Peace in Palestine, Jerusalem must revert back to Muslim Sovereignty.

It is all about who calls the shots there; just as it was 800 years ago.

Artemesia , 17 September 2020 at 10:35 AM

Matthew: Your description of Trump's strategy is no different from Vladimir Jabotinsky's 1923 Iron Wall doctrine
http://www.marxists.de/middleast/ironwall/ironwall.htm
and
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/quot-the-iron-wall-quot

In short: "We Jews know that Arabs (Palestinians) will never, ever voluntarily give up hope of resisting Jewish demands, and Jews will never stop with Jewish demands: that all of Palestine become Jewish.
Since 'voluntary' will not work, only force -- an Iron Wall -- will suffice.
Jabotinsky defines "Iron Wall" as the enforcement capacity of an outside power:

"we cannot promise anything to the Arabs of the Land of Israel or the Arab countries. Their voluntary agreement is out of the question. Hence those who hold that an agreement with the natives is an essential condition for Zionism can now say "no" and depart from Zionism. Zionist colonization, even the most restricted, must either be terminated or carried out in defiance of the will of the native population. This colonization can, therefore, continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population – an iron wall which the native population cannot break through. This is, in toto, our policy towards the Arabs. To formulate it any other way would only be hypocrisy.

Not only must this be so, it is so whether we admit it or not. What does the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate mean for us? It is the fact that a disinterested power committed itself to create such security conditions that the local population would be deterred from interfering with our efforts."

Be aware that Benjamin Netanyahu's father, Benzion, was Jabotinsky's administrative assistant, then replacement, in New York; that Bibi is very much heir to the ideological fervor of Jabotinsky & of Benzion; and that Benzion and Benjamin laid out the blueprint for the GWOT at the Jerusalem Conference July 4, 1979
https://www.amazon.com/International-Terrorism-Challenge-Benjamin-Netanyahu/dp/0878558942

Trump plays only a walk-on role in this carefully scripted 150 year old zionist drama.

turcopolier , 17 September 2020 at 10:58 AM

Babak

To "Muslim Sovereignty?" No. It should be an international city.

turcopolier , 17 September 2020 at 11:30 AM

james

"there isn't a lot of difference between KSA and these fiefdoms of uae and bahrain.." A total crock. you obviously have never been to either of these places.

BABAK MAKKINEJAD , 17 September 2020 at 11:46 AM

Col. Lang:

Who or what Legitimate Authority would administer such an International City?

None has ever existed.

Artemesia , 17 September 2020 at 12:00 PM

Jews can have Jerusalem if they return Washington, DC to full USA sovereignty.

[Aug 21, 2020] Pompeo reveals some deep parallel, but experts vary if this is between China and Nazi Germany, or himself and Goebbels

Jun 07, 2020 | www.rt.com

7 Jun, 2020

The editor-in-chief of a major Chinese tabloid slammed Mike Pompeo for comparing his country to Nazi Germany, likening his words to those of Hitler's propaganda chief and reminding the secretary of state of America's endless wars.

Hu Xijin took to Twitter on Sunday venting his anger about Mike Pompeo's remarks.

"You are inciting radical hostility and ripping the world apart. You aren't like a top diplomat, instead, you talk like Goebbels of Nazi Germany. I'm worried that world peace will eventually be destroyed by extreme politicians like you," he wrote.

[Aug 18, 2020] Rules for thee but not for me: Pompeo denounces proposed Russian law that would require labeling of propaganda content

Notable quotes:
"... "This decree will impose new burdensome requirements that will further inhibit RFE/RL's and VOA's ability to operate within Russia," ..."
"... "vital sources of independent news and information for the people of Russia" ..."
"... "more than 70 years." ..."
"... "be consistent with the broad foreign policy objectives of the United States" ..."
"... "provide a surge capacity to support United States foreign policy objectives during crises abroad." ..."
"... "foreign agents" ..."
"... "feel like criminals, or believe that they are in danger when they watch or read our materials." ..."
"... "state-affiliated," ..."
Aug 18, 2020 | www.rt.com

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has voiced his opposition to a proposed Russian rule that would require labeling of propaganda content, saying it would burden "independent" information work by outlets such as Voice of America.

"This decree will impose new burdensome requirements that will further inhibit RFE/RL's and VOA's ability to operate within Russia," Pompeo said Monday, commenting on the draft rule published by the media regulator Roskomnadzor.

Pompeo called VOA and its sister outlet Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty "vital sources of independent news and information for the people of Russia" for "more than 70 years."

Far from independent, however, they were both established as US propaganda outlets at the dawn of the Cold War. They are fully funded by the government, and the charter of their parent organization – now known as US Agency for Global Media (USAGM) – mandates that they "be consistent with the broad foreign policy objectives of the United States" and "provide a surge capacity to support United States foreign policy objectives during crises abroad."

The 1948 law that established these outlets outright prohibited their content from being broadcast in the US itself, until the Obama administration amended it in 2013.

The proposed rule would require all content produced by designated "foreign agents" in the Russian Federation to be clearly labeled. When the draft of it was made public last month, acting RFE/RL president Daisy Sindelar protested that its purpose was to "intimidate" her audience and make them "feel like criminals, or believe that they are in danger when they watch or read our materials."

Yet the Russian regulation is the mirror image of the requirement imposed under the US Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) on RT, Sputnik and China Global Television Network (CTGN) since 2017, which only a handful of groups such as the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) condemned as an attack on free speech. The USAGM remained conspicuously silent even as the designated outlets were denied credentials to access government press conferences.

US-based social media companies have also bowed to political pressure and labeled Russian- and Chinese-based outlets as "state-affiliated," while refraining from using that descriptor for the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), German outlet Deutsche Welle, the French AFP, Turkish TRT, or any of the USAGM outlets, once again showcasing the double standard.

jangosimba 10 August, 2020

He cheats, he lies, he murders, he steals.
Zogg jangosimba 11 August, 2020
That's a small part of CIA job description.
Harbin

William Johnson 1 hour ago

Mike reminds me that character from "Godfather" series, the old , dumb henchman ready to follow any order...

[Aug 09, 2020] NYT as an amplifier for the mislabeled US 'Intelligence' Agencies rumor and baseless claims about foreign interferences in US elections

The first and the most important fact that there will no elections in November -- both candidates represent the same oligarchy, just slightly different factions of it.
Look like NYT is controlled by Bolton faction of CIA. They really want to overturn the results of 2020 elections and using Russia as a bogeyman is a perfect opportunity to achieve this goal.
Neocons understand very well that it is MIC who better their bread, so amplifying rumors the simplify getting additional budget money for intelligence agencies (which are a part of MIC) is always the most desirable goal.
Notable quotes:
"... But a new assessment says China would prefer to see the president defeated, though it is not clear Beijing is doing much to meddle in the 2020 campaign to help Joseph R. Biden Jr. ..."
"... The statement then claims: "Ahead of the 2020 U.S. elections, foreign states will continue to use covert and overt influence measures in their attempts to sway U.S. voters' preferences and perspectives, shift U.S. policies, increase discord in the United States, and undermine the American people's confidence in our democratic process." ..."
"... But how do the 'intelligence' agencies know that foreign states want to "sway preferences", "increase discord" or "undermine confidence" in elections? ..."
"... But ascribing motive and intent is a tricky business, because perceived impact is often mistaken for true intent. [...] Where is the evidence that Russia actually wants to bring down the liberal world order and watch the United States burn? ..."
"... Well there is none. And that is why the 'intelligence' agencies do not present any evidence. ..."
"... Is there a secret policy paper by the Russian government that says it should "increase discord" in the United States? Is there some Chinese think tank report which says that undermining U.S. people's confidence in their democratic process would be good for China? ..."
"... If the 'intelligence' people have copies of those papers why not publish them? ..."
"... Let me guess. The 'intelligence' agencies have nothing, zero, nada. They are just making wild-ass guesses about 'intentions' of perceived enemies to impress the people who sign off their budget. ..."
"... Nowadays that seems to be their main purpose. ..."
Aug 08, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
No Evidence Of Foreign Interference In U.S. Elections, U.S. Intelligence Says

Yesterday the mislabeled U.S. 'Intelligence' Agencies trotted out more nonsense claims about foreign interferences in U.S. elections.

The New York Times sensationally headlines:

Russia Continues Interfering in Election to Try to Help Trump, U.S. Intelligence Says
But a new assessment says China would prefer to see the president defeated, though it is not clear Beijing is doing much to meddle in the 2020 campaign to help Joseph R. Biden Jr.

But when one reads the piece itself one finds no fact that would support the 'Russia Continues Interfering' statement:

Russia is using a range of techniques to denigrate Joseph R. Biden Jr., American intelligence officials said Friday in their first public assessment that Moscow continues to try to interfere in the 2020 campaign to help President Trump.

At the same time, the officials said China preferred that Mr. Trump be defeated in November and was weighing whether to take more aggressive action in the election.

But officials briefed on the intelligence said that Russia was the far graver, and more immediate, threat. While China seeks to gain influence in American politics, its leaders have not yet decided to wade directly into the presidential contest, however much they may dislike Mr. Trump, the officials said.

The assessment, included in a statement released by William R. Evanina, the director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, suggested the intelligence community was treading carefully, reflecting the political heat generated by previous findings.

The authors emphasize the scaremongering hearsay from "officials briefed on the intelligence" - i.e. Democratic congress members - about Russia but have nothing to back it up.

When one reads the statement by Evanina one finds nothing in it about Russian attempts to interfere in the U.S. elections. Here is the only 'evidence' that is noted:

For example, pro-Russia Ukrainian parliamentarian Andriy Derkach is spreading claims about corruption – including through publicizing leaked phone calls – to undermine former Vice President Biden's candidacy and the Democratic Party. Some Kremlin-linked actors are also seeking to boost President Trump's candidacy on social media and Russian television.

After a request from Rudy Giuliani, President Trump's personal attorney, a Ukrainian parliamentarian published Ukrainian evidence of Biden's very real interference in the Ukraine. Also: Some guest of a Russian TV show had an opinion. How is either of those two items 'evidence' of Russian interference in U.S. elections?

The statement then claims: "Ahead of the 2020 U.S. elections, foreign states will continue to use covert and overt influence measures in their attempts to sway U.S. voters' preferences and perspectives, shift U.S. policies, increase discord in the United States, and undermine the American people's confidence in our democratic process."

But how do the 'intelligence' agencies know that foreign states want to "sway preferences", "increase discord" or "undermine confidence" in elections?

As a recent piece in Foreign Affairs noted :

The mainstream view in the U.S. media and government holds that the Kremlin is waging a long-haul campaign to undermine and destabilize American democracy. Putin wants to see the United States burn, and contentious elections offer a ready-made opportunity to fan the flames.

But ascribing motive and intent is a tricky business, because perceived impact is often mistaken for true intent. [...] Where is the evidence that Russia actually wants to bring down the liberal world order and watch the United States burn?

Well there is none. And that is why the 'intelligence' agencies do not present any evidence.

Even the NYT writers have to admit that there is nothing there:

The release on Friday was short on specifics, ...

and

Intelligence agencies focus their work on the intentions of foreign governments, and steer clear of assessing if those efforts have had an effect on American voters.

How do 'intelligence' agencies know Russian, Chinese or Iranian 'intentions'. Is there a secret policy paper by the Russian government that says it should "increase discord" in the United States? Is there some Chinese think tank report which says that undermining U.S. people's confidence in their democratic process would be good for China?

If the 'intelligence' people have copies of those papers why not publish them?

Let me guess. The 'intelligence' agencies have nothing, zero, nada. They are just making wild-ass guesses about 'intentions' of perceived enemies to impress the people who sign off their budget.

Nowadays that seems to be their main purpose.

Posted by b on August 8, 2020 at 18:08 UTC | Permalink

[Aug 08, 2020] -No Difference Between John Bolton, Brian Hook Or Elliott Abrams-- Iran FM -

Aug 08, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

"No Difference Between John Bolton, Brian Hook Or Elliott Abrams": Iran FM

by Tyler Durden Fri, 08/07/2020 - 22:45 Twitter Facebook Reddit Email Print

"There's no difference between John Bolton, Brian Hook or Elliott Abrams," Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi said in a tweet with the hashtag #BankruptUSPolicy on Friday.

"When U.S. policy concerns Iran, American officials have been biting off more than they can chew. This applies to Mike Pompeo, Donald Trump and their successors," Mousavi added.

Indeed in perhaps one of the greatest symbols or representations of the contradictions and absurdity inherent in US foreign policy of the past few decades, and a supreme irony that can't be emphasized enough: the new US envoy to Iran who will oversee Pompeo's 'maximum pressure' campaign remains the most publicly visible face of the 1980's Iran-Contra affair .

Elliott Abrams has been named to the position after Brian Hook stepping down. This means the man who will continue to push for the extension of a UN arms embargo against Iran once himself was deeply involved in illegally selling weapons to Iran and covering it up .

Most famously, or we should say infamously, Abrams pleaded guilty to lying to Congress in 1991 following years of the Iran-Contra scandal engulfing the Reagan administration; however, he was also pardoned by outgoing president George H.W. Bush at around the same time.

"Pardoned by George H.W. Bush in 1992, Abrams was a pivotal figure in the foreign-policy scandal that shook the Reagan administration, lying to Congress about his knowledge of the plot to covertly sell weapons to the Khomeini government and use the proceeds to illegally fund the right-wing Contras rebel group in Nicaragua ," NY Mag reviews.

Some are noting this heightens the chances that Washington could get dragged into a war involving Israel and Iran.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-0&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1291802541223809025&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fmarkets%2Fno-difference-between-john-bolton-brian-hook-or-elliott-abrams-iran-fm&siteScreenName=zerohedge&theme=light&widgetsVersion=223fc1c4%3A1596143124634&width=550px

https://lockerdome.com/lad/13084989113709670?pubid=ld-dfp-ad-13084989113709670-0&pubo=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com&rid=www.zerohedge.com&width=890

Recall too that Abrams has been Trump's point man for ousting Maduro from Venezuela, and it appears he'll remain in the post of special envoy for Venezuela as well.

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-1&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1291783763945574402&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fmarkets%2Fno-difference-between-john-bolton-brian-hook-or-elliott-abrams-iran-fm&siteScreenName=zerohedge&theme=light&widgetsVersion=223fc1c4%3A1596143124634&width=550px NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST

ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX

Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.

The Grayzone journalist, Anya Parampil, who has frequently reported from Venezuela, alleged this week that Abrams will "try and destroy Venezuela and Iran at the same time".

me name=

https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=4879&num_ads=18&cf=1258.5.zerohedge%20190919&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fmarkets%2Fno-difference-between-john-bolton-brian-hook-or-elliott-abrams-iran-fm
Wild Bill Steamcock , 14 hours ago

Abrams is a disgrace. This Administration should be dying in it's own shame bringing this swine back into government.

He's a leach. He's about lining his own pockets. He can't even own a .22 single shot, yet he's shaping international policy.

This country is dead. And the fact Trump has democrat and zionist Kushner as advisor, bringing in guys like Bolton and Abrams, Reince Priebus, H.R. McMaster and that Ukranian pet goblin of his, in not firing Comey et. al day 1 means he's not the answer. Face it.

And to be fair, it doesn't matter anymore who is POTUS. It hasn't really mattered in quite some time. The Plan rolls along.

Kinskian , 15 hours ago

Trump is a clumsy and transparent Zionist stooge.

PT , 14 hours ago

Gotta admit, if you're going to have a Zionist stooge then you are better off having a clumsy and transparent one.

Dank fur Kopf , 14 hours ago

Elliott Abrams is a moron. He's been running the exact same stupid coup strategy for decades, and can't conceive of a world where the enemy has worked out how to defeat that.

Venezuela was set to be US foreign policies most embarrassing failure--but maybe Iran will be worse.

Dank fur Kopf , 14 hours ago

Let's predict what Abrams will attempt:

Running out of the US/UK embassies, Abrams will attempt to identify a potential alternative leader who is corrupt and controllable. They'll throw political support behind this false leader, and try and find enough military to support him. Then, protests in the streets, and the small faction of the military--supported by foreign forces--will attempt to establish control.

Counter: China and Russia will import anti-coup specialists. Individuals in the Iranian military will pretend to be on board claiming to have thousands at call, and when the false leader gives the call, they won't answer. All the conspirators will be caught out on the street, and have to flee to embassies for political asylum. Like what happened in Venezuela recently, and Turkey in 2016. This will allow Iran to do a purge of all the real threats (remembering that Iran has the death penalty for sedition), and give them enough justification to end diplomatic missions in the country that are being used as launch pads.

[Aug 06, 2020] Is War With China Inevitable by J

Notable quotes:
"... "When I analyze the current situation, I understand that this is a rehearsal for biological warfare," ..."
"... "I am not saying that this virus was created by humans... but this is a test of the health system's strength, including the country's biological defense." ..."
"... More sinophobic drivel and propaganda. Is it coming from Bannon, Navarro,Fox News, and the other similar warmongering outfits ? This type of propaganda is irrational but certainly purposeful to whip declining exceptionals into war frenzy. They are correct in one aspect - China is outpacing the US and will eventually in 10-20 years surpass it as #1 in Economic power (already the case) and Technology ..."
"... China is a missile-based military deploying hypersonics. This means the US Navy has to standoff 1000 km from the Chinese naval forces or missiles from mainland will decimate the carrier task forces within that range. ..."
"... More sinophobic drivel and propaganda. Is it coming from Bannon, Navarro,Fox News, and the other similar warmongering outfits ? This type of propaganda is irrational but certainly purposeful to whip declining exceptionals into war frenzy. They are correct in one aspect - China is outpacing the US and will eventually in 10-20 years surpass it as #1 in Economic power (already the case) and Technology ..."
"... China is a missile-based military deploying hypersonics. This means the US Navy has to standoff 1000 km from the Chinese naval forces or missiles from mainland will decimate the carrier task forces within that range. ..."
"... Of course having moved much of our manufacturing base into China and then allowing their students to take up most of the hard engineering class space and lab assistantships while diverting our students to 'studies' programs has been a resounding success. ..."
"... "There are few viable military options for warmongering chickenhawks advising..." Bush, Obama, Biden, a Triumverate of peacemakers. Remind me who is ordering troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. ..."
"... Of course having moved much of our manufacturing base into China and then allowing their students to take up most of the hard engineering class space and lab assistantships while diverting our students to 'studies' programs has been a resounding success. ..."
"... "There are few viable military options for warmongering chickenhawks advising..." Bush, Obama, Biden, a Triumverate of peacemakers. Remind me who is ordering troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. ..."
Aug 06, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

The rattling of sabres between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the U.S. is becoming louder, and causing many to ponder if World War III is not far off. There are those in the international community increasingly alarmed given the COVID situation, the South China Sea imbroglio, and China's growing threat that they intend to invade and absorb Taiwan into Communist China within a year. These items have led to the belief that World War III is on the horizon.

Just recently, Dr.Leonid Roshal, a noted Moscow physician, hostage negotiator, and advisor to the WHO remarked that the COVID pandemic is a dry run for World War III, and that COVID-19 is practice for future biological warfare. Covid-19 pandemic has functioned as a "rehearsal for biological warfare," Dr. Roshal also believes that the rapidly-spreading virus was a test for the world's healthcare systems.

In an interview with Forbes, Professor Roshal, President of the Research Institute of Emergency Pediatric Surgery and Traumatology, explained that not all nations were ready for a mass influx of patients, and their lack of preparation has been exposed by the pandemic.

"When I analyze the current situation, I understand that this is a rehearsal for biological warfare," he explained. "I am not saying that this virus was created by humans... but this is a test of the health system's strength, including the country's biological defense."

In addition, Hong Kong-based virologist Yan Li-Meng, currently in hiding at an undisclosed location, claims that the COVID-19 coronavirus came from a People's Liberation Army lab, and not from a Wuhan wet market as Beijing has claimed. Speaking on a live stream interview on Taiwan's News Agency Lude Press, she said, "At that time, I clearly assessed that the virus came from a Chinese Communist Party military lab. The Wuhan wet market was just used as a decoy." Yan has been in hiding in the U.S. after fleeing Hong Kong in April.

Chinese PLA Senior Colonel Ren Guoqiang stated recently that TAIWAN WILL be reunified with the rest of China - and any attempt by the United States to interfere is futile and dangerous. Senior Colonel Guoqiang is Deputy Director of the Ministry of Defense's Information Office, and Chinese Defense Ministry Spokesman. J

entrybody comment-odd comment-has-avatar">

Well, this is certainly a depressing and frightening post. I can't say, however, that I have been thinking along the same lines. However, since I am basically a nobody, I have tried to assure myself that I am being paranoid. So, it's not helping that some people who are much more knowledgeable have expressed in print some of the fears I have been feeling over these months dealing with the pandemic.

All I can do is pray and hold fast to my faith in God. Perhaps He will lift up the people who can deter us from the predictions of this post. (But are we worthy of being saved?)

Posted by: Diana Croissant , 05 August 2020 at 03:44 PM

Well, this is certainly a depressing and frightening post. I can't say, however, that I have been thinking along the same lines. However, since I am basically a nobody, I have tried to assure myself that I am being paranoid. So, it's not helping that some people who are much more knowledgeable have expressed in print some of the fears I have been feeling over these months dealing with the pandemic.

All I can do is pray and hold fast to my faith in God. Perhaps He will lift up the people who can deter us from the predictions of this post. (But are we worthy of being saved?)

Posted by: Diana Croissant 05 August 2020 at 03:44 PM

entrybody comment-even comment-has-avatar">

J

I don't believe there will be any direct military conflict. However, we can expect some saber rattling from both sides.

Sec.Azhar is leading a US delegation to Taiwan. On another note Taiwan ain't HK. They have an independent government. While they will eventually be overwhelmed in any military conflict with China if no other country intervenes on Taiwan's side, they definitely have the capability to inflict a black eye.

The CCP has been emboldened precisely because the US government has actively abetted their rapaciousness for many decades under both parties. From Clinton's MFN designation to Bush & Obama administrations actively supporting the shuttering of US manufacturing.

Trump is making the first course correction albeit in a limited manner with tariffs. He has however changed the tone in an important manner by no longer just kowtowing to whatever the CCP wants.

This story of ARM China exemplifies CCP long-term policy of requiring JVs to access the Chinese market and once technology and know-how have been successfully transferred, then expropriating it. The west in general and the US in particular have turned a blind eye. Huawei got going by stealing cisco source code and design.
https://www.businessinsider.com/arm-conflict-china-complicates-acquisition-prospects-2020-8

It is high time for the US to make the totalitarian Chinese communists pay a price and directly take the fight to them economically and financially. The CCP must be doing their best to insure a Biden win to return to the status quo or wait another Trump term and hope an establishment Democrat or Republican wins after. They have bought and paid the establishment politicians, entire think-tanks, many in academia and the media.

Posted by: Jack , 05 August 2020 at 03:58 PM

J

I don't believe there will be any direct military conflict. However, we can expect some saber rattling from both sides.

Sec.Azhar is leading a US delegation to Taiwan. On another note Taiwan ain't HK. They have an independent government. While they will eventually be overwhelmed in any military conflict with China if no other country intervenes on Taiwan's side, they definitely have the capability to inflict a black eye.

The CCP has been emboldened precisely because the US government has actively abetted their rapaciousness for many decades under both parties. From Clinton's MFN designation to Bush & Obama administrations actively supporting the shuttering of US manufacturing.

Trump is making the first course correction albeit in a limited manner with tariffs. He has however changed the tone in an important manner by no longer just kowtowing to whatever the CCP wants.

This story of ARM China exemplifies CCP long-term policy of requiring JVs to access the Chinese market and once technology and know-how have been successfully transferred, then expropriating it. The west in general and the US in particular have turned a blind eye. Huawei got going by stealing cisco source code and design.
https://www.businessinsider.com/arm-conflict-china-complicates-acquisition-prospects-2020-8

It is high time for the US to make the totalitarian Chinese communists pay a price and directly take the fight to them economically and financially. The CCP must be doing their best to insure a Biden win to return to the status quo or wait another Trump term and hope an establishment Democrat or Republican wins after. They have bought and paid the establishment politicians, entire think-tanks, many in academia and the media.

Posted by: Jack 05 August 2020 at 03:58 PM

entrybody comment-even comment-has-avatar">

More sinophobic drivel and propaganda. Is it coming from Bannon, Navarro,Fox News, and the other similar warmongering outfits ? This type of propaganda is irrational but certainly purposeful to whip declining exceptionals into war frenzy. They are correct in one aspect - China is outpacing the US and will eventually in 10-20 years surpass it as #1 in Economic power (already the case) and Technology .

There are few viable military options for warmongering chickenhawks advising Trump. Certainly, US Naval Intel and PACCOM (now INDOPACCOM) brass who would love a grand Coral Sea 2.0 battle to destroy PLAN vessel on the seas. However, no one, except few Marine 4 stars want any land war. The Marines think they can defeat the PLA on some islands. That kind of warfare is for hollywood movies. China is a missile-based military deploying hypersonics. This means the US Navy has to standoff 1000 km from the Chinese naval forces or missiles from mainland will decimate the carrier task forces within that range.

There won't be any war in SE Asia or East Asia. This area now has a circuit breaker, Russia. Russia is building a naval presence, expanding it's aerospace arm, has basing rights in the zone in Vietnam and has long range radars that cover a lot of the zones, and submarines the US is having issues tracking.

The signals from China and Russia to the US military is very clear. You can walk and talk like the Hegemon but the days of regional hegemony are over. ASEAN nations will not accepting accept a return to gunboat diplomacy and colonization. All these nations want prosperity and progress, not western hegemony and military destruction.

This is why the hybrid war of sanctions, trade war, Infowars, cyberwar, proxies in Central Asia (ISIS and AQ), color revolution attempts in Hong Kong, hysterics about Tibet and Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia (Bannon front) are on the front burner. Military action is a losing proposition for the US. They simply cannot win anything anywhere in the Asia Pacific, western Asia or even against near peer powers proxies like Venezuela.

China simply has to do what Russia does and tell the US to pound sand.

Posted by: Horatio , 05 August 2020 at 04:51 PM

More sinophobic drivel and propaganda. Is it coming from Bannon, Navarro,Fox News, and the other similar warmongering outfits ? This type of propaganda is irrational but certainly purposeful to whip declining exceptionals into war frenzy. They are correct in one aspect - China is outpacing the US and will eventually in 10-20 years surpass it as #1 in Economic power (already the case) and Technology .

There are few viable military options for warmongering chickenhawks advising Trump. Certainly, US Naval Intel and PACCOM (now INDOPACCOM) brass who would love a grand Coral Sea 2.0 battle to destroy PLAN vessel on the seas. However, no one, except few Marine 4 stars want any land war. The Marines think they can defeat the PLA on some islands. That kind of warfare is for hollywood movies. China is a missile-based military deploying hypersonics. This means the US Navy has to standoff 1000 km from the Chinese naval forces or missiles from mainland will decimate the carrier task forces within that range.

There won't be any war in SE Asia or East Asia. This area now has a circuit breaker, Russia. Russia is building a naval presence, expanding it's aerospace arm, has basing rights in the zone in Vietnam and has long range radars that cover a lot of the zones, and submarines the US is having issues tracking.

The signals from China and Russia to the US military is very clear. You can walk and talk like the Hegemon but the days of regional hegemony are over. ASEAN nations will not accepting accept a return to gunboat diplomacy and colonization. All these nations want prosperity and progress, not western hegemony and military destruction.

This is why the hybrid war of sanctions, trade war, Infowars, cyberwar, proxies in Central Asia (ISIS and AQ), color revolution attempts in Hong Kong, hysterics about Tibet and Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia (Bannon front) are on the front burner. Military action is a losing proposition for the US. They simply cannot win anything anywhere in the Asia Pacific, western Asia or even against near peer powers proxies like Venezuela.

China simply has to do what Russia does and tell the US to pound sand.

Posted by: Horatio 05 August 2020 at 04:51 PM

entrybody comment-odd comment-has-avatar">

Bjorn H

... BTW, "J" is a farmer in Oklahoma who served a long time in USAF.

Posted by: turcopolier , 05 August 2020 at 05:04 PM

Bjorn H

... BTW, "J" is a farmer in Oklahoma who served a long time in USAF.

Posted by: turcopolier 05 August 2020 at 05:04 PM

entrybody comment-even comment-has-avatar">

We've been in a war with China for a few decades now, and losing. Of course having moved much of our manufacturing base into China and then allowing their students to take up most of the hard engineering class space and lab assistantships while diverting our students to 'studies' programs has been a resounding success.

Horatio,

"There are few viable military options for warmongering chickenhawks advising..." Bush, Obama, Biden, a Triumverate of peacemakers. Remind me who is ordering troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria.

Posted by: Fred , 05 August 2020 at 05:05 PM

We've been in a war with China for a few decades now, and losing. Of course having moved much of our manufacturing base into China and then allowing their students to take up most of the hard engineering class space and lab assistantships while diverting our students to 'studies' programs has been a resounding success.

Horatio,

"There are few viable military options for warmongering chickenhawks advising..." Bush, Obama, Biden, a Triumverate of peacemakers. Remind me who is ordering troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria.

Posted by: Fred 05 August 2020 at 05:05 PM

entrybody comment-odd comment-has-avatar">

The rattling. of sabres between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the U.S.

That line as introduction gives away the article as plain and unsofisticated propaganda. Nobody refers to the USA as the Republican Party, the red scare is a momified bogey..

Posted by: Paco , 05 August 2020 at 05:28 PM

The rattling. of sabres between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the U.S.

That line as introduction gives away the article as plain and unsofisticated propaganda. Nobody refers to the USA as the Republican Party, the red scare is a momified bogey..

Posted by: Paco 05 August 2020 at 05:28 PM

[Aug 02, 2020] A couple of relevant section from the NPR which I think Putin was replying to.

Aug 02, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Peter AU1 , Aug 1 2020 16:34 utc | 119

A couple of relevant section from the NPR which I think Putin was replying to.

https://media.defense.gov/2018/Feb/02/2001872886/-1/-1/1/2018-NUCLEAR-POSTURE-REVIEW-FINAL-REPORT.PDF
From page 21...
"The United States would only consider the employment of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances
to defend the vital interests of the United States, its allies, and partners. Extreme circumstances
could include significant non-nuclear strategic attacks. Significant non-nuclear strategic attacks
include, but are not limited to, attacks on the U.S., allied, or partner civilian population or
infrastructure, and attacks on U.S. or allied nuclear forces, their command and control, or warning
and attack assessment capabilities.
The United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons
states that are party to the NPT and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations.
Given the potential of significant non-nuclear strategic attacks, the United States reserves the right
to make any adjustment in the assurance that may be warranted by the evolution and proliferation
of non-nuclear strategic attack technologies and U.S. capabilities to counter that threat."

And page 34...
"Our deterrence strategy is designed to ensure that the Iranian leadership understands that
any non-nuclear strategic attack against the United States, allies, and partners would be
defeated, and that the cost would outweigh any benefits. There is no plausible scenario in
which Iran may anticipate benefit from launching a strategic attack. Consequently, U.S
deterrence strategy includes the capabilities necessary to defeat Iranian non-nuclear,
strategic capabilities, including the U.S. defensive and offensive systems capable of
precluding or degrading Tehran's missile threats. The United States will continue to
strengthen these capabilities as necessary to stay ahead of Iranian threats as they grow.
Doing so will enhance U.S. security and that of our regional allies and partners."

The page 34 section states plainly that US is willing to use nuclear weapons against Iran's non nuclear capabilities.

Peter AU1 , Aug 1 2020 16:47 utc | 121

I should have highlighted this in my previous post.

The United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons
states that are party to the NPT and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations.

Jackrabbit , Aug 1 2020 17:03 utc | 123

After the drone shoot-down last week, Israel and USA sought to convince Russia to allow a strike against Iran. The Russians rebuffed this request as well as the depiction of Iran as a terrorist state

Newsweek: Russia Warns U.S. and Israel That Iran Is Its 'Ally' and Was Right About Drone Shoot Down

"In the context of the statements made by our partners with regard to a major regional power, namely Iran, I would like to say the following: Iran has always been and remains our ally and partner , with which we are consistently developing relations both on bilateral basis and within multilateral formats,"

!!

[Aug 02, 2020] Iran launching very clever non-silo dug down ballistic missiles. Anyone can copy the idea in earth or sand, it looks relatively simple and perhaps genius.

Aug 02, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Sunny Runny Burger , Aug 1 2020 0:42 utc | 41

News I noticed:

...Iran launching very clever non-silo dug down ballistic missiles. Anyone can copy the idea in earth or sand, it looks relatively simple and perhaps genius. It should only require minimal additions similar to when missiles are "containerized"/vertical on ships.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dytSOhfg1UM for the video.

· "W93/MK7 Navy Warhead -- Developing Modern Capabilities to Address Current and Future Threats" - Pentagon, Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), unclassified 5-page white paper, May 2020 is still not "leaked". Seems a dud: reading between the lines not written no one was convinced and instead complained about anyone saying there's any problems (how "exceptional").

Grieved , Aug 1 2020 0:54 utc | 43

@41 Sunny Runny Burger

That's a great little video clip. Missiles erupting out of the ground. Trying to guess where the next one's coming from. I'll call it genius.

Peter AU1 , Aug 1 2020 1:54 utc | 49

Millenium Challenge 2002

"Red, commanded by retired Marine Corps Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper, adopted an asymmetric strategy, in particular, using old methods to evade Blue's sophisticated electronic surveillance network. Van Riper used motorcycle messengers to transmit orders to front-line troops and World-War-II-style light signals to launch airplanes without radio communications.

Red received an ultimatum from Blue, essentially a surrender document, demanding a response within 24 hours. Thus warned of Blue's approach, Red used a fleet of small boats to determine the position of Blue's fleet by the second day of the exercise. In a preemptive strike, Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that overwhelmed the Blue forces' electronic sensors and destroyed sixteen warships. The losses were as follows: one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five of six amphibious ships. An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel. Soon after the cruise missile offensive, another significant portion of Blue's navy was "sunk" by an armada of small Red boats, which carried out both conventional and suicide attacks that capitalized on Blue's inability to detect them as well as expected."

Iranians are not part of the rules based order it seems - not that the bad guys in the war game was played by Iranians.

Grieved , Aug 1 2020 4:29 utc | 69

@50 Peter AU1 & #55 Bemildred

In the 2002 war game, the US was defeated in 2 days - lost a massive part of its fleet or some such. So they stopped the game and changed the rules. I think that's when Van Riper quit the game in disgust, and of course ultimately went public. But even with the rules changed, the US still lost.

The point about these exercises is that they are real endeavors to create a playbook that will result in victory. Millennium cost about $200 million to stage, and even for the Pentagon that was war-fighting money spent to try to get somewhere. The next point even more crucial is that in EVERY exercise the Pentagon has undertaken since this game, the US is ALWAYS beaten by Iran.

This is the point I frequently try to hammer home here - the Pentagon has no map whatsoever that leads to victory in warfare against Iran. Any warfare will always result in defeat for the US - and we know how unpalatable a public defeat would be for the whole MIC stream of income. The fundamentals are stacked against the US. It's very similar to Israel's position right now against Hezbollah. For both the US and Israel, neither one can move forward along the path it wants to go because its foe simply cannot be beaten by any stratagem it can devise.

Sharmine Narwani talked about this extensively in her interview with Ross Ashcroft last year on Renegade, Inc. It's an excellent interview. She's expert on the geopolitics of the ME and laid out many of the fundamentals that create and support Iran's unwavering position in this theater and in the great game:

What's the real plan with Iran?

I keep this episode bookmarked largely to share it here from time to time. You will both enjoy the interview. The takeaway is that the US can bluster all it wants, but it dare not cross a red line with Iran - such as it already has, for example, with Soleimani's murder, and for which it has not yet suffered its full punishment, which is complete banishment from the ME (and which I am convinced Iran will ultimately achieve).

~~

When your generals tell you constantly, daily, that you can't go into battle in a certain theater, you are free to bluster all you want. In fact, it's all you have left, and you pour all your feeble energy into it. Thus, the US.

Sakineh Bagoom , Aug 1 2020 6:44 utc | 75

Peter AU1 50 & 55 Bemildred & Grieved 70
RE: Millenium Challenge 2002
And yet, I keep pointing out that, that was 18 long years ago, when Iran did NOT have the following:

Terminal guidance for it's ballistics
Armed drone technology
Satellite to map out the battlefield
Proximity to Israel (two countries sat between Iran and Israel)
Electronic surveillance and response, like spoofing a drone to land in Iran.
S300 and home built variations
Cyber
Experience watching coalition forces fighting in ME
Etc, etc,

Peter AU1 , Aug 1 2020 9:03 utc | 84

Re Iran

US could not attack Iran conventionally but with Trump's earlier fixation on nuclear weapons I think he was going to give that a try. Putin must have thought so to as he very publicly laid Russia's nuclear umbrella over Iran and maintained the status quo.

It was after this meeting the Russian envoy made the point plain and public in the presser that Iran was an ally of Russia.
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-iran-us-israel-drone-ally-1445802

Richard Steven Hack , Aug 1 2020 9:55 utc | 86

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Aug 1 2020 9:03 utc | 88 US could not attack Iran conventionally

The US is perfectly capable of *attacking* Iran conventionally. The only thing to question is whether the US can *defeat* Iran in the sense that Iran "surrenders" officially to the US. *That* is in my view impossible short of the US actually killing thirty million Iranians by nuking Iran.

Which in turn I believe even Trump would not do. He really would get Pentagon pushback on that, as well as from every US ally and the UNSC, because no one wants to get the geopolitical hear from being the first country to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear country (this isn't WWII any more, before anyone brings up Hiroshima.)

As for Putin declaring Iran an ally, that does *not* mean that Putin would risk a nuclear confrontation with the US over Iran. Not going to happen - even if the US nuked Tehran. Putin's charge is to take care of Russian interests - and having Iran as an "ally and partner" does qualify as an "interest". But it is *not* an *overriding* interest. Putin would not be authorized by the Russian people to risk their country being nuked over a bunch of Persians and if he did, they'd kick his butt out at the next election - and rightly so.

Current Russian military doctrine (discussed here specifies the following:


The section on use begins by repeating the formulation in the last two Russian military doctrines (translation from the Russian Embassy in the U.K.): "The Russian Federation shall reserve the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies, as well as in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy." Like the doctrines, Foundations underlines that the president of the Russian Federation makes any decision to use nuclear weapons. However, unlike the doctrines, it then, in paragraph 19, outlines four conditions that could allow for (not require) nuclear use:

credible information that Russia is under ballistic missile attack (the missiles don't have to be nuclear -- this isn't specified -- but in many cases, it's hard to tell before they land);
the use of nuclear or other WMD by an adversary against Russian territory or that of its allies;
adversary actions against Russian critical government or military infrastructure that could undermine Russia's capacity for nuclear retaliation (so, for example, a cyber attack on Russia's command and control -- or perhaps one that targets Russian leadership could also qualify); and, finally,
conventional aggression against Russia that threatens the very existence of the state.

The primary requirement is the use of nukes or "WMDs" against Russia, or conventional weapons where their use is an "existential threat", i.e., Russia is about to be defeated on a conventional battlefield.

the phrase "and/or its allies" almost certainly does *not* include Iran. There are two "alliances" to which Russia is a party, according to Wikipedia:
1) Collective Security Treaty Organization: Military alliance with 6 former Soviet republics: Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan.
2) Union State: an alliance between Russia and Belarus (also already covered by 1).

Russia and Iran do not have any formal military or mutual-defense alliance agreements. Russia and Iran are "allied" only with regard to Syria and Islamic terrorism in general. Russia is willing to sell Iran arms, obviously. Equally obviously, that does not indicate a willingness to risk nuclear war.

Putin made the following statement in June of 2019:

After talks Friday with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani at the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in the Kyrgyz capital of Bishkek, Putin said that "relations between Russia and Iran are multifaceted, multilateral" and that "this concerns the economy, this concerns the issues of stability in the region, our joint efforts to combat terrorism, including in Syria."

Nothing in that statement indicates a willingness to use Russia's nuclear arsenal to threaten the US to prevent a US attack on Iran.

It is of course *possible* that some in the Pentagon, the Deep State, and/or Congress, may interpret that to be the case. But I think the primary restraint on any President would be the heat for a first use of nukes on a non-nuclear country - even if the alleged "reason" was that Iran was developing nukes.
Even severe damage to US Navy assets in the region would not be sufficient to justify the use of nukes against Iran, in particular because the only viable target for nukes would Tehran or some other major Iranian city.

It is just possible that a tactical nuke would be used against a heavily buried facility involved in nuclear weapons development (or more precisely, alleged to be so - because Iran won't be developing nukes regardless of any US attack.) But even that would likely produce more heat than the US would want - and if it was done, it would be done as covertly as possible and then denied by the US. And even in that case, Russia would not threaten a nuclear response over that.

Of course, if the US leadership were to become even more unhinged than Trump, or say, the Russian leadership after Putin were to become more hawkish, then all bets are off. But under current conditions, it's not going to happen.

Peter AU1 , Aug 1 2020 10:52 utc | 90

Putin's speech March 1 2018

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/56957
"In this connection, I would like to note the following. We are greatly concerned by certain provisions of the revised nuclear posture review, which expand the opportunities for reducing and reduce the threshold for the use of nuclear arms. Behind closed doors, one may say anything to calm down anyone, but we read what is written. And what is written is that this strategy can be put into action in response to conventional arms attacks and even to a cyber-threat.

I should note that our military doctrine says Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons solely in response to a nuclear attack, or an attack with other weapons of mass destruction against the country or its allies, or an act of aggression against us with the use of conventional weapons that threaten the very existence of the state. This all is very clear and specific.

As such, I see it is my duty to announce the following. Any use of nuclear weapons against Russia or its allies, weapons of short, medium or any range at all, will be considered as a nuclear attack on this country. Retaliation will be immediate, with all the attendant consequences."

Patrushev from my link above.
"In the context of the statements made by our partners with regard to a major regional power, namely Iran, I would like to say the following: Iran has always been and remains our ally and partner, with which we are consistently developing relations both on bilateral basis and within multilateral formats"


Patrushev went to the meeting as a presidential envoy. After Putin's 2018 speech, I wondered who Russia considered an ally as I had not seen Russia name any. I tend to think Patrushev had reason to publicly name Iran as an ally at that presser. My guess is Israel and US were trying to get Russia to stand aside while they attacked Iran.

Richard Steven Hack , Aug 1 2020 13:20 utc | 96

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Aug 1 2020 10:52 utc | 95 I tend to think Patrushev had reason to publicly name Iran as an ally at that presser. My guess is Israel and US were trying to get Russia to stand aside while they attacked Iran.

Nonetheless, the two statements do not constitute an official declaration that Iran is an ally in the sense of being under the Russian nuclear umbrella, as the countries in the list I quoted from Wikipedia are. The Collective Security Treaty Organization "charter reaffirmed the desire of all participating states to abstain from the use or threat of force. Signatories would not be able to join other military alliances or other groups of states,[3] while aggression against one signatory would be perceived as an aggression against all."

That's a military alliance which specifically declares those countries as "allies" in the military sense and specifically states that an attack on any of them is an attack on all of them.

Putin nor anyone else in Russia has specifically stated that Iran is an ally in those same terms. Putin's reference to Iran as an ally applied to economic matters and the security of Syria.

There is an article at Stratfor which I cannot access, but the tagline says: "Nikolai Bordyuzha, secretary-general of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), said Feb. 25 [2020] that Moscow's nuclear umbrella has been extended to other CSTO member countries..." In other words, the nuclear umbrella didn't even cover the former Soviet Union countries until this year, apparently. From another article I found, Russia extended the umbrella to Belarus in 2000. Another article I found says this:


Finally, Russia has created its own military alliance through the Collective Security Treaty (1992) or "Tashkent treaty". In 2002, the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) was created, with a view to parallel NATO. As of June 2009, the organization included Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kirghizia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, which are implicitly covered by a Russian nuclear guarantee. Even though Russian officials refer sometimes to all Commonwealth of
Independent States (CIS) countries being protected by Moscow's nuclear forces, it is reasonable to assume that only CSTO countries are effectively under the Russian nuclear umbrella.

So I simply don't see any reference anywhere to Russia explicitly extending its nuclear umbrella outside of the former Soviet Bloc countries. Again, all of the references made by Russians - Putin or otherwise - to Iran as an "ally" do not reference a military dimension. Of course, it's always *possible* that Putin or some future Russian leader *would* extend that umbrella to Iran, depending on future circumstances. But it seems highly unlikely.

I repeat: There is no chance that Russia will go to nuclear war over Iran. Or even conventional war against US military assets engaged in an attack on Iran because that would risk escalation to a nuclear level. The most Russia will do is supply arms and intelligence to Iran.

[Aug 01, 2020] Pompeo Vows US To Take -Necessary Action- If UN Arms Embargo On Iran Ends -

Aug 01, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

For months the US has been in a full court diplomatic press on fellow UN Security Council members in an attempt to ensure that a UN arms embargo against Iran does not expire.

The embargo on selling conventional weapons to Iran is set to end October 18, and is ironically enough part of the 2015 nuclear deal brokered under Obama, which the Trump administration in May 2018 pulled out of.

But now Pompeo vows the US will "take necessary action" -- no doubt meaning more sanctions at the very least, and likely military action at worst. He told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this week that "in the near future... we hope will be met with approval from other members of the P5."

And he followed with :

"In the event it's not, we're going to take the action necessary to ensure that this arms embargo does not expire," he said.

"We have the capacity to execute snapback and we're going to use it in a way that protects and defends America," Pompeo told the committee further.

Speaking to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo continued to call on the world to accept extending the UN arms embargo against Iran. The embargo is scheduled to expire on October 18.

But it's clear at this point that the UN is not intent on extending the embargo . Russia for one has promised as much. Both Russia and China also have recent weapons deals in the works with the Islamic Republic.

LibertarianMenace , 55 minutes ago

"protects and defends America"

Nothing is farther from the truth, fat man. We know (((who))) it is we're "protecting".

bumboo , 37 minutes ago

Is this fat guy being blackmailed to saying stupid things all the time

monty42 , 35 minutes ago

He works for the Council on Foreign Relations who have been bankrupting the States with perpetual war since they fomented WW2.

LibertarianMenace , 30 minutes ago

Yes, him and the rest of the USG. When you can assassinate a U.S. President in broad daylight and get away with it, you can get away with more extravagant illusions, like 09/11, or if people are finally catching on, throw in just a smidgen of reality like CV-19. Sky is the limit.

This is Trump's redeeming value: he's showing all, including the densest among us (((who))) it is that runs the country. Whether he does it intentionally or not, as in kowtowing to (((them))), is ultimately irrelevant. (((They))) have to be a bit uncomfortable from the unaccustomed exposure. The censoring just proves it.

Tag 'em And Bag 'em , 36 minutes ago

This pneumatic bull frog is a deep state sock puppet with a Zionist hand way up his ***.

When his lips move, Satanyahoo's voice comes out

This has zero to do with the interests of real Americans.

**building 7 didn't kill itself**

Tag 'em And Bag 'em , 23 minutes ago

TRUMP: "Larry Silverstein is a great guy, he's a good guy, he's a friend of mine."

https://youtu.be/o62aUVobO04

**building 7 didn't kill itself**

Fluff The Cat , 43 minutes ago

The reason that the US government are trying to get Iran is because Epstein/Mossad has blackmailed them all into doing their bidding.

Why don't you cover that in the news, huh?

El Chapo Read , 31 minutes ago

"Necessary Action" = Call Israel and ask what they want him to do.

jaser , 43 minutes ago

Protect America? Protect corrupt Netanyahu more like it. Your nation is about to implode and you just cut off the $600 welfare payment to your citizens hey but let's ban TikTok and protect America from Iran.

malMono , 39 minutes ago

This why Biden might win...idiots like pompeo are a turnoff.

Grouchy-Bear , 34 minutes ago

Sometimes it looks like Pompeo is actually in charge. Okay, most of the time he is in charge. Why go through the election process at all? Pompeo is running the country and was never elected...

malMono , 39 minutes ago

This why Biden might win...idiots like pompeo are a turnoff.

Grouchy-Bear , 34 minutes ago

Sometimes it looks like Pompeo is actually in charge. Okay, most of the time he is in charge. Why go through the election process at all? Pompeo is running the country and was never elected...

rwe2late , 43 minutes ago

Embargo Iran to make them as desperate as possible.

Then accuse them of being "aggressive" while one attacks and bombs Iran's near neighbors (Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen).

Sounds like a plan of aggressive war if done by any but an "exceptional" nation.

(It's not like the US denies it)

https://www.globalresearch.ca/we-re-going-to-take-out-7-countries-in-5-years-iraq-syria-lebanon-libya-somalia-sudan-iran/5166

Ron_Paul_Was_Right , 17 minutes ago

If Russia and China want to trade with Iran, how in the world is it the US Government's right to tell them not to? If we want to put sanctions on Iran, go for it. But at this point, the dollar is collapsing as world reserve currency. Iran should well be able to buy anything they need, from China/Russia and the rest of the world which doesn't respect US sanctions, or so I would think.

My point - there's really getting nothing that the US even can do about Iran. So maybe...we should just stop and give it a rest.

Einstein101 , 13 minutes ago

Iran should well be able to buy anything they need, from China/Russia

Fact is Russia and China sell almost nothing to Iran, fearing US sanctions.

Cassandra.Hermes , 2 minutes ago

Don't forget Turkey, Azerbaijan and Europe! Turkish stream is not only bypassing Ukrain but it is connected to Azeri pipeline that is 10km from Iranians border.

monty42 , 15 minutes ago

"Obviously the Iranian army has a bunch of non thinkers..."

Hypocrisy much? The US regime employs paid mercenaries who swore to uphold and defend the Constitution, yet lie and unthinkingly "just follow orders" and believe that absolves them of their oathbreaking and actions.

"Dude, I am FREE. I have firearms that are deadly." Heh, only a very limited arsenal permitted by the Central Committee in D.C., to maintain firepower supremacy in the empire's favor. Your firearms may be deadly, but the empire mercenary can take you out without you ever seeing their face.

Clearly having firearms and ammo alone do not prevent tyranny, the States under the D.C. regime prove that.

vipervenom , 17 minutes ago

pompass the fat boy coward sending our troops to die while he hides behind his own extra large rear end.

[Jul 30, 2020] Bolton is a typical crazy neocon who wants to dominate the world

Jul 30, 2020 | www.amazon.com

Pseudo D 3.0 out of 5 stars , June 24, 2020

superhawk

Ambassador John Bolton hinted that he doesn't like being called a hawk, since foreign policy labels are simplistic.

But first of all, he labeled libertarian Sen. Rand Paul an isolationist, rather than say, a non- interventionist. And after nearly 500 pages (all but the epilogue), what you will absorb is absolutely the worldview of a geopolitical hawk. He is not technically a neoconservative (like, say, Paul Wolfowitz) because the latter were more focused on nation building and spreading democracy. Bolton sees what he's promoting as defense, but it requires a constant offense.

Bolton is very bright, as Jim Baker noted decades ago, and very well-read, even endorsing his fellow Baltimorean and my teacher Steve Vicchio's book on Lincoln's faith. But his intelligence is all put into an ideological reading of situations. As Aristotle would put it, the problem is not lack of theoretical wisdom, but the deficiency in practical wisdom and prudential judgment. Certainly there are bad actors in the world, and vigilance is required. But when is aggressive action called for, and when is it better to go with diplomacy? In this book, I find few cases of such restraint. For Bolton, it seems that the goal of peace and security requires the constant threat of war and presence on every continent. All this intervention around the world requires troops, soldiers, real men and women and their lives and those of their families, requiring lots of sacrifice. At times, his theorizing seems distant from these realities on the ground.

So Bolton is critical of the "axis of adults" in the Trump administration, the "generals", but not Kelly and not much on his predecessor McMaster, much less the eccentric Flynn. So his beef is with Mattis, another fine student of history. Bolton says he went by the rules, as James Baker had said that Bush 41 was "the one who got the votes". He tried to influence Trump within the rules, while Mattis, Tillerson and Haley pursued their own foreign policy. I'm sure that Mattis was sometimes right and sometimes wrong, but I would trust his prudential judgment above that of the equally bright Bolton, because of his life experience, being the one on the ground and knowing what war is like.

When Bolton was considered for secretary state right after the 2016 election, I said, well I don't care for the guy, but at least I've heard of him and we know what we're dealing with. His opponent in GOP foreign policy is the libertarian and non-interventionist Sen. Rand Paul. What does Bolton say about the big players in the Trump administration? Nikki Haley is dismissed as a lightweight who was posing for her political future. Well, that's basically what Trump, "the one that got the votes", put her there for. But it's interesting that Bolton is so anti-Haley, when she was for Rubio and the more hawkish platform.

Tillerson's successor Mike Pompeo had sort of a love-hate relationship with Bolton.

Steve Mnuchin is the epitome of the globalist establishment, along with Javanka. Jared Kushner is dismissed as no Kissinger, but when it comes to China, his soft stance is blamed on Kissinger! While Bolton didn't testify in the impeachment, Fiona Hill is mentioned only with respect in this book.

Everybody's flaw, from Bolton's point of view, is being less belligerent than Bolton. (Even in the Bush administration, the only name I can think of would be Michael Ledeen). He even defends the concept of Middle Eastern "endless wars" on the grounds that we didn't start them and can't dictate when they end. Obama was a dove, but in 2016 the GOP marked a shift, with Trump, Paul, Ben Carson and even Ted Cruz opposing the "invade every country on earth" philosophy that this book promotes. It's true that Trump is not an ideologue and thinks in terms of individual transactions. But the movement I see is a dialectic of alternating between aggression and diplomacy, or as he sees it, friendly relationship among leaders.

Bolton is a superhawk on North Korea and Iran throughout, while China and Russia are our hostile rivals. Other matters are Syria, Iraq and ISIS, Venezuela, Afghanistan and finally Ukraine, which by the end of the book I had almost forgotten. If Bolton is dovish anywhere, it's on the Saudis, the rivals with Iran in the Sunni-Shiite dispute chronicled recently in the book "Black Wave".

You can learn a lot from this book, but just keep in mind that it's filtered through the mind of a strong ideologue, so other people's faults are seen through that lens. But he has great knowledge of the details of policy. Bolton would like to be an inter-generational guru like Henry Kissinger or Dean Acheson, but both parties have turned away from the "endless wars" philosophy.

If you are looking for anti-Trump material, I don't really see the point of investing this time and intellectual effort. The more sensational parts have been reported-the exchanges involving Xi Jinping and Kim Jong Un, and to a lesser extent Erdogan. As most reviewers have said, it's about 100 pages too long, but Bolton is looking for a scholarly work like Kissinger's Diplomacy or World Order, and this is the one that he hopes people will read.

C Wm (Andy) Anderson

Not Only is Bolton's Take on Trump Being Dangerous; Bolton Himself is a Danger to America

#1 HALL OF FAME TOP 10 REVIEWER 3.0 out of 5 stars Not Only is Bolton's Take on Trump Being Dangerous; Bolton Himself is a Danger to America Reviewed in the United States on June 23, 2020 Verified Purchase Two reviewers did better at explaining why this book is not rated by me as a must-read. Linda Galella and gammyjill. Bolton laid out some truly explosive allegations but let his own ego cloud his message.

John Bolton, on some fundamental level, is a brilliant, dedicated conservative intent on improving the future of the country he and I love. THAT similarity is probably the only point we share.

I wanted to love this book, because I knew it would be jam-packed with juicy tidbits that justify me derision of the biggest failure ever to assume the office of POTUS. Instead, quite early on, I realized the reason Trump became President was the enormous ineptitude of those otherwise brilliant people who, in short, simply felt that somebody opposing those the person they despise, on principle, was better for America than the other guy or gal.

Throughout this book, Bolton reminds us of Trump's inability to focus attention on the information provided by his handlers. Yes, Trump is naive and intellectually lazy. Yes, so, too, are many of those aiding and abetting Mr. Trump. But, yes, Mr. Bolton also suffers from gross naïveté, and, is just plain foolish. His ego led him to join the Trump Administration, as he admits in "The Room Where It Happened."

Bolton's greatest error, however, was in refusing to tell the country what he chose to sell to the public through this book.

The writing is, mechanically, quite good. But, Bolton comes across as thinking he is the only person of intelligence. That becomes clear by page two, and never changes, except for his insight that he was wrong about Trump.

Unfortunately, Bolton also was wrong about Bolton.

Whoa. Hold on. Just about everyone in both political parties is no better than Bolton. A few exceptions would be Former governor John Kasick and Utah Senator Mitt Romney. Oh, and former Vice President Joe Biden, I believe. Yet, to be honest, I need to see him prove me right. I would hate to make the same mistake regarding Biden as Bolton did regarding Trump.

Americans need to take a good, hard look at how we are governed and at those whom we support.

BOTTOM LINE

Writing quality, passable. But don't expect to gain a great deal of new knowledge.

Three stars out of five.

[Jul 30, 2020] It s Official: Pompeo Has Declared Cold War With China It s Official- Pompeo Has Declared Cold War With China - The American Conservative

Notable quotes:
"... Pompeo is a disgusting man. The US Oligarchic Regime is projecting a lot. It is this Regime that does not recognize any other order than its own, and always puts a messianic spin on its discourse. ..."
"... Mike Pompous can be counted upon to do everything possible to torpedo legitimate US interests below the waterline, and then nuke any survivors. ..."
Jul 29, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Mike Pompeo declared the start of a new Cold War with China last week.

...Pompeo's speech was an expression of this unreasonable and unrealistic view, and it is likely to leave most U.S. allies in East Asia and elsewhere cold. Our allies do not wish for deepening antagonism and strife between the U.S. and China, and if push comes to shove Washington may find itself without much support in the region. Calling for a "new alliance" to oppose China when Trump and Pompeo have done such an abysmal job of managing existing alliances in the region just drives home how divorced from reality the speech was.

... ... ...

The Secretary also relied on a familiar mix of simplistic analysis and threat inflation that he has used so often when talking about Iran: "It's this ideology, it's this ideology that informs his decades-long desire for global hegemony of Chinese communism." Pompeo is falling back on two of the stalest talking points from the Cold War. He interprets the behavior of another state primarily in terms of its official ideology rather than its concrete interests, and he attributes to them a goal of "global hegemony" that they are not pursuing to make them seem more dangerous and powerful than they are. China does seek to be the leading state in its own part of the world, but there is no evidence that they aspire to the global domination that Pompeo claims. A hard-line ideologue and hegemonist himself, Pompeo wrongly assumes that the things that motivate him must also drive the actions of others.

... ... ...

Most of the people on the receiving end of this "engagement" and "empowerment" will likely resent the condescension and interference from a foreign government in their country's affairs. Even if we assume that the vast majority of people in China might wish for a radically different government, they are liable to reject U.S. meddling in what they naturally consider to be their business. But, of course, Pompeo isn't serious about "empowering" the Chinese people, just as he isn't serious about supporting the people of Iran or Venezuela or any of the other countries on Washington's list of official foes. We can see from the economic wars that the U.S. has waged on Iran and Venezuela that the administration is only too happy to impoverish and strangle the people they claim to help. Hard-liners feign concern for the people that they then set out to harm in order to make their aggressive and destructive policies look better to a Western audience, but they aren't fooling anyone these days.

Pompeo's bombastic, caustic style and his personal lack of credibility make him an unusually poor messenger, and the Trump administration is uniquely ill-suited to rally a group of states in common cause. But the main problem with the policy Pompeo promotes is that an intensifying rivalry with China is not in the American interest. The U.S. has found that it is virtually impossible to change the behavior of adversaries when that behavior concerns what they believe to be their core security interests. ...

Fred Bowman • a day ago • edited

I was reading the words that Nixon wrote about China that Pompeo quoted and it occurred to me that if you took out the word "China" and replaced it with the "United States" then that statement would be completely accurate in describing how America acts in the world. In OTW, it's "the Pot calling the Kettle black".

daveyl123 Fred Bowman • a day ago

I wouldn't enjoin the American people with our out-of-touch, out-of-control and (In the cases of Hillary, Waters, Biden and Pelosi..) out of their minds government.

We're so conditioned to global conflicts now, it's merely a matter of the U.S. population learning how to spell the names of foreign leaders and their capitals marked for "Regime Changes", while crossing our fingers in hopes that our buildings will not again be subjected to airliner collisions and collapses in the wake of this aggression.

It would behoove Americans to start pulling on the reins of our bellicose administrations to confine their authority and actions to benefit our citizens.

KennesawJack • a day ago • edited

Your comment that we have coexisted with China for 70 years is not quite accurate. There was this little dust-up called the Korean Conflict as I recall...

kouroi BobPM • a day ago

The main purpose of TPP was to force the Chinese to privatize the State Owned Enterprises, likely via Wall Street.

L RNY • a day ago

The communist Chinese can control our movie, sports, news and entertainment industries by denying them access to China if they don't show China in a positive light or if they show China in a negative life...

daveyl123 John Achterhof • 2 hours ago

You define with accuracy the core tenets of Socialists. Once a government expands to the proportions needed to implement that form of socioeconomic leadership, the character of those leaders becomes tyrannical, while they target segments of their populations for reeducation or elimination. (Abortions would fit that scenario nicely..) Obama was just such a leader, and had he somehow been able to ignore term limits, his administration would have resembled those of any Socialist State.

rayray L RNY • a day ago

All of the policies you mention above would achieve absolutely nothing while inflaming conflict - thus increasingly the problems you outline. These hawkish responses prove the point...the issue isn't that there are or aren't issues, but that the US has lost the ability to have real discussions of these issues with world players and allies.

Much of that is because Trump patently hasn't the temperament, sophistication, or intelligence for discussion and diplomacy - this was proven again and again in the zero sum ineptitude of his private ventures.

The rot of that malignant ineptitude flows down from the head and into every aspect of government, both domestic and foreign. Thus we see his response to every domestic crisis is to inflame division. And the same in the foreign theater. He cannot be gotten rid of soon enough.

daveyl123 L RNY • a day ago • edited

I don't believe our government is so foolish as to contemplate a shooting war with the Chinese. They have nuclear warheads. Their populations are fanatics when it comes to conflicts against them...

L RNY daveyl123 • 21 hours ago

Men will not fight another war nor will women leave their jobs when the men return from war as they did with WWII. There will be no war in Europe simply because Europe (including Russia) is depopulating at such a rapid rate they cant afford a losing more of their population through conflict. I dont see a shooting war with China either. I think that is the purpose of the tariffs and detachment of economies. US intelligence says that China does not want war with the US either. I don't think there is any country that would jump to a pre-emptive nuclear attack in case of a hot war. They dont have the air force superiority or the Navy or superiority in space yet.

Its not the Chinese way. The Chinese wait until they have superiority then they act otherwise they like to fly below the radar and get away with as much espionage and intimidation as possible. The opium wars came about because of the Chinese culture of trade exporting much but importing little thus creating a trade imbalance and indebting their trading partners.

Chinese culture has many forms of achieving superiority without restoring to conflict. The think tanks and experts are predicting that Xi may be pushed out of power by his competitors in the politburo which could defuse the situation. I don't think it will change detaching the economies. After COVID, countries are shifting focus from lowest cost possible to lowest cost and lowest risk possible.

That's why medical instruments, pharmaceuticals, etc are either moving out of China or moving part of their production to the US or they can win against a declining, an indebted power, an over stretched power, etc. Take a lesson with Russia and the US. Russia did not confront the US directly. It used proxies elsewhere around the world. Russia did not want a war with NATO or with the US. That balance kept the peace. If you want peace with China then there is going to have to be some sort of parity or superiority of China's neighbors via an alliance and/or superiority in trade/technology/economy. If you want war then you pacify and try to avoid war leaving a strategic space where your competitor thinks they can win. To avoid war, you need parity or superiority.

kouroi • a day ago

Pompeo is a disgusting man. The US Oligarchic Regime is projecting a lot. It is this Regime that does not recognize any other order than its own, and always puts a messianic spin on its discourse.

The US itself is not a democracy, but as B. Franklin put it from the beginning, is a Republic, which from the birth was design to promote and preserve the haves, the existing Oligarchy. While they looked for a balance of power in order to prevent the rise of an autocrat (the other bugbear of Oligarchy), the main fear of the framers was democracy and the threat of the mob voting for re-distribution...

The success of the socialist state of China is an indication of what might have happened if the socialist block in ensemble wouldn't have suffered the containment enforced by the US. Given the ability to engage in normal economic intercourse with the world, China developed and lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty. Vietnam is another example. But look what is happening with Cuba or North Korea or Venezuela. It is not the socialist system per se, but the blockade of those countries and the crushing economic war that ruins them.

Fortunately, Russia has learned from the mistakes of the past.

It is good that the cards are on the table to see that US Oligarchy wants to rule everything, because it is a corrupting way of life and mind. Because of this, the march for more open societies, with more, no less democracy, and people representation and input is halted.

And of course, in this new Cold War, a lot of civil liberties and freedom of speech will be curtailed. In my neck of the woods we have already experienced individuals assaulting people of Chinese ethnicity. Way to go America!

Jeff Dickey kouroi • 2 hours ago

Mike Pompous can be counted upon to do everything possible to torpedo legitimate US interests below the waterline, and then nuke any survivors. He, along with Barr, Graham, and the rest of the Trump circus, are a cautionary tale for what happens to governments that let ideologues deliberately divorced from reality run a country. They've turned what was once the United States from a superpower to a failed state in an absurdly short period of time. History will be far less kind to these political Bernie Madoffs than to the original financial exemplar.

daveyl123 • a day ago

Wars ain't nothing to bandy about among administration subordinates. Pompeo is not supposed to be declaring wars--hot or cold. Wars cost big money, lives and property. Only the most grave threats against our country should prompt our leaders to even consider conflicts, much less initiate them. The American people cannot just sit back and absorb such profound adjustments to our national security posture and defense expenditures being unilaterally decided by Washington. It is also a condition of conflicts that our civil rights will be under increased constraints. I chuckled a little when China was listed as our 'new' foe. We won't fight the Chinese because we'll have another Vietnam War on our hands. Our troops aren't used to our enemies fighting back. They've been deployed into banana wars against poorly trained and ill equipped armies of Middle East camel holes. The U.S. Armed Forces' new culture, consisting of socially-engineered, politically-corrected soldiers-of-tolerance have yet to confront true fanatics. These facts were known waaaaay back during our Korean War Adventure.

I've always said that if the Chinese are good at anything, it's making more Chinese.

Adriana Pena • a day ago

Because we did not have enough problems already.

"Eramos pocos y pario la abuela"

hooly • a day ago

New Cold War? Bring it on. Competition is good. A strong rival is desired. Instead of a struggle over Ideology, this will be a Civilizational struggle, Western Civilization VS Central Civilization, liberal democracy VS Confucian/Legalist authoritarianism, Euro-America VS the Han Chinese. But this time, is America up to the tast?

During the Cold War we were led by 'Greatest Generation' who lived through the Great Depression and fought in World War II, is today's America of Facebook, Twitter, conspiracy theories, selfies, BLM, safe spaces, Diversity, mass immigration and Woke political correctness run amok up to the task?

While China is a predator, homogeneous, nationalist, revanchist and bent on returning to the glory it thinks it deserves. All I can say is, thank god for nuclear weapons and the Chinese Communist Party for keeping a short leash on the patriotic passions of the Han Chinese.

Myron Hudson • a day ago

We had "an alliance of democracies" in the TPP which was developed to counter China. Of course, it handed much of our domestic sovereignty over to multinational corporations, but that's what you can expect from a corporatist like Obama. Still, might have been better than this.

Anton • 20 hours ago

On point analysis.

Ho Hum • 14 hours ago

I wonder if the Nixon family knew in advance that Pompeo was going to trash Richard Nixon's greatest legacy?

A war between China and the U.S. would not simply be costly for the US - it could end in the destruction of the world as we know it if it turns nuclear. Trump and Pompeo are sociopathic madman. I would not put it past Trump to use Nukes against China. He is just that stupid and evil.

peter mcloughlin • an hour ago

President Nixon's détente with China had an important geopolitical consideration, leverage on Russia. "We're using the China thaw to get the Russians shook", he is quoted to have said. There is much talk among hawks these days of a "new Cold War", with that the confidence it will end like the first one: victory for the west and no nuclear annihilation. But this is a danger illusion: today America is in a hegemonic struggle with China for global dominance. It seems neither side can back down. The present crisis is like the Cold War in one crucial sense – world war must be avoided at all costs. The powers are not heeding the warning of history.
https://www.ghostsofhistory...

[Jul 26, 2020] China reaction to Mike Pompeo's 'new Iron Curtain speech'

Notable quotes:
"... Attempting to neutralise a global competitor is the main goal of Americans. Neutralising China's rapid, dynamic development is the essence of the American strategy ..."
Jul 26, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 , Jul 26 2020 17:41 utc | 17

Recap from today's Global Times where the argument is to continue to stay the course and counterpunch in the typical martial arts fashion, as this op/ed from today's Global Times says :

"Chinese analysts said Sunday the key for China to handle the US offensive is to focus on its own development and insist on continued reform and opening-up to meet the increasing needs of Chinese people for better lives. In the upcoming three months, before the November US presidential election, the China-US relationship is in extreme danger as the Trump administration is likely to launch more aggressions to force China to retaliate, they said."

Stay the course; Trump's shit is just an election ploy. However,

"The US' posturing is serving to distract from domestic pressure over President Trump's failure in handling the pandemic when Trump is seeking reelection this year, Chinese observers said. However, the Trump administration's China stance still reflects bipartisan consensus among US elites, so China should not expect significant change in US policy toward China even if there is a power transition in November, which means China should prepare itself for a long fight."

Don't stray from the Long Game. An international conference was held that I'll try to get a link for. Here's GT's summation:

"According to the Xinhua News Agency on Saturday, international scholars said at a virtual meeting on the international campaign against a new cold war on China on Saturday that 'aggressive statements and actions by the US government toward China poses a threat to world peace and a potential new cold war on China goes against the interests of humanity.'

"The meeting gathered experts from a number of countries including the US, China, Britain, India, Russia and Canada.

"Experts attending the meeting issued a statement calling upon the US to step back from this threat of a cold war and also from other dangerous threats to world peace it is engaged in.

"The reason why international scholars are criticizing the US rather than China is that they can see how restrained China remains and the sincerity of China to settle the tension by dialogue, even though the US is getting unreasonably aggressive, said Chinese experts.

"Washington has made a huge mistake as it has chosen the wrong target - China - to be 'the common enemy or common fear' to reshape its declining leadership among the West. Right now, the common enemy of humanity is COVID-19, and this is why its new cold war declaration received almost no positive responses from other major powers and even raised concern, said Lü Xiang, a research fellow at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing, on Sunday."

Today's Global Times lead editorial asked most of the questions everyone else's asking:

"People are asking: How far will the current China-US confrontation keep going? Will a new cold war take shape? Will there be military conflicts and will the possible clashes evolve into large-scale military confrontation between the two?

"Perhaps everyone believes that China does not want a new cold war, let alone a hot war. But the above-mentioned questions have become disturbing suspense because no one knows how wild the ambitions the US ruling team has now, and whether American and international societies are capable of restraining their ambitions."

IMO, the editor's conclusions are quite correct:

"The world must start to act and do whatever it can to stop Washington's hysteria in its relations with China.

"Right now, it is no longer a matter of whether China-US ties are in freefall, but whether the line of defense on world peace is being broken through by Washington. The world must not be hijacked by a group of political madmen. The tragedies in 1910s and 1930s must not be repeated again ."

Trump is elevated to the same plane as Hitler and Mussolini, and the Outlaw US Empire is now the equivalent of Nazi Germany and the Fascist drive to rule the world--a well illustrated trend that's been ongoing since 1991 that only those blinded by propaganda aren't capable of seeing. I think it absolutely correct for China to focus its rhetoric on the Outlaw US Empire's utter failure to control COVID, which prompts some probing questions made from the first article:

"Shen Yi, a professor at the School of International Relations and Public Affairs of Fudan University, told the Global Times on Sunday that there is wide consensus among the international community that the COVID-19 pandemic is the most urgent challenge that the world should deal with. Whether on domestic epidemic control or international cooperation, the US has done almost nothing right compared to China's efforts to assist others and its successful control measures for domestic outbreaks .

"In response to US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's 'new Iron Curtain speech' at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library on Thursday declaring a new cold war against China, Shen said, ' We can also ask 'is Pompeo an ally of coronavirus?' Because he wants to confuse the world to target the wrong enemy amid the tough fight against the pandemic, so that the virus can kill more people, especially US people, since his country is in the worst situation .'

Shen said, 'In 2018, US Vice President Mike Pence already made a speech which the media saw as a new 'Iron Curtain speech,' and in 2020, Pompeo made a similar speech again, which means their cold war idea is not popular and brings no positive responses from its allies, so they need to try time and again. Of course, they will fail again.'" [My Emphasis]

Wow! The suggestion that Trump, Pompeo, Pence, and company want to "kill more people, especially US people" seems to be proven via their behavior which some of us barflies recognize and have discussed. Now that notion is out in the public, internationally. You don't need Concentration Camps and ovens when the work can be done via the dysfunctional structure of your economy and doing nothing about the situation.

Shen provides the clincher, what Gruff, myself, and others have said here:

"'So if we want to win this competition that was forced by the US, we must focus on our own development and not get distracted. The US is not afraid of a cold war with us, it is afraid of our development .'" [My Emphasis]

My synopsis of both articles omitted some additional info, so do please click the links to read them fully.

karlof1 , Jul 26 2020 18:02 utc | 19

Sputnik offers this analysis of the China/Outlaw US Empire issue , where I found this bit quite apt from "Alexey Biryukov, senior adviser at the Centre for International Information Security, Science and Technology Policy (CIIS) MGIMO-University":

"'The US is fighting with a country that is developing very rapidly, gaining power, increasing its competitiveness in areas where previously there was undeniably US leadership. Attempting to neutralise a global competitor is the main goal of Americans. Neutralising China's rapid, dynamic development is the essence of the American strategy . Meanwhile, China is interested in developing friendly relations with all countries. Recently, it presented the idea of building a community of common destiny for humanity. That's what Sino-American relations should be built around . It would seem that the pandemic should have brought people together around the idea of building a prosperous world for all, not just someone. But the Americans didn't understand that: they started looking for the guilty ones. This is the favourite strategy of Anglo-Saxons, Americans including, to look for the guilty . As a result, they found their main competitor – China'". [My Emphasis]

That is the "guilty ones" that aren't within the Outlaw US Empire. Many more opinions are provided in the article, but they all revolve around the one theme of Trump's actions being motivated by the election and his morbidly poor attempts to corral COVID.

[Jul 26, 2020] Watch- China Answers Houston Closure With Raid On US Consulate In Chengdu

Closing consulates is far from the best foreign policy and fat Pompeo known it. It just starts the unnecessary and counter productive spiral of retaliation and Chinese have more leverage over the USA as more the USA diplomatic personnel woks in China than the china diplomatic personnel in the USA. They were always burned in Russia and now they stepped on the same rake again.
Jul 26, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Musum , 8 hours ago

One good turn deserves another.

Maybe fat Pompeo knows he's on his way out and desperate to make a lasting mark on the geopolitical stage on behalf of the West Point mafia and his brothers-in-arm at the Jweish mafia.

QABubba , 8 hours ago

Quit stealing Russian consulates, Chinese consulates, etc.

It serves no purpose.

Haboob , 7 hours ago

Closing diplomacy with nations as USA shrinks on the world stage shows America's juvenile behavior.

Salisarsims , 7 hours ago

We are a young twenty something nation what do you expect but drama.

Haboob , 7 hours ago

It is funny how the young and arrogant always think they are right and have manifest destiny over the old and wise. The young never listen to the old and as the story goes they are defeated everytime. China is older than America, older than the west, they understand this world we are living in far more than we do.

me or you , 9 hours ago

He is right!

The world has witnessed the US is not more than a banana Republic with a banana healthcare system

To Hell In A Handbasket , 9 hours ago

I love seeing how gullible the USSA dunces are susceptible to hating an imaginary enemy. Go on dunces wave the star spangled banner, and place the hand over the heart, you non-critical thinking imbeciles. I told you fools years ago we are going to invoke the Yellow Peril 2.0, and now we are living it. China bad, is just as stupid as Russia bad, while the state stenographers at the MSM netowrks do all in their power to hide our rotten behaviour.

Who falls for this ****? The poorly educated, and the inherently stupid.

To Hell In A Handbasket , 8 hours ago

No, it's called nationalism or self preservation.

What are the citizens of the US suppose to do,

You are wrong on so many levels, but ultimately the Chinese have beaten us at our own rigged game. When I was riling against unfettered free-markets, and the movement of capital, that allowed the west for centuries to move into undeveloped foreign markets and gain a stranglehold, I was called a communist, and a protectionist.

While the USSA money printing b@stards was roaming around the planet like imperialists, and their companies was not only raping the planet, but gouging foreign markets, the average USSA dunce was brainwashed into believing USSA companies were the best.

Now these same market and economic rules we the west have set for the last several hundred years no longer work for us, we want to change the rules. Again, my point is "where was you on this position 5-10-20-30 years ago?" I've always seen this outcome, because logic said so. To reject our own status quo, and return to mercantilism, makes us look like the biggest hypocrites ever.

[Jul 23, 2020] Iran's top security official: Harsher revenge awaits perpetrators of Gen. Soleimani's assassination

Jul 23, 2020 | www.presstv.com

News / Politics Iran's top security official: Harsher revenge awaits perpetrators of Gen. Soleimani's assassination Wednesday, 22 July 2020 4:29 PM [ Last Update: Wednesday, 22 July 2020 4:29 PM ]

Members of the Iraqi honor guard walk past a huge portrait of Iran's late top general Qassem Soleimani (L) and Iraqi commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, both killed in a US drone strike near Baghdad airport last month, during a memorial service held in Baghdad's high-security Green Zone on February 11, 2020. (Photo by AFP)

Iran's top security official says harsher revenge awaits the perpetrators of the attack that killed senior Iranian anti-terrorism commander Lieutenant General Qassem Soleimani and his companions.

In a post on his Twitter page on Wednesday, Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council Ali Shamkhani said that US President Donald Trump had admitted that the American, upon his direct order, committed the crime of assassinating General Soleimani, the commander of the Quds Force of Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the second-in-command of Iraq's Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) counter-terrorism force, who were two prominent figures of the anti-terrorism campaign.

"The two Iranian and Iraqi nations are avengers of blood of these martyrs and will not rest until they punish the perpetrators," read part of the tweet.

"Harsher revenge is one the way," it concluded.

The two commanders and a number of their companions were assassinated in a US airstrike near Baghdad airport on January 3, as General Soleimani was on an official visit to the Iraqi capital.

Both commanders were extremely popular because of the key role they played in eliminating the US-sponsored Daesh terrorist group in the region, particularly in Iraq and Syria.

UN experts calls US drone attack on Gen. Soleimani 'unlawful' killing A senior UN human rights investigator says the United States' assassination of top Iranian commander Lieutenant General Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad was an "unlawful" killing in violation of the international law.

In retaliation for the attack, the IRGC fired volleys of ballistic missiles a US base in Iraq on January 8. According to the US Defense Department, more than 100 American forces suffered "traumatic brain injuries" during the counterstrike. The IRGC, however, says Washington uses the term to mask the number of the Americans, who perished during the retaliation.

Iran has also issued an arrest warrant and asked Interpol for help in detaining Trump, who ordered the assassination, and several other US military and political leaders behind the strike.

Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei said on Tuesday Iran will never forget Washington's assassination of General Soleimani and will definitely deliver a "counterblow" to the United States.

Leader: Iran to deal US 'counterblow' for Gen. Soleimani's assassination Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei meets with visiting Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi in Tehran.

"The Islamic Republic of Iran will never forget this issue and will definitely deal the counterblow to the Americans," Ayatollah Khamenei said in a meeting with visiting Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi in Tehran.

"They killed your guest at your own home and unequivocally admitted the atrocity. This is no small matter," Ayatollah Khamenei told the Iraqi premier.

A UN special rapporteur says has condemned the US assassination and said Washington has put the world at unprecedented peril with its murder of Iran's top anti-terror commander.

UN expert raps US for arbitrary drone attack that killed Gen. Soleimani A UN special rapporteur slams the US for refusing to take responsibility for the assassination of General Soleimani in violation of international law.

Agnes Callamard, UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, has also warned that it is high time the international community broke its silence on Washington's drone-powered unlawful killings.

Press TV's website can also be accessed at the following alternate addresses:

[Jul 19, 2020] The Chinese and Russian Foreign Ministers just jointly agreed in a rare published account of their phone conversation that the Outlaw US Empire " has lost its sense of reason, morality and credibility .

Jul 19, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 , Jul 18 2020 22:54 utc | 6 4

Does Cancel Culture intersect with Woke? The former's not mentioned in this fascinating essay , but the latter is and appears to deserve some unpacking beyond what Crooke provides.

As for the letter, it's way overdue by 40+ years. I recall reading Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind and Christopher Lasch's Culture of Narcissism where they say much the same.

What's most irksome are the lies that now substitute for discourse--Trump or someone from his admin lies, then the WaPost, NY Times, MSNBC, Fox, and others fire back with their lies. And to top everything off--There's ZERO accountability: people who merit "canceling" continue to lie and commit massive fraud.

The Chinese and Russian Foreign Ministers just jointly agreed in a rare published account of their phone conversation that the Outlaw US Empire " has lost its sense of reason, morality and credibility .

Yes, they were specifically referring to the government, but I'd include the Empire's institutions as well. In the face of that reality, the letter is worse than a joke.

[Jul 16, 2020] The spate of gas explosions are unlikely to be accidents

Jul 16, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Peter AU1 , Jul 15 2020 20:41 utc | 30

The spate of gas explosions are unlikely to be accidents. One maybe but not a spate of them. Unlikely to be cyber as both a physical leak and ignition source are required.

Sat image of the site of the first explosion and grass fire https://static.timesofisrael.com/www/uploads/2020/06/AP20179369014525-1024x640.jpg

The gas tank can be seen on google https://www.google.com.au/maps/@35.688164,51.6513532,92m/data=!3m1!1e3
Out away from buildings and easy to access. Something to create a leak and a delayed ignition source is all that's required.

Richard Steven Hack , Jul 16 2020 1:05 utc | 50

@Peter AU1 | Jul 15 2020 20:41 utc | 30

I agree that most of these explosions are probably not "cyberattacks". Despite all the scare stories about hacking destroying infrastructure, it's not that easy, especially in the US where every industry and every company within that industry has their own "standards", which means there are no real standards a hacker can rely on. It's much easier to steal data than it is to influence hardware, although that certainly can be done in many cases.

On the other hand, there are plenty of internal Iranian dissidents and foreign visitors who can be employed by both the CIA and Israel to further a spate of physical attacks.

Obviously these sorts of attacks are going to do next to nothing to actually damage Iranian infrastructure, as Iran is a big country. These sorts of sabotage are merely a psychological warfare ploy. This is amplified by Western media coverage of the incidents which is intended to portray Iran as weak and unable to defend itself.

I've often speculated about what a few hundred saboteurs could do if inserted into the US, armed with nothing but small arms and a decent amount of explosives. Depending on how well they are kept covert and how smart they are in choosing targets, you could bring the US to its knees in perhaps six months of operations. Car bombs, for instance - the US is *made* for car bombs, given our reliance on vehicles and the congestion in the inner cities. Detonate a car bomb in each of the 50 Major Metropolitan Areas simultaneously and do so consistently every week for a month and most of the inner cities would be shut down and under martial law.

That's the kind of actual physical campaign that could produce significant results in a country. These pin-prick attacks in Iran are just a combination of psychological warfare plus perhaps some effects as causing their protective services to be overstretched somewhat.

Mostly what they are is an attempt to provoke Iran into doing something *overtly* against Israel or the US. The neocons want Iran to be the instigator of the war, not the US or Israel. They want Iran to provide a casus belli for the war, so that Trump and Netanyahu can present themselves as blameless for the resulting disaster, much like Bush presented Iraq as responsible for 9/11.

In essence, the US and Israel are acting as Internet trolls, pin-pricking Iran in an attempt to get Iran to engage and thus manipulate Iran for their own purposes.

Hopefully Iran will not take the bait, or if it does so, that it makes sure its retaliations are as covert and deniable as the CIA's while being at least equally as damaging or more so. If I were Iran, I would specifically target the CIA and its assets in the region. It would not be hard to identify the CIA officers stationed in most countries and conduct harassment operations against them, even perhaps engineering "accidental deaths". It would be an analog of the US-Russian Cold War days. Competent spies aren't that plentiful and killing them off tends to put a real crimp in operations while mostly being deniable since all such events would be "classified".

[Jul 16, 2020] If Pompeo has a functioning brain, he should realize that all these blatant efforts to reserve markets for America by sanctioning all its competitors out of the picture is having the opposite effect, and frightening customers away from becoming dependent on American products

Jul 16, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

MOSCOWEXILE July 15, 2020 at 7:58 am

Fat bully boy speaks for Bully Boy state:

"Today the Department of State is updating the public guidance for CAATSA authorities to include Nord Stream 2 and the second line of TurkStream 2. This action puts investments or other activities that are related to these Russian energy export pipelines at risk of US sanctions. It's a clear warning to companies aiding and abetting Russia's malign influence projects and will not be tolerated. Get out now or risk the consequences".

Pompeo speaking at a press conference today.

CAATSA -- Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act

So Russia and Turkey are "adversaries" of the USA?

In what way?

Do these states wish to wage war against the USA?

Is it adversarial to United States interest to compete economically with the hegemon?

MOSCOWEXILE July 15, 2020 at 7:59 am

Link to above:

https://sputniknews.com/world/202007151079893067-us-plans-to-add-nord-stream-2-turkstream-to-list-of-projects-to-be-sanctioned/

MARK CHAPMAN July 15, 2020 at 3:51 pm

Who cares? Really, is Pompeo still scary? If he has a functioning brain, he should realize that all these blatant efforts to reserve markets for America by sanctioning all its competitors out of the picture is having the opposite effect, and frightening customers away from becoming dependent on American products which might be withheld on a whim when America wants political concessions. 'Will not be tolerated' – what a pompous ass. Sanction away. The consequence is well-known to be seizure of assets held in the United States or an inability to do business in the United States. That will frighten some into submission – like the UK, which was threatened with the cessation of intelligence-sharing with the USA (sure you can spare it?) if it did not drop Huawei from its 5G networks. But others will take prudent steps to limit their exposure to such threats, in the certain knowledge that if they work, they will encourage the USA to use the technique again.

[Jul 11, 2020] Pounding to nothing - Patrick Porter - The Critic Magazine

Jul 11, 2020 | thecritic.co.uk

Pounding to nothing

Patrick Porter reviews The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir, by John Bolton ARTILLERY ROW BOOKS 4 July, 2020

By

Share

P resident Donald Trump's third National Security Advisor opens his memoir with this quote from the Duke of Wellington at Waterloo: 'Hard Pounding, this, gentlemen. Let's see who will pound the longest.' And pound for pound, that's the (nearly) 500 page memoir in a nutshell. Unremitting pounding is both the theme and the style. As John Bolton urged the White House to take a 'harder line" on Iran and North Korea, Trump's chief of staff "urged me to keep pounding away in public, which I assured him I would.' China 'pounded away during my tenure, sensing weakness at the top.' As with Bolton's mission, so too with America's statecraft, that must 'keep moving and keep firing, like a big grey battleship.'

From his infamous unsubtle moustache to his bellicosity, Bolton traffics on a self-image of straight shooter who sprints towards gunfire. He does not set out to offer a meditation on a complex inner life. This image is also slightly misleading. For all the barrage, Bolton turns out to be a more conflicted figure, especially when his supporting fire is most called upon.

The Room Where it Happened is Bolton's account of his part in the power struggles within Trump's almost medieval court, his attempt to steer the executive branch towards the right course, unmasked supremacy everywhere, and his failure and disillusion with Trump's chaotic, self-serving and showbiz-driven presidency.

The room where it happened: A White House memoir, by John Bolton

The memoir itself is a non-trivial political event. Other reviewers have assailed it for being turgid. Bolton, though, has at least done the state some service by habitually recording and recounting every meeting. This is an important record of an important eighteen months packed with the escalating brinksmanship with Iran, an impeachment inquest, the return of great power competition and a fierce struggle to control the policy levers in Washington itself. For that detail, especially when contrasted with the exhausting melodrama of the era, Bolton deserves a little credit. The Trump administration's determined effort to suppress it on the grounds of classified information suggests there is substance to Bolton's allegations of corruption and turmoil at the heart of government.

It is also, though, a work of self-vindication. Bolton's life is an adversarial one. A former attorney, he became a policy advocate and a Republican Party institution, consistently taking the hardest of lines. He was ever drawn to aggressive combatants – like Hillary Clinton, in his formative years he supported Barry Goldwater. He interned for Vice-President Spiro Agnew, the "number one hawk." As a measure of Bolton's faith that war works and that co-existence with "rogue states" is impossible, he advocated attacking a heavily (and nuclear)-armed North Korea in 2018, an adversary that lies in artillery range of Seoul and thousands of Americans as effective hostages, and offered up a best-case scenario in doing so.

Bolton brought to government a world view that was dug-in and entrenched. For Bolton, the world is hostile, and to survive America must be strong (wielding and brandishing overwhelming force) at all times. Enemy regimes cannot be bargained with or even co-existed with on anything less than maximalist terms dictated by Washington. The US never gives an inch, and must demand everything. And if those regimes do not capitulate, America must topple or destroy them: Iran, Syria, Libya, Venezuela, Cuba, Yemen and North Korea, and must combat them on multiple fronts at once. In doing so, America itself must remain unfettered with an absolutely free hand, not nodding even hypocritically to law or custom or bargaining.

If Bolton's thoughts add up to anything, it is a general hostility, if not to talking, certainly to diplomacy – the art of giving coherence and shape to different instruments and activities, above all through compromise and a recognition of limits. The final straw for Bolton was Trump's cancelling an airstrike on Iran after it shot down a drone. An odd hill to die on, given the graver acts of corruption he as witness alleges, but fitting that the failure to pull the trigger for him was Trump's most shocking misdemeanour.

What is intended to be personal strength and clarity comes over as unreflective bluster

This worldview is as personal as it is geopolitical. Importantly for Bolton, in the end he fights alone, bravely against the herd. He fights against other courtiers, even fellow hawks, who Bolton treats with dismissive contempt – Nikki Haley, Steve Mnuchin, Mike Pompeo, or James Mattis who like Bolton, champions strategic commitments and views Iran as a dangerous enemy, but is more selective about when to reach for the gun. The press is little more than an "hysterical" crowd. Allies like South Korea, who must live as neighbours with one of the regimes Bolton earmarks for execution, and who try conciliatory diplomacy occasionally, earn slight regard. Critics, opponents or those who disagree are 'lazy,' 'howling' or 'feckless.'

For a lengthy work that distils a lifetime's experience, it is remarkably thin regarding the big questions of security, power and order. The hostile world for him contains few real limits other than failures of will. He embraces every rivalry and every commitment, but explanations are few and banal. 'While foreign policy labels are unhelpful except to the intellectually lazy,' he says, 'if pressed, I like to say my policy was "pro-American".' Who is lazy, here?

The purpose of foreign policy, too, is largely absent. Armed supremacy abroad, and power-maximisation, seems to be the end in itself, regardless of what is has wrought at home. This makes his disdain for Trump's authoritarian ways especially obtuse: what does he think made possible an imperial presidency in the first place?

There's little room for principled or reasonable disagreement. What is intended to be personal strength and clarity comes over as unreflective bluster, in a town where horse-trading and agility matter. Unintentionally, it is a warning to anyone who seeks to be effective as well as right, and to those of us who debate these questions.

The most provocative part of the book comes at the end, and points to a man more conflicted than his self-image of the straight shooter. Bolton issues an extended, uneasy defence of his decision not to appear as a witness before the House impeachment inquiry against a president he believed to be corrupt. Having celebrated the need to "pound away" with inexhaustible energy, it turned out his ammunition was low. 'I was content to bide my time. I believed throughout, as the line in Hamilton goes, that "I am not throwing away my shot".' Drawing on a characteristic claim to certainty, 'it would have made no significant difference in the Senate outcome.' How can he know this? And even if the odds were long, was there not – for once – a compelling basis in civic virtue to be that relentless grey battleship, pounding away? He now hopes "history" will remember Trump as a one-term president. History needs willing agents.

Other reviews have honed in on Bolton's decision to delay his revelations for a book pay-day. But consider another theme – the war-hawk who is in fact torn and agonised around combat when it comes to himself. It echoes his retrospective rationale for not fighting in Vietnam, a war he supported, and (as he has recorded) the detailed efforts he made to avoid service in that tragic theatre after being drafted. It was, he decided, bound to fail given that the anti-war Democrats would undermine the cause, a justification he later sheepishly regretted.

So twice the advocate of forceful confrontation refused the call to show up, generously awarding to himself a rationale for non-intervention that relieves him of commitment. He refuses to extend that same exonerating, prudential logic to his country, when it debates whether to wade in to conflict abroad. Neither does he extend it to other Americans who think the nation, like Bolton, might be better off sometimes holding its fire, biding its time, dividing its enemies, and keeping its powder dry.

Given that Bolton failed in the end to attend the "room where it happened", his title is unwittingly ironic. In his favour, Bolton's testy defence of his absence at least suggests something. In contrast with the front cover of another forthcoming, Trump-era memoir , he retains a modest capacity for embarrassment.

[Jul 07, 2020] As for the timing of the likely pending Iran war,another consideration is the impact on financial markets.

Jul 07, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Schmoe , Jul 6 2020 3:27 utc | 85

As for the timing of the likely pending Iran war,another consideration is the impact on financial markets.

The market went into a mini panic last September when the Yemeni missiles hit the Saudi refineries because the Saudis withdrew ~$60n - $80b from repo markets. Some blame JP Morgan for that, but someone I know who works at the repo trading desk of the US branch of a large foreign bank was adamant it was the Saudi pullback and JP Morgan had nothing to do with it. I thought that the US withdrew Patriot batteries from the Gulf infrastructure in Saudi Arabia, that is an odd move given Iran could destroy those facilities.

[Jul 06, 2020] Bolton Changes Tune- Now Refuses To Answer 'Russian Bounties' Questions After Stoking The 'Scandal' -

Jul 06, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

By middle of last week we observed of the Russian bounties to kill American troops in Afghanistan story that "at this point this non-story looks to be dead by the weekend as it's already unraveled."

Indeed by Thursday and Friday, as more Congressional leaders received closed door intelligence briefings on the allegations which originated with an anonymously sourced NY Times report claiming Trump supposedly ignored the Russian op to target Americans, the very Democrat and Republican lawmakers previously hyping it as a 'major scandal' went conspicuously silent .

Recall too that John Bolton, busy with a media blitz promoting his book, emerged to strongly suggest he had personal knowledge that Trump was briefed on the matter . The former national security adviser called the Trump denial of being briefed "remarkable". Well, look who is now appearing to sing a different tune. A week ago Bolton was all too wiling to voluntarily say Trump had "likely" been briefed and that was a big scandal. The whole story was indeed dead by the weekend:

NOW PLAYING

  • Bolton: 'Fickle' Trump would sell out Israel for photo op with Iran's leaders
  • U.S. should consider sanctions if bounty reports true: Bolton
  • Bolton book hits shelves, bruises Trump's ego
  • Viral Finland PM quote about US being under Russian control 'not true' | #TheCube
  • Bolton's New Claims
  • Bolton Claims Trump Asked China's XI to Help Win Re-Election
  • Bolton book creates shockwaves
  • Senator Who Voted Against Bolton Testifying Is Now Angry Bolton Didn't Testify

Other reports said Bolton has been telling people he had personally briefed the president :

Former national security adviser John Bolton told colleagues that he personally briefed President Donald Trump about intelligence that Russia offered Afghan militants bounties to kill American troops , U.S. officials told the Associated Press .

Bolton briefed Trump on the matter in March of 2019, according to the report, a year earlier than previously reported by The New York Times . The information was also included in at least one presidential Daily Brief, according to the AP, CNN and The Times . The AP earlier reported that it was also included in a second presidential Daily Brief earlier this year and that current national security adviser Robert O'Brien discussed the matter with Trump.

His Sunday refusal to even address the question - again after he was all too willing to speak to the issue a week ago when it was driving headlines - speaks volumes.

Via The Daily Mail

Now that even The Washington Post awkwardly walked back the substance of much of its reporting on the 'Russian bounties' story, Bolton has conveniently gone silent .


[Jul 06, 2020] US claim of 'Russian Bounty' plot in Afghanistan is dubious and dangerous - The Grayzone

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... the essential backdrop for the timing of this story. It really reveals how completely decayed mainstream media is as an institution, that none of these reporters protested the story, didn't see fit to do any independent investigation into it. At best they would print a Russian denial which counts for nothing in the US, or a Taliban denial which counts for nothing in the US. And then and this gets into the domestic political angle because so much of Russiagate, while it's been crafted by former or current intelligence officials, depends on the Democratic Party and it punditocracy, MSNBC and mainstream media as a projection megaphone, as its Mighty Wurlitzer. ..."
"... That took place in this case because, according to this story, Donald Trump had been briefed on Putin paying bounties to the Taliban and he chose to do nothing. Which, of course Trump denies, but that counts for nothing as well. But, again, there's been no independent confirmation of any of this. And now we get into the domestic part, which is that this new Republican anti-Trump operation, The Lincoln Project, had a flashy ad ready to go almost minutes after the story dropped. ..."
"... They're just, like, on meth at Steve Schmidt's political Batcave, just churning this material out. But I feel like they had an inkling, like this story was coming. It just the coordination and timing was impeccable. ..."
"... And The Lincoln Project is something that James Carville, the veteran Democratic consultant, has said is doing more than any Democrat or any Democratic consultant to elect Joe Biden. ..."
"... the Carter Administration, at the urging of national security chief Zbigniew Brzezinski, had enacted what would become Operation Cyclone under Reagan, an arm-and-equip program to arm the Afghan mujahideen. The Saudis put up a matching fund which helped bring the so-called Services Bureau into the field where Osama bin Laden became a recruiter for international jihadists to join the battlefield. And, you know, the goal was, in the words of Brzezinski, as he later admitted to a French publication, was to force the Red Army, the Soviet Red Army, to intervene to protect the pro-Soviet government in Kabul, which they proceeded to do. ..."
"... What he means is by basically paying bounties, which the US was literally doing along with its Gulf allies, to exact the toll on the allies of Assad, Russia. So, let's just say it's true, according to your question, let's just say this is all true. It would be a retaliation for what the United States has done to Russia in areas where it was actually legally invited in by the governments in charge, either in Kabul or Damascus. And that's, I think, the kind of ironic subtext that can hardly be understated when you see someone like Dan Rather wag his finger at Putin for paying the Taliban as proxies. But, I mean, it's such a ridiculous story that it's just hard to even fathom that it's real. ..."
"... just kind of neocon resistance mind-explosion, where first John Bolton was hailed as this hero and truthteller about Trump. ..."
"... And then you have this and it, you know, today as you pointed out, Chuck Todd, "Chuck Toddler", welcomes on Meet the Press John Bolton as this wise voice to comment on Donald Trump's slavish devotion to Vladimir Putin and how we need to escalate. ..."
"... This is what Russiagate has done. It's taken one of the most Strangelovian, psychotic, dangerous, bloodthirsty, sadistic monsters in US foreign policy circles and turned him into a sober-minded, even heroic, truthteller. ..."
Jul 06, 2020 | thegrayzone.com

US claim of 'Russian Bounty' plot in Afghanistan is dubious and dangerous

Max Blumenthal breaks down the "Russian bounty" story's flaws and how it aims to prolong the war in Afghanistan -- and uses Russiagate tactics to continue pushing the Democratic Party to the right

Multiple US media outlets, citing anonymous intelligence officials, are claiming that Russia offered bounties to kill US soldiers in Afghanistan, and that President Trump has taken no action.

Others are contesting that claim. "Officials said there was disagreement among intelligence officials about the strength of the evidence about the suspected Russian plot," the New York Times reports. "Notably, the National Security Agency, which specializes in hacking and electronic surveillance, has been more skeptical."

"The constant flow of Russiagate disinformation into the bloodstream of the Democratic Party and its base is moving that party constantly to the right, while pushing the US deeper into this Cold War," Blumenthal says.

Guest: Max Blumenthal, editor of The Grayzone and author of several books, including his latest "The Management of Savagery."

TRANSCRIPT

AARON MATÉ: Welcome to Pushback, I'm Aaron Maté. There is a new supposed Trump-Russia bombshell. The New York Times and other outlets reporting that Russia has been paying bounties to Afghan militants to kill US soldiers in Afghanistan. Trump and the White House were allegedly briefed on this information but have taken no action.

Now, the story has obvious holes, like many other Russiagate bombshells. It is sourced to anonymous intelligence officials. The New York Times says that the claim comes from Afghan detainees. And it also has some logical holes. The Taliban have been fighting the US and Afghanistan for nearly two decades and never needed Russian payments before to kill the Americans that they were fighting; [this] amongst other questions are raised about this story. But that has not stopped the usual chorus from whipping up a frenzy.

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC: Vladimir Putin is offering bounties for the scalps of American soldiers in Afghanistan. Not only offering, offering money [to] the people who kill Americans, but some of the bounties that Putin has offered have been collected, meaning the Russians at least believe that their offering cash to kill Americans has actually worked to get some Americans killed.

FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Donald Trump has continued his embarrassing campaign of deference and debasing himself before Vladimir Putin. He had has [sic] this information according to The Times, and yet he offered to host Putin in the United States and sought to invite Russia to rejoin the G7. He's in his entire presidency has been a gift to Putin, but this is beyond the pale.

CHUCK TODD, NBC: Let me ask you this. Do you think that part of the that the president is afraid to make Putin mad because maybe Putin did help him win the election and he doesn't want to make him mad for 2020?

SENATE MINORITY LEADER CHUCK SCHUMER: I was not briefed on the Russian military intelligence, but it shows that we need in this coming defense bill, which we're debating this week, tough sanctions against Russia, which thus far Mitch McConnell has resisted.

Joining me now is Max Blumenthal, editor of The Grayzone, author of The Management of Savagery . Max, welcome to Pushback. What is your reaction to this story?

MAX BLUMENTHAL: I mean, it just feels like so many other episodes that we've witnessed over the past three or four years, where American intelligence officials basically plant a story in one outlet, The New York Times , which functions as the media wing of the Central Intelligence Agency. Then no reporting takes place whatsoever, but six reporters, or three to six reporters are assigned to the piece to make it look like it was some last-minute scramble to confirm this bombshell story. And then the story is confirmed again by The Washington Post because their reporters, their three to six reporters in, you know, capitals around the world with different beats spoke to the same intelligence officials, or they were furnished different officials who fed them the same story. And, of course, the story advances a narrative that the United States is under siege by Russia and that we have to escalate against Russia just ahead of another peace summit or some kind of international dialogue.

This has sort of been the general framework for these Russiagate bombshells, and of course they can there's always an anti-Trump angle. And because, you know, liberal pundits and the, you know, Democratic Party operatives see this as a means to undermine Trump as the election heats up. They don't care if it's true or not. They don't care what the consequences are. They're just gonna completely roll with it. And it's really changed, I think, not just US foreign policy, but it's changed the Democratic Party in an almost irreversible way, to have these constant "quote-unquote" bombshells that are really generated by the Central Intelligence Agency and by other US intelligence operations in order to turn up the heat to crank up the Cold War, to use these different media organs which no longer believe in reporting, which see Operation Mockingbird as a kind of blueprint for how to do journalism, to turn them into keys on the CIA's Mighty Wurlitzer. That's what happened here.

AARON MATÉ: What do you make of the logic of this story? This idea that the Taliban would need Russian money to kill Americans when the Taliban's been fighting the US for nearly two decades now. And the sourcing for the story, the same old playbook: anonymous intelligence officials who are citing vague claims about apparently what was said by Afghan detainees.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: This story has, as I said, it relies on zero reporting. The only source is anonymous American intelligence officials. And I tweeted out a clip of a former CIA operations officer who managed the CIA's operation in Angola, when the US was actually fighting on the side of apartheid South Africa against a Marxist government that was backed up by Cuban troops. His name was John Stockwell. And Stockwell talked about how one-third of his covert operations staff were propagandists, and that they would feed imaginary stories about Cuban barbarism that were completely false to reporters who were either CIA assets directly or who were just unwitting dupes who would hang on a line waiting for American intelligence officials to feed them stories. And one out of every five stories was completely false, as Stockwell said. We could play some of that clip now; it's pretty remarkable to watch it in light of this latest fake bombshell.

JOHN STOCKWELL: Another thing is to disseminate propaganda to influence people's minds, and this is a major function of the CIA. And unfortunately, of course, it overlaps into the gathering of information. You, you have contact with a journalist, you will give him true stories, you'll get information from him, you'll also give him false stories.

OFF-CAMERA REPORTER: Can you do this with responsible reporters?

JOHN STOCKWELL: Yes, the Church Committee brought it out in 1975. And then Woodward and Bernstein put an article in Rolling Stone a couple of years later. Four hundred journalists cooperating with the CIA, including some of the biggest names in the business.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: So, basically, I mean, you get the flavor of what someone who was in the CIA at the height of the Cold War I mean, he did the same thing in Vietnam. And the playbook is absolutely the same today. These this story was dumped on Friday in The New York Times by "quote-unquote" American intelligence officials, as a breakthrough had been made in Afghan peace talks and a conference was finally set for Doha, Qatar, that would involve the Taliban, which had been seizing massive amounts of territory.

Now, it's my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the Taliban had been fighting one of the most epic examples of an occupying army in modern history, just absolutely chewing away at one of the most powerful militaries in human history in their country for the last 19 years, without bounties from Vladimir Putin or private-hotdog-salesman-and-Saint-Petersburg-troll-farm-owner Yevgeny Prigozhin , who always comes up in these stories. It's always the hotdog guy who's doing everything bad from, like, you know, fake Facebook ads to poisoning Sergei Skripal or whatever.

But I just don't see where the Taliban needs encouragement from Putin to do that. It's their country. They want the US out and they have succeeded in seizing large amounts of territory. Donald Trump has come into office with a pledge to remove US troops from Afghanistan and ink this deal. And along comes this story as the peace process begins to advance.

And what is the end-result? We haven't gotten into the domestic politics yet, but the end-result is you have supposedly progressive senators like Chris Murphy of Connecticut attacking Trump for not fighting Russia in Afghanistan. I mean, they want a straight-up proxy war for not escalating. You have Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, someone who's aligned with the Democratic Party, who supported the war in Iraq and, you know, supports just endless war, demanding that the US turn up the heat not just in Afghanistan but in Syria. So, you know, the escalatory rhetoric is at a fever pitch right now, and it's obviously going to impact that peace conference.

Let's remember that three days before Trump's summit with Putin was when Mueller chose to release the indictment of the GRU agents for supposedly hacking the DNC servers. Let's remember that a day before the UN the United Nations Geneva peace talks opened on Syria in 2014 was when US intelligence chose to feed these shady Caesar photos, supposedly showing industrial slaughter of Syrian prisoners, to The New York Times in an investigation that had been funded by Qatar. Like, so many shady intelligence dumps have taken place ahead of peace summits to disrupt them, because the US doesn't feel like it has enough skin in the game or it just simply doesn't want peace in these areas.

So, that's what happened here. That's really, I think, the essential backdrop for the timing of this story. It really reveals how completely decayed mainstream media is as an institution, that none of these reporters protested the story, didn't see fit to do any independent investigation into it. At best they would print a Russian denial which counts for nothing in the US, or a Taliban denial which counts for nothing in the US. And then and this gets into the domestic political angle because so much of Russiagate, while it's been crafted by former or current intelligence officials, depends on the Democratic Party and it punditocracy, MSNBC and mainstream media as a projection megaphone, as its Mighty Wurlitzer.

That took place in this case because, according to this story, Donald Trump had been briefed on Putin paying bounties to the Taliban and he chose to do nothing. Which, of course Trump denies, but that counts for nothing as well. But, again, there's been no independent confirmation of any of this. And now we get into the domestic part, which is that this new Republican anti-Trump operation, The Lincoln Project, had a flashy ad ready to go almost minutes after the story dropped.

THE LINCOLN PROJECT AD: Now we know Vladimir Putin pays a bounty for the murder of American soldiers. Donald Trump knows, too, and does nothing. Putin pays the Taliban cash to slaughter our men and women in uniform and Trump is silent, weak, controlled. Instead of condemnation he insists Russia be treated as our equal.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: I mean, maybe they're just really good editors and brilliant politicians who work overtime. They're just, like, on meth at Steve Schmidt's political Batcave, just churning this material out. But I feel like they had an inkling, like this story was coming. It just the coordination and timing was impeccable.

And The Lincoln Project is something that James Carville, the veteran Democratic consultant, has said is doing more than any Democrat or any Democratic consultant to elect Joe Biden. They're always out there doing the hard work. Who are they? Well, Steve Schmidt is a former campaign manager for John McCain 2008. And you look at the various personnel affiliated with it, they're all McCain former McCain aides or people who worked on the Jeb and George W. Bush campaigns, going back to Texas and Florida. This is sort of the corporate wing of the Republican Party, the white-glove-country-club-patrician Republicans who are very pro-war, who hate Donald Trump.

And by doing this, by them really taking the lead on this attack, as you pointed out, Aaron, number one, they are sucking the oxygen out of the more progressive anti-Trump initiatives that are taking place, including in the streets of American cities. They're taking the wind out of anti-Trump more progressive anti-Trump critiques. For example, I think it's actually more powerful to attack Trump over the fact that he used, basically, chemical weapons on American peaceful protesters to do a fascistic photo-op. I don't know why there wasn't some call for congressional investigations on that. And they are getting skin in the game on the Biden campaign. It really feels to me like this Lincoln campaign operation, this moderate Republican operation which is also sort of a venue for neocons, will have more influence after events like this than the Bernie Sanders campaign, which has an enormous amount of delegates.

So, that's what I think the domestic repercussion is. It's just this constant it's the constant flow of Russiagate disinformation into the bloodstream of the Democratic Party and its base that's moving that party constantly to the right, while pushing the US deeper into this Cold War that only serves, you know, people who are associated with the national security state who need to justify their paycheck and the budget of the institutions that employ them.

AARON MATÉ: Let's assume for a second that the allegation is true, although, you know, you've laid out some of the reasons why it's not. Can you talk about the history here, starting with Afghanistan, something you cover a lot in your book, The Management of Savagery, where the US aim was to kill Russians, going right on through to Syria, where just recently the US envoy for the coalition against ISIS, James Jeffery, who handles Syria, said that his job now is to basically put the Russians in a quagmire in Syria.

JAMES JEFFREY: This isn't Afghanistan. This isn't Vietnam. This isn't a quagmire. My job is to make it a quagmire for the Russians.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: Yeah, I mean, it feels like a giant act of psychological and political projection to accuse Russia of using an Islamist militia in Afghanistan as a proxy against the US to bleed the US into leaving, because that's been the US playbook in Central Asia and the Middle East since at least 1979. I just tweeted a photo of Dan Rather in Afghanistan, just crossing the Pakistani border and going to meet with some of the Mujahideen in 1980. Dan Rather was panned in The New York in The Washington Post by Tom Toles [Tom Shales], who was the media critic at the time, as "Gunga Dan," because he was so gung-ho for the Afghan mujahideen. In his reports he would complain about how weak their weaponry was, you know, how they needed more how they needed more funding. I mean, you could call it bounties, but it was really just CIA funding.

DAN RATHER: These are the best weapons you have, huh? They only have about twenty rounds for this?

TRANSLATOR: That's all. They have twenty rounds. Yes, and they know that these are all old weapons and they really aren't up to doing anything to the Russian weaponry that's around. But that's all they have, and this is why they want help. And he is saying that America seems to be asleep. It doesn't seem to realize that if Afghanistan goes and the Russians go over to the Gulf, that in a very short time it's going to be the turn of the United States as well.

DAN RATHER: But I'm sure he knows that in Vietnam we got our fingers burned. Indeed, we got our whole hands burned when we tried to help in this kind of situation.

TRANSLATOR [translating to the Afghan man and then his reply]: Your hands were burned in Vietnam, but if you don't agree to help us, if you don't ally yourself with us, then all of you, your whole body will be burnt eventually, because there is no one in the world who can really fight and resist as well as the as much and as well as the Afghans are.

DAN RATHER: But no American mother wants to send her son to Afghanistan.

TRANSLATOR [translating to the Afghan man and then his reply]: We don't need anybody's soldiers here to help us, but we are being constantly accused that the Americans are helping us with weapons. What we need, actually, are the American weapons. We don't need or want American soldiers. We can do the fighting ourselves.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: And a year or several months before, the Carter Administration, at the urging of national security chief Zbigniew Brzezinski, had enacted what would become Operation Cyclone under Reagan, an arm-and-equip program to arm the Afghan mujahideen. The Saudis put up a matching fund which helped bring the so-called Services Bureau into the field where Osama bin Laden became a recruiter for international jihadists to join the battlefield. And, you know, the goal was, in the words of Brzezinski, as he later admitted to a French publication, was to force the Red Army, the Soviet Red Army, to intervene to protect the pro-Soviet government in Kabul, which they proceeded to do.

And then with the introduction of the Stinger missile, the Afghan mujahideen, hailed as freedom fighters in Washington, were able to destroy Russian supply lines, exact a heavy toll, and forced the Red Army to leave in retreat. They helped create what's considered the Soviet Union's Vietnam.

So that was really but the blueprint for what Russian for what Russia is being accused of now, and that same model was transferred over to Syria. It was also actually proposed for Iraq in the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998. Then Senate Foreign Relations chair Jesse Helms actually said that the Afghan mujahideen should be our model for supporting the Iraqi resistance. So, this kind of proxy war was always on the table. Then the US did it in Syria, when one out of every $13 in the CIA budget went to arm the so-called "moderate rebels" in Syria, who we later found out were 31 flavors of jihadi, who were aligned with al-Qaeda's local affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra and helped give rise to ISIS. Michael Morell, I tweeted some video of him on Charlie Rose back in, I think, 2016. He's the former acting director for the CIA, longtime deputy director. He said, you know, the reason that we're in Syria, what we should be doing is causing Iran and Russia, the two allies of Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president, to pay a heavy price.

MICHAEL MORELL: We need to make the Iranians pay a price in Syria. We need to make the Russians pay a price. The other thing

CHARLIE ROSE: We make them pay the price by killing killing Russians?

MICHAEL MORELL: Yes.

CHARLIE ROSE: And killing Iranians.

MICHAEL MORELL: Yes, covertly. You don't tell the world about it, right? You don't stand up at the Pentagon and say we did this, right? But you make sure they know it in Moscow and Tehran.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: What he means is by basically paying bounties, which the US was literally doing along with its Gulf allies, to exact the toll on the allies of Assad, Russia. So, let's just say it's true, according to your question, let's just say this is all true. It would be a retaliation for what the United States has done to Russia in areas where it was actually legally invited in by the governments in charge, either in Kabul or Damascus. And that's, I think, the kind of ironic subtext that can hardly be understated when you see someone like Dan Rather wag his finger at Putin for paying the Taliban as proxies. But, I mean, it's such a ridiculous story that it's just hard to even fathom that it's real.

AARON MATÉ: Let me read Dan Rather's tweet, because it's so it speaks to just how pervasive Russiagate culture is now. People have learned absolutely nothing from it.

Rather says, "Reporters are trained to look for patterns that are suspicious, and time and again one stands out with Donald Trump. Why is he so slavishly devoted to Putin? There is a spectrum of possible answers ranging from craven to treasonous. One day I hope and suspect we will find out."

It's like he forgot, perhaps, that Robert Mueller and his team spent three years investigating this very issue and came up with absolutely nothing. But the narrative has taken hold, and it's, as you talked about before, it's been the narrative we've been presented as the vehicle for understanding and opposing Donald Trump, so it cannot be questioned. And now it's like it's a matter of, what else is there to find out about Trump and Russia after Robert Mueller and the US intelligence agencies looked for everything they could and found nothing? They're still presented as if it's some kind of mystery that has to be unraveled.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: And it was after, like, a week of just kind of neocon resistance mind-explosion, where first John Bolton was hailed as this hero and truthteller about Trump. Then Dick Cheney was welcomed into the resistance, you know, because he said, "Wear a mask." I mean, you know, his mask was strangely not spattered with the blood of Iraqi children. But, you know, it was just amazing like that. Of course, it was the Lincoln project who hijacked the minds of the resistance, but basically people who used to work on Cheney's campaign said, "Dick Cheney, welcome to the resistance." I mean, that was remarkable. And then you have this and it, you know, today as you pointed out, Chuck Todd, "Chuck Toddler", welcomes on Meet the Press John Bolton as this wise voice to comment on Donald Trump's slavish devotion to Vladimir Putin and how we need to escalate.

CHUCK TODD, NBC: Let me ask you this. Do you think that part of the that the president is afraid to make Putin mad because maybe Putin did help him win the election and he doesn't want to make him mad for 2020?

MAX BLUMENTHAL: I mean, just a few years ago, maybe it was two years ago, before Bolton was brought into the Trump NSC, he was considered just an absolute marginal crank who was a contributor to Fox News. He'd been forgotten. He was widely hated by Democrats. Now here he is as a sage voice to tell us how dangerous this moment is. And, you know, he's not being even brought on just to promote his book; he's being brought on as just a sober-minded foreign policy expert on Meet the Press . That's where we're at right now.

AARON MATÉ: Yeah, and when his critique of Trump is basically that Trump was not hawkish enough. Bolton's most the biggest critique Bolton has of Trump is, as he writes about in his book, is when Trump declined to bomb Iran after Iran shot down a drone over its territory. And Bolton said that to him was the most irrational thing he's ever seen a president do.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: Well, Bolton was mad that Trump confused body bags with missiles, because he said Trump thought that there would be 150 dead Iranians, and I said, "No, Donald, you're confused. It will be 150 missiles that we're firing into Iran." Like that's better! Like, "Oh, okay, that makes everything all right," that we fire a hundred missiles for one drone and maybe that wouldn't that kill possibly more than 150 people?

Well, in Bolton's world this was just another stupid move by Trump. If Bolton were, I mean, just, just watch all the interviews with Bolton. Watch him on The View where the only pushback he received was from Meghan McCain complaining that he ripped off a Hamilton song for his book The Room Where It Happened , and she asked, "Don't you have any apology to offer to Hamilton fans?" That was the pushback that Bolton received. Just watch all of these interviews with Bolton and try to find the pushback. It's not there. This is what Russiagate has done. It's taken one of the most Strangelovian, psychotic, dangerous, bloodthirsty, sadistic monsters in US foreign policy circles and turned him into a sober-minded, even heroic, truthteller.

AARON MATÉ: And inevitably the only long-term consequence that I can see here is ultimately helping Trump, because, if history is a pattern, these Russiagate supposed bombshells always either go nowhere or they get debunked. So, if this one gets forcefully debunked, because I think it's quite possible, because Trump has said that he was never briefed on this and they'll have to prove that he's lying, you know. It should be easy to do. Someone could come out and say that. If they can't prove that he's lying, then this one, I think, will blow up in their face. And all they will have done is, at a time when Trump is vulnerable over the pandemic with over a hundred thousand people dead on his watch, all these people did was ultimately try to bring the focus back to the same thing that failed for basically the entirety of Trump's presidency, which is Russiagate and Trump's supposed―and non-existent in reality―subservience to Vladimir Putin.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: But have you ever really confronted one of your liberal friends who maybe doesn't follow these stories as closely as you do? You know, well-intentioned liberal friend who just has this sense that Russia controls Trump, and asked them to really defend that and provide the receipts and really explain where the Trump administration has just handed the store to Russia? Because what we've seen is unprecedented since the height of the Cold War, an unprecedented deterioration of US-Russia relations with new sanctions on Russia every few months. You ask them to do that. They can't do it. It's just a sense they get, it's a feeling they get. And that's because these bombshells drop, they get reported on the front pages under banners of papers that declare that "democracy dies in darkness," whose brand is something that everybody trusts, The New York Times , The Washington Post , Woodward and Bernstein, and everybody repeats the story again and again and again. And then, if and when it gets debunked, discredited or just sort of disappears, a few days later everybody forgets about it. And those people who are not just, like, 24/7 media consumers but critical-minded media consumers, they're left with that sense that Russia actually controls us and that we must do something to escalate with Russia. So, that's the point of these: by the time the disinformation is discredited, the damage has already been done. And that same tactic was employed against Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, to the point where so many people were left with the sense that he must be an antisemite, although not one allegation was ever proven.

AARON MATÉ: Yeah, and now to the point where, in the Labour Party―we should touch on this for a second―where you had a Labour Party member retweet an article recently that mentioned some criticism of Israel and for that she was expelled from her position in the shadow cabinet.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: Yeah, well, you know, as a Jew I was really threatened by that retweet [laughter]. I don't know about you.

I mean, this is Rebecca Long Bailey. She's one of the few Corbynites left in a high position in Labour who hasn't been effectively burned at the stake for being a, you know, Jew hater who wants to throw us all in gas chambers because she retweets an interview with some celebrity I'd never heard of before, who didn't even say anything that extreme. But it really shows how the Thought Police have taken control of the Labour Party through Sir Keir Starmer, who is someone who has deep links to the national security state through the Crown Prosecution Service, which he used to head, where he was involved in the prosecution of Julian Assange. And he has worked with The Times of London, which is a, you know, favorite paper of the national security state and the MI5 in the UK, for planting stories against Jeremy Corbyn. He was intimately involved in that campaign, and now he's at the head of the Labour Party for a very good reason. I really would recommend everyone watching this, if you're interested more in who Keir Starmer really is, read "Five Questions for [New Labour Leader] Sir Keir Starmer" by Matt Kennard at The Grayzone. It really lays it out and shows you what's happening.

We're just in this kind of hyper-managed atmosphere, where everything feels so much more controlled than it's ever been. And even though every sane rational person that I know seems to understand what's happening, they feel like they're not allowed to say it, at least not in any official capacity.

AARON MATÉ: From the US to Britain, everything is being co-opted. In the US it's, you know, genuine resistance to Trump, in opposition to Trump, it gets co-opted by the right. Same thing in Britain. People get manipulated into believing that Jeremy Corbyn, this lifelong anti-racist is somehow an antisemite. It's all in the service of the same agenda, and I have to say we're one of the few outlets that are pushing back on it. Everyone else is getting swept up on it and it's a scary time.

We're gonna wrap. Max, your final comment.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: Well, yeah, we're pushing back. And I saw today Mint Press [News], which is another outlet that has pushed back, their Twitter account was just briefly removed for no reason, without explanation. Ollie Vargas, who's an independent journalist who's doing some of the most important work in the English language from Bolivia, reporting on the post-coup landscape and the repressive environment that's been created by the junta installed with US help under Jeanine Áñez, his account has been taken away on Twitter. The social media platforms are basically under the control of the national security state. There's been a merger between the national security state and Silicon Valley, and the space for these kinds of discussions is rapidly shrinking. So, I think, you know, it's more important than ever to support alternative media and also to really have a clear understanding of what's taking place. I'm really worried there just won't be any space for us to have these conversations in the near future.

AARON MATÉ: Max Blumenthal, editor of The Grayzone, author of The Management of Savagery , thanks a lot.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: Thanks for having me.

[Jul 06, 2020] Provocation will eventuially make Iran deal dead, which is what the USA badly wants

Jul 06, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Deimetri , Jul 5 2020 19:53 utc | 32

Hi b,

What is your take on the rash of "accidents" that Iran has been suffering from, these past couple of weeks?

Et Tu , Jul 5 2020 23:07 utc | 56

@ Posted by: Deimetri | Jul 5 2020 19:53 utc | 32

Wanted to ask the same question, i am sure B will have something as soon as some facts are there to be dissected, seems for now that all we have to go by is the assumption it is either US or Israel dirty work, one that is hard to disagree with.

Iran will have to respond, 4 attacks in less than 2 weeks is really taking the piss and makes them look weak. Quite a reversal from the Iran that was seizing tankers, acting on its threats and dictating the tempo of escalation. Israel and US are only deterred by credible threats and the longer Iran waits, the more emboldened they will feel.

Perhaps Iran is more focused on investigations and searching through its own ranks for collaborators or traitors first, meaning it is still not sure who to hit back at. Is it the US or Israel, who is directly responsible for these attacks? What would be an appropriate response? Anything too overt could be counterproductive as there is no proof tying the explosions to anyone, much less anything concrete that Western media would publish that could justify Iran's actions.

Hezbollah has plenty of problems of its own as explained in B's Lebanon article... so not likely we'll see rocket showers on Israel any time soon on Iran's behalf. Seems those new tankers on the way to Venezuela could be targeted soon too... perhaps they are waiting for that as their pretext for escalation or retaliation?

Richard Steven Hack , Jul 6 2020 0:14 utc | 63

Posted by: Et Tu | Jul 5 2020 23:07 utc | 56

Iran will have to respond

I expect Iran to measure its response tit-for-tat. If these explosions are the result of computer intrusion, Iran will respond in cyberspace. If they are not - and I find it hard to believe they are, disrupting a centrifuge is one thing (and too clever by half), causing an explosion is another - then Iran or a proxy will have to respond in kind. As the article cited below states:


He said Israel was "bracing" for an Iranian response, likely via a cyberattack. In an April cyberattack attributed by western intelligence officials to Iran, an attempt was made to increase chlorine levels in water flowing to residential Israeli areas.

Probably BS by Israel and the US, but this sort of thing goes on all the time. Note that there was no explosions involved.

The problem is that covert operations require some planning, especially if hacking is involved. So Iran's response might be days, weeks or months delayed. Of course, it can respond more directly by using Iraqi Shia militias against US forces in Iraq, or allies like Hezbollah elsewhere. But that is a trap the US neocons have laid - anything Iran does can be used to justify further attacks. Even if Iran proves that these explosions were not accidents, they will not be believed. So anything Iran does which is not equally covert will be used to justify further aggression.

There really is no winning this game by Iran. Only if the US and Israel stops covert attacks - and that isn't going to happen.

Meanwhile, allegedly the EU has claimed Iran has now triggered the JCPOA dispute mechanism.

EU says Iran has triggered nuclear deal dispute mechanism

I don't know if this is true, but if so, it represents the final collapse of the JCPOA. The dispute mechanism has a specific time mechanism to which all parties must adhere. So within a short period of time, Iran will either be granted its sanctions relief as promised or the deal will end. The deal's snapback mechanism won't be applied, because Russia and China will veto that no matter the US does. The US has no standing, but will try anyway just for the propaganda value.

Once the JCPOA is finally declared dead, the US and Israel will escalate their aggression against Iran, because no one in the ignorant electorate in those countries will be told that the deal was ruined by Trump and the EU's spinelessness.

Without the JCPOA, the US can revert to the sort of warmongering it engaged in before the Iraq war - constantly escalating accusations that can never be proven false and an unending stream of propaganda justifying a war.

The *only* thing preventing an Iran war is Hezbollah's ability to derail the Israeli economy. The US and Israel have no choice but to find a solution to that problem. Whether they will succeed in that, and at what cost to Lebanon, is the question.

Historically, I don't think there has ever been this level of enmity between countries without a war resulting (other than between nuclear armed nations due to MAD.) It may take some years more to get the Iran war started, but it is inevitable.

And that recognition, contrary to Bagoom's claims, is *not* advocacy. An Iran war is going to be very bad for *everyone* except Israel, the neocons and the military-industrial complex.

[Jul 06, 2020] Third 'Mystery' Blast In Less Than A Week Rocks Iran Power Plant -

Notable quotes:
"... To review, starting over a week ago a massive explosion was observed lighting up the midnight sky outside Tehran, caught on film by local residents, which Iran's military dismissed as a gas leak explosion incident. But it was later revealed to have occurred at a ballistic missile development facility. ..."
"... And this past week, another reported "accident" occurred at Natanz nuclear complex. But that particular 'mystery' blast caused Iranian officials to lash out in anger Thursday, saying "hostile countries" like the US and Israel are near the point of crossing "red lines". Crucially, Iran also said there were no radioactive leaks as a result of the incident. ..."
Jul 06, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Third 'Mystery' Blast In Less Than A Week Rocks Iran Power Plant by Tyler Durden Sun, 07/05/2020 - 11:30 Twitter Facebook Reddit Email Print

On Saturday an explosion ripped through a power plant in the Iranian city of Ahvaz, marking the third 'mystery' blast to hit the country in only under a week, and the fourth recently .

State media showed emergency crews on the scene of the daytime incident while a fire raged at the power plant. This followed days ago a huge blast which destroyed Sina hospital in northern Tehran, which killed 19 people and injured 14.

To review, starting over a week ago a massive explosion was observed lighting up the midnight sky outside Tehran, caught on film by local residents, which Iran's military dismissed as a gas leak explosion incident. But it was later revealed to have occurred at a ballistic missile development facility.

And this past week, another reported "accident" occurred at Natanz nuclear complex. But that particular 'mystery' blast caused Iranian officials to lash out in anger Thursday, saying "hostile countries" like the US and Israel are near the point of crossing "red lines". Crucially, Iran also said there were no radioactive leaks as a result of the incident.

Both US and Israeli media, including The New York Times and Times of Israel, have begun speculating that it could be part of a Mossad or CIA op to set back Iran's nuclear development .

The Jerusalem Post on Sunday asked in a headline and op-ed : Have four explosions pushed Iran farther away from a nuke?

Of the myriad fascinating questions surrounding the four recent, mysterious explosions in Iran, there is still one key issue that rises above the rest: Has any of this significantly distanced Iran further from a nuclear weapon?

The jury is still out, as there is so much that is unconfirmed. But to date, the early answer would need to be: probably not .

Since the IAEA's March report that the Islamic Republic crossed the threshold for having enough low-level enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb, the estimated time for Tehran to enrich enough of that uranium up to a weaponized level dropped from 12 months to as little as four months.

Most interestingly, an unnamed intelligence source said to be based in the Middle East told The New York Times this past week said of the mysterious incident at Natanz: "The blast was caused by an explosive device planted inside the facility."

The official added that the bombing "destroyed much of the aboveground parts of the facility where new centrifuges are balanced before they are put into operation."

Reports out of Iran's state media also suggest a possible cyber-attack, to which Tehran military officials say "they'll respond" if the attack did indeed originate from Iran's enemies like the US or Israel.

[Jul 06, 2020] Trump's two Russias confound coherent US policy

This is a neocon written article. Reader beware.
Trump as wolf in sheep's clothing in his policy toward Russia. Any person who can appoint Bolton as his national security advisor should be criminally prosecuted for criminal incompetence. To say nothing about Pompeo, Haley and many others. Such a peacenik, my ***
The USA foreign policy is not controlled by the President. It is controlled by the "Deep state"
Notable quotes:
"... The dizzying, often contradictory, paths followed by Trump on the one hand and his hawkish but constantly changing cast of national security aides on the other have created confusion in Congress and among allies and enemies alike. To an observer, Russia is at once a mortal enemy and a misunderstood friend in U.S. eyes. ..."
"... But Trump has defended his perspective on Russia, viewing it as a misunderstood potential friend, a valued World War II ally led by a wily, benevolent authoritarian who actually may share American values, like the importance of patriotism, family and religion. ..."
"... despite Trump's rhetoric, his administration has plowed ahead with some of the most significant actions against Russia by any recent administration. ..."
"... Dozens of Russian diplomats have been expelled, diplomatic missions closed, arms control treaties the Russians sought to preserve have been abandoned, weapons have been sold to Ukraine despite the impeachment allegations and the administration is engaged in a furious battle to prevent Russia from constructing a new gas pipeline that U.S. lawmakers from both parties believe will increase Europe's already unhealthy dependence on Russian energy. ..."
Jul 06, 2020 | apnews.com

When it comes to Russia, the Trump administration just can't seem to make up its mind.

For the past three years, the administration has careered between President Donald Trump's attempts to curry favor and friendship with Vladimir Putin and longstanding deep-seated concerns about Putin's intentions. As Trump has repeatedly and openly cozied up to Putin, his administration has imposed harsh and meaningful sanctions and penalties on Russia.

The dizzying, often contradictory, paths followed by Trump on the one hand and his hawkish but constantly changing cast of national security aides on the other have created confusion in Congress and among allies and enemies alike. To an observer, Russia is at once a mortal enemy and a misunderstood friend in U.S. eyes.

Even before Trump took office questions about Russia abounded. Now, nearing the end of his first term with a difficult reelection ahead , those questions have resurfaced with a vengeance. Intelligence suggesting Russia was encouraging attacks on U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan by putting bounties on their heads has thrust the matter into the heart of the 2020 campaign.

The White House says the intelligence wasn't confirmed or brought to Trump's attention, but his vast chorus of critics are skeptical and maintain the president should have been aware.

The reports have alarmed even pro-Trump Republicans who see Russia as a hostile global foe meddling with nefarious intent in Afghanistan, the Middle East, Ukraine and Georgia, a waning former superpower trying to regain its Soviet-era influence by subverting democracy in Europe and the United States with disinformation and election interference .

Trump's overtures to Putin have unsettled longstanding U.S. allies in Europe, including Britain, France and Germany, which have expressed concern about the U.S. commitment to the NATO alliance, which was forged to counter the Soviet threat, and robust democracy on the continent.

But Trump has defended his perspective on Russia, viewing it as a misunderstood potential friend, a valued World War II ally led by a wily, benevolent authoritarian who actually may share American values, like the importance of patriotism, family and religion.

Trump's approach to Russia was at center stage in the impeachment proceedings, when U.S. officials testified that the president demanded political favors from Ukraine in return for military assistance it needed to combat Russian aggression. But the issue ended up as a largely partisan exercise, with House Democrats voting to impeach Trump and Senate Republicans voting to acquit .

Within the Trump administration, the national security establishment appears torn between pursuing an arguably tough approach to Russia and pleasing the president. Insiders who have raised concern about Trump's approach to Russia -- including at least one of his national security advisers, defense secretaries and secretaries of state, but especially lower-level officials who spoke out during impeachment -- have nearly all been ousted from their positions.

Suspicions about Trump and Russia go back to his 2016 campaign. His appeal to Moscow to dig up his opponent's emails , his plaintive suggestions that Russia and the United States should be friends and a series of contacts between his advisers and Russians raised questions of impropriety that led to special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation . The investigation ultimately did not allege that anyone associated with the campaign illegally conspired with Russia.

Mueller, along with the U.S. intelligence community, did find that Russia interfered with the election, to sow chaos and also help Trump's campaign. But Trump has cast doubt on those findings, most memorably in a 2018 appearance on stage with Putin in Helsinki .

Yet despite Trump's rhetoric, his administration has plowed ahead with some of the most significant actions against Russia by any recent administration.

Dozens of Russian diplomats have been expelled, diplomatic missions closed, arms control treaties the Russians sought to preserve have been abandoned, weapons have been sold to Ukraine despite the impeachment allegations and the administration is engaged in a furious battle to prevent Russia from constructing a new gas pipeline that U.S. lawmakers from both parties believe will increase Europe's already unhealthy dependence on Russian energy.

At the same time, Trump has compounded the uncertainty by calling for the withdrawal or redeployment of U.S. troops from Germany, angrily deriding NATO allies for not meeting alliance defense spending commitments, and now apparently ignoring dire intelligence warnings that Russia was paying or wanted to pay elements of the Taliban to kill American forces in Afghanistan.

On top of that, even after the intelligence reports on the Afghanistan bounties circulated, he's expressed interest in inviting Putin back into the G-7 group of nations over the objections of the other members.

White House officials and die-hard Trump supporters have shrugged off the obvious inconsistencies, but they have been unable to staunch the swell of criticism and pointed demands for explanations as Russia, which has vexed American leaders for decades, delights in its ability to create chaos.

[Jul 03, 2020] Podcast- Empire Has No Clothes, Episode 9, Foreign Policy Dissent Is Patriotic by DANIEL LARISON

Bolton is just "yet another MIC puppet", who has complete vacuum in his head as for morality and decency. In other words he is a typical Washington psychopath. Like many sociopaths he is a compulsive liar, undeniable careerist and self-promoter.
Jul 02, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

This week on Empire Has No Clothes, we spoke with Elizabeth Shackelford, a former Foreign Service Officer and author of The Dissent Channel: American Diplomacy in a Dishonest Age . Kelley Vlahos, Matt Purple and I talked about demoralization in the department, the reasons for her resignation, U.S. policy in South Sudan and Africa, and the need for greater accountability in our foreign policy. We also covered John Bolton's new book, his outdated foreign policy views, and whether anything he says can be trusted.

Listen to the episode in the player below, or click the links beneath it to subscribe using your favorite podcast app. If you like what you hear, please give us a rating or review on iTunes or Stitcher, which will really help us climb the rankings, allowing more people to find the show.

[Jul 03, 2020] The Iran Obsession Has Isolated the US

So former tank repairman decided again managed to make a make a mark in world diplomacy :-).
Notable quotes:
"... Mike Pompeo delivered an embarrassing, clownish performance at the U.N. on Tuesday, and his attempt to gain support for an open-ended conventional arms embargo on Iran was rejected the rest of the old P5+1: ..."
"... The Trump administration has abused our major European allies for years in its push to destroy the nuclear deal, and their governments have no patience with any more unilateral U.S. stunts. This is the result of two years of a destructive policy aimed solely at punishing Iran and its people. The administration's open contempt for international law and the interests of its allies has cost the U.S. their cooperation. ..."
"... Underscoring the absurdity of the Trump administration's arms embargo appeal were Pompeo's alarmist warnings that an end to the arms embargo would allow Iran to purchase advanced fighters that it would use to threaten Europe and India: ..."
"... This is a laughably unrealistic scenario. Even if Iran purchased advanced fighters, the last thing it would do is send them off on a suicide mission to bomb Italy or India. This shows how deeply irrational the Iran hawks' fearmongering is. Iran has already demonstrated an ability to launch precise attacks with drones and missiles in its immediate neighborhood, and it developed these capabilities while under the current embargo. ..."
"... The Secretary of State called on the U.N. to reject "extortion diplomacy." The best way to reject extortion diplomacy would be for them to reject the administration's desperate attempt to use America's position at the U.N. to attack international law. ..."
Jul 03, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Mike Pompeo delivered an embarrassing, clownish performance at the U.N. on Tuesday, and his attempt to gain support for an open-ended conventional arms embargo on Iran was rejected the rest of the old P5+1:

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called on Tuesday for an arms embargo on Iran to be extended indefinitely, but his appeal fell flat at the United Nations Security Council, where Russia and China rejected it outright and close allies of the United States were ambivalent.

The Trump administration is more isolated than ever in its Iran obsession. The ridiculous effort to invoke the so-called "snapback" provision of the JCPOA more than two years after reneging on the agreement met with failure, just as most observers predicted months ago when it was first floated as a possibility. As I said at the time, "The administration's latest destructive ploy won't find any support on the Security Council. There is nothing "intricate" about this idea. It is a crude, heavy-handed attempt to employ the JCPOA's own provisions to destroy it." It was never going to work because all of the other parties to the agreement want nothing to do with the administration's punitive approach, and U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA meant that it forfeited any rights it had when it was still part of the deal.

Opposition from Russia and China was a given, but the striking thing about the scene at the U.N. this week was that major U.S. allies joined them in rebuking the administration's obvious bad faith maneuver:

The pointedly critical tone of the debate saw Germany accusing Washington of violating international law by withdrawing from the nuclear pact, while Berlin aligned itself with China's claim that the United States has no right to reimpose U.N. sanctions on Iran.

The Trump administration has abused our major European allies for years in its push to destroy the nuclear deal, and their governments have no patience with any more unilateral U.S. stunts. This is the result of two years of a destructive policy aimed solely at punishing Iran and its people. The administration's open contempt for international law and the interests of its allies has cost the U.S. their cooperation.

Underscoring the absurdity of the Trump administration's arms embargo appeal were Pompeo's alarmist warnings that an end to the arms embargo would allow Iran to purchase advanced fighters that it would use to threaten Europe and India:

If you fail to act, Iran will be free to purchase Russian-made fighter jets that can strike up to a 3,000 kilometer radius, putting cities like Riyadh, New Delhi, Rome, and Warsaw in Iranian crosshairs.

This is a laughably unrealistic scenario. Even if Iran purchased advanced fighters, the last thing it would do is send them off on a suicide mission to bomb Italy or India. This shows how deeply irrational the Iran hawks' fearmongering is. Iran has already demonstrated an ability to launch precise attacks with drones and missiles in its immediate neighborhood, and it developed these capabilities while under the current embargo.

It has no need for expensive fighters, and it is not at all certain that their government would even be interested in acquiring them. Pompeo's presentation was a weak attempt to exaggerate the potential threat from a state that has very limited power projection, and he found no support because his serial fabrications about Iran have rendered everything he says to be worthless.

The same administration that wants to keep an arms embargo on Iran forever has no problem flooding the region with U.S.-made weapons and providing them to some of the worst governments in the world. It is these client states that are doing the most to destabilize other countries in the region right now. If the U.N. should be putting arms embargoes on any country, it should consider imposing them on Saudi Arabia and the UAE to limit their ability to wreak havoc on Yemen and Libya.

The Secretary of State called on the U.N. to reject "extortion diplomacy." The best way to reject extortion diplomacy would be for them to reject the administration's desperate attempt to use America's position at the U.N. to attack international law.

[Jul 01, 2020] Three Glaring Problems with the Russian Taliban Bounty Story by Barbara Boland

Highly recommended!
This is an attempt to move Trump in the direction of more harsher politics toward Russia. So not Bolton's but Obama ears are protruding above this dirty provocation.
Notable quotes:
"... According to the anonymous sources that spoke with the paper's reporters, the White House and President Trump were briefed on a range of potential responses to Moscow's provocations, including sanctions, but the White House had authorized no further action. ..."
"... Bolton is one of the only sources named in the New York Times article. Currently on a book tour, Bolton has said that he witnessed foreign policy malfeasance by Trump that dwarfs the Ukraine scandal that was the subject of the House impeachment hearings. But Bolton's credibility has been called into question since he declined to appear before the House committee. ..."
"... "Who can forget how 'successful' interrogators can be in getting desired answers?" writes Ray McGovern, who served as a CIA analyst for 27 years. Under the CIA's "enhanced interrogation techniques," Khalid Sheik Mohammed famously made at least 31 confessions, many of which were completely false. ..."
"... This story is "WMD [all over] again," said McGovern, who in the 1980s chaired National Intelligence Estimates and prepared the President's Daily Brief. He believes the stories seek to preempt DOJ findings on the origins of the Russiagate probe. ..."
"... The bungled media response and resulting negative press could also lead Trump to contemplate harsher steps towards Russia in order to prove that he is "tough," which may have motivated the leakers. It's certainly a policy goal with which Bolton, one of the only named sources in the New York Times piece, wholeheartedly approves. ..."
"... Not only did CIA et al.'s leak get even with Trump for years of insults and ignoring their reports (Trump is politically wounded by this story), but it also achieved their primary objective of keeping Putin out of the G7 and muzzling Trump's threats to withdraw from NATO because Russia is our friend (well his, anyway). ..."
"... Point 4: the whole point of the Talibans is to fight to the death whichever country tries to control and invade Afghanistan. They didn't need the Russians to tell them to fight the US Army, did they? ..."
"... Point 5: Russia tried to organise a mediation process between the Afghan government and the Talibans already in 2018 - so why would they be at the same time trying to fuel the conflict? A stable Afghanistan is more convenient to them, given the geographical position of the country. ..."
"... As much as I love to see everyone pile on trump, this is another example of a really awful policy having bad outcomes. If Bush, Obama, trump, or anyone at the pentagon gave a crap about the troops, they wouldn't have kept them in Afghanistan and lied about the fact they were losing the whole time. ..."
"... the idea is stupid. Russia doesn't need to do anything to motivate Afghans to want to boot the invaders out of their country, and would want to attract negative attention in doing so. ..."
"... Contrast with the CIA motivations for this absurd narrative. Chuck Schumer famously commented that the intelligence agencies had ways of getting back at you, and it looks like you took the bait, hook, line and sinker. ..."
"... And a fourth CIA goal: it undermines Trump's relationship with the military. ..."
"... Having failed in its Russia "collusion" and "Russia stole the election" campaigns to oust Trump, this is just the latest effort by the Deep State and mass media to use unhinged Russophobia to try to boost Biden and damage Trump. ..."
"... The contemporary left hate Russia , because Russia is carving out it own sphere of influence and keeping the Americans out, because it saved Assad from the western backed sunni head choppers (that the left cheered on, as they killed native Orthodox, and Catholic Christians). The Contempary left hate Russia because it cracks down on LGBT propaganda, banned porn hub, and return property to the Church , which the leftist Bolsheviks stole, the Contempaty left hate Russia because it cracked down on it western backed oligarchs who plundered Russia in the 90's. ..."
Jul 01, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Bombshell report published by The New York Times Friday alleges that Russia paid dollar bounties to the Taliban in Afghanistan to kill U.S troops. Obscured by an extremely bungled White House press response, there are at least three serious flaws with the reporting.

The article alleges that GRU, a top-secret unit of Russian military intelligence, offered the bounty in payment for every U.S. soldier killed in Afghanistan, and that at least one member of the U.S. military was alleged to have been killed in exchange for the bounties. According to the paper, U.S. intelligence concluded months ago that the Russian unit involved in the bounties was also linked to poisonings, assassination attempts and other covert operations in Europe. The Times reports that United States intelligence officers and Special Operations forces in Afghanistan came to this conclusion about Russian bounties some time in 2019.

According to the anonymous sources that spoke with the paper's reporters, the White House and President Trump were briefed on a range of potential responses to Moscow's provocations, including sanctions, but the White House had authorized no further action.

Immediately after the news broke Friday, the Trump administration denied the report -- or rather, they denied that the President was briefed, depending on which of the frenetic, contradictory White House responses you read.

Traditionally, the President of the United States receives unconfirmed, and sometimes even raw intelligence, in the President's Daily Brief, or PDB. Trump notoriously does not read his PDB, according to reports.

Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe said in a statement Saturday night that neither Trump nor Vice President Pence "were ever briefed on any intelligence alleged by the New York Times in its reporting yesterday."

On Sunday night, Trump tweeted that not only was he not told about the alleged intelligence, but that it was not credible."Intel just reported to me that they did not find this info credible, and therefore did not report it to me or @VP" Pence, Trump wrote Sunday night on Twitter.

Ousted National Security Advisor John Bolton said on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday that Trump was probably claiming ignorance in order to justify his administration's lack of response.

"He can disown everything if nobody ever told him about it," said Bolton.

Bolton is one of the only sources named in the New York Times article. Currently on a book tour, Bolton has said that he witnessed foreign policy malfeasance by Trump that dwarfs the Ukraine scandal that was the subject of the House impeachment hearings. But Bolton's credibility has been called into question since he declined to appear before the House committee.

The explanations for what exactly happened, and who was briefed, continued to shift Monday.

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany followed Trump's blanket denial with a statement that the intelligence concerning Russian bounty information was "unconfirmed." She didn't say the intelligence wasn't credible, like Trump had said the day before, only that there was "no consensus" and that the "veracity of the underlying allegations continue to be evaluated," which happens to almost completely match the Sunday night statement from the White House's National Security Council.

Instead of saying that the sources for the Russian bounty story were not credible and the story was false, or likely false, McEnany then said that Trump had "not been briefed on the matter."

"He was not personally briefed on the matter," she said. "That is all I can share with you today."

It's difficult to see how the White House thought McEnany's statement would help, and a bungled press response like this is communications malpractice, according to sources who spoke to The American Conservative.

Let's take a deeper dive into some of the problems with the reporting here:

1. Anonymous U.S. and Taliban sources?

The Times article repeatedly cites unnamed "American intelligence officials." The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal articles "confirming" the original Times story merely restate the allegations of the anonymous officials, along with caveats like "if true" or "if confirmed."

Furthermore, the unnamed intelligence sources who spoke with the Times say that their assessment is based "on interrogations of captured Afghan militants and criminals."

That's a red flag, said John Kiriakou, a former analyst and case officer for the CIA who led the team that captured senior al-Qaeda member Abu Zubaydah in Pakistan in 2002. "When you capture a prisoner, and you're interrogating him, the prisoner is going to tell you what he thinks you want to hear," he said in an interview with The American Conservative . "There's no evidence here, there's no proof."

"Who can forget how 'successful' interrogators can be in getting desired answers?" writes Ray McGovern, who served as a CIA analyst for 27 years. Under the CIA's "enhanced interrogation techniques," Khalid Sheik Mohammed famously made at least 31 confessions, many of which were completely false.

Kiriakou believes that the sources behind the report hold important clues on how the government viewed its credibility.

"We don't know who the source is for this. We don't know if they've been vetted, polygraphed; were they a walk-in; were they a captured prisoner?"

If the sources were suspect, as they appear to be here, then Trump would not have been briefed on this at all.

With this story, it's important to start at the "intelligence collection," said Kiriakou. "This information appeared in the [CIA World Intelligence Review] Wire, which goes to hundreds of people inside the government, mostly at the State Department and the Pentagon. The most sensitive information isn't put in the Wire; it goes only in the PDB."

"If this was from a single source intelligence, it wouldn't have been briefed to Trump. It's not vetted, and it's not important enough. If you caught a Russian who said this, for example, that would make it important enough. But some Taliban detainees saying it to an interrogator, that does not rise to the threshold."

2. What purpose would bounties serve?

Everyone and their mother knows Trump wants to pull the troops out of Afghanistan, said Kiriakou.

"He ran on it and he has said it hundreds of times," he said. "So why would the Russians bother putting a bounty on U.S. troops if we're about to leave Afghanistan shortly anyway?"

That's leaving aside Russia's own experience with the futility of Afghanistan campaigns, learned during its grueling 9-year war there in the 1980s.

If this bounty campaign is real, it would not appear to be very effective, as only eight U.S. military members were killed in Afghanistan in 2020. The New York Times could not verify that even one U.S. military member was killed due to an alleged Russian bounty.

The Taliban denies it accepted bounties from Russian intelligence.

"These kinds of deals with the Russian intelligence agency are baseless -- our target killings and assassinations were ongoing in years before, and we did it on our own resources," Zabihullah Mujahid, a spokesman for the Taliban, told The New York Times . "That changed after our deal with the Americans, and their lives are secure and we don't attack them."

The Russian Embassy in the United States called the reporting "fake news."

While the Russians are ruthless, "it's hard to fathom what their motivations could be" here, said Paul Pillar, an academic and 28-year veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency, in an interview with The American Conservative. "What would they be retaliating for? Some use of force in Syria recently? I don't know. I can't string together a particular sequence that makes sense at this time. I'm not saying that to cast doubt on reports the Russians were doing this sort of thing."

3. Why is this story being leaked now?

According to U.S. officials quoted by the AP, top officials in the White House "were aware of classified intelligence indicating Russia was secretly offering bounties to the Taliban for the deaths of Americans" in early 2019. So why is this story just coming out now?

This story is "WMD [all over] again," said McGovern, who in the 1980s chaired National Intelligence Estimates and prepared the President's Daily Brief. He believes the stories seek to preempt DOJ findings on the origins of the Russiagate probe.

The NYT story serves to bolster the narrative that Trump sides with Russia, and against our intelligence community estimates and our own soldiers lives.

The stories "are likely to remain indelible in the minds of credulous Americans -- which seems to have been the main objective," writes McGovern. "There [Trump] goes again -- not believing our 'intelligence community; siding, rather, with Putin.'"

"I don't believe this story and I think it was leaked to embarrass the President," said Kiriakou. "Trump is on the ropes in the polls; Biden is ahead in all the battleground states."

If these anonymous sources had spoken up during the impeachment hearings, their statements could have changed history.

But the timing here, "kicking a man when he is down, is extremely like the Washington establishment. A leaked story like this now, embarrasses and weakens Trump," he said. "It was obvious that Trump would blow the media response, which he did."

The bungled media response and resulting negative press could also lead Trump to contemplate harsher steps towards Russia in order to prove that he is "tough," which may have motivated the leakers. It's certainly a policy goal with which Bolton, one of the only named sources in the New York Times piece, wholeheartedly approves.

Barbara Boland is TAC's foreign policy and national security reporter. Previously, she worked as an editor for the Washington Examiner and for CNS News. She is the author of Patton Uncovered , a book about General George Patton in World War II, and her work has appeared on Fox News, The Hill , UK Spectator , and elsewhere. Boland is a graduate from Immaculata University in Pennsylvania. Follow her on Twitter @BBatDC .

Tomonthebeach • 9 hours ago • edited

Caitlin Johnstone was the first journalist to question this NYT expose' several days ago in her blog. After looking into it, I had to agree with her that the story was junk reporting by a news source eager to stick it to Trump for his daily insults. NYT must love the irony of a "fake news" story catching fire and burning Trump politically. After all, paying people to kill their own enemies? That is a "tip," not a bounty. It is more of an intel footnote than the game-changer in international relations as asserted by Speaker Pelosi on TV as she grabbed her pearls beneath her stylish COVID mask.

I was surprised that Ms. Boland could not think of any motivation for leaking the story right now given recent grousing on the Hill about Trump's inviting Putin to G7 over the objections of Merkel and several other NATO heads of state. I even posted a congratulatory message in Defense One yesterday to the US Intel community for mission accomplished.

Not only did CIA et al.'s leak get even with Trump for years of insults and ignoring their reports (Trump is politically wounded by this story), but it also achieved their primary objective of keeping Putin out of the G7 and muzzling Trump's threats to withdraw from NATO because Russia is our friend (well his, anyway).

Connecticut Farmer Tomonthebeach • 3 hours ago

That "bounty" story never passed the smell test, even to my admittedly untrained nose. My real problem is that it's a story in the first place, given that Trump campaigned on a platform that included bringing the boys home from sand hills like Afghanistan; yet here we are, four years later, and we're still there.

Lavinia • 6 hours ago

Point 4: the whole point of the Talibans is to fight to the death whichever country tries to control and invade Afghanistan. They didn't need the Russians to tell them to fight the US Army, did they?

Point 5: Russia tried to organise a mediation process between the Afghan government and the Talibans already in 2018 - so why would they be at the same time trying to fuel the conflict? A stable Afghanistan is more convenient to them, given the geographical position of the country.

This whole story is completely ridiculous. Totally bogus.

Wally • 5 hours ago

As much as I love to see everyone pile on trump, this is another example of a really awful policy having bad outcomes. If Bush, Obama, trump, or anyone at the pentagon gave a crap about the troops, they wouldn't have kept them in Afghanistan and lied about the fact they were losing the whole time.

Of course people are trying to kill US military in Afghanistan. If I lived in Afghanistan, I'd probably hate them too. And let's not forget that just a few weeks ago the 82nd airborne was ready to kill American civilians in DC. The military is our enemy too!

If you are in the US military today, please quit.

https://www.washingtonpost....

Don't ever forget how they lied to us.

Feral Finster • 4 hours ago

Moreover, the idea is stupid. Russia doesn't need to do anything to motivate Afghans to want to boot the invaders out of their country, and would want to attract negative attention in doing so.

The purported bounty program doesn't help Russia, but the anonymous narrative does conveniently serve several CIA purposes:
1. It makes it harder to leave Afghanistan.
2. It keeps the cold war with Russia going along.
3. It damages Trump (whose relationship with the CIA is testy at best).

Then there's the question of how this supposed intelligence was gathered. The CIA tortures people, and there's no reason to believe that this was any different.

Feral Finster Sidney Caesar • 2 hours ago

1. Russia wants a stable Afghanistan. Not a base for jihadis.

2. The idea that Russia has to encourage Afghans to kill Invaders is a hoot. They don't ever do that on their own.

3. Not only do Afghans traditionally need no motivation to kill infidel foreign Invaders, but Russia would have to be incredibly stupid to bring more American enmity on itself.

Contrast with the CIA motivations for this absurd narrative. Chuck Schumer famously commented that the intelligence agencies had ways of getting back at you, and it looks like you took the bait, hook, line and sinker.

Either that, or you're just cynical. You'll espouse anything, however absurd and full of lies, as long as it damages Trump.

I detest Trump, but I am not a list.

Wally Feral Finster • 3 hours ago

I don't have a clue if this bounty story is correct, but I can imagine plenty of reasons why the Russians would do it. It's easy enough to believe it or believe it was cooked up by CIA as you suggest.

Feral Finster Feral Finster • 2 hours ago

And a fourth CIA goal: it undermines Trump's relationship with the military.

FND • 4 hours ago

There will be one of these BS blockbusters every few weeks until the election. There are legions of buried-in democrat political appointees that will continue to feed the DNC press. It will be non-stop. The DNC press is shredding the 1st amendment.

former-vet FND • 2 hours ago

Not shredding the First Amendment, just shining light on the pitfalls of a right to freedom of speech. There are others ramifications to free speech we consider social goods.

Kent FND • 2 hours ago

These aren't buried-in democrats. These people could care less which political party the President is a member of. They only care that the President does what they say. Political parties are just to bamboozle the rubes. They are the real power.

Connecticut Farmer • 4 hours ago

"U.S. Intelligence"-lol--a contradiction in terms. Just repeat three times: "George 'Slam Dunk' Tenet."

Sidney Caesar Connecticut Farmer • 3 hours ago

Tenet knew his role- he said what his superiors wanted to hear: https://www.motherjones.com... The Iraq debacle was a top-down con job.

Stephen R Gould • 3 hours ago • edited

The best defence that the WSJ and Fox News could muster was that the story wasn't confirmed as the NSA didn't have the same confidence in the assessment as the CIA. "Is there anything else to which you would wish to draw my attention?" "To the curious incident of the denial from the White House", "There was no denial from the White House". "That was the curious incident".

I note that Fox News had buried the story "below the scroll" on their home page - if they had though the story was fake, the headlines would be screaming at MSM.

maxsnafu • 3 hours ago

I was suspicious when I saw it originated in Walter Duranty's newspaper.

The Derp State • 3 hours ago

"What if Obama...." #4,267

former-vet • 2 hours ago • edited

Pravda was a far more honest and objective news source than The New York Times is. I say that as someone who read both for long periods of time. The Times is on par with the National Enquirer for credibility, with the latter at least being less propagandistic and agenda-driven.

SatirevFlesti • 2 hours ago

Having failed in its Russia "collusion" and "Russia stole the election" campaigns to oust Trump, this is just the latest effort by the Deep State and mass media to use unhinged Russophobia to try to boost Biden and damage Trump.

The extent to which the contemporary Left is driven by a level of Russophobia unseen even by the most stalwart anti-Communists on the Right during the Cold War is truly something to behold. I think at bottom it comes down to not liking Putin or Russia because they refuse to get on board with the Left's social agenda.

James SatirevFlesti • 2 hours ago • edited

The contemporary left hate Russia , because Russia is carving out it own sphere of influence and keeping the Americans out, because it saved Assad from the western backed sunni head choppers (that the left cheered on, as they killed native Orthodox, and Catholic Christians). The Contempary left hate Russia because it cracks down on LGBT propaganda, banned porn hub, and return property to the Church , which the leftist Bolsheviks stole, the Contempaty left hate Russia because it cracked down on it western backed oligarchs who plundered Russia in the 90's.

The Contempary left wants Russia to be Woke, Broke, Godless, and Gay.

The democrats are now the cheerleaders of the warfare -welfare state,, the marriage between the neolibs-neocons under the Democrat party to ensure that President Trump is defeated by the invade the world, invite the world crowd.

WilliamRD TheSnark • 44 minutes ago

"The Trumpies are right in that this was obviously a leak by the intel community designed to hurt Trump. But what do you expect...he has spent 4 years insulting and belittling them. They are going to get their pound of flesh."

Intel community was behind an attempted coup of Trump. He has good reason not to trust them and insulting is only natural. Hopefully John Durham will indict several of them

Kent • an hour ago

I honestly don't find "unnamed officials", the CIA, the NSA, the NYT, John Bolton, or President Trump to be credible sources.

Sidney Caesar Kent • an hour ago • edited

I've found myself to be the only honest and trustworthy person- everyone should just listen to me.

WilliamRD • 42 minutes ago • edited

Montage: Mainstream Media Hype About Russia Collusion https://twitter.com/ggreenw...

WilliamRD • 36 minutes ago

Russiagate's Last Gasp https://consortiumnews.com/...

phreethink • 20 minutes ago • edited

Interesting take. I certainly take anything anyone publishes based on anonymous sources with a big grain of salt, especially when it comes from the NYT...

[Jul 01, 2020] Control freaks that cannot even control their own criminal impulses!

Highly recommended!
Jul 01, 2020 | www.unz.com

No Friend Of The Devil , says:

Control freaks that cannot even control their own criminal impulses!

...They suffer from god-complexes, since they do not believe in God, they feel an obligation to act as God, and decide the fates of over 7 billion people, who would obviously be better off if the PICs were sent to the Fletcher Memorial Home for Incurable Tyrants!

[Jun 25, 2020] Pompeo's UN Move Against Iran Will Fail. Why Is He Still Pressing It

Jun 25, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Pompeo is suggesting that Iran will spend tens of millions on planes, fly them unopposed through the radar coverage of several countries, to let Iranian Kamikaze pilots crash them into some temple in Nepal.

This does not make any sense. No foreign politician will be impressed by this 'argument'. Pompeo's tweet is for consumption at home.

At the UN the U.S. is trying to get a new arms embargo resolution against Iran:

The administration of U.S. President Donald Trump introduced a long-awaited U.N. Security Council (UNSC) draft resolution extending an arms embargo on Iran that is due to expire in October, setting the stage for a great-power clash and likely veto in the U.N.'s principal security body, according to a copy of the draft obtained by Foreign Policy .
...
If passed, the resolution would fall under Chapter VII of the U.N. charter, making it legally binding and enforceable. But the U.S. measure, according to several U.N. Security Council diplomats, stands little chance of being adopted by the 15-nation council.
...
Some council diplomats and other nonproliferation experts see the U.S. move as a way to score political points at home , not to do anything about Iran's destabilizing activities in the region.

"The skeptic in me says that the objective of this exercise is to go through the arms embargo resolution, and when it fails, to use that as an excuse to get a snapback of the embargo, and if and when that fails too, to use as a political talking point in the election campaign ," said Mark Fitzpatrick, a former State Department nonproliferation official now at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Since China and Russia are almost certain to ignore any U.N. arms embargo forced by U.S. maneuvers, the practical impact on Iran's ability to cause mischief will be minimal, he said.

"It's not actually about stopping any arms from China and Russia, it's about winning a political argument ," he said.

We explained that the U.S. does not have a 'snapback' option . Russia and China have also clarified that :

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and the Chinese government's top diplomat, Wang Yi, both wrote to the 15-member council and U.N. chief Antonio Guterres as the United States threatens to spark a so-called sanctions snapback under the Iran nuclear deal, even though Washington quit the accord in 2018.

Lavrov wrote in the May 27 letter, made public this week, that the United States was being "ridiculous and irresponsible."

"This is absolutely unacceptable and serves only to recall the famous English proverb about having one's cake and eating it," Lavrov wrote.

Washington has threatened to trigger a return of U.N. sanctions on Iran if the Security Council does not extend an arms embargo due to expire in October under Tehran's deal with world powers to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons.
...
Lavrov cited a 1971 International Court of Justice opinion, which found that a fundamental principle governing international relationships was that "a party which disowns or does not fulfill its own obligations cannot be recognized as retaining the rights which it claims to derive from the relationship."

Despite the evident failure to convince others the U.S. continues make stupid arguments :

Russia and China will be isolated at the United Nations if they continue down the "road to dystopia" by blocking a U.S. bid to extend a weapons ban on Iran, U.S. Iran envoy Brian Hook told Reuters ahead of his formal pitch of the embargo to the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday.
...
"We see a widening gap between Russia and China and the international community," Hook said in an interview with Reuters on Tuesday evening.

The U.S. has left the JCPoA deal and can not claim a right under that deal to snap back the sanctions that the deal has lifted. It is the U.S. that is isolated. Even its allies do not support the attempt:

"We firmly believe that any unilateral attempt to trigger UN sanctions snapback would have serious adverse consequences in the UNSC," the foreign ministers of Britain, France, and Germany said in a statement on June 19. "We would not support such a decision which would be incompatible with our current efforts to preserve the JCPoA."

The Trump policy against Iran has failed. He has tried a 'maximum pressure' campaign to blackmail Iran into more concessions. But despite sanctions and economic problems caused by them Iran is not willing to talk with him. Its conditions for talks are clear :

"We have no problem with talks with the U.S., but only if Washington fulfils its obligations under the nuclear deal, apologies and compensates Tehran for its withdrawal from the 2015 deal," Rouhani said in a televised speech.

The U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, including the new sanctions against Syria under the 'Ceasar's Law', have been helping Iran to strengthen its position :

Iran is reaping huge benefits, including more robust allies and resistant strongholds as a result of the US's flawed Middle Eastern policies. Motivated by the threat of the implementation of "Caesar' Law", Iran has prepared a series of steps to sell its oil and finance its allies, bypassing depletion of its foreign currency reserves.

Iranian companies found in Syria a paradise for strategic investment and offered the needed alternative to a Syrian economy crippled by sanctions and nine years of war. Iran considers Syria a fertile ground to expand its commerce and business like never before.

With Iran's influence growing and Russia making inroads even with once staunch U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia it seems that real U.S. influence in the Middle East is on a decisive downturn.

Whatever Pompous Pompeo says or tweets will not change that. But there's a sucker born every minute. Some of those may still fall for the stuff he says.

---
Twice a year I ask readers of this blog to support my effort. Please consider contributing .

Posted by b on June 24, 2020 at 17:10 UTC | Permalink

[Jun 23, 2020] John Bolton's Mission was to Destroy Donald Trump's Detente with North Korea

Jun 23, 2020 | nationalinterest.org

Bolton, of course, dismissed the entire concept of diplomacy from the very start. He never bought into the notion that North Korean officials could be talked to sensibly because they were, well, insane. Bolton's version of North Korea diplomacy was to tighten the economic screws, brandish the U.S. military, and wait until one of two things happened: 1) the Kim regime surrendered its entire nuclear weapons program like Libya's Muammar al-Qaddafi, or 2) the Kim regime continued to spur Washington's demands, in which the White House would have no option but to use U.S. military force. Bolton's record is analogous to a stereotypical linebacker on an obscene amount of steroids -- smash your opponent to pieces and don't think twice about it. Top Beauty Surgeon Says "Forget Facelifts, This at Home Tip is My #1 Wrinkle Red Del Mar Laboratories Dr: This May Be the Best CBD Ever for Arthritis, Aching Joints & Inflammation Mirror News Online Enlarged Prostate Gone - Just Do This Before Bed (Watch) Newhealthylife 3 Ways Your Cat Asks for Help Dr. Marty The content you see here is paid for by the advertiser or content provider whose link you click on, and is recommended to you by Revcontent. As the leading platform for native advertising and content recommendation, Revcontent uses interest based targeting to select content that we think will be of particular interest to you. We encourage you to view our Privacy Policy and your opt out options here . Got it, thanks! Remove Content Link?

Please choose a reason below:

Submit Cancel

The only problem: North Korea isn't some helpless punter with string bean arms and a lanky midsection. It's a nuclear weapons state fiercely proud of its independence and sovereignty, constantly on guard for the slightest threat from a foreign power, and cognizant of its weakened position relative to its neighbors. This is one of the prime reasons Bolton's obsession with the Libya-style North Korea deal, in which Pyongyang would theoretically discard its entire nuclear apparatus and allow U.S. weapons inspectors to take custody of its nuclear warheads before flying them back to the U.S. for destruction, was unworkable from the start. The Libya-model trumpeted by Bolton was a politically correct way of demanding Pyongyang's total surrender -- an extremely naive goal if there ever was one. When one remembers the fate of Qaddafi 8 years after he traded sanctions relief for his weapons of mass destruction -- the dictator was assaulted and humiliated before being executed in the desert -- even the word "Libya" is treated by the Kim dynasty as a threat to its existence. As Paul Pillar wrote in these pages more than two years ago, "Libya's experience does indeed weigh heavily on the thinking of North Korean officials, who have taken explicit notice of that experience, as a disincentive to reaching any deals with the United States about dismantling weapons programs."

One can certainly take issue with Trump's North Korea policy. Two years of personal diplomacy with Kim Jong-un have yet to result in the denuclearization Washington seeks (denuclearization is more of a slogan than a realistic objective at this point, anyway). But Trump's strategy aside, Bolton's alternative was worse. The president knew his former national security adviser's public insistence on the Libya model was dangerously inept. He had to walk back Bolton's comments weeks later to ensure the North Koreans didn't pull out of diplomacy before it got off the ground. Trump hasn't forgotten about the experience; on June 18, Trump tweeted that "Bolton's dumbest of all statements set us back very badly with North Korea, even now. I asked him, "what the hell were you thinking?"

[Jun 23, 2020] Chickenhawk B olton May Be a Beast, But He's Washington's Creature by Richard Hanania

Personally he is a bully and as such a coward: he can attack only a weaker opponent. His new book shows that however discredited and intellectually thin his foreign policy views are, they always rise to the top. To Bolton the country is simply a vehicle for smiting his enemies abroad.
Notable quotes:
"... Bolton's hawkishness is combined with an equally striking lack of originality. It is possible to be an unorthodox or partisan hawk, as we see in populists who want to get out of the Middle East but ramp up pressure on China, or Democrats who have a particular obsession with Russia. Bolton takes the most belligerent position on every issue without regards for partisanship or popularity, a level of consistency that would almost be honorable if it wasn't so frightening. No alliance or commitment is ever questioned, and neither, for that matter, is any rivalry. ..."
"... Bolton lacks any intellectual tradition or popular support base that he can call his own. Domestic political concerns are almost completely missing from his book, although we learn that he follows "Adam Smith on economics, Edmund Burke on society," is happy with Trump's judicial appointments, and favors legal, but not illegal, immigration. Other than these GOP clichés, there is virtually no commentary or concern about the state of American society or its trajectory. Unlike those who worry about how global empire affects the United States at home, to Bolton the country is simply a vehicle for smiting his enemies abroad. While Bolton's views have been called "nationalist" because he doesn't care about multilateralism, nation-building, or international law, I have never seen a nationalist that gives so little thought to his nation. ..."
"... Bolton recounts how his two top aides, Charles Kupperman and Mira Ricardel, had extensive experience working for Boeing. Patrick Shanahan similarly became acting Secretary of Defense after spending thirty years at that company, until he was replaced by Mark Esper, a Raytheon lobbyist. Why working for a company that manufactures aircraft and weapons prepares one for a job in foreign policy, the establishment has never felt the need to explain, any more than it needs to explain continuing Cold War-era military commitments three decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union. ..."
"... The most important question raised by the career of John Bolton is how someone with his views has been able to achieve so much power. While Bolton gets much worse press and always goes a step too far even for most of the foreign policy establishment, in other ways he is all too typical. Take James Mattis, a foil for Bolton throughout much of the first half of the book. Although more popular in the media, the "warrior monk" slow-walked and obstructed attempts by the president to pull out of the Middle East, and after a career supporting many of the same wars and commitments as Bolton, now makes big bucks in the private sector, profiting off of his time in government. ..."
Jun 23, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir, John Bolton, Simon & Schuster, 592 pages

The release of John Bolton's book today has become a Washington cultural event, because he is, by all measures, Washington's creature.

Those who dislike the Trump administration have been pleased to find in The Room Where It Happened confirmation in much of what they already believed about the Ukraine scandal and the president's lack of capacity for the job. Some accusations in the book, such as the story about Trump seeking reelection help from China through American farm purchases, are new, and in an alternative universe could have formed the basis of a different, or if Bolton had his way, more comprehensive, impeachment inquiry.

While Bolton's book has been found politically useful by the president's detractors, the work is also important as a first-hand account from the top of the executive branch over a 19-month period, from April 2018 to September 2019. It also, mostly inadvertently, reveals much about official Washington, the incentive structures that politicians face, and the kind of person that is likely to succeed in that system. Bolton may be a biased self-promoter, but he is nonetheless a credible source, as his stories mostly involve conversations with other people who are free to eventually tell their own side. Moreover, the John Bolton of The Room Where It Happened is no different from the man we know from his three-decade career as a government official and public personality. No surprises here.

There are three ways to understand John Bolton. In increasing order of importance, they are intellectually, psychologically, and politically -- that is, as someone who is both a product of and antagonist to the foreign-policy establishment -- in many ways typical, and in others a detested outlier.

On the first of these, there simply isn't much there. Bolton takes the most hawkish position on every issue. He wants war with North Korea and Iran, and if he can't have that, he'll settle for destroying their economies and sabotaging any attempts by Trump to reach a deal with either country. He takes the maximalist positions on great powers like China and Russia, and third world states that pose no plausible threat like Cuba and Venezuela. At one point, he brags about State reversing "Obama's absurd conclusion that Cuban baseball was somehow independent of its government, thus in turn allowing Treasury to revoke the license allowing Major League Baseball to traffic in Cuban players." How this helps Americans or Cubans is left unexplained.

Bolton's hawkishness is combined with an equally striking lack of originality. It is possible to be an unorthodox or partisan hawk, as we see in populists who want to get out of the Middle East but ramp up pressure on China, or Democrats who have a particular obsession with Russia. Bolton takes the most belligerent position on every issue without regards for partisanship or popularity, a level of consistency that would almost be honorable if it wasn't so frightening. No alliance or commitment is ever questioned, and neither, for that matter, is any rivalry.

Anyone who picks up Bolton's over 500-page memoir hoping to find serious reflection on the philosophical basis of American foreign policy will be disappointed. The chapters are broken up by topic area, most beginning with a short background explainer on Bolton's views of the issue. In the chapter on Venezuela, we are told that overthrowing the government of that country is important because of "its Cuba connection and the openings it afforded Russia, China, and Iran." The continuing occupation of Afghanistan is necessary for preventing terrorists from establishing a base, and, in an argument I had not heard anywhere before, for "remaining vigilant against the nuclear-weapons programs in Iran on the west and Pakistan on the east." Iran needs to be deterred, though from what we are never told.

Bolton lacks any intellectual tradition or popular support base that he can call his own. Domestic political concerns are almost completely missing from his book, although we learn that he follows "Adam Smith on economics, Edmund Burke on society," is happy with Trump's judicial appointments, and favors legal, but not illegal, immigration. Other than these GOP clichés, there is virtually no commentary or concern about the state of American society or its trajectory. Unlike those who worry about how global empire affects the United States at home, to Bolton the country is simply a vehicle for smiting his enemies abroad. While Bolton's views have been called "nationalist" because he doesn't care about multilateralism, nation-building, or international law, I have never seen a nationalist that gives so little thought to his nation.

The more time one spends reading Bolton, the more one comes to the conclusion that the guy just likes to fight. In addition to seeking out and escalating foreign policy conflicts, he seems to relish going to war with the media and the rest of the Washington bureaucracy. His book begins with a quote from the Duke of Wellington rallying his troops at Waterloo: "Hard pounding, this, gentlemen. Let's see who will pound the longest." The back cover quotes the epilogue on his fight with the Trump administration, responding "game on" to attempts to stop publication. He takes a mischievous pride in recounting attacks from the media or foreign governments, such as when he was honored to hear that North Korea worried about his influence over the President. Bolton is too busy enjoying the fight, and as will be seen below, profiting from it, to reflect too carefully on what it's all for.

Bolton could be ignored if he were simply an odd figure without much power. Yet the man has been at the pinnacle of the GOP establishment for thirty years, serving appointed roles in every Republican president since Reagan. The story of how he got his job in the Trump administration is telling. According to Bolton's account, he was courted throughout the transition process and the early days of the administration by Steve Bannon and Jared Kushner, ironic considering the reputation of the former as a populist opposed to forever wars and the latter as a more liberal figure within the White House. Happy with his life outside government, Bolton would accept a position no lower than Secretary of State or National Security Advisor. Explaining his reluctance to enter government in a lower capacity, Bolton provides a list of his commitments at the time, including "Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute; Fox News contributor; a regular on the speaking circuit; of counsel at a major law firm; member of corporate boards; senior advisor to a global private-equity firm."

Clearly, being an advocate for policies that can destroy the lives of millions abroad, and a complete lack of experience in business, have proved no hindrance to Bolton's success in corporate America.

Bolton recounts how his two top aides, Charles Kupperman and Mira Ricardel, had extensive experience working for Boeing. Patrick Shanahan similarly became acting Secretary of Defense after spending thirty years at that company, until he was replaced by Mark Esper, a Raytheon lobbyist. Why working for a company that manufactures aircraft and weapons prepares one for a job in foreign policy, the establishment has never felt the need to explain, any more than it needs to explain continuing Cold War-era military commitments three decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Ricardel resigned after a dispute over preparations for the First Lady's trip to Africa, an example of how too often in the Trump administration, nepotism and self-interest have been the only checks on bad policy or even greater corruption ("Melania's people are on the warpath," Trump is quoted as saying). Another is when Trump, according to Bolton, was less than vigorous in pursing destructive Iranian sanctions due to personal relationships with the leaders of China and Turkey. At the 2019 G7 summit, when Pompeo and Bolton try to get Benjamin Netanyahu to reach out to Trump to talk him out of meeting with the Iranian foreign minister, Jared prevents his call from going through on the grounds that a foreign government shouldn't be telling the President of the United States who to meet with.

The most important question raised by the career of John Bolton is how someone with his views has been able to achieve so much power. While Bolton gets much worse press and always goes a step too far even for most of the foreign policy establishment, in other ways he is all too typical. Take James Mattis, a foil for Bolton throughout much of the first half of the book. Although more popular in the media, the "warrior monk" slow-walked and obstructed attempts by the president to pull out of the Middle East, and after a career supporting many of the same wars and commitments as Bolton, now makes big bucks in the private sector, profiting off of his time in government.

In the coverage of Bolton, this is what should not be lost. The former National Security Advisor is the product of a system with its own internal logic. Largely discredited and intellectually hollow, and without broad popular support, it persists in its practices and beliefs because it has been extremely profitable for those involved. The most extreme hawks are simply symptoms of larger problems, with the flamboyant Bolton being much more like mainstream members of the foreign policy establishment than either side would like to admit.

Richard Hanania is a research fellow at the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia University.

Latest Articles Politics If John Roberts Isn't a Conservative, What is He, Exactly? The DACA ruling reveals the chief justice's willingness to trifle with the Constitution to serve his own ends, whatever they may be. Robert W. Merry June 23, 2020 Politics Why Conservative Fusionism Was Destined to Disintegrate We shouldn't confuse soldiers sharing a foxhole for Siamese twins. Tony Woodlief June 23, 2020 Politics Michael Pack Is Right To Rein In State-Funded Broadcasters Elections have consequences, and by any standard, VOA is no longer presenting the policies of the United States Arthur Bloom June 23, 2020 Arts & Letters TAC Bookshelf: What Made the Nazi Police Kill? Here's what TAC's writers and editors are reading this week. TAC Staff June 22, 2020 Politics So It Turns Out You're a Racist Left-wing wokeness has become the totalitarianism it purports to hate, where you're guilty unless you can 'prove' otherwise. Peter Van Buren June 22, 2020 Older Posts Recommended Politics So It Turns Out You're a Racist Left-wing wokeness has become the totalitarianism it purports to hate, where you're guilty unless you can 'prove' otherwise. Peter Van Buren June 22, 2020 Get our new Digital Edition Get a roundup of the most important and intriguing stories from around the world, delivered to your inbox every weekday. Subscribe 3 Ways to support the American Conservative 1. Make a Donation

[Jun 23, 2020] John Bolton Tells How Iran Hawks Set Up Trump's Syrian Kurdish Disaster

Notable quotes:
"... Bolton's account sheds light on how it happened: hawks in the administration, including Bolton himself, wanted U.S. forces in Syria fighting Russia and Iran. They saw the U.S.-Kurdish alliance against ISIS as a distraction -- and let the Turkish-Kurdish conflict fester until it spiralled out of control. ..."
Jun 23, 2020 | nationalinterest.org

The drama eventually ended with President Donald Trump pulling U.S. peacekeepers out of Syria -- and then sending them back in . One hundred thousand Syrian civilians were displaced by an advancing Turkish army, and the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces turned to Russia for help. But U.S. forces never fully withdrew -- they are still stuck in Syria defending oil wells .

Bolton's account sheds light on how it happened: hawks in the administration, including Bolton himself, wanted U.S. forces in Syria fighting Russia and Iran. They saw the U.S.-Kurdish alliance against ISIS as a distraction -- and let the Turkish-Kurdish conflict fester until it spiralled out of control.

Pompeo issued a statement on Thursday night denouncing Bolton's entire book as "a number of lies, fully-spun half-truths, and outright falsehoods."

[Jun 22, 2020] MoA community discussion of Bolton book

Notable quotes:
"... let us not forget that bolton threatened a un officials kids because they guy wasn't going along with the iraq war propaganda. ..."
"... Close -- the threatened official was Jose Bustani, at that time (2002) the head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)as he had been for five years. ..."
"... Bustani had been working to bring Iraq and Libya into the organization, which would have required those two countries to eliminate all of their chemical weapons. ..."
"... The US, though, had other ideas -- chiefly invading and destroying both of those nations, and when Bustani insisted on continuing his efforts then Bolton threatened Bustani's adult children. ..."
Jun 22, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

pretzelattack , Jun 17 2020 21:49 utc | 14

let us not forget that bolton threatened a un officials kids because they guy wasn't going along with the iraq war propaganda.

Duncan Idaho , Jun 17 2020 22:03 utc | 15

Only with Late Stage Capitalism could we have a vicious war criminal write a book criticizing a psychopathic sociopath.
Anonymous , Jun 17 2020 22:06 utc | 16
The political establishment in Canada appeared dismayed at the prospect of Bolton as National Security Adviser. See these interviews with Hill + Knowlton strategies Vice-chairman, Peter Donolo, from 2018:

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/video/there-s-risk-trump-s-actions-are-driving-the-u-s-into-a-recession-peter-donolo~1342264
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/video/trade-wars-easy-to-start-not-so-easy-to-finish-peter-donolo~1365104

So Bolton gets in, Meng Wangzhou is detained in Vancouver on the US request (that's another story), and in time, Canada appoints a new Ambassador to China - Mr. Dominic Barton.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominic_Barton

Then Bolton gets fired. 'Nuff said. Just to let everyone know that Bolton is well and truly hated, as a government official, in certain circles.

AntiSpin , Jun 17 2020 22:07 utc | 17
@ pretzelattack | Jun 17 2020 21:49 utc | 14

Close -- the threatened official was Jose Bustani, at that time (2002) the head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)as he had been for five years.

Bustani had been working to bring Iraq and Libya into the organization, which would have required those two countries to eliminate all of their chemical weapons.

The US, though, had other ideas -- chiefly invading and destroying both of those nations, and when Bustani insisted on continuing his efforts then Bolton threatened Bustani's adult children.

Jpc , Jun 17 2020 22:32 utc | 18
Why was he appointment made in the first place anyone,?
Ian2 , Jun 17 2020 23:08 utc | 19
Jpc | Jun 17 2020 22:32 utc | 18:

My guess Trump went along with the tough guy image that Bolton projected in media and recommendations by others.

james , Jun 17 2020 23:13 utc | 20
let the lobbyists with the most money win... that's what defines the usa system, leadership and decision making process... no one in their right mind would support this doofus..
Jen , Jun 17 2020 23:40 utc | 21
At least the one saving grace about John Bolton's memoir is that it might be a tad closer to reality than Christopher Steele's infamous dossier and might prove valuable as a source of evidence in a court of law. Maybe Yosemite Sam himself should start quaking in his boots.
jen , Jun 17 2020 23:42 utc | 22
Jpc @ 18, Ian2 @ 19:

Personal interest on DJT's part? :-)

JC , Jun 17 2020 23:43 utc | 23
Posted by: Tower | Jun 17 2020 21:43 utc | 13

This is the most intelligent post so far.

Yes why not? If Obama awarded the Noble prize even before he begins serving his first term I can't see why Bolton not nominated now. America is a joke, not a banana republic. It deserves Obama, Trump, Bolton or Biden another stoopid joker.

Stoopid president elected by stoopid citizens

Don Bacon , Jun 17 2020 23:44 utc | 24
@ Jpc
When faced with Trump's behavior of employing warmongers, including several generals, some observers opined that Trump wanted people with contrasting opinions so that he could consider them and then say "no." He did more with Bolton eventually, sending him to Mongolia while he (Trump) went to Singapore (or somewhere over there).
A User , Jun 17 2020 23:47 utc | 25
re Ian2 | Jun 17 2020 23:08 utc | 19
who hazarded : My guess Trump went along with the tough guy image that Bolton projected in media and recommendations by others.
Not at all, if you go back to the earliest days of the orangeman's prezdency, you will see Trump resisted the efforts by Mercer & the zionist casino owner to give Bolton a gig.
He knew that shrub had problems with the boasts of Bolton and as his reputation was as an arsehole who sounded his own trumpet at his boss's expense orangeman refused for a long time. Trump believes the trump prezdency is about trump no one else.
Thing was at the time he was running for the prez gig trump was on his uppers, making a few dollars from his tv show, plus licensing other people's buildings by selling his name to be stuck on them. trump tower azerbnajan etc.
He put virtually none of his own money into the 'race' so when he won the people who had put up the dosh had power over him.
Bolton has always been an arse kisser to any zionist cause he suspects he can claw a penny outta, so he used the extreme loony end of the totally looney zionist spectrum to hook him (Bolton) up with a gig by pushing for him with trump.

It was always gonna end the way it did as Bolton is forever briefing the media against anyone who tried to resist his murderous fantasies. Trump is never gonna argue for any scheme that doesn't have lotsa dollars for him in it so he had plenty of run ins with Bolton who then went to his media mates & told tales.
When bolton was appointed orangey's stakes were at a really low ebb among DC warmongers, so he reluctantly took him on then spent the next 18 months getting rid of the grubby parasite.

div> Yosemite Sam did it better. I would prefer a Foghorn Leghorn-type character, for US diplomacy.

Posted by: Ribbit , Jun 18 2020 0:20 utc | 26

Yosemite Sam did it better. I would prefer a Foghorn Leghorn-type character, for US diplomacy.

Posted by: Ribbit | Jun 18 2020 0:20 utc | 26

Kristan hinton , Jun 18 2020 0:46 utc | 27
Real History: Candidate Trump praised Bolton and named him as THE number one Foreign Policy expert he (Trump) respected.

Imagine the mustachioed Mister Potatoe (sic) Head and zany highjinks!

Bolton and one of his first wives were regulars at Plato's Retreat for wife swapping orgies. The wife was not real keen on the behavior, but she allegedly found herself verbally and physically abused for objecting.

DannyC , Jun 18 2020 1:17 utc | 28
Trump is at fault for hiring him to appease the Zionist lobby. We all knew the guy was a warmonger and a scumbag. It's not a surprise. Trump surrounds himself with the worst people
jadan , Jun 18 2020 1:30 utc | 29
Did John Bolton put his personal interests above the will of congress in an attempt to extort the Ukrainian government? You're making a false equivalence. You seem to have a soft spot for Trump. Bolton is an in-your-face son of a bitch, but Trump, Trump is just human garbage.
Kay Fabe , Jun 18 2020 2:27 utc | 30
Pretty much a nothing burger if thats all he has got. Just a distraction. Trumps outrage just meant help Bolton sell some books. Lol. People are so easy to fool.

I still think Bolton managing the operations as COG in Cheneys old bunker. Coming out for a vacation while next phase is planned

Jackrabbit , Jun 18 2020 2:56 utc | 31
Kay Fabe @Jun18 2:27 #29
Pretty much a nothing burger if thats all he has got.

You underestimate the craftiness of this kayfabe.

The tiff with Bolton makes Trump look like a peace-loving moderate so that he's acceptable to Independent voters.

!!

Den lille abe , Jun 18 2020 3:03 utc | 32
Bolton is just another American arsehole. Nothing new. When they do not get their way, the y always turn on their superiors, or those in charge. Bolton is just another "Anhänger" personal gain is what motivates him.
He should have been a blot on his parents bedsheets or at least a forced abortion, but unfortunately that did not happen...
Piotr Berman , Jun 18 2020 3:53 utc | 33
The self-appointed Deep State has pretty much thwarted him (Trump) and his voters.

Posted by: bob sykes | Jun 17 2020 20:55 utc | 11

Trump thwarted Trump. Before he got elected, Trump mentioned his admiration of Bolton more than once. Voters of Trump elected a liar and an incoherent person -- at time, incomprehensible, a nice bonus. But it is worth noticing that Trump never liked being binded by agreement, like, say, an agreement to pay money back to creditors, or whatever international agreement would restrict USA from doing what they damn please.

Superficially, it is mysterious why Trump made an impression that he wants to negotiate with North Korea with some agreement at the end. Was he forced to make a mockery from the negotiation by someone sticking knife to his back?

Some may remember that Trump promised to abolish Affordable Care Act and replace it with "something marvelous". The latest version is that he will start thinking about it again after re-election. If you believe that...

Granted, Trump is more sane than Bolton, but just a bit, unlike Bolton he has some moments of lucidity.

In conclusion, I would advocate to vote for Biden. If you need a reason, that would be that Biden never tweets, or if he does, it is forgettable before the typing is done. Unlike the hideous Trumpian productions.

jason , Jun 18 2020 3:55 utc | 34
"men fit to be shaved," Tiberius, on Bolton and Friedman.

he is the best & brightest we have. when a dreadful mouth is called for. his insights into the Trump WH are probably as deep as his knowledge of VZ, Iran, Cuba, etc. he's a useful idiot, a willing fool. like Trump, he's the verbal equivalent of the cops on the street, in foreign "policy." another abusive father figure

reading the imperial steak turds - an American form of reading the tea leaves or goat livers or chicken flight or celestial what have you. an emperor craps out a big hairy one like Bolton and the priests and hierophants and lawyers and scribes come for a long, close up inspection and fact-gathering smell of another steaming pile of gmo-corn-and-downer-cow-fed, colon cancer causing, Kansas feed-lot raised, grade A Murkin BEEF. guess what they in their wisdom find? Trump stinks.

kiwiklown , Jun 18 2020 4:20 utc | 35
Scotch Bingeington @ 6 -- "Take a look at his face. It's obvious to me that even John Bolton does not enjoy being John Bolton. That mouth, it's drooping to an absurd degree. Comparable to Merkel's face, come to think of it.

At last, someone who notices physionomy!

That face drips with false modesty, kind of trying to make his face say, "... look at harmless old me..."

That walrus bushiness points at an attempt to hide, to camouflage his true thoughts, his malevolence.

That pretended stoop, with one hand clutching a sheaf of briefing papers, emulating the posture of deferential court clerks, speaks to a lifetime of a snake in the grass "fighting" from below for things important to himself.

But those of us who have been around the block a couple times will know to watch our backs around this type. Poisoned-tipped daggers are their fave weapons, and your backs are their fave "battle space". LOL

This statement by Jeffrey Sachs may as well also describe America's leadership crisis: "At the root of America's economic crisis lies a moral crisis: the decline of civic virtue among America's political and economic elite."

kiwiklown , Jun 18 2020 5:29 utc | 36
GeorgeV @ 8 -- "It's like standing on a street corner watching two prostitutes calling each other a whore! How low has the US sunk."

And the US "leadeship" sends these types out to lecture other peoples on "values"? on how to become "normal nations"? on how to "contain" old civilisations such as Iran, Russia, China?

It is axiomatic that the stupid do not know they are stupid. Same goes for morals. The immoral do not know they are immoral. Or, perhaps, as Phat Pomp-arse shows, they know they are immoral, but do not care. Which makes one rightly guess that people like Bolt-On and him must be depraved.

Yes, it may take centuries before the leadership in this depraved Exceptionally Indispensable Nation to become truly normal again.

snake , Jun 18 2020 5:38 utc | 37
Of course, Trump actually campaigned to leave Afghanistan and Syria, and he was elected to do so. The self-appointed Deep State has pretty much thwarted him and his voters. by: bob sykes 11

I wondered about He King claims that Trump actually attempted to do those awful things, . .. , I looked for evidence to prove the claim.. I asked just about every librarian I could find to please show me evidence that confirms the deep state over rode Mr. Trump's actual attempt to remove USA anything from Afghanistan and Syria. thus far, no confirming or supporting facts have been produced. to support such a claim. Mr. Trump could easily have tweeted to his supporters something to the effect that the damn military, CIA, homeland security, state department, foreign service, federal reserve, women's underwear association and smiley Joe's hamburger stand in fact every militant in the USA governed America were holding hands, locked in a conspiracy to block President Trumps attempt to remove USA anything from Afghanistan or Syria.. If Mr. Trump has asked for those things, they would have happened. The next day there would have been parties in the streets as the militant agency heads began rolling as Mr. Trump fired them each and everyone.. No firings happened, the party providers were disappointed, no troops, USA contractors or privatization pirates left any foreign place.. as far as I can tell. 500 + military bases still remain in Europe none have been abandoned.. and one was added in Israel. BTW i heard that Mr. Trump managed to get 17 trillion dollars into the hands of many who are contractors or suppliers to those foreign operations. I can't say I am against Trump, but i can ask you to show me some evidence to prove your claim.

Jackrabbit , Jun 18 2020 5:50 utc | 38
snake @Jun18 5:38 #36

As always, watch what they do, not what they say.

Trump is the Republican Obama. A faux populist 'insider' who pretends to be an 'outsider'.

Trump was selected to be the nationalist President that meets the challenge from Russia and China. And serves all the usual interests while doing so.

Americans fools keep electing these establishment stooges and then wonder why nothing seems to get any better.

!!

Mao , Jun 18 2020 6:25 utc | 39
Sack cartoon: Trump's 'swamp'

https://www.startribune.com/sack-cartoon-trump-s-swamp/401964365/

https://www.startribune.com/sack-cartoon-the-swamp/420668223/

Mao , Jun 18 2020 6:39 utc | 40
Trump searches for new slogan as he abandons Keep America Great amid George Floyd and covid turmoil

The president has taken to inserting the term 'Transition to Greatness' into his remarks. His 2016 slogan was 'Make America Great Again'. After election he polled audiences on whether to go with 'Keep America Great'. He told CPAC this year and said at the State of the Union 'The Best is Yet to Come'. Tweaks come as he trails Biden in new NBC and CNN polls, as the nation struggles with the coronavirus and protests over police violence.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8398993/Donald-Trump-searches-new-slogan-amid-cratering-polls-against-Joe-Biden.html

Mao , Jun 18 2020 6:44 utc | 41
Rudy W. Giuliani @RudyGiuliani

Ukrainian police seize $6 Million in bribes paid to kill the new case into crooked Burisma.

This money is a Followup to the multi-millions in bribes Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and President Poroshenko earned to leverage their offices to kill the original case.

All covered up!

https://twitter.com/RudyGiuliani/status/1273298170966159366

Ghost Ship , Jun 18 2020 7:28 utc | 42
Christian J. Chuba @ 3
goals that you consider important are different from personal interests.

What personal interests has Trump actually advanced during his time as president. Leaving out the fake allegations, I'm hard put to think of any. If you look at Trump's actual behaviour rather than his bullshit or the bullshit aimed at him, I'm also hard put to think of anything illegal he's done while in office that wasn't done by previous administrations.
Mao , Jun 18 2020 7:41 utc | 43
US President Donald Trump sought help from Xi Jinping to win the upcoming 2020 election, "pleading" with the Chinese president to boost imports of American agricultural products, according to a new book by former national security adviser John Bolton. The accusations were included in an excerpt from The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir, which is set to be released on June 23. Bolton also wrote that Trump demonstrated other "fundamentally unacceptable behaviour", including privately expressing support for China's mass interment of Uygur Muslims and other ethnic minority groups in Xinjiang.*This video has been updated to fix a spelling mistake.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agk61kyDS1k

Yeah, Right , Jun 18 2020 8:35 utc | 44
@42 Mao I'm struggling to see how "pleading" with any country for it to purchase more US goods is "fundamentally unacceptable behaviour" from a US President.

Pleading to Xi for China to give, say, Israel preferential access to markets, sure.

Down South , Jun 18 2020 9:56 utc | 45
The Saker takes an interesting look at this "spontaneous or popular" revolt taking place in America

https://thesaker.is/what-kind-of-popular-revolution-is-this/#comments

Mao , Jun 18 2020 10:35 utc | 46
The Saker:

I have lived in the United States for a total of 24 years and I have witnessed many crises over this long period, but what is taking place today is truly unique and much more serious than any previous crisis I can recall. And to explain my point, I would like to begin by saying what I believe the riots we are seeing taking place in hundreds of US cities are not about. They are not about:

* Racism or "White privilege"
* Police violence
* Social alienation and despair
* Poverty
* Trump
* The liberals pouring fuel on social fires
* The infighting of the US elites/deep state

They are not about any of these because they encompass all of these issues, and more.

It is important to always keep in mind the distinction between the concepts of "cause" and "pretext". And while it is true that all the factors listed above are real (at least to some degree, and without looking at the distinction between cause and effect), none of them are the true cause of what we are witnessing. At most, the above are pretexts, triggers if you want, but the real cause of what is taking place today is the systemic collapse of the US society.

https://www.unz.com/tsaker/the-systemic-collapse-of-the-us-society-has-begun/

Steve , Jun 18 2020 10:57 utc | 47
The only time I'd be interested in anything Bolton had to say is if he were saying it from the docket at The Hague
Matt , Jun 18 2020 11:40 utc | 48
Don't really want to take sides between those two odious characters, but I think there's a difference in what the paper is saying.

One is about someone pursuing policy goals they favour, the other "personal interest". From what I have seen so far, Bolton's main definition of Trump's "personal interest" is his chances for re-election (rather than any personal business interest).

I think Bolton was happy for Trump to pursue the policy goals he favoured, at least when they coincided with Bolton's!

Tadlak Davidovitsh , Jun 18 2020 12:04 utc | 49
In modern Italy, mentioning Jupiter (Jove) and the ox (Bove) in the same sentence usually implies a demand that the two be treated the same.
450.org , Jun 18 2020 12:07 utc | 50
How many people have cashed in on Trump so far? Countless numbers of them. An ocean of them. Scathing books about Trump is one way to cash in on thr Trump effect, and the authors, many of whom don't even write the book themselves, get promoted and their books promoted in the mainstream media and elsewhere.

There is nothing new under the sun when it comes to Trump. We know everything there is to know about Trump. Some of us knew everything there was to know about him before he became POTUS. And yet, there he is, sitting like the Cheshire Cat in the Oval Office, untouchable and beyond reproach. Meanwhile, even more scathing books are in the pipeline because there's money, so much money, to be made don't you know.

Bolton is a shitbird every bit as much as Trump is and in fact an argument can be made Bolton is even worse and even more dangerous than Trump because if Bolton had his druthers, Iran would be a failed state right about now and America would be bogged down in a senseless money-making (for the defense contractors owned by the extractive wealthy elite) quagmire in Iran just as it was in Iraq and still is in Afghanistan.

Colbert is all into the Bolton book because he and his staff managed to secure an interview with Bolton. Bolton, of course, has agreed to this because it's a great way to promote his book to the likes of Cher who is the perfect example of the demographic Colbert caters to with his show. Some of the commercials during Colbert's show last night? One was an Old Navy commercial where they bragged about how they're giving to the poor. The family they used for the commercial, the recipients of this beneficence, was a black family. Biden is proud of Old Navy because don't you know, poor and black are one and the same. In otherwords, there are no poor people except black people. No, that's not racist. Not at all. Also, another commercial during Colbert's show was for the reopening of Las Vegas amidst the spreading pandemic. This is immediately after a segment where Colbert is decrying Republican governors for opening southern states too early. The hypocritical irony is so stark, you can cut it with a chainsaw.

kiwiklown , Jun 18 2020 12:24 utc | 51
Mao @ 45 quoting The Saker -- ".... the real cause of what is taking place today is the systemic collapse of the US society."

And the cause of American societal collapse has been corrupt US leadership.

In my 50 years of studying American society, I have learned to watch what US leaders do, not what they preach. More profitable is to look at what declassified US documents tell us about the truth, not what the presstitudes of the day pretend to dish up. Also, what other world leaders might, in a candid moment, tell us about America.

450.org , Jun 18 2020 12:30 utc | 52
@50
And the cause of American societal collapse has been corrupt US leadership.

I would argue that this is a symptom or a feature versus the root of the problem. Afterall, a system that allows for creeping entrenched endemic corruption, is a crappy system. It's the system that's the root of this and it's not just isolated to the United States. It's civilization itself that's the root and what enabled civilization -- the spirit in our genes as Reg asserts.

450.org , Jun 18 2020 12:47 utc | 53
@4
I'm fully expecting the Dem "left" to try and praise the monsterous Bolton for "going against Trump", as they did with war criminal Mad Dog Matis and Bush. Bolton has to be one of the most evil mass murders on the face of the Earth. The world will be an infinitely better place when he and his ilk like Netanyahu, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Chertoff..etc finally go back to hell.

I agree. They would, because they already have and continue to do so, coddle and provide apologia for any and all monsters who decry Trump. Hell, I'm convinced they would clamor for Derek Chauvin's exoneration if he vocally decried Trump. Chauvin would make the rounds on the media circuit excoriating Trump and telling the world, contritely of course, that it was Trump who made him do it and now he sees the error of his ways. He'd be on Morning Joe and Chris Cuomo's and Don Lemon's shows not to mention Ari Melber and Anderson Cooper and Lawrence O'Donnell. The conservatives and their networks, who have provided apologia for Chauvin thus far, would now be his worst enemy. Colbert and Kimmel would have him on and guffawing with him asking him how it felt to choke the life out of someone, laughing all the way so long as he hates Trump and tells the world how much he hates Trump.

This world is an insane asylum, especially America. All under the banner and aegis of progress. And to think, humanity wants to export this madness to space and the universe at large. Any intelligent life that would ever make its way to Planet Earth, if ever, would be well-advised to exterminate the species human before it spread its poison to the universe at large. Not that that is possible, but just in case the .000000000001% chance of that does miraculously manifest.

kiwiklown , Jun 18 2020 12:48 utc | 54
Mao @ 42

Concerning Trump "pleading" with Xi, it is only right for a leader to request others to buy more US farm produce. We have only Bolton's word that the request was a plea. We also have only Bolton's word that the request / plea was to seek "help from Xi Jinping to win the upcoming 2020 election". Too early to believe Bolton. Wait till we see the meeting transcripts.

Bolton also alleged that Trump exhibited "fundamentally unacceptable behaviour" concerning the Uygurs. Again, only Bolton's word. Even so, saying it is "unacceptable behavior" presumes that China does wrong to incarcerate Uygurs. If not, ie, China either does not incarcerate them, or if China has good moral grounds to do so, then Bolton is wrong to disagree with his boss for uttering the right sentiment. Judging by how the anglo-zios shout about China's "crime", I tend to think the opposite just might be the truth, and that says that Bolton is simply mudslinging to sell books; score brownie points with the anglo-zios, virtue-signalling for his next gig.

Sabine , Jun 18 2020 12:56 utc | 55
so is Trump or Biden the Yeltsin of the US? And who is gonna be the US version of Putin? Mr. Cotton from Arkansas?
vk , Jun 18 2020 13:00 utc | 56
The American people must decide if Trump is anti-China or Xi's bff. He can't be both at the same time.
murgen23 , Jun 18 2020 13:04 utc | 57
I don't see a contradiction with both sentences.

NYT writes Bolton direct US policy to fit his own political agenda,
while Bolton emphasizes Trump direct US policy in the way that pocket him most money.

Politician Bolton is consistent with his politician job (like it or not), Trump is corrupted.

This is how I understand.

450.org , Jun 18 2020 13:14 utc | 58
@56, I would argue that if one person could be both at the same time, that one person would be Donald Trump. He's already proven, like Chauncey Gardner, he can walk on water. Seriously, that excellent movie, Being There , starring the incomparable Peter Sellers, was about Donald Trump's ascension to the Oval Office.

There Are No Limits Except The Limits We Invent And Impose

augusto , Jun 18 2020 13:44 utc | 59
Using this 'quod licet jovi ...' the author apparently knows quite a bit of Latin, the dead language!
But seriously, the nomination of Bolton who had always behaved like 2nd rate advisor, a 3rd rate mcarthist cold warrior was a surprise to me. Such a short sighted heavily biased person could be, yes, chosen a Minister or advisor in a banana Republic but was picked up by the United states.
One can only conclude such a choice was driven by very specific interests of the deep state.They needed a bulldog and got it for one year and half and threw the stinky perro soon as the job was done.
BM , Jun 18 2020 14:05 utc | 60
And the cause of American societal collapse has been corrupt US leadership.
I would argue that this is a symptom or a feature versus the root of the problem.
Posted by: 450.org | Jun 18 2020 12:30 utc | 52

The primary cause of corrupt leadership is corrupt and corruption-accepting population.

Without a population that is fundamentally corrupt and immoral, corrupt leadership is unstable. Conversely - and this is important to recognise as the same phenomenon - democracy cannot exist if the population accepts and takes for granted corruption, as the two are mutually exclusive. In other words if you root out the corrupt leadership without dealing with the mentality of the population, the corruption will quickly come back and any democratic experiment will collapse very quickly.

There is one important qualifier - an overwhelming external influence (since WWII always the USA, either directly or as secondary effect) can leverage latent corruption so that it becomes more exaggerated than it normally would be.

Down South , Jun 18 2020 14:48 utc | 61
What is clear from only this account of the crucial role of big money foundations behind protest groups such as Black lives Matter is that there is a far more complex agenda driving the protests now destabilizing cities across America. The role of tax-exempt foundations tied to the fortunes of the greatest industrial and financial companies such as Rockefeller, Ford, Kellogg, Hewlett and Soros says that there is a far deeper and far more sinister agenda to current disturbances than spontaneous outrage would suggest.

https://m.journal-neo.org/2020/06/16/america-s-own-color-revolution/

michael888 , Jun 18 2020 15:53 utc | 62
Bolton pretended to be President, screwing up negotiations with his Libya Model talk, threatening Venezuela (and anywhere generally) and directing fleets all over the world (including Britain's to capture that Iranian oil tanker). Vindman revered "Ambassador" Bolton because he was keeping the Ukraine corruption in Americans (and Ukrainian Americans') hands, and daring the Russians to "start" WWIII. Bolton might have been a bit more bearable if he had ever been elected, but was happy to see him go. Trump seemed mystified by him.
juliania , Jun 18 2020 16:29 utc | 63
b has presented us (knowingly or not, but I wouldn't put it past him) with the Socratic question of the presumed identity between the morality of the State and personal morality, as best encountered in Plato's dialogue, 'The Republic' ['Politeia' in the Greek] That dialogue begins by examining personal morality, but changes to an examination of what would bring into being a perfect state. In doing the latter, however, it is how to create public spirited persons, in the best sense, which is the actual concern, and the conversation ranges far and wide, becoming more and more complex.

I've always thought that to consider the perfect state had to be an impossibility if the individual, the person him or herself isn't up to the task - and that is the point of the Politeia enterprise. Like the ongoing relay race on horseback that is happening at the same time in the Piraeus, the passing of the argument one person to another that happens in the dialogue demonstrates that what is most crucial for the state as well as for the individual is personal integrity.

I take as an example the message of Saker's essay, linked by Down South and commented on above by others. Saker is pointing out that the protests have been seized upon by the anti-Trumpists who have been disrupting things from the beginning of his administration. But he also says:

"My personal feeling is that Trump is too weak and too much of a coward to fight his political enemies"

Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? The discussion of different kinds of states, which we often have here pursued, or the discussion of what makes a person able to function in one or another state? I don't think Plato was saying that Greece had it made, that Greece needed to throw its weight around more to be great. He's pointing out that it had lost greatness, the same way every empire loses when it forgets that individual spark that is in a single person, his virtue. And the sad thing is it all comes down to the education of our young people in the values, the virtues that apply both to his own personal life and to the life of the state.

At its heart, the protests which are beginning, only beginning, and which are peaceful, may be politeia vs. republic, the 'polis' itself against 'things political'. A new and true enlightenment, multipolar.

karlof1 , Jun 18 2020 16:39 utc | 64
BM @60--

Corruption's been a fact of life in North America ever since it was "discovered." Bernard Bailyn captured it quite well in his The New England Merchants in the Seventeenth Century , that is during the very first stages of plantation, with most corruption taking place in Old England then exported to the West. Even the Founders were corrupt, although they didn't see themselves as such. Isn't Adam & Eve's corruption detailed in Genesis merely an indicator of a general human trait that needs to be managed via culture? That human culture has generally failed to contain and discipline corruption speaks volumes about both. John Dos Passos in his opus USA noted that everyone everywhere was on the "hustle"--from the hobo to the banker. "Every child gots to have its own" are some of the truest lyrics ever written. Will humanity ever transcend this major failure in its nature?

Allen Edmundson , Jun 18 2020 23:30 utc | 65
Who is behind the claim that China is imprisoning vast numbers of Uighurs in concentration camps and what evidence has been presented? See the Greyzone for its recent report on this.

Edmundson

Jpc , Jun 18 2020 23:39 utc | 66
Thanks to all of you for your insights on Bolton.
I still don't see anything to explain why he got a second gig in the Whitehouse.
Or anything that he did that enhanced US security long term.
And another guy who dodged active service.
Strange angry dude,!
Hoarsewhisperer , Jun 19 2020 14:47 utc | 67
Pat Lang believes that Bolton has breached a law requiring US Officials with access to Top Secret Stuff to submit personal memoirs for scrutiny before publishing. Col Lang is awaiting similar approval for a memoir of his own and thinks Bolton didn't bother waiting for the Official OK.
There's a diverse range of comments. Most commentators like the idea of Bolton being tossed in the slammer. Others speculate that as a Swamp Creature, Bolton will escape prosecution. It's interesting that no-one has asked to see the publisher's copy of the USG's signed & dated Approval To Publish document, relevant to Bolton's book.
arby , Jun 19 2020 19:34 utc | 68
Jut a little thread on Bolton and his book.

It is amazing the way these clowns sit around and talk about countries and people as if they were so much dirt. The arrogance and power is disgusting.

link

[Jun 22, 2020] Does John Bolton deserves a Nobel peace Price? In our perverted world why not.

Jun 22, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Tower , Jun 17 2020 21:43 utc | 13

It's just about time. John Bolton deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. At this point, why not?

JC , Jun 17 2020 23:43 utc | 23

Posted by: Tower | Jun 17 2020 21:43 utc | 13

This is the most intelligent post so far.

Yes why not? If Obama awarded the Noble prize even before he begins serving his first term I can't see why Bolton not nominated now. America is a joke, not a banana republic. It deserves Obama, Trump, Bolton or Biden another stoopid joker.

Stoopid president elected by stoopid citizens

[Jun 21, 2020] Leaker fell victim of the leak: The neocon-warhawk may not see a penny for his book as the PDf was leaked online

MIC eventually will pay this neocon prostitute for services, anyway
Jun 21, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com
As Ben Garrison recent noted, in an interview Bolton stated that it was OK for the government agencies to lie to the American people if national security is at stake. And it always seems to be at stake for dominant men who want secrecy and power. Bolton is a dangerous liar and his anti-Trump screed cannot be trusted.

It's time to slam the book shut on Bolton.

[Jun 21, 2020] Paul R. Pillar who pointed out that U.S. sanctions are frequently peddled as a peaceful alternative to war fit the definition of 'crimes against peace'.

Highly recommended!
Jun 21, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Christian J. Chuba , Jun 21 2020 14:18 utc | 78

Re: the Nuremberg trials , I became fascinated by the writings of Paul R. Pillar who pointed out that U.S. sanctions are frequently peddled as a peaceful alternative to war fit the definition of 'crimes against peace' . This is when one country sets up an environment for war against another country. I'll grant you that this is vague but if this is applicable at all how is this not an accurate description of what we are doing against Iran and Venezuela?

In both cases, we are imposing a full trade embargo (not sanctions) on basic civilian necessities and infrastructures and threatening the use of military force. As for Iran, the sustained and unfair demonization of Iranians is preparing the U.S. public to accept a ruthless bombing campaign against them as long overdue. We are already attacking the civilian population of their allies in Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon.

How Ironic that the country that boasts that it won WW2 is now guilty of the very crimes that it condemned publicly in court.

[Jun 19, 2020] Bolton should be arrested and charged with any of a number of possible crimes

Jun 19, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Security screening of manuscripts I t is the law in the United States that those who have had legal access to the secrets of the government must submit private manuscripts for removal of such secrets BEFORE they are published or even presented to a potential publisher. Every department of government has an office charged with such work.

I know this process well because my memoir "Tattoo" has been in the hands of the appropriate Defense Department office for nigh on six months. The book is long, and I was so unlucky as to have DoD shut down its auxiliary services during my wait. I have thought of withdrawing it from screening but, surprisingly, the screeners tell me it has some worth for those who will come after. So, I will wait.

All this applies to John Bolton, a career State Department man whose adult life has been soaked in government secrets. I first noticed Bolton as a glowering presence at briefings I gave to selected State Department people with regard to national command authority projects I was running. His attitude was consistent. If the idea was not his, it was simply wrong.

Bolton's "kiss and tell" book about Trump is IMO as much caused by wounded ego as a desire to make money. He submitted the book for security review to DoD and the CIA. Why not State? Ah, Pompeo would tear it to pieces. Bolton evidently grew impatient with the pace of clearance and decided to go ahead with publication without clearance

To do this is a felony. The release of the book today completes the elements of proof for the crime.

Bolton should be arrested and charged with any of a number of possible crimes. pl

Jack , 18 June 2020 at 11:56 AM

Sir,

Let's see what Trump does with Bolton now that he has committed a felony.

My bet is that other than crying on Twitter, he'll not do much. His previous actions/inactions on these matters show weakness.

In any case bitching on Twitter makes him look like an executive with poor hiring judgement as he was the one that hired him. Just like he hired Mattis and Kelly as well as Rosenstein and Wray.

Barbara Ann , 18 June 2020 at 12:03 PM
Bolton being successfully charged with violations associated with his sour grapes hit piece memoir is analogous to Al Capone finally going down for tax evasion. But if that's the way it goes I will not be sad.

Re "Tattoo", your Memorial Day "Ap Bu Nho" extract alone makes "some worth" an amusingly ludicrous understatement. I wish you luck with the censors & very much look forward to one day reading "Tattoo".

eakens , 18 June 2020 at 12:05 PM
Who can we rely on to uphold the rule of law anymore? It's starting to appear we are living in a failed state.
Artemesia , 18 June 2020 at 01:22 PM
AIS

He was a convert to the neocon faith early in life and all else was mischief.

Posted by: turcopolier | 18 June 2020 at 12:21 PM

"He was a convert - - -"
I was going to ask what went wrong with Bolton: was he dropped on his head as an infant? No father in the home? The Dulles brothers spent their childhoods being harangued by their bible-thumping Calvinist grandfather (reports Kinzer in his useful bio on the brothers).

In Jeff Engel's book about the decision-making behind G H W Bush's decision to wage war against Saddam re Kuwait, he recounts that an argument by Brent Scowcroft was significant, AND that "Scowcroft, who was very short," confronted taller-than-average Bush while knees-to-knees in an airplane.
Bolton is shorter than the average American male. Does he have 'short-person' compulsion to compensate?

People psychologize Trump constantly, usually from ignorance and malice. But something is very wrong with Bolton. Pompeo as well. What is it?
"What huge imago made a psychopathic god?" (Auden, Sept. 1939)

Polish Janitor , 18 June 2020 at 04:11 PM
Col Lang,

#1 I read this WaPo article that argued because the recent DOJ's lawsuit against the release of the book is based on "prior restraint on speech before it occurs", meaning the Trump administration cannot censor speech before it happens, therefore there is no 1st amendment breach against the Trump admin by Bolton. As the court elaborated in Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, prior restraints are "the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights" and "one of the most extraordinary remedies known to our jurisprudence."

#2 Bolton took all of his notes containing classified intelligence with him after he was fired and nobody took an issue. How is that possible?

#3 The Wapo article says his manuscript was reviewed for four months by one Ellen Knight, an official (doesn't mention which department) responsible for reviewing publishing material and she gave it the green light for publication on April 27th.

#4 During a press conference, Bill Barr gave an unusual take on Bolton's book as if he was giving publicity to the book. He said he had never seen a book being written on Trump with such pace and in such quick time and that it had a lot of sensitive information and stuff. It sounded really odd what Bill Barr said. I dunno maybe I am reading to much between the lines...

#5 With regards to Pompeo, back in September during a press conference at the State, when asked by a reporter about Bolton's firing I specifically remember watching him on TV giving a big meaningful chuckle and a smile... it was revealed later that they clearly did not get along with each other and Pompeo had complained on numerous times that Bolton as NSA, who does not have executive authorities, had been doing a lot of policy stuff and running his own show in shadow.

On a final note, I don't think Bolton is a neocon in the mold of Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Abrams, Kagan, Kristol etc...There is this long piece by New Yorker published last year that really gets into detail of how and why Bolton is not a neocon, but adheres to a more hawkish Jacksonian nationalism approach rather than the liberal idealism of arch neocons I mentioned above. However, he does have quite similar F.P. views with neocon oldies such as Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, and Jeane Kirkpatrick.

JohnH , 18 June 2020 at 04:39 PM
If Bolton does NOT get the book thrown at him, it will be pretty good evidence of the existence of the Deep State allowing those it favors to write their own rules. Of course, we already knew that after Clapper lied with impunity to Wyden when he was under oath.
TV , 18 June 2020 at 04:49 PM
He'll never be prosecuted and neither will Comey, Clapper and the rest of the swamp scum.
Strozk (lower on the food chain) might be the human sacrifice (with a sentence of "community service") but no one of any significance (or "royal" title) is ever prosecuted in the swamp.
Trump has tried, but his miserable lack of hiring experience and skill has not made a dent
Polish Janitor , 18 June 2020 at 04:53 PM
Artemisia,

I feel like I have a few words to say about Bolton if I may,

IMHO Bolton's view of the world is very dark and extremely Hobbesian. He is no slouch by any stretch of imagination, in fact he is extremely knowledgeable and masterful when it comes to policy-making and that basically how things are done in D.C. He has made a brand for himself as the most hawkish national security expert in all of America in my opinion. Honestly I cannot think of anyone else who espouses more hawkishness and zero diplomacy than Bolton, ever... maybe Tom Cotton or Liz Cheney but still not close. This is the reason why Trump hired him. In fact Trump did not want to hire him as the top brass in first place, citing his mustache as one reason that would not look good on TV and wanted to give him 2nd tier jobs at the State or as NSA early on, but Bolton refused. Trump, wanted to hire Bolton's "brand" not his policies or hawkishness to intimidate Nkorea, Iran, and China to force them come into making deals with him and him personally.

IMO Trump found out after the first Kim summit that Bolton was
such an ambitious and counterproductive foreign policy maker and one-man-team that if he allowed Bolton to get his way, there would be world war III (Trump's own words) and his most important promise to keep America out of forever wars which was his wining platform over neocons such as Hilary, Jeb and Rubio during 2016 election would disappear into thin air.

So, Trump found ways to check Bolton and keep him out of the loop in sensitive and crucial moments by Mattis, Kelly, Joe Dunford, Pompeo and even Melania (in the case of getting rid of Bolton's close confidant and neocon Mira Ricardel when she called for bombing Iranian forces back in September 2018 in respone to several rockets by iraqi militias hitting the ground close to the U.S. embassy in Baghdad), and even sent him to Mongolia last year on a goose chase to make an embarrassing example of him for undermining him (i.e. Trump's) authority in the case of sitting down with the Taliban in Camp David to discuss military pullout from Afghanistan back in Sep. whereas at the same time Pompeo was smart enough to tow the same line as Trump and survive.

I few years ago I came across this interesting but odd piece by B on the Moon of Alabama on Bolton. I honestly dunno what to make of it.

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2006/02/a_glasshouse_in.html

ked , 18 June 2020 at 05:11 PM
The book is already released in the hundreds. It will be on-line soon enough regardless of the niceties of Barr's attempt to slam shut the barn door, or what the legal system does with Bolton going fwd.
Those close to Trump know his emotional state must be appeased or they will soon be departing - unless there's a DNA match.
Reaction to it will be a test of one's ability to distinguish Bolton from the events he describes & their veracity. Is there anything of Trump's statements & acts (released so far) that surprises anyone... that rings untrue?
Those ideologically (or religiously) dependent upon the Trump Phenomenon for validating their core beliefs will demonstrate how creative true believers can be when attached to a personality.
A.I.S. , 18 June 2020 at 05:34 PM
For what its worth I am looking forward to buying it, should scratch that Peter Scholl Latour itch.

Another thing is that I just dont get the Neocons.
Their politics are bad both from a Machieavellian (dilutes US forces, creates enemies, considerably restricts creative ways in which US power could be employed) and from a moral (obviously) point of view. I also dont get their power, stupid/evil tends to be competed out. Heck, even if they are stupid/evil but very good at beurocratic backbiting stuff, they are still supposedly disadvantadged against skilled beurocratic backbiters that arent stupid/evil (or at least only evil and not stupid).
Is it internal cohesion or a much higher degree of ruthlessness that maintains their position?

PB , 18 June 2020 at 07:05 PM
I've for many years thought that the Bolton problem was best solved with a speedy trial and a swift execution, with remains thrown overboard somewhere in the Indian ocean.
turcopolier , 18 June 2020 at 07:13 PM
polish janitor

He signed an oath to safeguard the secrecy of the information when "read on" for it and another such when he was "read off." The 1st Amendment does not come into it at all

[Jun 18, 2020] Poor Johnny! What's sadder than being a crook, but an ineffective one? I think that's what he is. He may be infamous enough to be a household name, but he never really managed to make a career. Hardly ever did he stay on a job for more than 2 years

Jun 18, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

John , Jun 17 2020 19:24 utc | 4

I'm fully expecting the Dem "left" to try and praise the monsterous Bolton for "going against Trump", as they did with war criminal Mad Dog Matis and Bush. Bolton has to be one of the most evil mass murders on the face of the Earth. The world will be an infinitely better place when he and his ilk like Netanyahu, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Chertoff..etc finally go back to hell.

karlof1 , Jun 17 2020 19:33 utc | 5

Bolton deserves having a parasite named after him, if that.
Scotch Bingeington , Jun 17 2020 19:57 utc | 6
Poor Johnny! What's sadder than being a crook, but an ineffective one? I think that's what he is. He may be infamous enough to be a household name, but he never really managed to make a career. Hardly ever did he stay on a job for more than 2 years, before his fellow crooks deemed him unfit for his position, again and again. Says a lot.

I hope they will confiscate his book on some flimsy pretext, only to lose the piles of copies in storage, so they cannot possibly be released to bookstores again. Maybe some mice will make use of it to furnish their nests?

Take a look at his face. It's obvious to me that even John Bolton does not enjoy being John Bolton. That mouth, it's drooping to an absurd degree. Comparable to Merkel's face, come to think of it.

GeorgeV , Jun 17 2020 20:25 utc | 8
John Bolton's tell all book about his tenure with the Trump administration is a perfect example of the pot calling the kettle burned. It is a fitting description of the leadership of the US government and it's capitol city as a den of backstabbing, corkscrewing and double dealing vipers. It's like standing on a street corner watching two prostitutes calling each other a whore! How low has the US sunk.
bob sykes , Jun 17 2020 20:55 utc | 11
Of course, Trump actually campaigned to leave Afghanistan and Syria, and he was elected to do so. The self-appointed Deep State has pretty much thwarted him and his voters.
uncle tungsten , Jun 17 2020 21:00 utc | 12
karlof1 #5
Blastocystis hominis could be renamed easily enough. It is a pain in the gut and arse.

I will not bother to read any more on Bolton the man is beneath contempt. b has said more than enough.

Tower , Jun 17 2020 21:43 utc | 13
It's just about time. John Bolton deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. At this point, why not?
pretzelattack , Jun 17 2020 21:49 utc | 14
let us not forget that bolton threatened a un officials kids because they guy wasn't going along with the iraq war propaganda.
Duncan Idaho , Jun 17 2020 22:03 utc | 15
Only with Late Stage Capitalism could we have a vicious war criminal write a book criticizing a psychopathic sociopath.
Anonymous , Jun 17 2020 22:06 utc | 16
The political establishment in Canada appeared dismayed at the prospect of Bolton as National Security Adviser. See these interviews with Hill + Knowlton strategies Vice-chairman, Peter Donolo, from 2018:

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/video/there-s-risk-trump-s-actions-are-driving-the-u-s-into-a-recession-peter-donolo~1342264
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/video/trade-wars-easy-to-start-not-so-easy-to-finish-peter-donolo~1365104

So Bolton gets in, Meng Wangzhou is detained in Vancouver on the US request (that's another story), and in time, Canada appoints a new Ambassador to China - Mr. Dominic Barton.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominic_Barton
Then Bolton gets fired. 'Nuff said. Just to let everyone know that Bolton is well and truly hated, as a government official, in certain circles.

AntiSpin , Jun 17 2020 22:07 utc | 17
@ pretzelattack | Jun 17 2020 21:49 utc | 14

Close -- the threatened official was Jose Bustani, at that time (2002) the head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)as he had been for five years.

Bustani had been working to bring Iraq and Libya into the organization, which would have required those two countries to eliminate all of their chemical weapons.

The US, though, had other ideas -- chiefly invading and destroying both of those nations, and when Bustani insisted on continuing his efforts then Bolton threatened Bustani's adult children.

james , Jun 17 2020 23:13 utc | 20
let the lobbyists with the most money win... that's what defines the usa system, leadership and decision making process... no one in their right mind would support this doofus..
Jen , Jun 17 2020 23:40 utc | 21
At least the one saving grace about John Bolton's memoir is that it might be a tad closer to reality than Christopher Steele's infamous dossier and might prove valuable as a source of evidence in a court of law. Maybe Yosemite Sam himself should start quaking in his boots.
Don Bacon , Jun 17 2020 23:44 utc | 24
@ Jpc
When faced with Trump's behavior of employing warmongers, including several generals, some observers opined that Trump wanted people with contrasting opinions so that he could consider them and then say "no." He did more with Bolton eventually, sending him to Mongolia while he (Trump) went to Singapore (or somewhere over there).
A User , Jun 17 2020 23:47 utc | 25
re Ian2 | Jun 17 2020 23:08 utc | 19
who hazarded : My guess Trump went along with the tough guy image that Bolton projected in media and recommendations by others.
Not at all, if you go back to the earliest days of the orangeman's prezdency, you will see Trump resisted the efforts by Mercer & the zionist casino owner to give Bolton a gig.
He knew that shrub had problems with the boasts of Bolton and as his reputation was as an arsehole who sounded his own trumpet at his boss's expense orangeman refused for a long time. Trump believes the trump prezdency is about trump no one else.
Thing was at the time he was running for the prez gig trump was on his uppers, making a few dollars from his tv show, plus licensing other people's buildings by selling his name to be stuck on them. trump tower azerbnajan etc.
He put virtually none of his own money into the 'race' so when he won the people who had put up the dosh had power over him.
Bolton has always been an arse kisser to any zionist cause he suspects he can claw a penny outta, so he used the extreme loony end of the totally looney zionist spectrum to hook him (Bolton) up with a gig by pushing for him with trump.

It was always gonna end the way it did as Bolton is forever briefing the media against anyone who tried to resist his murderous fantasies. Trump is never gonna argue for any scheme that doesn't have lotsa dollars for him in it so he had plenty of run ins with Bolton who then went to his media mates & told tales.
When bolton was appointed orangey's stakes were at a really low ebb among DC warmongers, so he reluctantly took him on then spent the next 18 months getting rid of the grubby parasite.

Kristan hinton , Jun 18 2020 0:46 utc | 26
Real History: Candidate Trump praised Bolton and named him as THE number one Foreign Policy expert he (Trump) respected.

Imagine the mustachioed Mister Potatoe (sic) Head and zany highjinks!

Bolton and one of his first wives were regulars at Plato's Retreat for wife swapping orgies. The wife was not real keen on the behavior, but she allegedly found herself verbally and physically abused for objecting.

DannyC , Jun 18 2020 1:17 utc | 27
Trump is at fault for hiring him to appease the Zionist lobby. We all knew the guy was a warmonger and a scumbag. It's not a surprise. Trump surrounds himself with the worst people

[Jun 17, 2020] Collusion with China, wanting to stay in office forever Leaked Bolton book excerpts cash in on anti-Trump frenzy

If we view Bolton as Adelson puppet, such a behaviour clearly does not make much sense. Or this is a single from Israel lobby to Trump "moor did his duty, moor can go"?
Notable quotes:
"... "a variety of instances when he sought to intervene in law enforcement matters for political reasons." ..."
"... "in effect, give personal favors to dictators he liked," ..."
"... "The pattern looked like obstruction of justice as a way of life, which we couldn't accept," ..."
"... "bombshells" ..."
"... "exactly the right thing to do." ..."
"... "systematic use of indoctrination camps, forced labor, and intrusive surveillance to eradicate the ethnic identity and religious beliefs of Uyghurs and other minorities in China." ..."
"... "Panda Hugger." ..."
"... The mustachioed warhawk had served as Trump's national security adviser from April 2018 to September 2019. While the exact reason for his firing was never revealed, Trump has since commented that Bolton was interfering with his peace initiatives and had "never seen a war he didn't like." ..."
"... Indeed, the "most irrational thing" Bolton accuses Trump of was to refuse to bomb Iran in June 2019, according to the New York Times excerpt. ..."
"... "soft on China" ..."
"... As for Trump supporters, many were indifferent about Bolton's betrayal, noting that Trump hired the neocon in the first place and kept him on for over a year, while ditching the faithful General Michael Flynn after less than two weeks on the job, following a FBI ambush and a Washington Post hit job. ..."
Jun 17, 2020 | www.rt.com
Former national security adviser John Bolton has leaked excerpts of his book to major newspapers, accusing President Donald Trump of colluding with leaders in China and Turkey, and obstruction of justice "as a way of life." Facing a DOJ lawsuit seeking to block the publication of his memoir for containing classified information, Bolton decided to go to the press, leaking parts of the book to the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday.

Breaking News: John Bolton says in his new book that the House should have investigated President Trump for potentially impeachable actions beyond Ukraine https://t.co/8lpd4xAzYu

-- The New York Times (@nytimes) June 17, 2020

Bolton famously refused to testify before the Democrat-led impeachment proceedings against Trump over his alleged abuse of power regarding Ukraine, but now claims that they should have expanded the probe to "a variety of instances when he sought to intervene in law enforcement matters for political reasons."

He accuses Trump of wanting to "in effect, give personal favors to dictators he liked," bringing up companies in China and Turkey as examples, according to the Times. "The pattern looked like obstruction of justice as a way of life, which we couldn't accept," the Times quotes him as saying.

One of the Bolton "bombshells" is that he sought China's purchase of US soybeans in order to get re-elected, during trade negotiations with President Xi Jinping.

SOYBEAN DIPLOMACY: The WSJ has published an excerpt of @AmbJohnBolton 's forthcoming book, revealing Trump-Xi conversation and how the American president pleaded his Chinese counterpart to buy U.S. soybeans so he could win farm states in the 2020 presidential elections | #OATT pic.twitter.com/XKAogLCCtN

-- Javier Blas (@JavierBlas) June 17, 2020

An excerpt in the Wall Street Journal has Trump telling Xi that – alleged – concentration camps for Uighur Muslims in China's Xinjiang province were "exactly the right thing to do." It also alleges that Trump did Xi a favor by relaxing US sanctions on ZTE, a Chinese telecom company.

WSJ excerpt of Bolton book has Trump & China bombshells. Trump told Xi building concentration camps for Muslims "was exactly the right thing to do." Trump pleaded w/ Xi to help him w/ re-election by making US farm product buys. And Trump helped Xi w/ ZTE. https://t.co/4CSflQQqcL

-- Edward Wong (@ewong) June 17, 2020

This comes as Trump signed into law the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act of 2020, which mandates US sanctions against Chinese officials over "systematic use of indoctrination camps, forced labor, and intrusive surveillance to eradicate the ethnic identity and religious beliefs of Uyghurs and other minorities in China."

Another excerpt has Bolton referring to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin as a "Panda Hugger."

According to Bolton, Trump told Xi to "go ahead with building the camps" for imprisoned Uighurs.

-- Philip Wegmann (@PhilipWegmann) June 17, 2020

As another proof of Trump's perfidy, Bolton writes that the president told Xi that he would like to stay in office beyond the two terms the US Constitution would allow him. Bolton's one-time colleague Dinesh D'Souza commented that Bolton was unable to recognize a clear joke.

Really? This is it? John Bolton's smoking gun? Trump has been jokingly putting out memes about this for four years. This conversation, if it occurred at all, seems obviously jocular. Bolton, however, whom I knew quite well from AEI, doesn't have a jocular bone in his body pic.twitter.com/Qe8sXCAT58

-- Dinesh D'Souza (@DineshDSouza) June 17, 2020

Trump has on more than one occasion shared a meme showing him staying in power forever, triggering Democrats into denouncing him as an aspiring dictator. Apparently, Bolton thought the same.

According to John Bolton posting this meme was an impeachable offense https://t.co/q2BHlfVTEu

-- Will Chamberlain 🇺🇸 (@willchamberlain) June 17, 2020

The mustachioed warhawk had served as Trump's national security adviser from April 2018 to September 2019. While the exact reason for his firing was never revealed, Trump has since commented that Bolton was interfering with his peace initiatives and had "never seen a war he didn't like."

Indeed, the "most irrational thing" Bolton accuses Trump of was to refuse to bomb Iran in June 2019, according to the New York Times excerpt.

Pretty telling that the episode which pissed off Bolton the most during his tenure was Trump calling off airstrikes which would have killed dozens of Iranian soldiers in June 2019 https://t.co/ruFSInj2Mu pic.twitter.com/5zO7UrxMTM

-- Saagar Enjeti (@esaagar) June 17, 2020

Arguing that Trump is being "soft on China" and colluding with Xi also happens to be a Democratic Party strategy for the 2020 presidential election, outlined in April and reported by Axios.

While Democrats and the mainstream media welcomed Bolton's bombshells as validating their position on Trump, he is unlikely to become a #Resistance hero, simply because they still remember he refused to say these things under oath during the impeachment hearings, when they – in theory – could have bolstered their case for getting Trump out of office.

As for Trump supporters, many were indifferent about Bolton's betrayal, noting that Trump hired the neocon in the first place and kept him on for over a year, while ditching the faithful General Michael Flynn after less than two weeks on the job, following a FBI ambush and a Washington Post hit job.

Do I care that Bolton is stabbing Trump in the back? Not at all. General Flynn was NSA and Trump made his choices. Being outraged on behalf of a 70+ year old man who makes poor choices is well beyond my job description.

-- Blue Flu Cernovich (@Cernovich) June 17, 2020

[Jun 16, 2020] It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future (incorrectly attributed to Yogi Berra)

Jun 16, 2020 | carnegieendowment.org

... There are no signs that the [USA-Russia] relationship will improve in the near future.

[Jun 14, 2020] Jeane J. Kirkpatrick 30 Years Unheeded

Highly recommended!
The national security establishment does represent the actual government of dual "double government". And it is not unaccountable to, and unsupervised by, the elected branches of government. Instead it controls them and is able to stage palace coups to remove "unacceptable" Presidents like was the case with JFK, Nixon and Trump.
For them is are occupied country and then behave like real occuplers.
Notable quotes:
"... In Trumpian fashion, Kirkpatrick then goes on to warn Americans about the danger of an unaccountable "deep state" in foreign policy that is immune to popular pressures. ..."
"... She says that, no, "it has become more important than ever that the experts who conduct foreign policy on our behalf be subject to the direction of and control of the people." ..."
"... She points out that because America had for much of the twentieth century assumed global responsibilities, our foreign policy elites had developed "distinctive views" that are different from those of the electorate. ..."
"... foreign policy elites "grew accustomed to thinking of the United States as having boundless resources and purposes . . . which transcended the preferences of voters and apparent American interests . . . and eventually developed a globalist attitude." ..."
"... In support of Kirkpatrick's concern, Tufts professor Michael Glennon has more recently argued that the national security establishment has now become so "distinctive" in their separation from our constitutional processes that they represent one wing of a now "double government" that is not unaccountable to, and unsupervised by, the popular branches of government. The Russiagate investigations and the attempt to disable the Trump presidency, aided by many in the establishment, would appear to confirm Kirkpatrick's warning that foreign policy elites want no part of the electoral preferences of voting Americans. ..."
"... Kirkpatrick died in 2006 and had, like many neoconservatives, evolved from a Humphrey Democrat into a member of the GOP establishment. With William Bennett and Jack Kemp, in 1993 she cofounded a neoconservative group, Empower America, which took a very aggressive stance against militant Islam after the 9/11 attacks. However, she was quite ambivalent about the invasion of Iraq and was quoted in The Economist ..."
Jun 14, 2020 | nationalinterest.org

Kirkpatrick's essay begins by insisting that, because of world events since 1939, America has given to foreign affairs "an unnatural focus." Now in 1990, she says, the nation can turn its attention to domestic concerns that are more important because "a good society is defined not by its foreign policy but its internal qualities . . . by the relations among its citizens, the kind of character nurtured, and the quality of life lived." She says unabashedly that "there is no mystical American 'mission' or purposes to be 'found' independently of the U.S. Constitution and government."

One cannot fail to notice that this perspective is precisely the opposite of George W. Bush's in his second inauguration. According to Bush, America's post –Cold War purpose was to follow our "deepest beliefs" by acting to "support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture." For three decades neoconservative foreign policy has revolved around "mystical" beliefs about America's mission in the world that are unmoored from the actual Constitution.

In Trumpian fashion, Kirkpatrick then goes on to warn Americans about the danger of an unaccountable "deep state" in foreign policy that is immune to popular pressures. She rejects emphatically the views of some elitists who argue that foreign policy is a uniquely esoteric and specialized discipline and must be cushioned from populism. She says that, no, "it has become more important than ever that the experts who conduct foreign policy on our behalf be subject to the direction of and control of the people."

She points out that because America had for much of the twentieth century assumed global responsibilities, our foreign policy elites had developed "distinctive views" that are different from those of the electorate. Again, in Trumpian fashion, she argued that foreign policy elites "grew accustomed to thinking of the United States as having boundless resources and purposes . . . which transcended the preferences of voters and apparent American interests . . . and eventually developed a globalist attitude."

In support of Kirkpatrick's concern, Tufts professor Michael Glennon has more recently argued that the national security establishment has now become so "distinctive" in their separation from our constitutional processes that they represent one wing of a now "double government" that is not unaccountable to, and unsupervised by, the popular branches of government. The Russiagate investigations and the attempt to disable the Trump presidency, aided by many in the establishment, would appear to confirm Kirkpatrick's warning that foreign policy elites want no part of the electoral preferences of voting Americans.

Kirkpatrick concludes her essay with thoughts on "What should we do?" and "What we should not do." Remarkably, her first recommendation is to negotiate better trade deals. These deals should give the U.S. "fair access" to foreign markets while offering "foreign businesses no better than fair access to U.S. markets." Next, she considered the promotion of democracy around the world and, on this subject, she took the John Quincy Adams position : that "Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be." However, she insisted: "it is not within the United States' power to democratize the world."

When Kirkpatrick goes on to discuss America's post –Cold War alliances, she makes clear that she is advocating, quite simply, an America First foreign policy. Regarding the future of the NATO alliance, a sacrosanct pillar of the American foreign policy establishment, she argued that "the United States should not try to manage the balance of power in Europe." Likewise, we should be humble about what we can accomplish in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union: "Any notion that the United States can manage the changes in that huge, multinational, developing society is grandiose." Finally, with regard to Asia: "Our concern with Japan should above all be with its trading practices vis-à-vis the United States. We should not spend money protecting an affluent Japan, though a continuing alliance is entirely appropriate."

She famously concludes her essay by making the plea for the United States to become "a normal country in a normal time" and "to give up the dubious benefits of superpower status and become again an unusually successful, open American republic."

Kirkpatrick became Ronald Reagan's United Nations ambassador because her 1979 article in Commentary , "Dictatorships and Double Standards," caught the eye of the future president. In that article, she sensibly points out that authoritarian governments that are allies of the United States should not be kicked to the curb because they are not free and open democracies. The path to democracy is a long and perilous one, and nations without republican traditions cannot be expected to make the transition overnight. Regarding the world's oldest democracy, she remarked: "In Britain, the road from the Magna Carta to the Act of Settlement, to the great Reform Bills of 1832, 1867, and 1885, took seven centuries to traverse."

While at the time neoconservatives opportunistically embraced her for this position as a tactic to fight the Cold War, the current foreign policy establishment would consider Kirkpatrick's argument to be beyond the bounds of decent conversation, as it would lend itself to an accommodation with authoritarian Russia as a counterweight to totalitarian China.

Kirkpatrick died in 2006 and had, like many neoconservatives, evolved from a Humphrey Democrat into a member of the GOP establishment. With William Bennett and Jack Kemp, in 1993 she cofounded a neoconservative group, Empower America, which took a very aggressive stance against militant Islam after the 9/11 attacks. However, she was quite ambivalent about the invasion of Iraq and was quoted in The Economist as saying that George W. Bush was "a bit too interventionist for my taste" and that Bush's brand of moral imperialism is not "taken seriously anywhere outside a few places in Washington, DC."

The fact that Kirkpatrick's recommendations in her 1990 essay coincide with some of Donald Trump's positions in the 2016 campaign (if not with many of his actual actions as president) make her views, ipso facto, not serious. The foreign policy establishment gives something like pariah status to arguments that we should negotiate better trade deals, reconsider our Cold War alliances and, most especially, subject American foreign policy to popular preferences. If she were alive today and were making the arguments she made in 1990, then she would be an outcast. That a formidable intellectual like Kirkpatrick would be dismissed in such a fashion is a sign of how obtuse our foreign policy debate has become.

William S. Smith is Senior Research Fellow and Managing Director of the Center for the Study of Statesmanship at The Catholic University of America. His recent book, Democracy and Imperialism , is from the University of Michigan Press. He studied political philosophy under Professor Jeane Kirkpatrick as an undergraduate at Georgetown University.

[Jun 13, 2020] Note on Trump/Pompeo diplomacy of insults: Iran proved to be quite good at swapping insults with the USA and Iran's insults are usually funnier

Jun 13, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Hoarsewhisperer , Jun 12 2020 23:08 utc | 27

Since this nothing-burger appears to have kicked off with an article in the NYT, it looks to me as though someone reminded The Swamp that Iran hasn't been disarmed and is thus not the kind of soft target that can be pushed around with impunity by AmeriKKKa. Imo, Iran is a lot closer to the top of the Military Genius pecking order than AmeriKKKa. i.e. Iran has made it quite clear that "Israel" will cop the blowback if Iran is attacked, and has also demonstrated its ability to conduct high-precision strikes on US bases & bunkers in the region. Iran is also quite good at swapping insults with AmeriKKKa and Iran's insults are usually funnier than AmeriKKKa's...

Threatening North Korea probably seemed like a better/safer idea than threatening Iran but only until China's diplomatic comedians start ripping into AmeriKKKa's loud-mouthed dorks and daydreamers.

[May 26, 2020] Mike Pompeo is the number one evangelist of Trumpism in the world by Michael H Fuchs

Notable quotes:
"... Pompeo's penchant for undermining America's credibility is top-notch. ..."
May 25, 2020 | www.theguardian.com

When it comes to foreign policy, Pompeo's penchant for undermining America's credibility is top-notch

'Pompeo is a natural Trumpist.' Donald Trump's disdain for the people, country and values his office is supposed to represent is unmatched in recent memory. And he has found in the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo , a kindred spirit who has embraced his role as Trumpism's number one proselytizer to the world.

Pompeo doesn't wield nearly as much power or have the jurisdiction to inflict damage on as wide a range of issues as the president. He's not as crass or erratic as Trump, and his Twitter feed seems dedicated more to childish mockery than outright attacks. But when it comes to foreign policy, Pompeo's penchant for undermining America's credibility is top-notch.

At Pompeo's recommendation, Trump fired the state department's inspector general, who is supposed to be an independent investigator charged with looking into potential wrongdoing inside the department. Steve Linick was just the latest in a series of inspectors general across the government that Trump had fired in an attempt to hide the misconduct of his administration – but it also shone a spotlight on how Pompeo has undermined his agency.

Watchdog was investigating Pompeo for arms deal and staff misuse before firing

According to news reports, Pompeo was being investigated by the inspector general for bypassing Congress and possibly breaking the law in sending weapons to Saudi Arabia, even though his own department and the rest of the US government advised against the decision. He was also supposedly organizing fancy dinners – paid for by taxpayers – with influential businesspeople and TV personalities that seemed geared more towards supporting Pompeo's political career than advancing US foreign policy goals. And he was reportedly being scrutinized for using department personnel to conduct personal business, such as getting dry cleaning and walking his dog.

But these revelations merely reaffirm a pattern of activities by Pompeo unbecoming of the nation's top diplomat. When the House of Representatives was in the process of impeaching Trump over his attempt to extort Ukraine for personal political purposes – an act that Pompeo was aware of – Pompeo defended Trump while throwing under the bus career state department officials, like the ousted US ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, who spoke out. Pompeo has regularly ignored Congress, withholding documents from lawmakers – including during the Ukraine impeachment investigation – and refusing to appear for testimony. In 2019, the IG released a report detailing political retaliation against career state department officials being perpetrated by Trump officials. And Pompeo has spent considerable time traveling to Kansas and conducting media interviews there, fueling speculation that he has been using his position to tee up a run for the Senate, a violation of the Hatch Act.

Pompeo is a natural Trumpist. In her fantastic profile of the secretary of state, Susan Glasser notes of his first congressional race: "Pompeo ran a nasty race against the Democrat, an Indian-American state legislator named Raj Goyle, who, unlike Pompeo, had grown up in Wichita. Pompeo's campaign tweeted praise for an article calling Goyle a 'turban topper', and a supporter bought billboards urging residents to 'Vote American – Vote Pompeo'."

... ... ...

Facebook Twitter Pinterest 'Trump is undermining American leadership in incalculable ways, and Pompeo has weaponized the state department on the president's behalf.' Photograph: Kevin Lamarque/Reuters

Next to Trump's assault on US values, Pompeo's role as top Trump lackey may seem insignificant. But the secretary of state is often the most senior US official that other countries and publics hear from on any number of issues. Even with Trump in the Oval Office, a secretary of state that was committed to the constitution - not Trump - would at least be able to fight for the values that US foreign policy should embody, and shield the department's day-to-day business from Trump's outbursts.

The work that department professionals conduct around the world – helping American citizens abroad get home in the early days of the pandemic or coordinating assistance to other countries to cope with the coronavirus – is vital to American national security, and at the core of the image that America projects abroad.

Trump is undermining American leadership in incalculable ways, and Pompeo has weaponized the state department on his behalf

... ... ...

[May 24, 2020] About Pompeo threat to cut Australia from the fives eyes intelligence flows

From MoA comment 57: "Warmongering shit bags endlessly flatulent about their moral superiority while threatening to nuke nations on the other side of the globe daily. ... the greatness of the US consists of how gullible its hyper-exploited populace has been to a long series of Donald Trumps who use the resources of the land and people for competitive violence against other nations. the world heaves a collective hallelujah that this bullshit is about to end. "
Notable quotes:
"... Lets reverse that point, shall we. There is a US spy base in Australia at a place called Pine Gap. Without it being operational the USA would lose its 3 dimensional vision across the planet. ..."
"... This Bannon/Trump bluster is weak as p!ss as 'sharing intelligence' is the cornerstone of the five eyes perversion that gives the USA some superiority in intelligence matters. So if sharing intelligence were withdrawn by the USA with Australia it would have meaningless consequences. ..."
"... Pompeo is blathering bullsh!t and he knows it and we all know it ..."
May 24, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

uncle tungsten , May 25 2020 0:44 utc | 56

vk #4
Pompeo Warns US May Stop Sharing Intelligence With Australia Over Victoria Inking Deal With China's BRI

The battle for Australia's soul has begun.

Lets reverse that point, shall we. There is a US spy base in Australia at a place called Pine Gap. Without it being operational the USA would lose its 3 dimensional vision across the planet.

This Bannon/Trump bluster is weak as p!ss as 'sharing intelligence' is the cornerstone of the five eyes perversion that gives the USA some superiority in intelligence matters. So if sharing intelligence were withdrawn by the USA with Australia it would have meaningless consequences.

On the other hand if Australia ceased its intelligence sharing and shut down all the data traffic out of Australia - the USA would go ballistic. Not that the Oz government would ever do such a thing being a craven water carrier for the new world order etc...

Pompeo is blathering bullsh!t and he knows it and we all know it. Odd that you would reiterate his brainless threat vk.

[May 19, 2020] America: "We demand an coronavirus origin investigation, but the investigators must agree on the outcome that we specify before they begin investigating!"

Highly recommended!
May 19, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

William Gruff , May 18 2020 15:40 utc | 13

America: "We demand an investigation, but the investigators must agree on the outcome that we specify before they begin investigating!"

Why not? It works for gas attacks, chemical weapons poisoning, and airliner shoot downs, so why not biological weapons attacks too?

[May 18, 2020] Trump Fires State's IG to Protect Pompeo from Investigation

May 18, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Yhe president announced on Friday that he was firing Steve Linick, the State Department's Inspector General. One possible reason that Linick was removed may have been that he was conducting an investigation into the bogus emergency declaration that the administration used to expedite arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE last year:

House Democrats have discovered that the fired IG had mostly completed an investigation into Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's widely criticized decision to skirt Congress with an emergency declaration to approve billions of dollars in arms sales to Saudi Arabia last year, aides on the Foreign Affairs Committee tell me.

"I have learned that there may be another reason for Mr. Linick's firing," Rep. Eliot L. Engel (D-N.Y.), the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, said in a statement sent to me. "His office was investigating -- at my request -- Trump's phony declaration of an emergency so he could send weapons to Saudi Arabia."

If Linick was investigating the bogus emergency declaration, he would have come across reporting that showed how a former Raytheon lobbyist serving at the department was instrumental in pushing through the plan to expedite arms sales that benefited his old employer. He would have discovered that there was no genuine emergency that justified going around Congress. Once his investigation was concluded, it would have found that the emergency declaration was made in bad faith and that the law was abused so that the administration could proceed with arms sales that Congress opposed.

Another reason for the firing was to protect Mike Pompeo from an investigation into the Secretary's abuses of government resources for personal purposes:

The State Department inspector general fired by President Trump was looking into allegations that a staffer for Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was performing domestic errands and chores such as handling dry cleaning, walking the family dog and making restaurant reservations, said a congressional official familiar with the matter.

The House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman and the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee released a statement immediately on Friday objecting to Linick's firing and suggesting that it might be an illegal act of retaliation. There will now be a Congressional investigation into the circumstances surrounding Linick's firing. If Trump hoped to reduce the scrutiny on Pompeo by getting rid of Linick, he will be disappointed. It remains to be seen how much of a price Pompeo will pay for this, but the price is likely higher now than it would have been if he hadn't pushed for removing the inspector general.

Pompeo reportedly recommended Linick's removal. This is not the first time that Pompeo has been accused of misusing government resources. There was a report last summer that a whistleblower alleged that Pompeo and his wife were using Diplomatic Security agents as their personal errand boys:

Democrats on a key House congressional committee are investigating allegations from a whistleblower within the State Department about Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his family's use of taxpayer-funded Diplomatic Security -- prompting agents to lament they are at times viewed as "UberEats with guns".

Congressional investigators, who asked for the committee not to be named as they carry out their inquiries, tell CNN that a State Department whistleblower has raised multiple issues over a period of months, about special agents being asked to carry out some questionable tasks for the Pompeo family.

Pompeo has also repeatedly used government resources for domestic travel that seems to have more to do with advancing the Secretary's political ambitions in Kansas. There has been widespread speculation that he has used official trips in an attempt to lay the groundwork for a possible Senate campaign . If so, it would be a flagrant violation of the Hatch Act. That prompted a call for a special counsel investigation into Pompeo's travel. If Pompeo and his wife have been using a political appointee as a gofer, that would be more of the same abusive behavior.

Linick has previously clashed with other Trump administration officials at State. Last year, he released a damning report on Brian Hook over his treatment of Sahar Nowrouzzadeh, the Iranian-American official who was apparently targeted for political retaliation because of her policy views and ethnic background. The fired inspector general was well-respected at the department, and his firing at Pompeo's urging will likely cause further demoralization at a department that has already been run into the ground under the Secretary's dismal leadership.

The Secretary of State seems to think that government funds and personnel are at his disposal for his personal errands and political activities. Linick was doing exactly what an inspector general is supposed to be doing by investigating the allegations against him, and then he was conveniently fired on Pompeo's recommendation. You could hardly ask for a more straightforward case of a corrupt official using his influence to remove the person responsible for scrutinizing his conduct. If Linick was also fired because he was in the process of exposing the administration's dishonest push for more arms sales to the Saudi coalition, that makes his removal all the more outrageous and sinister.

JMWB • an hour ago

Mike Pompeo is a Tea Party darling. The Tea Party's motto should be : Austerity, fiscal responsibility, and integrity for Thee, but not for Me.
Feral Finster JMWB • 33 minutes ago
Mike Pompeo's idea of austerity is only a double order of french fries.

[May 15, 2020] "We lied, we cheated, we stole", version 2.0

May 15, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

WHY IS THE US IN SYRIA?

Washington longer bothers to prettify – the boot is straight to the face. ISIS?

Forget ISIS says Jeffrey : " My job is to make it a quagmire for the Russians ".

An amazing confession, in the same class as " We lied, we cheated, we stole ".

[May 13, 2020] Dramatic change of direction for Syrian envoy

Highly recommended!
This is MIGA in action...
Notable quotes:
"... former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell admitted in a TV interview he views that the US should be in the business of "killing Russians and Iranians covertly" ). ..."
"... Ironically, Jeffrey's official title has been Special Envoy for the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIL, but apparently the mission is now to essentially "give the Russians hell". His comments were made Tuesday during a video conference hosted by the neocon Hudson Institute : ..."
"... He also emphasized that the Syrian state would continue to be squeezed into submission as part of long-term US efforts (going back to at least 2011) to legitimize a Syria government in exile of sorts. This after the Trump administration recently piled new sanctions on Damascus. As University of Oklahoma professor and expert on the region Joshua Landis summarized of Jeffrey's remarks: "He pledged that the United States will continue to deny Syria - international funding, reconstruction, oil, banking, agriculture & recognition of government." ..."
May 13, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Washington now says it's all about defeating the Russians . While it's not the first time this has been thrown around in policy circles (recall that a year after Russia's 2015 entry into Syria at Assad's invitation, former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell admitted in a TV interview he views that the US should be in the business of "killing Russians and Iranians covertly" ).

And now the top US special envoy to region, James Jeffrey, has this to say on US troops in Syria :

"My job is to make it a quagmire for the Russians."

Ironically, Jeffrey's official title has been Special Envoy for the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIL, but apparently the mission is now to essentially "give the Russians hell". His comments were made Tuesday during a video conference hosted by the neocon Hudson Institute :

Asked why the American public should tolerate US involvement in Syria, Special Envoy James Jeffrey points out the small US footprint in the fight against ISIS. "This isn't Afghanistan. This isn't Vietnam. This isn't a quagmire. My job is to make it a quagmire for the Russians."

He also emphasized that the Syrian state would continue to be squeezed into submission as part of long-term US efforts (going back to at least 2011) to legitimize a Syria government in exile of sorts. This after the Trump administration recently piled new sanctions on Damascus. As University of Oklahoma professor and expert on the region Joshua Landis summarized of Jeffrey's remarks: "He pledged that the United States will continue to deny Syria - international funding, reconstruction, oil, banking, agriculture & recognition of government."

"My job is to make it a quagmire for the Russians."

Special US envoy to Syria - James Jeffery

He pledged that the United States will continue to deny Syria - international funding, reconstruction, oil, banking, agriculture & recognition of government. https://t.co/MSAkQqAmdh

-- Joshua Landis (@joshua_landis) May 12, 2020

But no doubt both Putin and Assad have understood Washington's real proxy war interests all along, which is why last year Russia delivered it's lethal S-300 into the hands of Assad (and amid constant Israeli attacks). But no doubt both Putin and Assad have understood Washington's real proxy war interests all along, which is why last year Russia delivered it's lethal S-300 into the hands of Assad (and amid constant Israeli attacks).

As for oil, currently Damascus is well supplied by the Iranians, eager to dump their stock in fuel-starved Syria amid the global glut. Trump has previously voiced that part of US troops "securing the oil fields" is to keep them out of the hands of Russia and Iran.

* * *

Recall the CIA's 2016 admission of what's really going on in terms of US action in Syria:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/OJ3fTFHQ0KA

[May 07, 2020] Is "raptuted" Pompeo functionally illiterate?

May 07, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 , May 5 2020 22:22 utc | 29

Haven't heard from Iranian FM Zarif in awhile. Here he is calling Pompeo illiterate or so it seems:

".@SecPompeo pretends UNSCR 2231 is independent from #JCPOA.

"He should READ 2231.

"JCPOA is PART of 2231. That's why it's 104 pages -- & why he's not read it.

"2231 for Dummies:

"-It would NOT EXIST w/o JCPOA

"-US violated it & prevented others from complying

"-US has NO standing."

[May 07, 2020] Bolton and the culture of corruption and intimidation

May 07, 2020 | www.unz.com

Sam 12123 , says: Show Comment May 6, 2020 at 8:39 pm GMT

The OPCW is claimed to be an independent agency but we know that it suppressed the results of its own engineers when it reported that the Syrian government was responsible for the alleged chemical attack in Douma. The former head of the agency has publicly asserted that when John Bolton demanded that he step down, he added, "We know where your children live." The US has a history of corruption and intimidation. Any investigation would result in finding China responsible just as Russia was found to be responsible for the airliner that was shot down over Ukraine.

[May 06, 2020] McMaster and the Myths of Empire by Daniel Larison

Notable quotes:
"... Myths of Empire ..."
May 06, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com
| Ethan Paul dismantles H.R. McMaster's "analysis" of the Chinese government and shows how McMaster abuses the idea of strategic empathy for his own ends:

But the reality is that McMaster, and others committed to great power competition, is actually playing the role of Johnson and McNamara. This shines through clearest in McMaster's selective, and ultimately flawed, application of strategic empathy.

Just as Johnson and McNamara used the Joint Chiefs as political props, soliciting their advice or endorsement only when it could legitimize policy conclusions they had already come to, McMaster uses strategic empathy as a symbolic exercise in self-validation. By conceiving of China's perspective solely in terms of its tumultuous history and the Communist Party's pathological pursuit of power and control, McMaster presents only those biproducts of strategic empathy that confirm his policy conclusions (i.e. an intuitive grasp of China's apparent drive to reassert itself as the "Middle Kingdom" at the expense of the United States).

McMaster calls for "strategic empathy" in understanding how the Chinese government sees the world, but he then stacks the deck by asserting that the government in question sees the world in exactly the way that China hawks want to believe that they see it. That suggests that McMaster wasn't trying terribly hard to see the world as they do. McMaster's article has been likened to Kennan's seminal article on Soviet foreign policy at the start of the Cold War, but the comparison only serves to highlight how lacking McMaster's argument is and how inappropriate a similar containment strategy would be today. Where Kennan rooted his analysis of Soviet conduct in a lifetime of expertise in Russian history and language and his experience as a diplomat in Moscow, McMaster bases his assessment of Chinese conduct on one visit to Beijing, a superficial survey of Chinese history, and some boilerplate ideological claims about communism. McMaster's article prompted some strong criticism along these lines when it came out:

I have heard from other colleagues that several CN scholars met w/ McMaster before he wrote this (while working on his book) and corrected him on many issues. He apparently ignored all of their views. This is what we face people: a simple, deceptive narrative is more seductive.

-- Michael D. Swaine (@Dalzell60) April 20, 2020

McMaster's narrative is all the more deceptive because he claims to want to understand the official Chinese government view, but he just substitutes the standard hawkish caricature. Near the end of the article, he asserts, "Without effective pushback from the United States and like-minded nations, China will become even more aggressive in promoting its statist economy and authoritarian political model." It is possible that this could happen, but McMaster treats it as a given without offering much proof that this is so. McMaster makes a mistake common to China hawks that assumes that every other great power must have the same missionary, world-spanning goals that they have. Suppose instead that the Chinese government is not interested in that, but has a more limited strategy aimed at securing itself and establishing itself as the leading power in its region.

Paul does a fine job of using McMaster's earlier work on the Vietnam War to expose the flaws in his thinking about China. McMaster has often been praised for his criticism of the military's top leaders over their role in running the war in Vietnam, but this usually overlooks that McMaster was really arguing for a much more aggressive war effort. He faulted the Joint Chiefs for "dereliction" because they didn't insist on escalation. Paul observes:

McMaster's tale of Vietnam is, counterintuitively, one of enduring confidence in the U.S.'s ability to do good in the world and conquer all potential challengers, if only it finds the will to overcome the temptations of political cowardice and stamp out bureaucratic ineptitude. This same message runs through McMaster's tale about China: "If we compete aggressively," and "no longer adhere to a view of China based mainly on Western aspirations," McMaster says, "we have reason for confidence."

McMaster would have the U.S. view China in the worst possible light as an implacable adversary. Following this recommendation will guarantee decades of heightened tensions and increased risks of conflict. McMaster's dangerous China hawkishness calls to mind something that Jim Mattis said about him regarding a different issue when they served together in the Trump administration: "Oh my God, that moron is going to get us all killed." His aggressiveness towards China is not driven by an assessment of the threat from China, but comes from his tendency to advocate for aggressive measures everywhere.

As Paul notes, McMaster is minimizing the dangers and risks that his preferred policy of confrontation entails. In that respect, he is making the same error that American leaders made in Vietnam:

Like Johnson and McNamara before him, McMaster is misleading both the public and himself about the costs, consequences, and likelihood for success of the path he is committed to pursuing, and in so doing is laying the groundwork for yet another national tragedy.

McMaster's China argument is reminiscent of other arguments made by imperialists in the past, and he relies on many of the same shoddy assumptions that they did. Like British Russophobes in the mid-19th century, McMaster decided on a policy of aggressive containment and then searched for rationalizations that might justify it. Jack Snyder described this in his classic study Myths of Empire thirty years ago:

Russia is portrayed as a unitary, rational actor with unlimited aims of conquest, but fortunately averse to risk and weak if stopped soon enough. (p. 168)

McMaster uses the same "paper tiger image" to portray China as an unstoppable aggressor that can nonetheless be stopped at minimal risk. He wants us to believe that China is at once implacable but easily deterred, insatiable but quick to back off under pressure. We have seen the same contradictory arguments from hawks on other issues, but it is particularly dangerous to promote such a misleading image of a nuclear-armed major power. about the author Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC , where he also keeps a solo blog . He has been published in the New York Times Book Review , Dallas Morning News , World Politics Review , Politico Magazine , Orthodox Life , Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week . He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter .

[May 05, 2020] Could there be a more obvious demonstration that the man is FULL OF SHIT??

Notable quotes:
"... The bungling, toxic incompetence of this administration is quite something to behold. Wow... ..."
May 05, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

farm ecologist , May 4 2020 18:53 utc | 4

RADDATZ: Do you believe it was manmade or genetically modified?

POMPEO: Look, the best experts so far seem to think it was manmade. I have no reason to disbelieve that at this point.

RADDATZ: Your -- your Office of the DNI says the consensus, the scientific consensus was not manmade or genetically modified.

POMPEO: That's right. I -- I -- I agree with that. Yes. I've -- I've seen their analysis. I've seen the summary that you saw that was released publicly. I have no reason to doubt that that is accurate at this point.

To summarize: Pompeo does not doubt that the virus has been genetically modified, but he also does not doubt that is has not been genetically modified.

Could there be a more obvious demonstration that the man is FULL OF SHIT??

Jpc , May 4 2020 19:13 utc | 8

To Farm ecologist.

You are totally on the money. How or why is he in this job?
It's demented!

Sol Invictus , May 4 2020 19:16 utc | 12
Those incompetent neo-confederates leading america into oblivion will jumble strategic defeats with winning. So much for accountability, hard work and personal responsability... Seems they can't compete fairly without superior military variable of adjustment and threat of violence against adversaries. Orange springs eternal and their great white hope has now adopted a paralizing rhetoric of victimization - republican lawmakers follow suit and are going so far as invoking a western bid for monetary reparations from Chinese depredations. # the art of winnig for maggots, derp.
Daniel , May 4 2020 20:56 utc | 34
The bungling, toxic incompetence of this administration is quite something to behold. Wow...

[May 04, 2020] Pompeo believes coronavirus was 'man-made,' also agrees with intelligence that it was not

Notable quotes:
"... "The best experts so far seem to think it was man-made. I don't have reason to disbelieve them at this point," ..."
"... "I don't believe the virus was man-made." ..."
May 04, 2020 | www.rt.com

In his rush to accuse Beijing of unleashing the scourge of Covid-19 on an unsuspecting world, the US Secretary of State said the coronavirus was man-made, before making a U-turn without even blinking. "The best experts so far seem to think it was man-made. I don't have reason to disbelieve them at this point," Mike Pompeo told ABC's 'This Week' when asked about a statement from the US intelligence community that unequivocally said the opposite.

Host Martha Raddatz twice asked Pompeo to clarify whether his view differed from that of American intelligence, and he voiced his total support for the spies – though he stopped short of actually saying "I don't believe the virus was man-made."

See also : 'We lied, we cheated, we stole' Pompeo offers honest, if disturbing admission about CIA activity , Apr 29, 2019

[May 02, 2020] For brevity, I always post that our IC (Intelligence Community) is masterful in shaping U.S. public opinion and causing problems for targeted countries but terrible in collecting and analyzing Intel that would benefit the U.S. The truth of course, is more complicated.

Notable quotes:
"... The person trying to tell the truth is forced to defend, 'Communist China' (Tom Cotton thinks that is one word), Russia, or Iran and to the U.S. public this is toxic. ..."
"... Someday it just won't matter anymore. We will have deceived ourselves for so long that we have squandered so much of our power that no one will pay attention to us. ..."
"... Intelligence is a rare commodity in American politics and diplomacy even more elusive so the consequences of malicious rumours are never weighed nor assessed ..."
"... Intelligence is a rare commodity in American politics and diplomacy even more elusive so the consequences of malicious rumours are never weighed nor assessed ..."
May 02, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Christian J Chuba , May 1 2020 13:17 utc | 9

Spy vs Spy

For brevity, I always post that our IC (Intelligence Community) is masterful in shaping U.S. public opinion and causing problems for targeted countries but terrible in collecting and analyzing Intel that would benefit the U.S. The truth of course, is more complicated.

There is a remnant that is doing their jobs properly but is shut out from higher level offices. But I cannot give long disclaimers at the start of my posts, (I'm not talking about the men and women ...) where 50 words later I finally start to make my point. It's boring, sounds insincere, and defensive.

This is yet another effective defense mechanism that protects the troublemakers in our IC bureaucracy.
1. The person trying to tell the truth is forced to defend, 'Communist China' (Tom Cotton thinks that is one word), Russia, or Iran and to the U.S. public this is toxic.

2. These rogues get to use the remaining good people as human shields.

3. They know their customers, it gives the politicians a way to turn themselves into wartime leaders rather than having to answer for their shortcomings.

Someday it just won't matter anymore. We will have deceived ourselves for so long that we have squandered so much of our power that no one will pay attention to us.

/div> Intelligence is a rare commodity in American politics and diplomacy even more elusive so the consequences of malicious rumours are never weighed nor assessed . The American public are easily enough fooled being constantly fed a racist diet, especially Sinophobia, Russophopia and Iranophobia and the drumbeats for war, financial or military, are easily banged to raise the public's blood pressure....but what about the consequences? America can win neither, even with he assistance of a few vassal states. What happens if, and when, normal service is resumed? If they managed to succeed with any of their hair-brained ideas, what are the consequences for American companies in China, rare earth minerals, the IT industries etc etc. Guard your words wisely for they can never be retracted.

Posted by: Séamus Ó Néill , May 1 2020 13:46 utc | 13

Intelligence is a rare commodity in American politics and diplomacy even more elusive so the consequences of malicious rumours are never weighed nor assessed . The American public are easily enough fooled being constantly fed a racist diet, especially Sinophobia, Russophopia and Iranophobia and the drumbeats for war, financial or military, are easily banged to raise the public's blood pressure....but what about the consequences? America can win neither, even with he assistance of a few vassal states. What happens if, and when, normal service is resumed? If they managed to succeed with any of their hair-brained ideas, what are the consequences for American companies in China, rare earth minerals, the IT industries etc etc. Guard your words wisely for they can never be retracted.

Posted by: Séamus Ó Néill | May 1 2020 13:46 utc | 13

dan of steele , May 1 2020 14:32 utc | 23
GeorgeV

I think there is very good intelligence in the US. so much data is collected and there are many analysts to go over the data and present their forecasts. The World Factbook is an example of collected intelligence made available to the unwashed masses.

what you are thinking is that this information should be used to your benefit. that is where it goes wrong. the big players are able to access and exploit that mass of data and use it to their benefit.

Billmon used to say that this is a feature, not a bug.

Piero Colombo , May 1 2020 15:08 utc | 28
s @19

"Not precluded" are also a Fort Detrick origin and contagion taken to Wuhan by the US military, staying at a hotel where most of the first cluster of patients was identified. So why wouldn't you always mention both in the same breath?

concerned , May 1 2020 15:27 utc | 31
First hollywood movie I am aware of that deals with pandemics and has Fort Detrick front and center was "Outbreak" 1995. In this film, the "Expert" played by D. Huffman uncovers a plot by a rogue 2 star general sitting on the serum from another outbreak years ago, and how he witheld this information and the serum to "protect their bioweapon". There is also a very overt background sub-plot about Dod and CDC being at odds.

DoD is not listed in the credits for Outbreak. Many of the scenes are supposed to take place in CDC and Fort Detrick.

--

Last hollywood movie was "Contagion" 2011. In this film, which pretty much anticipates Covid-19 madness but with an actually scary virus, the "Expert" in charge tells the DHS man that "Nature has already weaponized them!".

So this lie about the little bitty part "function gain" man-made mutations being the critical bit for "weaponizing" viruses is turned on its head. It was "Nature" after all. A wet market, you know.

Contagion does list DoD in its credits. Vincent C. Oglivie as US DoD Liason and Project Officer.

Just some 'fun' trivia for us to while away our lives. Remember that consipirational thought is abberational thought. Have a shot of Victory Gin and relex!

md , May 1 2020 15:34 utc | 32
Ten questions the US needs to answer
https://www.facebook.com/PeoplesDaily/posts/3243339602384501

[May 01, 2020] Coutriers and coutisans vs neocon blobsters and blobstresses in State Department and elsewhere

Blobsters are simply prostitute to the military industrial complex. No honesty, no courage required (Courage is replaced with arrogance in most cases.) Pompeo is a vivid example of this creatures of Washington swamp.
Notable quotes:
"... historically courtiers themselves led their troops on the battlefield and considered it a question of honor for one or both of their oldest sons pursuing a military career, while Renaissance courtesans were among the most intellectual and educated women of their epoch. Neither is true for blobsters and blobstresses. ..."
"... In French and (I think) most other romance languages, the words for courtier and courtesan are the same. Something to think about. ..."
May 01, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Alex (the one that likes Ike) • 13 hours ago

Courtiers and courtesans. That's rich.

On the other hand, though, historically courtiers themselves led their troops on the battlefield and considered it a question of honor for one or both of their oldest sons pursuing a military career, while Renaissance courtesans were among the most intellectual and educated women of their epoch. Neither is true for blobsters and blobstresses.

LFM Alex (the one that likes Ike) • 5 hours ago
In French and (I think) most other romance languages, the words for courtier and courtesan are the same. Something to think about.

[Apr 29, 2020] Trump, despite pretty slick deception during his election campaign, is an typical imperialist and rabid militarist. His administration continuredand in some areas exceeded the hostility of Obama couse against Russia

Highly recommended!
One of trademarks of Trump administration is his that he despises international law and relies on "might makes right" principle all the time. In a way he is a one trick pony, typical unhinged bully.
In a way Pompeo is the fact of Trump administration foreign policy, and it is not pretty
Apr 29, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
Passer by , Apr 29 2020 17:32 utc | 7
It is mostly, though not only, Trump related or libertarian pseudo "alt media" behind "just the flu" theories or "China unleashed virus to attack US".

There is a small military/zionist cabal at the White House that is pushing for that information war in order to prop up the dying US empire as well as US oligarhic business interests, and to secure Trump reelection prospects.

It is enough to see how Zerohedge have been turned into full blown imperialist media with many "evil China" outbursts every day.

Beware of Trumptards infiltrating alt media to prop up the dying US Empire and its business interests.

Trump is the biggest US imperialist for the last 30 years. He made a good job at deceiving many anti-system voices.

His WTO attacks are too part of US efforts to take over the organisation. His has no problem with international institutions as long as they are US empire controlled (such as OPCW, WADA, etc.)

Trump-tards and related libertarians (Zerohedge etc.) made their choice on the side of global US imperialism (driven by their hidden racism, hence the evil "chinks" making a good enemy) and are now the enemy of the multipolar world.

Trump is scum. He turned on Russia and Assange after he got into the White House and did far more against Russia than even Obama. I say that as someone who initially made the mistake to support him.

[Apr 28, 2020] Background reading on Pompeo and his mafia

Apr 28, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Stonebird , Apr 27 2020 19:17 utc | 28

Background reading on Pompeo and his mafia.

This is part of Tom's description of the Article on Pompeo, Esper and the gang of 1986 (west pointers). They are well embedded.
In fact, one class from West Point, that of 1986, from which both Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo graduated, is essentially everywhere in a distinctly militarized (if still officially civilian) and wildly hawkish Washington in the Trumpian moment.

In case you missed it the first time, I repeat this link from the beginning of April,

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176686/tomgram%3A_danny_sjursen%2C_trump%27s_own_military_mafia_/

-----------------
Red Ryder | Apr 27 2020 17:07 utc | 14

One addition there. The EU lost "market share" in Iran due to US sanctions. (As they did with Russia). What they would like to do is to get it back. (France was one of the bigger losers)

Yeah, Right , Apr 27 2020 22:48 utc | 45

"Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is preparing a legal argument"...

Oh, a LEGAL argument? In that case the articles of the Vienna Convention On The Law Of Treaties is going to be our friend.

Article 31(b) prohibits any legal argument that leads to a result that "is manifestly absurd or unreasonable".

Granted that the JCPOA is not a treaty, as such. But it is an international agreement, and that nobody disputes.

Just as nobody disputes that the Vienna Convention is the codification of what had hitherto been accepted as International Customary Law.

LEGALLY-speaking - as we are, apparently - Pompous has handed his lawyers a task that they would call "a hopeless brief".

Dick , Apr 27 2020 23:08 utc | 47
The US is very good at making enemies and loosing friends, simply due to their treatment of other nations in the same manner they treat their domestic population.
Arch , Apr 28 2020 5:12 utc | 61
@jiri #75

The United States announced its withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also known as the "Iran nuclear deal" or the "Iran deal", on May 8, 2018.

This document discusses the legal rationale for the US withdrawal from tje JCPOA in detail:


https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R44761.pdf

Since when does announcing your "withdrawal" from a contract NOT mean "leaving the agreement" ?

Mina , Apr 28 2020 11:19 utc | 73
https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/04/27/pompeo-gantz-and-the-end-of-the-two-state-solution/

[Apr 27, 2020] Pompeo is steering the US Department of State into becoming arm of the Central Intelligence Agency

Apr 27, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 , Apr 26 2020 23:02 utc | 37

The gloves are now off as China has called out Pompeo quite correctly saying, "Pompeo an enemy to world peace" --and we ought to expect more disruptions here at MoA. Here's just one of several slaps in Pompeo's face:

"The former top intelligence official is steering the US Department of State into becoming the Central Intelligence Agency. He is playing with fire, making the 21st century an era of major power confrontation and undermining the foundations for peace. Despite being the chief diplomat of the US, he totally betrayed the basic responsibility with which he is entrusted to promote international understanding. He has become the enemy of world peace."

What's most unfortunate is few seem to consult Global Times , as I was rather surprised this major editorial wasn't already linked. Here's yet another slap:

"Geopolitics cannot dominate the world anymore. Pompeo and his like are desperately pulling the world backwards. They are unable to handle a diverse and complicated new century and so they attempt to resume the Cold War. They can only 'realize their ambition' in polarized confrontation."

And that clearly wasn't enough as yet another slap's delivered in the closing two sentences:

"Lies may fulfill Pompeo's personal ambition, but they will never accomplish the US dreams to be "great again." Pompeo is not only a figure harmful to world peace, but also should be listed as the worst US secretary of state in its history."

Hmm... Don't know if he qualifies as "worst" yet as he must still top Ms. Clinton, but she certainly didn't treat China as has Pompeo.

[Apr 24, 2020] They can top off the national reserves on the cheap and profit when their war sends prices up again

Apr 24, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Zengine3 , Apr 23 2020 18:03 utc | 30

If ever there was a time, it's now. Oil has bottomed out. They can top off the national reserves on the cheap and profit when their war sends prices up again. Maybe it's why The Orange Goober has ordered the Navy to "shoot down" any Iranian boats that harass/approach/rudely gesture at US ships.

Musburger , Apr 23 2020 18:08 utc | 31

@30

Scott Ritter thinks this is quite possible.
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/486598-trump-iran-war-oil/

Tuyzentfloot , Apr 23 2020 18:23 utc | 36
Ritter's article worries me. There is now a sales argument for war: "don't worry about oil prices going sky high, Iran can't use that weapon against us now!".
LOL , Apr 23 2020 18:38 utc | 38
You over excitable little Iran war-monkeys really should take time out of your busy war-monkey daily-schedules to learn something about the topography of Iran and it's defensive and offensive military capabilities.

It would certainly save everyone else from having to listen to you being wrong yet again.

karlof1 , Apr 23 2020 18:53 utc | 39
dh @34--

You're on the right track. There's a huge supply glut as all forms of storage are mostly filled as proven by the negative WTI pricing. Global demand is still being destroyed. War in the Persian Gulf region will further destroy demand; and since very little oil's being shipped from there, the supply glut won't be used up anytime soon--certainly not quickly enough to see a sharp rebound in oil price. The crucial point is domestic US refineries have cut back their runs as their margins are even thinner than before, plus demand destruction is still occurring, thus the domestic storage glut. The wife and I jested last night if we only had a rail spur we could order up a couple of tank cars full of unleaded at the current very distressed price and be set for a longtime.

As The Saker notes in his latest , Trump must make the voting public look everywhere except at him and Congress, the bellowing at Iran being part of that entire theatre. Yes, a mistake could have very negative consequences for the USN and all US assets in the region as well as Occupied Palestine--the overall underlying dynamic hasn't changed since Trump broke the Iran Nuclear Treaty. Too add further insult to Trump and Pompeo, Iran's doing a much better job at containing COVID-19 than the Outlaw US Empire :

"The US pandemic death toll is this week heading above 50,000 compared with Iran's figure of 5,300. Considering the respective population numbers of 330 and 80 million that suggests Iran is doing a much better job at containing the virus. On a per-capita basis, according to publicly available data, Iran's mortality rate is less than half that of the US.

"This is while the US has sanctioned Iran to the hilt. American sanctions – arguably illegal under international law – have hit Iran's ability to import medical supplies to cope with COVID-19 and other fatal diseases, yet Iran through its own resources is evidently managing the crisis much better than the US."

As with the Tar Baby, the more wrestling the Outlaw US Empire does the weaker it gets.

Zengine3 , Apr 23 2020 18:55 utc | 40
@LOLtroll

They can't invade. That's your own moronic straw-man. And yes, it would further cut supply and prices would go up. The current bottom is due to overproduction but so long as civilization cranks along the oil gets used eventually.

[Apr 06, 2020] Pompeo problem: how to continue to bully when the bullied can very effectively shoot back?

Apr 06, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Bemildred , Apr 6 2020 15:25 utc | 187

Posted by: Walter | Apr 6 2020 15:03 utc | 185

Re: Pompeo and his West Point clique and their associates, I have not spent much time on it, didn't seem like a useful or entertaining thing to do, but my impression is they have lots of plans and very little grasp of what is required to carry them out. (One thinks of Modi here.) This has been ongoing since the Iranians shot our fancy drone down there last year. The first shot across the bow. We are now withdrawing from Syria, Iraq & Afghanistan, however haltingly, as it has dawned on the commanders on the ground there how exposed they really are to Iranian fire, and that of their allies. Israel seems to be struggling with the same problem, how to continue to bully when the bullied can very effectively shoot back?

Many unseemly things being said about Crozier and the Teddy R. situation too. Lot's of heat, very little light. Trump says there is light at the end of the tunnel, I seem to remember that from somewhere in the past. I think that's about where we are again.

[Apr 01, 2020] For just $27K USD you can see John Bolton's relatives in natural environment

Apr 01, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Piotr Berman , Mar 31 2020 17:22 utc | 151

Given some time and currency, I guess Morocco would offer more value for money if you want some exotic customs and landscapes. If you have more money, you could spend them on a carbon-free cruise with stunning vistas and off-the-beaten route: North Pole on board of nuclear-powered ice breaker! It is wise to have swimming costume (a pool is on board, heated, I presume) and sensible apparel -- enough for normal winter (in Moscow). The number of places is below 150, with a little hospital on board too. In the latest ads I read about discounts, but the deal was that you can pay in rubbles with prices below the rubble plunged by 25%, still, for 27 k USD you can see John Bolton's relatives in natural environment (like mommy walrus taking care of youngsters), polar bears, seals, and landscapes of Franz Josef Land. Helicopter rides included. You can also take a plunge into the arctic water -- with safety precautions .

[Mar 30, 2020] Pompeo as a sign of more serious problem with the US military

Mar 30, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Bemildred , Mar 29 2020 18:13 utc | 23

Posted by: Noirette | Mar 29 2020 17:09 utc | 13

I think you have the main danger (some nitwit using a "small nuke") to try to make a point about right.

Other than that, the impression I get from Pompeo and his ilk is that the main thing is having someone to threaten and abuse to show "leadership" and "manhood", at least one shitty little country we can still throw up against the wall and slap around to show we mean business. Dangerous times for Nicaragua.

Neither he nor his other West Point friends seems to have much clue about military affairs either, which is strange. I mean we've always had our George Armstrong Custers, but they didn't run things. Now they seem to have some sort of cult mentality. One is reminded of the French before WWI: "De L'audace, Encore De L'audace, Et Toujours De L'audace ..." and we know how that worked out.

[Mar 29, 2020] United States Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had a slip of the tongue while addressing the American people from the White House when he stated that COVID-19 is a live military exercise.

Mar 29, 2020 | twitter.com

"This is not about retribution," Pompeo explained. "This matter is going forward -- we are in a live exercise here to get this right."

@realDonaldTrump is mad that the deep state took control through Continuity of Government, there has been a coup? pic.twitter.com/GcrjNNvVsc #Covid_19 #CoronavirusPandemic #MartialLaw

-- Shepard Ambellas (@ShepardAmbellas) March 21, 2020

With a disgusted look on his face, President Trump replied: "You should have let us know."

Military Exercise meaning (from Wikipedia): "A military exercise or war game is the employment of military resources in training for military operations, either exploring the effects of warfare or testing strategies without actual combat. This also serves the purpose of ensuring the combat readiness of garrisoned or deployable forces prior to deployment from a home base."

https://www.youtube.com/embed/3Qscuw_3aUk

What is actually going on here? Does the White House care to explain?

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

Featured image is from Gage Skidmore CC BY 2.0

[Mar 29, 2020] The essence of Trump's psychology is that he likes to dominate people. He accomplishes this by hiring incompetent psychopaths

Mar 29, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Timothy Hagios , Mar 28 2020 18:14 utc | 44

The essence of Trump's psychology is that he likes to dominate people. He accomplishes this by hiring incompetent psychopaths who make him legitimately look good by comparison. This is why he's constantly overruling their worst plans. But once every so often, his incompetent underlings convince him to do something exceptionally stupid. This is because occasionally going along with them allows him to feel like a wise, discerning ruler who occasionally follows his advisors' guidance and occasionally overrules them.

[Mar 26, 2020] Pompeo is on record having said that our government "lies, cheats, and steals" in order to accomplish its anti-Christian objectives.

Mar 26, 2020 | www.unz.com

Sokrates , says: Show Comment March 25, 2020 at 11:54 am GMT

@37 Yesterday I went to Home Depot to buy some water tubing for my ice-maker.

I noticed all doors were blocked with a tape, except one with at least 25 people waiting to get in and a female employee holding a sign "the line starts here".

I ask the lady what was all about and she said because of the virus etc.

I said to her "You must be kidding" and I start going back to my car.

Some old lady from the line waiting to get in she scream to me something about "we protect ourselves" and similar nonsense.

I turn around and I said to her: Quit watching TV you idiot. They rob your money on broad daylight and send your kids to die fighting israels enemies.

RichardTaylor , says: Show Comment March 25, 2020 at 12:01 pm GMT
The overreaction to the virus makes no sense. Is something being hidden from us? The freak out over this virus – to the tune of $trillions – is all out of proportion.

2.8 million Americans die every year. Why the obsession with this one virus which may kill in the thousands?

Something is off. But Trump should have known early if there was some other hidden danger. If there is some hidden suspicion by the people obsessing over this, please share it!

[Mar 26, 2020] The face of Trump in foreign policy is Pompeo and it is wicked, ungly face of a gangster

Yet another Gofgather
Notable quotes:
"... The more I watch these moves by Pompeo the more sympathetic I become to the most sinister theories about COVID-19, its origins and its launch around the world. Read Pepe Escobar's latest to get an idea of how dark and twisted this tale could be . ..."
March 24, 2020 < Older
No Respite for the Wicked, Pompeo Unleashed Written by Tom Luongo Tuesday

There are few things in this life that make me more sick to my stomach than watching Secretary of State Mike Pompeo talking. He truly is one of the evilest men I've ever had the displeasure of covering.

Into the insanity of the over-reaction to the COVID-19 outbreak, Pompeo wasted no time ramping up sanctions on firms doing any business with Iran, one of the countries worse-hit by this virus to date.

It's a seemingly endless refrain, everyday, more sanctions on Chinese, Swiss and South African firms for having the temerity in these deflating times to buy oil from someone Pompeo and his gang of heartless psychopaths disapprove of.

This goes far beyond just the oil industry. Even though I'm well aware that Russia's crashing the price of oil was itself a hybrid war attack on US capital markets. One that has had, to date, devastating effect.

While Pompeo mouths the words publicly that humanitarian aid is exempted from sanctions on Iran, the US is pursuing immense pressure on companies to not do so anyway while the State Dept. bureaucracy takes its sweet time processing waiver applications.

Pompeo and his ilk only think in terms of civilizational warfare. They have become so subsumed by their big war for the moral high ground to prove American exceptionalism that they have lost any shred of humanity they may have ever had.

Because for Pompeo in times like these to stick to his talking points and for his office to continue excising Iran from the global economy when we're supposed to be coming together to fight a global pandemic is the height of soullessness.

And it speaks to the much bigger problem that infects all of our political thinking. There comes a moment when politics and gaining political advantage have to take a back seat to doing the right thing.

I've actually seen moments of that impulse from the Democratic leadership in the US Will wonders never cease?!

Thinking only in Manichean terms of good vs. evil and dehumanizing your opponents is actually costlier than reversing course right now. Because honey is always better at attracting flies than vinegar.

But, unfortunately, that is not the character of the Trump administration.

It can only think in terms of direct leverage and opportunity to hold onto what they think they've achieved. So, until President Trump is no longer consumed with coordinating efforts to control COVID-19 Pompeo and Secretary of Defense Mark Esper are in charge of foreign policy. They will continue the playbook that has been well established.

Maximum pressure on Iran, hurt China any way they can, hold onto what they have in Syria, stay in Iraq.

To that end Iraqi President Barham Salei nominated Pompeo's best choice to replace Prime Minister Adil Abdel Mahdi to throw Iraq's future into complete turmoil. According to Elijah Magnier, Adnan al-Zarfi is a US asset through and through .

And this looks like Pompeo's Hail Mary to retain US legal presence in Iraq after the Iraqi parliament adopted a measure to demand withdrawal of US troops from the country. Airstrikes against US bases in Iraq continue on a near daily basis and there have been reports of US base closures and redeployments at the same time.

This move looks like desperation by Pompeo et.al. to finally separate the Hashd al-Shaabi from Iraq's official military. So that airstrikes against them can be carried out under the definition of 'fighting Iranian terrorism.'

As Magnier points out in the article above if al-Zarfi puts a government together the war in Iraq will expand just as the US is losing further control in Syria after Turkish President Erdogan's disastrous attempt to remake the front in Idlib. That ended with his effective surrender to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The more I watch these moves by Pompeo the more sympathetic I become to the most sinister theories about COVID-19, its origins and its launch around the world. Read Pepe Escobar's latest to get an idea of how dark and twisted this tale could be .

It is sad that, to me, I see no reason to doubt Pompeo and his ilk in the US government wouldn't do something like that to spark political and social upheaval in those places most targeted by US hybrid war tactics.

But, at the same time, I can see the other side of it, a vicious strike back by China against its tormentors. And China's government does itself, in my mind, no favors threatening to withhold drug precursors and having officials run their mouths giving Americans the excuse they need to validate Trump and Pompeo's divisive rhetoric.

Remaining on the fence about this issue isn't my normal style. But everyone is dirty here and the reality may well be this is a natural event terrible people on both sides are exploiting.

And I can only go by what people do rather than what they say to assess the situation. Trump tries to buy exclusive right to a potential COVID-19 vaccine from a German firm and his administration slow-walks aid to Iran.

China sends aid to Iran and Italy by the container full. Is that to salve their conscience over its initial suppression of information about the virus? Good question. But no one covers themselves in glory by using the confusion and distraction to attempt further regime change and step up war-footing during a public health crisis, manufactured or otherwise.

While Pompeo unctuously talks the talk of compassion and charity, he cannot bring himself to actually walk the walk. Because he is a despicable, bile-filled man of uncommon depravity. His prosecuting a hybrid war during a public health crisis speaks to no other conclusion about him.

It's clear to me that nothing has changed at the top of Trump's administration. I expect COVID-19 will not be a disaster for Trump and the US. It can handle this. But the lack of humanity shown by its diplomatic corps ensures that in the long run the US will be left to fend for itself when the next crisis hits.

Reprinted with permission from Strategic Culture Foundation .

Related

[Mar 20, 2020] That "beyond dispute" phrase is what retards like Mike Pompeo use to try to shut down a discussion in which he's getting his fat ass kicked.

Mar 20, 2020 | www.unz.com

Twodees Partain , says: Show Comment March 20, 2020 at 3:02 am GMT

@SBaker "It's beyond dispute that the novel coronavirus officially known as COVID-19originated in Wuhan, China."

No, it's being disputed every day. That "beyond dispute" phrase is what retards like Mike Pompeo use to try to shut down a discussion in which he's getting his fat ass kicked.

[Mar 20, 2020] Pompeo myth that USA and the West were unprepared because China withheld information about the virus.

Mar 20, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

occupatio , Mar 19 2020 20:16 utc | 161

@b Another myth to add to your collection ...

... that USA and the West were unprepared because China withheld information about the virus.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Mar 19 2020 18:20 utc | 106

The "Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission on COVID-19" states that China transparently reported the identification of virus to the WHO and the international community on January 3rd, and a WHO investigative team was invited to Wuhan a week after that.

From January 3rd, 2020, information on COVID-19 cases has been reported to WHO daily.

On January 7th, full genome sequences of the new virus were shared with WHO and the international community immediately after the pathogen was identified.

On January 10th, an expert group involving Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwanese technical experts and a World Health Organization team was invited to visit Wuhan.

From page 31 of:
https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/who-china-joint-mission-on-covid-19-final-report.pdf

[Mar 19, 2020] US imposes sanctions against #Iran after offering to help with #Coronavirus outbreak

Mar 19, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 , Mar 18 2020 18:28 utc | 53

This might soon become the global rallying cry :

"USA is the greatest enemy of humanity - I hope they will pay for that:

"US imposes sanctions against #Iran after offering to help with #Coronavirus outbreak"

The situation has now gone well beyond immorality and into the realm of EVIL--an EVIL that's Bipartisan, shared by Ds and Rs alike.

bevin , Mar 18 2020 18:33 utc | 54

Miss Lacy and Arby both draw our attention to the obscenity of the US using this crisis in order to put pressure on governments that it dislikes by cutting off medicine and other resources.

Among the places where people are currently dying in large numbers because Washington chooses that they should are Cuba-under an oil embargo-, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Iran.

Those who cannot bring themselves to believe that government could be so evil as to deploy a virus as a weapon to weaken another state, only have to look at what is happening today: Venezuela desperately needs funds, much of its foreign exchange having been seized illegally by the US and its satellites, in order to weather the pandemic.

Anyone supporting such a policy, condoning the killing of vulnerable people to embarrass another state, is an accessory to murder.

farm ecologist , Mar 18 2020 19:40 utc | 67
Re., IMF refuses emergency funds to Venezuela

Posted by: arby | Mar 18 2020 14:32 utc | 11
Posted by: Miss Lacy | Mar 18 2020 18:15 utc | 50
Posted by: bevin | Mar 18 2020 18:33 utc | 55

Anyone supporting such a policy, condoning the killing of vulnerable people to embarrass another state, is an accessory to murder.

Although many argue that the foreign policies of the US government don't really reflect the views and desires of ordinary citizens, the comments in the Fox News report on this story suggest otherwise (caveat - be prepared to be appalled).

https://www.foxnews.com/world/venezuela-asks-imf-for-massive-emergency-loan-to-fight-coronavirus


[Mar 13, 2020] Daffy Duck. cartoon was made in 1953 and like many Looney Tune cartoon's, they are an extreme parody of life. It dawned on me that this cartoon is an almost perfect description of US Military policy and action.

Highly recommended!
Mar 13, 2020 | thesaker.is

Vaughan on March 12, 2020 , · at 7:43 pm EST/EDT

Recently, I was watching the old Looney Tunes Cartoons with my Grandchild and we were watching, "Duck Dodges in the 21st and a Half Century"
I don't know if you've watched this cartoon starring Daffy Duck. You can view it here
https://vimeo.com/76668594

This cartoon was made in 1953 and like many Looney Tune cartoon's, they are an extreme parody of life. But while watching this cartoon, it dawned on me that this cartoon is an almost perfect description of US Military policy and action.
I could write an article on this but I think we'll leave it as a note with a snide laugh to be had by all.

Patricia Ormsby on March 12, 2020 , · at 8:16 pm EST/EDT
Laughter is one of the best medicines. Thank you for this!

[Mar 09, 2020] COVID-19 burst the asset price bubble. In a new low, Pompeo passes buck to Beijing

Mar 09, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

CitizenX , Mar 9 2020 2:58 utc | 57

"Perhaps this will finally burst the out-of-control asset price bubble and drop-kick the Outlaw US Empire's economy into the sewer as the much lower price will rapidly slow the recycling of what remains of the petrodollar. Looks like Trump's reelection push just fell into a massive sinkhole as the economy will tank."

Posted by: karlof1 | Mar 9 2020 1:29 utc | 49
....

Call me crazy- but this Virus provides great cover as to why the economy plummets, the Murikan sheeple will eat it up. Prepare for the double media blitz on the virus AND the economy tanking as its result.

Don't worry...just continue to go shopping and take those selfies.

vk , Mar 9 2020 3:37 utc | 60

Pompeo accuses China of giving "imperfect data" on COVID-19, blame it for US failure in containing the virus:

In new low, Pompeo passes buck to Beijing

It will be hard for the American people to swallow that one. From day 1 I've read a lot of "articles" and "papers" from know-it-all Western doctors and researchers from commenters here in this blog, all of them claiming to have very precise and definitive data on what was happening. A lot of bombastic conclusions I've read here (including one that claimed R0 was through the roof - it's funny how the R0 is being played down after it begun to infect the West; suddenly, it's all just a stronger cold...).

And that's just here, in MoA's comment section. Imagine what was being published in the Western MSM. I wouldn't be surprised there was a lot of rednecks popping their beers celebrating the fall of China already.

--//--

China to back global virus fight with production boost

Since China allegedly had a lot of idle industrial capacity - that is, if we take the Western MSM theories seriously (including the fabled "ghost towns" stories) - then boosting production wouldn't be a problem to China.

Disclaimer: it's normal for any kind of economy - socialist or capitalist - to have a certain percentage of idle capacity. That's necessary in order to insure the economy against unexpected oscillations in demand and to give space of maneuvre for future technological progress. Indeed, that was one of the USSR's mistakes with its economy: they instinctly thought unemployment should be zero, and waste should also be zero, so they planned in a way all the factories always sought to operate at 100% capacity. That became a problem when better machines and better methods were invented, since the factory manager wouldn't want to stop production so that his factory would fall behind the other factories in the five-year plan's goals. So, yes, China indeed has idle capacity - but it is mainly proposital, not a failure of its socialist planning.

--//--

... ... ...

vk , Mar 9 2020 3:56 utc | 61
This is important. The only reason I didn't comment about it is I hadn't the data:

Follow the money: Understanding China's battle against COVID-19

By the latest count, in addition to yuan loans worth 113 billion U.S. dollars granted by financial institutions and more than 70 billion U.S. dollars paid out by insurance companies, the Chinese government has allocated about 13 billion U.S. dollars to counter fallout from the outbreak.

The numbers could look abstract. However, breaking the data down reveals how the money is being carefully targeted. The government is allocating the money based on a thorough evaluation of the system's strengths.

...

Local governments are equipped with more local knowledge that allows them to surgically support key manufacturers or producers that are struggling.

Together, they have borne the bulk of the financial responsibility with an allocation of equivalently more than nine billion U.S. dollars. It is carefully targeted, divided into hundreds of thousands of individual grants that are tailor-made by and for each county, town, city and business.

This is the mark of a socialist system.

The affected capitalist countries will simply use monetary devices (so the private sector can offset the losses) and burn their own reserves with non-profitable palliatives such as masks, tests, other quarantine infrastructure etc.

Pft , Mar 9 2020 4:44 utc | 64
Sounds like US socialism. Basically corporate socialism. Loans are just dollars created out of thin air, same as in US. Insurance payouts come from premiums, nothing socialist about that, pure capitalism. Government hand outs to provinces, cities, state owned corporations,well all of these are run by the party elite, its called pork. US handed out a lot of pork during the last financial crisis. None of it trickled down to the little people. I doubt it does in China either.

All crisis are opportunities for the elite to get richer. Those Biolake firms in Wuhan will make out like bandits. Chinese firms will double the price of API's sold to India and US. China will knock out the small farmer in the wake of concurrent chicken and swine flu so the big enterprises take over, a mimicry of the US practice over the last century. China tech firms will double up on surveillance apps, censoring tools, surveillance and toughen up social credit restrictions. 5G will allow China to experiment with nanobots to monitor citizens health from afar (thanks to Harvards Dr Leiber).

Oh yes, socialism with Chinese characteristics is a technocratic capitalists dream. Thats why the West has never imposed sanctions on China since welcoming them to the global elites club. Sanctions are reserved for those with true socialism, especially those who preach equality and god forbid, democracy.

uncle tungsten , Mar 9 2020 8:35 utc | 83

CitizenX #57

Call me crazy- but this Virus provides great cover as to why the economy plummets, the Murikan sheeple will eat it up. Prepare for the double media blitz on the virus AND the economy tanking as its result.


Don't forget the Russians.. They have to be to blame. See they just kept the price of oil low so now the rest of the world gets gas cheaper than the USA. The USA motorist now has to bail out the dopey frackers and shale oil ponzis.

Global envy will eat murica. Maybe they will just pull out all their troops and go home. ;)

[Mar 03, 2020] The USA policy is to destroy Iran for the crime of existence.

Mar 03, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Trailer Trash , Mar 2 2020 17:53 utc | 97

>Bernie Sanders will also restore the JCPOA

This is like a new gangster who takes control of a neighborhood and reduces the required weekly protection payment. Hurray For Less Extortion!

Hey Bernie, how about throw away the JCPOA, restore normal diplomatic and commercial relations, and apologize for 40 years of economic warfare?

But that will never happen, because the Dummycrat policy is to destroy Iran for the crime of existence. How is it the Bernie people don't notice that Bernie always caucuses with the Dummycrats in Congress and is running on the Dummycrat ticket? We are supposed to believe that someone elected on the Dummycrat ticket won't follow Dummycrat party polices?

Russ , Mar 2 2020 17:59 utc | 99

"Bernie Sanders will also restore the JCPOA"

He must think the Iranians are really stupid if he thinks he can get them to fall for that one again.

fnord , Mar 2 2020 18:18 utc | 101
@Trailer Trash, 97
We are supposed to believe that someone elected on the Dummycrat ticket won't follow Dummycrat party polices?

The way American electoral politics works, Sanders doesn't really have a choice except to try and steal the Democratic party's ballot line. An independent bid would split the left vote and make it impossible to win the general election, which is winner take all.

At least that's what his supporters say. I think there's a grain of truth there. If Bernie wants to win, and not merely be a protest candidate, he has to take the ballot line of the party with the most left-wing voters, and that's not the Republican party.

[Mar 01, 2020] That the whistleblower works for the CIA is a matter of public record, not some conspiracy theory

Notable quotes:
"... The Democrats did not want Adam Schiff to have to answer questions about the whistleblower, and they don't want the whistleblower's identity to be officially revealed. Such things do not contribute to the greatest cause of our time, the destruction of Donald Trump. ..."
"... The whole point of having the House impeachment investigation proceed from the House Intelligence Committee, headed by Adam Schiff, was to send the signal that Trump is unacceptable to the nefarious powers that make up the Deep State, especially the intelligence agencies, especially the CIA. ..."
"... What a world, then, when OP Democrats are cheering on John Bolton, hoping again for a savior to their sacred resistance cause, and meanwhile they aren't too excited about Rand Paul's intervention. For sure, it is a sign that a "resistance" isn't real when it needs a savior; it's not as if the French Resistance sat back waiting for Gen. de Gaulle. In any case, in the procession of horrible reactionary figures that Democrats have embraced, Bolton is probably the worst, and that's saying quite a lot. ..."
"... People are even talking about "getting used to accepting the help of the CIA with the impeachment," and the like. (I realize I'm being repetitious here, but this stuff blows my mind, it is so disturbing.) At least they are recognizing the reality -- at least partially; that's something. But then what they do with this recognition is something that requires epic levels of TDS -- and, somehow, a great deal of the Left is going down this path. ..."
"... The USA Deep State is a Five Eyes partner and as such Trump must be given the proverbial boot for being an uneducated boor lacking political gravitas & business gravitas with his narcissistic Smoot-Hawley II 2019 trade wars. Screw the confidence man-in-chief. He is a liability for the USA and global business. Trump is not an asset. ..."
"... Almost as a by product of his 2016 victory, Trump showed up the MSM hacks for what they were, lying, partisan shills utterly lacking in any integrity and credibility. The same applies to the intrigues and corruption of the Dirty Cops and Spookocracy. They had to come out from behind the curtain and reveal themselves as the dirty, lying, seditious, treasonous, rabid criminal scum they are. The true nature of the State standing in the spotlight for all the world to see. This cannot be undone. ..."
Mar 01, 2020 | off-guardian.org

First , the whistleblower was ruled out as a possible witness -- this was essentially done behind the scenes, and in reality can be called a Deep State operation, though one exposed to some extent by Rand Paul. This has nothing to do with protecting the whistleblower or upholding the whistleblower statute, but instead with the fact that the whistleblower was a CIA plant in the White House.

That the whistleblower works for the CIA is a matter of public record, not some conspiracy theory. Furthermore, for some time before the impeachment proceedings began, the whistleblower had been coordinating his efforts to undermine Trump with the head of the House Intelligence Committee, who happens to be Adam Schiff. It is possible that the connections with Schiff go even further or deeper. Obviously the Democrats do not want these things exposed.

... ... ...

In this regard, there was a very special moment on January 29, when Chief Justice John Roberts refused to allow the reading of a question from Sen. Rand Paul that identified the alleged whistleblower. Paul then held a press conference in which he read his question.

The question was directed at Adam Schiff, who claims not to have communicated with the whistleblower, despite much evidence to the contrary. (Further details can be read at here .) A propos of what I was just saying, Paul is described in the Politico article as "a longtime antagonist of Republican leaders." Excellent, good on you, Rand Paul.

Whether this was a case of unintended consequences or not, one could say that this episode fed into the case against calling witnesses -- certainly the Democrats should not have been allowed to call witnesses if the Republicans could not call the whistleblower. But clearly this point is completely lost on those working in terms of the moving line of bullshit.

One would think that Democrats would be happy with a Republican Senator who antagonizes leaders of his own party, but of course Rand Paul's effort only led to further "outrage" on the part of Democratic leaders in the House and Senate.

The Democrats did not want Adam Schiff to have to answer questions about the whistleblower, and they don't want the whistleblower's identity to be officially revealed. Such things do not contribute to the greatest cause of our time, the destruction of Donald Trump.

However, you see, there is a complementary purpose at work here, too. The whole point of having the House impeachment investigation proceed from the House Intelligence Committee, headed by Adam Schiff, was to send the signal that Trump is unacceptable to the nefarious powers that make up the Deep State, especially the intelligence agencies, especially the CIA.

The only way these machinations can be combatted is to pull the curtain back further -- but the Republicans do not want this any more than the Democrats do, with a few possible exceptions such as Rand Paul. (As the Politico article states, Paul was chastised publicly by McConnell for submitting his question in the first place, and for criticizing Roberts in the press conference.)

What a world, then, when OP Democrats are cheering on John Bolton, hoping again for a savior to their sacred resistance cause, and meanwhile they aren't too excited about Rand Paul's intervention. For sure, it is a sign that a "resistance" isn't real when it needs a savior; it's not as if the French Resistance sat back waiting for Gen. de Gaulle. In any case, in the procession of horrible reactionary figures that Democrats have embraced, Bolton is probably the worst, and that's saying quite a lot.

... ... ...

Now we are at a moment when "the Left" is recognizing the role that the CIA and the rest of the "intelligence community" is played in the impeachment nonsense. This "Left" was already on board for the "impeachment process" itself, perhaps at moments with caveats about "not leaving everything up to the Democrats," "not just relying on the Democrats," but still accepting their assigned role as cheerleaders and self-important internet commentators. (And, sure, maybe that's all I am, too -- but the inability to distinguish form from content is one of the main problems of the existing Left.)

Now, though, people on the Left are trying to get comfortable with, and trying to explain to themselves how they can get comfortable with, the obvious role of the "intelligence community" (with, in my view, the CIA in the leading role, but of course I'm not privy to the inner workings of this scene) in the impeachment process and other efforts to take down Trump's presidency.

People are even talking about "getting used to accepting the help of the CIA with the impeachment," and the like. (I realize I'm being repetitious here, but this stuff blows my mind, it is so disturbing.) At least they are recognizing the reality -- at least partially; that's something. But then what they do with this recognition is something that requires epic levels of TDS -- and, somehow, a great deal of the Left is going down this path.

They might think about the "help" that the CIA gave to the military in Bolivia to remove Evo Morales from office. They might think about the picture of Donald Trump that they find necessary to paint to justify what they are willing to swallow to remove him from office. They might think about the fact that ordinary Democrats are fine with this role for the CIA, and that Adam Schiff and others routinely offer the criticism/condemnation of Donald Trump that he doesn't accept the findings of the CIA or the rest of the intelligence agencies at face value.

The moment for the Left, what calls itself and thinks of itself as that, to break with this lunacy has passed some time ago, but let us take this moment, of "accepting the help of the CIA, because Trump," as truly marking a point of no return.

MASTER OF UNIVE ,

The USA Deep State is a Five Eyes partner and as such Trump must be given the proverbial boot for being an uneducated boor lacking political gravitas & business gravitas with his narcissistic Smoot-Hawley II 2019 trade wars. Screw the confidence man-in-chief. He is a liability for the USA and global business. Trump is not an asset.

paul ,

Trump, Sanders and Corbyn were all in their own way agents of creative destruction. Trump tapped into the popular discontent of millions of Americans who realised that the system no longer even pretended to work in their interests, and were not prepared to be diverted down the Identity Politics Rabbit Hole.

The Deep State was outraged that he had disrupted their programme by stealing Clinton's seat in the game of Musical Chairs. Being the most corrupt, dishonest and mendacious political candidate in all US history (despite some pretty stiff opposition) was supposed to be outweighed by her having a vagina. The Deplorables failed to sign up for the programme.

Almost as a by product of his 2016 victory, Trump showed up the MSM hacks for what they were, lying, partisan shills utterly lacking in any integrity and credibility. The same applies to the intrigues and corruption of the Dirty Cops and Spookocracy. They had to come out from behind the curtain and reveal themselves as the dirty, lying, seditious, treasonous, rabid criminal scum they are. The true nature of the State standing in the spotlight for all the world to see. This cannot be undone.

For all his pandering to Adelson and the Zionist Mafia, for all his Gives to Netanyahu, Trump has failed to deliver on the Big Ticket Items. Syria was supposed to have been invaded by now, with Hillary cackling demonically over Assad's death as she did over Gaddafi, and rapidly moving on to the main event with Iran. They will not forgive him for this.

They realise they are under severe time pressure. It took them a century to gain their stranglehold over America, and this is a wasting asset. America is in terminal decline, and may soon be unable to fulfil its ordained role as dumb goy muscle serving Zionist interests. And the parasite will find it difficult to find a replacement host.

George Mc ,

Haven't you just agreed with him here?

He thinks the left died in the 1960s, over a half century ago. It's pretty simple to identify a leftist: anti-imperialist/ anti-capitalist. The Democrats are imperialists. People who vote for the Democrats and Republicans are imperialists. This article is a confused mess, that's my whole point;)

If the Democrats and Republicans (and those who vote for them) are imperialists (which they are) then the left are indeed dead – at least as far as political representation goes.

Koba ,

He's sent more troops to Iraq and Afghanistan he staged several coups in Latin America and wanted to take out the dprk and thier nukes and wants to bomb Iran! Winding down?!

sharon marlowe ,

First, an attempted assassination-by-drone on President Maduro of Venezuela happened. Then Trump dropped the largest conventional bomb on Afghanistan, with a mile-wide radius. Then Trump named Juan Guido as the new President of Venezuela in an overt coup. Then he bombed Syria over a fake chemical weapons claim. He bombed it before even an investigation was launched. Then the Trump regime orchestrated a military coup in Bolivia. Then he claimed that he was pulling out of Syria, but instead sent U.S. troops to take over Syrian oil fields. trump then assassinated Gen. Solemeni. Then he claimed that he will leave Iraq at the request of the Iraqi government, the Iraqi government asked the U.S. to leave, and Trump rejected the request. The Trump regime has tried orchestrating a coup in Iran, and a coup in Hong Kong. He expelled Russian diplomats en masse for the Skripal incident in England, before an investigation. He has sanctioned Russia, Iran, North Korea, China, and Venezuela. He has bombed Yemen, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Those are the things I'm aware of, but what else Trump has done in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, and South America you can research if you wish. And now, the claim of leaving Afghanistan is as ridiculous as when he claimed to be leaving Syria and Iraq.

Dungroanin ,

Yeah yeah and 'he' gave Maduro 7 days to let their kid takeover in Venezuela! And built a wall. And got rid of obamacare and started a nuke war with Rocketman and and and ...

sharon marlowe ,

There were at least nine people killed when Trump bombed Douma.

Only a psychopath would kill people because one of its spy drones was shot down. You don't get points for considering killing people for it and then changing your mind.

People should get over Hillary and pay attention to what Trump has been doing. Why even mention what Hillary would have done in Syria, then proceed to be an apologist for what Trump has done around the world in just three years? Trump has been quite a prolific imperialist in such a short time. A second term could well put him above Bush and Obama as the 21st century's most horrible leaders on earth.

Dungroanin ,

...If you think that the potus is the omnipotent ruler of everything he certainly seems to be having some problems with his minions in the CIA, NSA, FBI..State Dept etc.

Savorywill ,

Yes, what you say is right. However, he did warn both the Syrian and Russian military of the attack in the first instance, so no casualties, and in the second attack, he announced that the missiles had been launched before they hit the target, again resulting in no casualties. When the US drone was shot down by an Iranian missile, he considered retaliation. But, when advised of likely casualties, he called it off saying that human lives are more valuable than the cost of the drone. Yes, he did authorize the assassination of the Iranian general, and that was very bad. His claims that the general had organized the placement of roadside bombs that had killed US soldiers rings rather hollow, considering those shouldn't have been in Iraq in the first place.

I am definitely not stating that he is perfect and doesn't do objectionable things. And he has authorized US forces to control the oil wells, which is against international law, but at least US soldiers are not actively engaged in fighting the Syrian government, something Hillary set in motion. However, the military does comprise a huge percentage of the US economy and there have to be reasons, and enemies, to justify its existence, so his situation as president must be very difficult, not a job I would want, that is for sure.

The potus is best described (by Assad actually) as a CEO of a board of directors appointed by the shareholders who collectively determine their OWN interests.

Your gaslighting ain't succeeding round here – Regime! So desperate, so so sad 🤣

[Feb 29, 2020] Rand Paul says he will oppose John Bolton and Rudy Giuliani for Secretary of State

Notable quotes:
"... "Bolton is a longtime member of the failed Washington elite that Trump vowed to oppose, hell-bent on repeating virtually every foreign policy mistake the U.S. has made in the last 15 years - particularly those Trump promised to avoid as president," ..."
"... "It's important that someone who was an unrepentant advocate for the Iraq War, who didn't learn the lessons of the Iraq War, shouldn't be the secretary of state for a president who says Iraq was ..."
Nov 20, 2016 | rare.us

Senator Rand Paul said Tuesday in an op-ed for Rare that he would oppose President-elect Donald Trump's rumored selection of former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton as Secretary of State.

"Bolton is a longtime member of the failed Washington elite that Trump vowed to oppose, hell-bent on repeating virtually every foreign policy mistake the U.S. has made in the last 15 years - particularly those Trump promised to avoid as president,"

Paul wrote citing U.S. interventions in Iraq and Libya that Trump has criticized but that Bolton strongly advocated.

Reports since have indicated that former New York City mayor and loyal Trump ally, Rudy Giuliani is being considered for the post.

The Washington Post's David Weigel reports , "Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a newly reelected member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said this morning that he was inclined to oppose either former U.N. ambassador John Bolton or former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani if they were nominated for secretary of state."

"It's important that someone who was an unrepentant advocate for the Iraq War, who didn't learn the lessons of the Iraq War, shouldn't be the secretary of state for a president who says Iraq was a big lesson," Paul told the Post. "Trump said that a thousand times. It would be a huge mistake for him to give over his foreign policy to someone who [supported the war]. I mean, you could not find more unrepentant advocates of regime change."

Related: Rand Paul: Will Donald Trump betray voters by hiring John Bolton?

[Feb 29, 2020] Secret Wars, Forgotten Betrayals, Global Tyranny. Who s Really In Charge Of The US Military by Cynthia Chung

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Thus, it should be no surprise to anyone in the world at this point in history, that the CIA holds no allegiance to any country. And it can be hardly expected that a President, who is actively under attack from all sides within his own country, is in a position to hold the CIA accountable for its past and future crimes ..."
Jan 21, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Cynthia Chung via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

"There is a kind of character in thy life, That to the observer doth thy history, fully unfold."

– William Shakespeare

Once again we find ourselves in a situation of crisis, where the entire world holds its breath all at once and can only wait to see whether this volatile black cloud floating amongst us will breakout into a thunderstorm of nuclear war or harmlessly pass us by. The majority in the world seem to have the impression that this destructive fate totters back and forth at the whim of one man. It is only normal then, that during such times of crisis, we find ourselves trying to analyze and predict the thoughts and motives of just this one person. The assassination of Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, a true hero for his fellow countrymen and undeniably an essential key figure in combating terrorism in Southwest Asia, was a terrible crime, an abhorrently repugnant provocation. It was meant to cause an apoplectic fervour, it was meant to make us who desire peace, lose our minds in indignation. And therefore, that is exactly what we should not do.

In order to assess such situations, we cannot lose sight of the whole picture, and righteous indignation unfortunately causes the opposite to occur. Our focus becomes narrower and narrower to the point where we can only see or react moment to moment with what is right in front of our face. We are reduced to an obsession of twitter feeds, news blips and the doublespeak of 'official government statements'.

Thus, before we may find firm ground to stand on regarding the situation of today, we must first have an understanding as to what caused the United States to enter into an endless campaign of regime-change warfare after WWII, or as former Chief of Special Operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff Col. Prouty stated, three decades of the Indochina war.

An Internal Shifting of Chess Pieces in the Shadows

It is interesting timing that on Sept 2, 1945, the very day that WWII ended, Ho Chi Minh would announce the independence of Indochina. That on the very day that one of the most destructive wars to ever occur in history ended, another long war was declared at its doorstep. Churchill would announce his "Iron Curtain" against communism on March 5th, 1946, and there was no turning back at that point. The world had a mere 6 months to recover before it would be embroiled in another terrible war, except for the French, who would go to war against the Viet Minh opponents in French Indochina only days after WWII was over.

In a previous paper I wrote titled "On Churchill's Sinews of Peace" , I went over a major re-organisation of the American government and its foreign intelligence bureau on the onset of Truman's de facto presidency. Recall that there was an attempted military coup d'état, which was exposed by General Butler in a public address in 1933, against the Presidency of FDR who was only inaugurated that year. One could say that there was a very marked disapproval from shadowy corners for how Roosevelt would organise the government.

One key element to this reorganisation under Truman was the dismantling of the previously existing foreign intelligence bureau that was formed by FDR, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) on Sept 20, 1945 only two weeks after WWII was officially declared over. The OSS would be replaced by the CIA officially on Sept 18, 1947, with two years of an American intelligence purge and the internal shifting of chess pieces in the shadows. In addition, de-facto President Truman would also found the United States National Security Council on Sept 18, 1947, the same day he founded the CIA. The NSC was a council whose intended function was to serve as the President's principal arm for coordinating national security, foreign policies and policies among various government agencies.

In Col. Prouty's book he states,

" In 1955, I was designated to establish an office of special operations in compliance with National Security Council (NSC) Directive #5412 of March 15, 1954. This NSC Directive for the first time in the history of the United States defined covert operations and assigned that role to the Central Intelligence Agency to perform such missions , provided they had been directed to do so by the NSC, and further ordered active-duty Armed Forces personnel to avoid such operations. At the same time, the Armed Forces were directed to "provide the military support of the clandestine operations of the CIA" as an official function . "

What this meant, was that there was to be an intermarriage of the foreign intelligence bureau with the military, and that the foreign intelligence bureau would act as top dog in the relationship, only taking orders from the NSC. Though the NSC includes the President, as we will see, the President is very far from being in the position of determining the NSC's policies.

An Inheritance of Secret Wars

" There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare. "

– Sun Tzu

On January 20th, 1961, John F. Kennedy was inaugurated as President of the United States. Along with inheriting the responsibility of the welfare of the country and its people, he was to also inherit a secret war with communist Cuba run by the CIA.

JFK was disliked from the onset by the CIA and certain corridors of the Pentagon, they knew where he stood on foreign matters and that it would be in direct conflict for what they had been working towards for nearly 15 years. Kennedy would inherit the CIA secret operation against Cuba, which Prouty confirms in his book, was quietly upgraded by the CIA from the Eisenhower administration's March 1960 approval of a modest Cuban-exile support program (which included small air drop and over-the-beach operations) to a 3,000 man invasion brigade just before Kennedy entered office.

This was a massive change in plans that was determined by neither President Eisenhower, who warned at the end of his term of the military industrial complex as a loose cannon, nor President Kennedy, but rather the foreign intelligence bureau who has never been subject to election or judgement by the people. It shows the level of hostility that Kennedy encountered as soon as he entered office, and the limitations of a President's power when he does not hold support from these intelligence and military quarters.

Within three months into JFK's term, Operation Bay of Pigs (April 17th to 20th 1961) was scheduled. As the popular revisionist history goes; JFK refused to provide air cover for the exiled Cuban brigade and the land invasion was a calamitous failure and a decisive victory for Castro's Cuba. It was indeed an embarrassment for President Kennedy who had to take public responsibility for the failure, however, it was not an embarrassment because of his questionable competence as a leader. It was an embarrassment because, had he not taken public responsibility, he would have had to explain the real reason why it failed. That the CIA and military were against him and that he did not have control over them. If Kennedy were to admit such a thing, he would have lost all credibility as a President in his own country and internationally, and would have put the people of the United States in immediate danger amidst a Cold War.

What really occurred was that there was a cancellation of the essential pre-dawn airstrike, by the Cuban Exile Brigade bombers from Nicaragua, to destroy Castro's last three combat jets. This airstrike was ordered by Kennedy himself. Kennedy was always against an American invasion of Cuba, and striking Castro's last jets by the Cuban Exile Brigade would have limited Castro's threat, without the U.S. directly supporting a regime change operation within Cuba. This went fully against the CIA's plan for Cuba.

Kennedy's order for the airstrike on Castro's jets would be cancelled by Special Assistant for National Security Affairs McGeorge Bundy, four hours before the Exile Brigade's B-26s were to take off from Nicaragua, Kennedy was not brought into this decision. In addition, the Director of Central Intelligence Allen Dulles, the man in charge of the Bay of Pigs operation was unbelievably out of the country on the day of the landings.

Col. Prouty, who was Chief of Special Operations during this time, elaborates on this situation:

" Everyone connected with the planning of the Bay of Pigs invasion knew that the policy dictated by NSC 5412, positively prohibited the utilization of active-duty military personnel in covert operations. At no time was an "air cover" position written into the official invasion plan The "air cover" story that has been created is incorrect. "

As a result, JFK who well understood the source of this fiasco, set up a Cuban Study Group the day after and charged it with the responsibility of determining the cause for the failure of the operation. The study group, consisting of Allen Dulles, Gen. Maxwell Taylor, Adm. Arleigh Burke and Attorney General Robert Kennedy (the only member JFK could trust), concluded that the failure was due to Bundy's telephone call to General Cabell (who was also CIA Deputy Director) that cancelled the President's air strike order.

Kennedy had them.

Humiliatingly, CIA Director Allen Dulles was part of formulating the conclusion that the Bay of Pigs op was a failure because of the CIA's intervention into the President's orders. This allowed for Kennedy to issue the National Security Action Memorandum #55 on June 28th, 1961, which began the process of changing the responsibility from the CIA to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. As Prouty states,

" When fully implemented, as Kennedy had planned, after his reelection in 1964, it would have taken the CIA out of the covert operation business. This proved to be one of the first nails in John F. Kennedy's coffin. "

If this was not enough of a slap in the face to the CIA, Kennedy forced the resignation of CIA Director Allen Dulles, CIA Deputy Director for Plans Richard M. Bissell Jr. and CIA Deputy Director Charles Cabell.

In Oct 1962, Kennedy was informed that Cuba had offensive Soviet missiles 90 miles from American shores. Soviet ships with more missiles were on their way towards Cuba but ended up turning around last minute. Rumours started to abound that JFK had cut a secret deal with Russian Premier Khrushchev, which was that the U.S. would not invade Cuba if the Soviets withdrew their missiles. Criticisms of JFK being soft on communism began to stir.

NSAM #263, closely overseen by Kennedy, was released on Oct 11th, 1963, and outlined a policy decision " to withdraw 1,000 military personnel [from Vietnam] by the end of 1963 " and further stated that " It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel [including the CIA and military] by 1965. " The Armed Forces newspaper Stars and Stripes had the headline U.S. TROOPS SEEN OUT OF VIET BY '65. Kennedy was winning the game and the American people.

This was to be the final nail in Kennedy's coffin.

Kennedy was brutally shot down only one month later, on Nov, 22nd 1963. His death should not just be seen as a tragic loss but, more importantly, it should be recognised for the successful military coup d'état that it was and is . The CIA showed what lengths it was ready to go to if a President stood in its way. (For more information on this coup refer to District Attorney of New Orleans at the time, Jim Garrison's book . And the excellently researched Oliver Stone movie "JFK")

Through the Looking Glass

On Nov. 26th 1963, a full four days after Kennedy's murder, de facto President Johnson signed NSAM #273 to begin the change of Kennedy's policy under #263. And on March 4th, 1964, Johnson signed NSAM #288 that marked the full escalation of the Vietnam War and involved 2,709,918 Americans directly serving in Vietnam, with 9,087,000 serving with the U.S. Armed Forces during this period.

The Vietnam War, or more accurately the Indochina War, would continue for another 12 years after Kennedy's death, lasting a total of 20 years for Americans.

Scattered black ops wars continued, but the next large scale-never ending war that would involve the world would begin full force on Sept 11, 2001 under the laughable title War on Terror, which is basically another Iron Curtain, a continuation of a 74 year Cold War. A war that is not meant to end until the ultimate regime changes are accomplished and the world sees the toppling of Russia and China. Iraq was destined for invasion long before the vague Gulf War of 1990 and even before Saddam Hussein was being backed by the Americans in the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s. Iran already suffered a CIA backed regime change in 1979.

It had been understood far in advance by the CIA and US military that the toppling of sovereignty in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Iran needed to occur before Russia and China could be taken over. Such war tactics were formulaic after 3 decades of counterinsurgency against the CIA fueled "communist-insurgency" of Indochina. This is how today's terrorist-inspired insurgency functions, as a perfect CIA formula for an endless bloodbath.

Former CIA Deputy Director (2010-2013) Michael Morell, who was supporting Hillary Clinton during the presidential election campaign and vehemently against the election of Trump, whom he claimed was being manipulated by Putin, said in a 2016 interview with Charlie Rose that Russians and Iranians in Syria should be killed covertly to 'pay the price' .

Therefore, when a drone stroke occurs assassinating an Iranian Maj. Gen., even if the U.S. President takes onus on it, I would not be so quick as to believe that that is necessarily the case, or the full story. Just as I would not take the statements of President Rouhani accepting responsibility for the Iranian military shooting down 'by accident' the Boeing 737-800 plane which contained 176 civilians, who were mostly Iranian, as something that can be relegated to criminal negligence, but rather that there is very likely something else going on here.

I would also not be quick to dismiss the timely release, or better described as leaked, draft letter from the US Command in Baghdad to the Iraqi government that suggests a removal of American forces from the country. Its timing certainly puts the President in a compromised situation. Though the decision to keep the American forces within Iraq or not is hardly a simple matter that the President alone can determine. In fact there is no reason why, after reviewing the case of JFK, we should think such a thing.

One could speculate that the President was set up, with the official designation of the IRGC as "terrorist" occurring in April 2019 by the US State Department, a decision that was strongly supported by both Bolton and Pompeo, who were both members of the NSC at the time. This made it legal for a US military drone strike to occur against Soleimani under the 2001 AUMF, where the US military can attack any armed group deemed to be a terrorist threat. Both Bolton and Pompeo made no secret that they were overjoyed by Soleimani's assassination and Bolton went so far as to tweet "Hope this is the first step to regime change in Tehran." Bolton has also made it no secret that he is eager to testify against Trump in his possible impeachment trial.

Former CIA Director Mike Pompeo was recorded at an unknown conference recently, but judging from the gross laughter of the audience it consists of wannabe CIA agents, where he admits that though West Points' cadet motto is "You will not lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those who do.", his training under the CIA was the very opposite, stating " I was the CIA Director. We lied, we cheated, we stole. It was like we had entire training courses. (long pause) It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment. "

Thus, it should be no surprise to anyone in the world at this point in history, that the CIA holds no allegiance to any country. And it can be hardly expected that a President, who is actively under attack from all sides within his own country, is in a position to hold the CIA accountable for its past and future crimes .

Tags Politics War Conflict

ThomasChase1776 , 3 minutes ago link

General Smedley Butler had an answer. Read his book.

https://www.americanswhotellthetruth.org/portraits/major-general-smedley-butler

Is-Be , 8 minutes ago link

Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, a true hero for his fellow countrymen

All his countrymen?

Element , 15 minutes ago link

Who's Really In Charge Of The US Military? - Cynthia Chung via The Strategic Culture Foundation

Donald Trump, you stupid time-wasting twat .

ThomasChase1776 , 5 minutes ago link

LOL. That's a good one.

Assuming Trump is doing what he said he would, why isn't our military guarding our border?
Why hasn't our military left the middle east already?

Who really runs our government?

InTheLandOfTheBlind , 1 hour ago link

As much as I hate the CIA, mi6 had more of hand in overthrowing iran than Langley did

ThomasChase1776 , 4 minutes ago link

Is that supposed to be an excuse?

GRDguy , 1 hour ago link

". . . the CIA holds no allegiance to any country." But they sure kiss the *** of the financial sociopaths who write their paychecks and finance the black ops.

ThomasChase1776 , 4 minutes ago link

and Mossad

Slaytheist , 1 hour ago link

Does this bitch not know that the CIA is the currency mafia police....ffs, that's a **** ton of words.

oneno , 1 hour ago link

She knows ...

SRV , 1 hour ago link

Fletcher Prouty's book The Secret Team is a must read... he was on the inside and watched the formation of the permanent team established in the late 50s that assumed the power of the president.

JFK fought that team...

cynicalskeptic , 1 hour ago link

Look at who the OSS recruited - Ivy League Skull and Bones types from rich families that made their fortunes in often questionable ventures.

If you're the patriarch of some super wealthy family wouldn't you be thrilled to have younger family members working for the nation's intelligence agencies? Sort of the ultimate in 'inside information'. Plus these families had experience in things like drug smuggling, human trafficking and anything else you can imagine..... While the Brits started the opium trade with China, Americans jumped right in bringing opium from Turkey.

Didn't take long before the now CIA became owned by the families whose members staffed it.

InTheLandOfTheBlind , 43 minutes ago link

Again ignoring the British influence. The CIA does not have a monopoly on intelligence

Spiritual Anunnaki , 2 hours ago link

One major aspect pertaining American involvment in Veitnam was something like 90% of the rubber produced Globally came from the region.

It is more diverse now, being 3rd, with the association revealing that in 2017, Vietnam earned US$2.3 billion from export of 1.4 million tonnes of natural rubber, up 36% in value and 11.4% in volume year on year.

Haboob , 2 hours ago link

Fighting for rubber monopoly in Vietnam,fighting for oil monopoly in the middle east.

That's life.

Benito_Camela , 1 hour ago link

Gunboat diplomacy is nothing new. War is and always has been a racket.

InTheLandOfTheBlind , 38 minutes ago link

Unfortunately it is a winning racket.

Art_Vandelay , 2 hours ago link

Betrayals, secrets, tyranny? Who's in charge? **** Cheney & Co.

Benito_Camela , 1 hour ago link

Mike Pimpeo. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPt-zXn05ac

InTheLandOfTheBlind , 36 minutes ago link

The British crown

Kan , 2 hours ago link

Rockfellers formed the OSS then the CIA which is the brute force for the CFR which they also run and own. The bankers run y our country and bought and blackmailed all your politicians... Only buttplug and pedo's get to be in charge now folks.... and some 9th circle witches of course...

TeethVillage88s , 1 hour ago link

OSS & CIA were formed from Ivy League Schools/Uni's... who turned out to be Traitors to England & USSR... Same today I

[Feb 29, 2020] Pompeo lies and smokescreen

Pompeo has just four terms in the House of Representives befor getting postions of Director of CIA (whichsuggests previous involvement with CIA) and then paradoxically the head of the State Department, He retired from the alry in the rank of comptain and never participated in any battles. He serves only in Germany, and this can be classified as a chickenhawk. He never performed any dyplomatic duries in hs life and a large part of his adult life (1998-2006) was a greddy military contractor.
Jan 07, 2020 | www.truthdig.com

UN Special Rapporteur on Extra-Judicial Executions Agnes Callamard tweeted,

#Pentagon statement on targeted killing of #suleimani :

1. It mentions that it aimed at "deterring future Iranian attack plans". This however is very vague. Future is not the same as imminent which is the time based test required under international law. (1)

-- Agnes Callamard (@AgnesCallamard) January 3, 2020

2. Overall, the statement places far greater emphasis on past activities and violations allegedly commuted by Suleimani. As such the killing appears far more retaliatory for past acts than anticipatory for imminent self defense.

-- Agnes Callamard (@AgnesCallamard) January 3, 2020

3. The notion that Suleimani was "actively developing plans" is curious both from a semantic and military standpoint. Is it sufficient to meet the test of mecessity and proportionality?

-- Agnes Callamard (@AgnesCallamard) January 3, 2020

4. The statement fails to mention the other individuals killed alongside Suleimani. Collateral? Probably. Unlawful. Absolutely.

-- Agnes Callamard (@AgnesCallamard) January 3, 2020

[Feb 27, 2020] Qasem Soleimani - Wikipedia

Jan 06, 2020 | en.wikipedia.org

Orchestration of military escalation in 2015 In 2015, Soleimani started to gather support from various sources in order to combat the newly resurgent ISIL and rebel groups which were both successful in taking large swathes of territory away from Assad's forces. He was reportedly the main architect of the joint intervention involving Russia as a new partner with Assad and Hezbollah. In 2015, Soleimani started to gather support from various sources in order to combat the newly resurgent ISIL and rebel groups which were both successful in taking large swathes of territory away from Assad's forces. He was reportedly the main architect of the joint intervention involving Russia as a new partner with Assad and Hezbollah. [47] [48] [49] [50]

According to Reuters, at a meeting in Moscow in July, Soleimani unfurled a map of Syria to explain to his Russian hosts how a series of defeats for President Bashar al-Assad could be turned into victory – with Russia's help. Qasem Soleimani's visit to Moscow was the first step in planning for a Russian military intervention that has reshaped the Syrian war and forged a new According to Reuters, at a meeting in Moscow in July, Soleimani unfurled a map of Syria to explain to his Russian hosts how a series of defeats for President Bashar al-Assad could be turned into victory – with Russia's help. Qasem Soleimani's visit to Moscow was the first step in planning for a Russian military intervention that has reshaped the Syrian war and forged a new According to Reuters, at a meeting in Moscow in July, Soleimani unfurled a map of Syria to explain to his Russian hosts how a series of defeats for President Bashar al-Assad could be turned into victory – with Russia's help.

Qasem Soleimani's visit to Moscow was the first step in planning for a Russian military intervention that has reshaped the Syrian war and forged a new Iran–Russia alliance in support of the Syrian (and Iraqi) governments. Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei also sent a senior envoy to Moscow to meet President Vladimir Putin. "Putin reportedly told [a senior Iranian envoy] 'Okay we will intervene. Send Qassem Soleimani.'" General Soleimani went to explain the map of the theatre and coordinate the strategic escalation of military forces in Syria. [49]

Operations in Aleppo
Map of the 2015 Aleppo offensives. [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56]

Soleimani had a decisive impact on the theater of operations, which led to a strong advance in southern Aleppo with the government and allied forces re-capturing two military bases and dozens of towns and villages in a matter of weeks. There was also a series of major advances towards Kuweiris air-base to the north-east. [57] By mid-November, the Syrian army and its allies had gained ground in southern areas of Aleppo Governorate, capturing numerous rebel strongholds. Soleimani was reported to have personally led the drive deep into the southern Aleppo countryside where many towns and villages fell into government hands. He reportedly commanded the Syrian Arab Army's 4th Mechanized Division, Hezbollah, Harakat Al-Nujaba (Iraqi), Kata'ib Hezbollah (Iraqi), Liwaa Abu Fadl Al-Abbas (Iraqi), and Firqa Fatayyemoun (Afghan/Iranian volunteers). [58]

In early February 2016, backed by Russian and Syrian air force airstrikes, the 4th Mechanized Division – in close coordination with Hezbollah, the National Defense Forces (NDF), Kata'eb Hezbollah, and Harakat Al-Nujaba – launched an offensive in Aleppo Governorate's northern countryside, [59] which eventually broke the three-year siege of Nubl and Al-Zahraa and cut off the rebels' main supply route from Turkey. According to a senior, non-Syrian security source close to Damascus, Iranian fighters played a crucial role in the conflict. "Qassem Soleimani is there in the same area", he said. [60] In December 2016, new photos emerged of Soleimani at the Citadel of Aleppo , though the exact date of the photos is unknown. [61] [62]

... ... ...

In 2014, Qasem Soleimani was in the Iraqi city of Amirli , to work with the Iraqi forces to push back militants from ISIL. [68] [69] According to the Los Angeles Times , which reported that Amirli was the first town to successfully withstand an ISIS invasion, it was secured thanks to "an unusual partnership of Iraqi and Kurdish soldiers, Iranian-backed Shiite militias and U.S. warplanes". The U.S. acted as a force multiplier for a number of Iranian-backed armed groups – at the same time that was present on the battlefield. [70] [71] Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani prays in the Syrian desert during a local pro-government offensive in 2017

A senior Iraqi official told the BBC that when the city of Mosul fell, the rapid reaction of Iran, rather than American bombing, was what prevented a more widespread collapse. [11] Qasem Soleimani also seems to have been instrumental in planning the operation to relieve Amirli in Saladin Governorate, where ISIL had laid siege to an important city. [66] In fact the Quds force operatives under Soleimani's command seem to have been deeply involved with not only the Iraqi army and Shi'ite militias but also the Kurdish in the Battle of Amirli , [72] not only providing liaisons for intelligence-sharing but also the supply of arms and munitions in addition to "providing expertise". [73]

In the operation to liberate Jurf Al Sakhar , he was reportedly "present on the battlefield". Some Shia militia commanders described Soleimani as "fearless" – one pointing out that the Iranian general never wears a flak jacket , even on the front lines. [74]

In November 2014, Shi'ite and Kurdish forces under Soleimani's command pushed ISIS out of Iraqi villages of Jalawla and Saadia, in the Diyala Governorate . [67]

Soleimani was also intimately involved in the planning and execution of the operation to liberate Tikrit . [75] [76]

Soleimani played an integral role in the organisation and planning of the crucial operation to retake the city of Tikrit in Iraq from ISIS. The city of Tikrit rests on the left bank of the Tigris river and is the largest and most important city between Baghdad and Mosul, giving it a high strategic value. The city fell to ISIS during 2014 when ISIS made immense gains in northern and central Iraq. After its capture, ISIL's massacre at Camp Speicher led to 1,600 to 1,700 deaths of Iraqi Army cadets and soldiers. After months of careful preparation and intelligence gathering an offensive to encircle and capture Tikrit was launched in early March 2015. [76]

[Feb 27, 2020] Geraldo Rivera: "Don't For A Minute" Cheer Killing Of Iranian General; "What We Have Unleashed?"

In view of event of Jan 7 it looks like Geraldo Rivera had the point. He beautifully cut the neocon jerk by reminding him the role of the US intelligence agencies in unleashing Iraq war
Jan 02, 2020 | www.realclearpolitics.com

FOX News correspondent Geraldo Rivera debated "Fox & Friends" hosts Brian Kilmeade and Steve Doocy Friday about the assassination of Iranian special forces General Qassim al Soleimani in Iraq, warning of dire consequences if Iran chooses to retaliate and telling Kilmeade: "You, like Lindsey Graham, have never met a war you didn't like."

"Your arrogance is exactly what's wrong with the region," Geraldo said. "You're not a front-line fighter that has to go back into Iraq again."

GERALDO RIVERA: We thought that when the de-escalation at the embassy happened a couple of days ago that was the end of this chapter. The U.S., with it's firmness, had won the victory. It wasn't going to be Benghazi, it wasn't going to be Tehran from 1980. We won that technical victory.

Now we have taken this huge military escalation. Now I fear the worst. You're going to see the U.S. markets go crazy today. You're going to see the price of oil spiking today. This is a very, very big deal.

BRIAN KILMEADE: I don't know if you heard, this isn't about his resume of blood and death, it was about what was next. That's what you're missing.

STEVE DOOCY: According to the Secretary of Defense.

GERALDO RIVERA: By what credible source can you predict what the next Iranian move will be?

BRIAN KILMEADE: Secretary fo State and American intelligence provided that material.

GERALDO RIVERA: They've been excellent. They've been excellent, the U.S. intelligence has been excellent since 2003 when we invaded Iraq, disrupted the entire region for no real reason. Don't for a minute start cheering this on, what we have done, what we have unleashed --

BRIAN KILMEADE: I will cheer it on. I am elated.

GERALDO RIVERA: Then you, like Lindsey Graham, have never met a war you didn't like.

BRIAN KILMEADE: That is not true, and don't even say that.

GERALDO RIVERA: If President Trump wanted a de-escalation --

BRIAN KILMEADE: Let them kill us for another 15 years?

GERALDO RIVERA: If President Trump wanted a de-escalation and to bring our troops home--

BRIAN KILMEADE: What about the 700 Americans who are dead, should they not be happy?

GERALDO RIVERA: What about the tens of thousands of Iraqis who have died since 2003? You have to start seeing. What the hell are we doing in Baghdad in the first place? Why are we there?

BRIAN KILMEADE: So you're blaming President Bush for the maniacal killing of Saddam Hussein?

GERALDO RIVERA: I am blaming President Bush in 2003 for the fake weapons of mass destruction that never existed and the con-job that drove us into that war.

[Feb 25, 2020] How John Bolton and a Phony Script Brought Us to the Brink of War by Scott Ritter

Bolton is a typical "Full Spectrum Dominance" hawk, a breed of chickenhawks that recently proliferated in Washinton corridors of power and which are fed by MIC.
Notable quotes:
"... the way the IRGC came to be designated as an FTO is itself predicated on a lie. ..."
"... The person responsible for this lie is President Trump's former national security adviser John Bolton, who while in that position oversaw National Security Council (NSC) interagency policy coordination meetings at the White House for the purpose of formulating a unified government position on Iran. Bolton had stacked the NSC staff with hardliners who were pushing for a strong stance. But representatives from the Department of Defense often pushed back . During such meetings, the Pentagon officials argued that the IRGC was "a state entity" (albeit a "bad" one), and that if the U.S. were to designate it as a terrorist group, there was nothing to stop Iran from responding by designating U.S. military personnel or CIA officers as terrorists. ..."
"... The memoranda on these meetings, consisting of summaries of the various positions put forward, were doctored by the NSC to make it appear as if the Pentagon agreed with its proposed policy. The Defense Department complained to the NSC that the memoranda produced from these meetings were "largely incorrect and inaccurate" -- "essentially fiction," a former Pentagon official claimed. ..."
"... This was a direct result of the bureaucratic dishonesty of John Bolton. Such dishonesty led to a series of policy decisions that gave a green light to use military force against IRGC targets throughout the Middle East. ..."
Feb 25, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com
President Trump's decision to assassinate Qassem Soleimani back in January took the United States to the brink of war with Iran.

Trump and his advisors contend that Soleimani's death was necessary to protect American lives, pointing to a continuum of events that began on December 27, when a rocket attack on an American base in Iraq killed a civilian translator. That in turn prompted U.S. airstrikes against a pro-Iranian militia, Khati'ab Hezbollah, which America blamed for the attack. Khati'ab Hezbollah then stormed the U.S. embassy in Baghdad in protest. This reportedly triggered the assassination of Soleimani and a subsequent Iranian retaliatory missile strike on an American base in Iraq. The logic of this continuum appears consistent except for one important fact -- it is all predicated on a lie.

On the night of December 27, a pickup truck modified to carry a launchpad capable of firing 36 107mm Russian-made rockets was used in an attack on a U.S. military compound located at the K-1 Airbase in Iraq's Kirkuk Province. A total of 20 rockets were loaded onto the vehicle, but only 14 were fired. Some of the rockets struck an ammunition dump on the base, setting off a series of secondary explosions. When the smoke and dust cleared, a civilian interpreter was dead and several other personnel , including four American servicemen and two Iraqi military, were wounded. The attack appeared timed to disrupt a major Iraqi military operation targeting insurgents affiliated with ISIS.

The area around K-1 is populated by Sunni Arabs, and has long been considered a bastion of ISIS ideology, even if the organization itself was declared defeated inside Iraq back in 2017 by then-prime minister Haider al Abadi. The Iraqi counterterrorism forces based at K-1 consider the area around the base an ISIS sanctuary so dangerous that they only enter in large numbers.

For their part, the Iraqis had been warning their U.S. counterparts for more than a month that ISIS was planning attacks on K-1. One such report, delivered on November 6, using intelligence dating back to October, was quite specific: "ISIS terrorists have endeavored to target K-1 base in Kirkuk district by indirect fire (Katyusha rockets)."

Another report, dated December 25, warned that ISIS was attempting to seize territory to the northeast of K-1. The Iraqis were so concerned that on December 27, the day of the attack, they requested that the U.S. keep functional its tethered aerostat-based Persistent Threat Detection System (PTSD) -- a high-tech reconnaissance balloon equipped with multi-mission sensors to provide long endurance intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR) and communications in support of U.S. and Iraqi forces.

Instead, the U.S. took the PTSD down for maintenance, allowing the attackers to approach unobserved.

The Iraqi military officials at K-1 immediately suspected ISIS as the culprit behind the attack. Their logic was twofold. First, ISIS had been engaged in nearly daily attacks in the area for over a year, launching rockets, firing small arms, and planting roadside bombs. Second, according to the Iraqis , "The villages near here are Turkmen and Arab. There is sympathy with Daesh [i.e., ISIS] there."

As transparent as the Iraqis had been with the U.S. about their belief that ISIS was behind the attack, the U.S. was equally opaque with the Iraqis regarding whom it believed was the culprit. The U.S. took custody of the rocket launcher, all surviving ordnance, and all warhead fragments from the scene.

U.S. intelligence analysts viewed the attack on K-1 as part of a continuum of attacks against U.S. bases in Iraq since early November 2019. The first attack took place on November 9, against the joint U.S.-Iraqi base at Qayarrah , and was very similar to the one that occurred against K-1 -- some 31 107mm rockets were fired from a pickup truck modified to carry a rocket launchpad. As with K-1, the forces located in Qayarrah were engaged in ongoing operations targeting ISIS, and the territory around the base was considered sympathetic to ISIS. The Iraqi government attributed the attack to unspecified "terrorist" groups.

The U.S., however, attributed the attacks to Khati'ab Hezbollah, a Shia militia incorporated with the Popular Mobilization Organization (PMO), a pro-Iranian umbrella organization that had been incorporated into the Iraqi Ministry of Defense. The PMO blamed the U.S. for a series of drone strikes against its facilities throughout the summer of 2019. The feeling among the American analysts was that the PMO attacked the bases as a form of retaliation.

The U.S. launched a series of airstrikes against Khati'ab Hezbollah bases and command posts in Iraq and Syria on December 29, near the Iraqi city of al-Qaim. These attacks were carried out unilaterally, without any effort to coordinate with America's Iraqi counterparts or seek approval from the Iraqi government.

Khati'ab Hezbollah units had seized al-Qaim from ISIS in November 2017, and then crossed into Syria, where they defeated ISIS fighters dug in around the Syrian town of al-Bukamal. They were continuing to secure this strategic border crossing when they were bombed on December 29.

Left unsaid by the U.S. was the fact that the al-Bukamal-al Qaim border crossing was seen as a crucial "land bridge," connecting Iran with Syria via Iraq. Throughout the summer of 2019, the U.S. had been watching as Iranian engineers, working with Khati'ab Hezbollah, constructed a sprawling base that straddled both Iraq and Syria. It was this base, and not Khati'ab Hezbollah per se, that was the reason for the American airstrike. The objective in this attack was to degrade Iranian capability in the region; the K-1 attack was just an excuse, one based on the lie that Khati'ab Hezbollah, and not ISIS, had carried it out.

The U.S. had long condemned what it called Iran's "malign intentions" when it came to its activities in Iraq and Syria. But there is a world of difference between employing tools of diplomacy to counter Iranian regional actions and going kinetic. One of the reasons the U.S. has been able to justify attacking Iranian-affiliated targets, such as the al-Bukamal-al-Qaim complex and Qassem Soleimani, is that the Iranian entity associated with both -- the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC -- has been designated by the U.S. as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO), and as such military attacks against it are seen as an extension of the ongoing war on terror. Yet the way the IRGC came to be designated as an FTO is itself predicated on a lie.

The person responsible for this lie is President Trump's former national security adviser John Bolton, who while in that position oversaw National Security Council (NSC) interagency policy coordination meetings at the White House for the purpose of formulating a unified government position on Iran. Bolton had stacked the NSC staff with hardliners who were pushing for a strong stance. But representatives from the Department of Defense often pushed back . During such meetings, the Pentagon officials argued that the IRGC was "a state entity" (albeit a "bad" one), and that if the U.S. were to designate it as a terrorist group, there was nothing to stop Iran from responding by designating U.S. military personnel or CIA officers as terrorists.

The memoranda on these meetings, consisting of summaries of the various positions put forward, were doctored by the NSC to make it appear as if the Pentagon agreed with its proposed policy. The Defense Department complained to the NSC that the memoranda produced from these meetings were "largely incorrect and inaccurate" -- "essentially fiction," a former Pentagon official claimed.

After the Pentagon "informally" requested that the NSC change the memoranda to accurately reflect its position, and were denied, the issue was bumped up to Undersecretary of Defense John Rood. He then formally requested that the memoranda be corrected. Such a request was unprecedented in recent memory, a former official noted. Regardless, the NSC did not budge, and the original memoranda remained as the official records of the meetings in question.

President Trump designated the IRGC a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) in April 2018.

This was a direct result of the bureaucratic dishonesty of John Bolton. Such dishonesty led to a series of policy decisions that gave a green light to use military force against IRGC targets throughout the Middle East. The rocket attack against K-1 was attributed to an Iranian proxy -- Khati'ab Hezbollah -- even though there was reason to believe the attack was carried out by ISIS. This was a cover so IRGC-affiliated facilities in al-Bakumal and al-Qaim, which had nothing to do with the attack, could be bombed. Everything to do with Iran's alleged "malign intent." The U.S. embassy was then attacked. Soleimani killed. The American base at al-Assad was bombarded by Iranian missiles. America and Iran were on the brink of war.

All because of a lie.

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

[Feb 25, 2020] A Worthless 'New Deal' from the Iran Hawks

So Menendez survived as MIC stooge. Nice.
Iran hawks never talk about diplomacy except as a way to discredit it.
Notable quotes:
"... And even if Iran were to accept and proceed comply in good faith, just as Iran complied scrupulously with the JCPOA, what's to prevent any US administration from tearing up that "new deal" and demanding more? ..."
Feb 25, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com
|

10:03 am

Daniel Larison Two Iran hawks from the Senate, Bob Menendez and Lindse Graham, are proposing a "new deal" that is guaranteed to be a non-starter with Iran:

Essentially, their idea is that the United States would offer a new nuclear deal to both Iran and the gulf states at the same time. The first part would be an agreement to ensure that Iran and the gulf states have access to nuclear fuel for civilian energy purposes, guaranteed by the international community in perpetuity. In exchange, both Iran and the gulf states would swear off nuclear fuel enrichment inside their own countries forever.

Iran is never going to accept any agreement that requires them to give up domestic enrichment. As far as they are concerned, they are entitled to this under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and they regard it as a matter of their national rights that they keep it. Insisting on "zero enrichment" is what made it impossible to reach an agreement with Iran for the better part of a decade, and it was only when the Obama administration understood this and compromised to allow Iran to enrich under tight restrictions that the negotiations could move forward. Demanding "zero enrichment" today in 2020 amounts to rejecting that compromise and returning to a bankrupt approach that drove Iran to build tens of thousands of centrifuges. As a proposal for negotiations, it is dead on arrival, and Menendez and Graham must know that. Iran hawks never talk about diplomacy except as a way to discredit it. They want to make a bogus offer in the hopes that it will be rejected so that they can use the rejection to justify more aggressive measures.

The identity of the authors of the plan is a giveaway that the offer is not a serious diplomatic proposal. Graham is one of the most incorrigible hard-liners on Iran, and Menendez is probably the most hawkish Democratic senator in office today. Among other things, Menendez has been a booster of the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), the deranged cult of Iranian exiles that has been buying the support of American politicians and officials for years. Graham has never seen a diplomatic agreement that he didn't want to destroy. When hard-liners talk about making a "deal," they always mean that they want to demand the other side's surrender.

Another giveaway that this is not a serious proposal is the fact that they want this imaginary agreement submitted as a treaty:

That final deal would be designated as a treaty, ratified by the U.S. Senate, to give Iran confidence that a new president won't just pull out (like President Trump did on President Barack Obama's nuclear deal).

This is silly for many reasons. The Senate doesn't ratify treaties nowadays, so any "new deal" submitted as a treaty would never be ratified. As the current president has shown, it doesn't matter if a treaty has been ratified by the Senate. Presidents can and do withdraw from ratified treaties if they want to, and the fact that it is a ratified treaty doesn't prevent them from doing this. Bush pulled out of the ABM Treaty, which was ratified 88-2 in 1972. Trump withdrew from the INF Treaty just last year. The INF Treaty had been ratified with a 93-5 vote. The hawkish complaint that the JCPOA wasn't submitted as a treaty was, as usual, made in bad faith. There was no chance that the JCPOA would have been ratified, and even if it had been that ratification would not have protected it from being tossed aside by Trump. Insisting on making any new agreement a treaty is just another way of announcing that they have no interest in a diplomatic solution.

Menendez and Graham want to make the obstacles to diplomacy so great that negotiations between the U.S. and Iran can't resume. It isn't a serious proposal, and it shouldn't be taken seriously.

Feral Finster • 5 hours ago

And even if Iran were to accept and proceed comply in good faith, just as Iran complied scrupulously with the JCPOA, what's to prevent any US administration from tearing up that "new deal" and demanding more?

[Feb 24, 2020] Missiles Attack on Al Assad Base was a message: Iran is No Paper Tiger

Feb 24, 2020 | www.winterwatch.net

Although Trump decided to call this as "Iran standing down," analysts on both sides can work the calculus of this test run. I have been suggesting that Iran's cheaper technology is quite effective and an advantage near their "home court."

Read "The Van Riper Gambit: Iran Scores Against Expensive High-Tech US Gadgetry"

The Iranians used a third- or fourth-generation Fateh 110, which was generally given a range of 300 km. But the Al Assad base is 370 km from the border, so it seems the Iranians squeezed out some extra range. The fourth generation Fateh 100 carries a 650 kg warhead. Iran certainly has missiles with more punch. The Quim 1 is essentially a similar missile.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/63ehLAg7mSU

Iran showed that it can put most of Iraq in range of these low-cost missiles should it become a battleground. The Al Assad base is large and target-rich.

Leaked pictures taken by a Puerto Rican soldier of the damage to the Al-Asad US airbase in Iraq, after being hit by Iranian missiles.

The Pentagon have told soldiers not to film the damage. #NoWarWithIran #Iran pic.twitter.com/Kl4WF6tmy0

-- Ian56 (@Ian56789) January 9, 2020

Meanwhile, Russia offered Iraq its state-of-the-art S-400 air defense to defend its air space.

Besides the added range, the accuracy looks impressive.

"Some of the locations struck look like the missiles hit dead center," said David Schmerler, an analyst with the Middlebury Institute.

Numbers and production information relating to the Fateh 110 are currently uncertain, yet Iranian media sources claim that facilities have been created to mass produce the weapon.

Michael Elleman, director of the Nonproliferation and Nuclear Policy Programme at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, estimates that Iran has numbers "in the high hundreds" of the Fateh-110.

Our takeaway is that this night demonstration is hardly a dud and will give Americans some pause. It shows this key base at Al Assad will be vulnerable. If one night Iran threw a hundred of these missiles up and aimed them at personnel, things could get ugly fast.

Observers are asking "where was the Patriot defense missile?" The problem is economic. The cost of each missile is $2.75 million. A Rand study estimated that a Patriot will need three rounds to take down basic short-range ballistic missiles like the Fateh-110. That's 30 times more than the cost of Fateh. Iran would hope the Patriot is wasted on Fatehs and Quims, and they would gladly run that kind of cost-benefit math all over the region.

"For the time being, the Americans have been given a slap, revenge is a different issue," Iran's Fars News Agency quotes Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as saying Wednesday. "Military moves like this are not enough. The Americans' corruption-stirring presence will come to an end."

Winter Watch Takeaway

U.S. vulnerability at Al Assad has now been well demonstrated. If anything -- especially as more sanctions are being slapped on -- the War Party in Iran will be emboldened to run with their advantages and do so well before more American troops and aircraft build up in the theater.

[Feb 23, 2020] Did not Pompous Pompeo accidentally found a good method to ensure vassals compliance?

Notable quotes:
"... He is making the USA a laughing stock, very threatening for sure, but he is a laughing stock and he perfectly sets up the scenario to ridicule his mongrel stupid president. ..."
Feb 14, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Piotr Berman , Feb 11 2020 23:08 utc | 26

On the big issue though I cant help seeing Pontious Pompeo as hurling himself about the globe tilting at windmills. He is making the USA a laughing stock, very threatening for sure, but he is a laughing stock and he perfectly sets up the scenario to ridicule his mongrel stupid president.

uncle tungsten | Feb 11 2020 22:52 utc | 30

Isn't it a good method? This way, the vassals can comply with a smile.

[Feb 22, 2020] The Coming Constitutional Crisis Over Iran

Feb 22, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Sakineh Bagoom , Feb 22 2020 2:35 utc | 73

Sorry OT.
Great read, by professor Bruce Ackerman.
Had to share. Amazingly succinct.
The Coming Constitutional Crisis Over Iran
https://prospect.org/justice/trump-pelosi-coming-constitutional-crisis-over-iran/

[Feb 16, 2020] Pompeo's Empty Boasting in Munich

These demented human beings are miserable, self seeking failures by any measurement of dignity. In a way they are possessed with "Full Spectrum Dominance" delution.
Feb 16, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com
tone-deaf, arrogant speech in Munich this weekend in which he proclaimed that "the West is winning." In the most hypocritical and absurd section of the speech, Pompeo railed against other states' violations of sovereignty:

Look, this matters. This matters because assaults on sovereignty destabilize. Assaults on sovereignty impoverish. Assaults on sovereignty enslave. Assaults on sovereignty are, indeed, assaults on the very freedom that anchors the Western ideal.

Trump administration officials like talking about the importance of sovereignty almost as much as they enjoy trampling on the sovereignty of other states. The problem with Pompeo's sovereignty talk is that the U.S. obviously doesn't respect the sovereignty of many countries, and almost every criticism that he levels against someone else can be turned around against the U.S. The U.S. daily violates Syrian sovereignty with an illegal military presence. U.S. forces remain in Iraq against the wishes of the Iraqi government, and our military has repeatedly carried out attacks inside Iraq over their government's objections in just the last two months. The Trump administration respects sovereignty and territorial integrity so much that it has endorsed illegal Israeli annexation of Syrian territory and it has given a green light to more annexations in the future. It is now supporting an illegal Turkish incursion into Syria.

Pompeo said at one point:

Respect for sovereignty of nations is a secret of and central to our success. The West is winning.

As we look back on the record of how the U.S. and our allies have behaved over the last 30 years, respect for other nations' sovereignty is not what we see. On the contrary, there has been a series of unnecessary and sometimes illegal wars that the U.S. and its allies have waged either to overthrow a foreign government, or to take sides in an internal conflict, or both. The U.S. and our allies and the other countries certainly would have been better off if that hadn't happened. Our recent record is nothing to boast about. It is typical of Pompeo that he celebrates successes where there aren't any. He says that "the West is winning," but what exactly have we won? The U.S. is still involved in multiple desultory conflicts, and relations with many of our most important allies are more strained than at any time since the start of the Iraq war. If "the West is winning," what would repeated failures look like?

Pompeo calls out economic coercion as one of the harmful things that other states do, but he is part of an administration that has used economic warfare more than anyone else against more targets than ever before. If the U.S. refrained from using economic coercion as one of its main tools in trying to compel other states to do what Washington wants, the attacks on other states' use of economic coercion might carry some weight. As things stand, Pompeo's words are just so much wind.

The theme of Pompeo's speech is refuting criticism from allies about how the U.S. is conducting its foreign policy, but I doubt that many Europeans in the audience were reassured by his hectoring, triumphalist tone. It doesn't help when he is accusing many of our allies of being fools and dupes:

When so-called Iranian moderates play the victim, remember their assassination and terror campaigns against innocent Iranian civilians and right here on European soil itself.

When Russia suggests that Nord Stream 2 is purely a commercial endeavor, don't be fooled. Consider the deprivations caused in the winters of 2006 and 2008 and 2009 and 2015.

When Huawei executives show up at your door, they say you'll lose out if you don't buy in. Don't believe the hype.

Needless to say, many of our European allies have very different views on all of these issues, and berating their position isn't going to make them agree with the Trump administration's unreasonable demands. Pompeo wants to tout the virtues of sovereignty, but as soon as our allies take decisions that displease him and Trump he castigates them for it. Respecting the sovereignty and independence of other states includes respecting their right to make decisions on policy that our government doesn't like. Of course, Pompeo would rather have our allies behave like vassals and expects other partners to obey as if they are colonies. Behind all the sovereignty rhetoric is an unmistakable desire to dictate terms and force others to do the administration's bidding. The countries that are on the receiving end of this insufferable arrogance can see through Pompeo's words. All three of those issues touch on areas where the U.S. insists that our allies abandon their own interests because Washington tells them to. That is exactly the sort of heavy-handed "leadership" that our allies resent, and Pompeo's speech will just remind them why they hate it.

[Feb 16, 2020] Ultimately, a soldier would be diagnosed with a concussion because the soldier (who has financial benefits to gain) says so, and a physician does not dispute it.

Feb 16, 2020 | www.unz.com

The Scalpel , says: Website Show Comment February 13, 2020 at 7:04 am GMT

I posted this on an earlier thread, but it is relevant here.

I have been a working full time in Emergency Medicine for over 20 years. I was a "Flight Surgeon" in the Army. Soldiers are notorious for playing up any combat related injury in order to qualify for disability and the financial benefits that flow from being categorized as being disabled. As far as we know, the most serious claimed injuries were "concussions." As a practicing specialist in Emergency Medicine, I can explain that the diagnosis of "concussion" means, by definition, that no abnormality is seen on CT scanning of the brain. The diagnosis is made based on the injured person's purely subjective complaints, i.e. whatever the allegedly injured person says. If the allegedly injured person says the right things, then a physician may call the symptoms that of a concussion.

So, ultimately, a soldier would be diagnosed with a concussion because the soldier (who has financial benefits to gain) says so, and a physician does not dispute it.

I have seen hundreds if not thousands of diagnoses of "concussion". That diagnosis does not have to be supported by any specific findings or even a proper understanding of the diagnosis. It simply has to be entered in the record by a licensed physician. Once that diagnosis is on the medical record, it is up to subsequent providers to refute that diagnosis if they desire to do so.

This is something subsequent providers are very unlikely to want to dedicate the time and effort required to accomplish. There is usually no financial or professional incentive to do so – often the opposite. There is no specific test to definitively say one way or the other if a person had a "concussion". Like PTSD it is a "functional" diagnosis based mainly on subjective symptoms and not objective test results. This is not to say such things do not exist. They do exist. It is only to say that they can be faked or misinterpreted and that will happen if there is a financial incentive to do so.

Intelligent Dasein , says: Show Comment February 13, 2020 at 3:26 pm GMT
@The Scalpel I'm sure your assessment is accurate, and is symptomatic of a much more general problem affecting the axis of medicine, insurance, pharma, and state pension systems (military or civilian), not to mention all corporations and agencies to various degrees.

When doctors' medical opinions are considered sacrosanct and sufficient to secure payouts, excuse time off from work, and add one's name to the list of medically "made men," they are certain to be pursued like bounty on the high seas. No small number of doctors are content to play along with this system, as it secures a steady stream of income for them as well. Foreign doctors, who are often perfectly comfortable with graft and fraud, are especially bad in this regard.

Employers are left with no recourse except to eat the cost of malingering employees and ever swelling pension rolls, which no employeer can long afford at the micro level and which society itself cannot afford at the macro level.

Another complicating factor is added by the cultural obsession with business efficiency. When the VA scandal broke in 2014, a lot of people were upset by the thought that veterans were receiving shoddy care and insisted that "more must be done," not realizing that this very insistance was at the root of the problem. I said at the time that the real lesson here was that the VA had been "Six-Sigma'ed" by incompetent management who demanded faster claims processing and unrealistic expenditure reductions.

These schizophrenic cultural trends -- viz. , on the one hand, greater and greater demands for doles by an aging and sickening population; and, on the other hand, the feckless attempts to mitigate the very real unaffordability of this by an oligarchic business philosophy that knows only how to downsize, offshore, and automate based on a naive reliance on the dubious benefits of technology -- are going to culminate in an epic breakdown of social functioning over the next decade.

Curmudgeon , says: Show Comment February 13, 2020 at 7:19 pm GMT
@The Scalpel Perhaps you need to return to medical school for a refresher. A "concussion" may, or may not, be seen as an abnormality, usually subdural haematoma, on a CT scan. The reason for requesting the CT scan would be from the patient reported complaints, but also from the objective medical examination for things like pupils and reaction. Radiation is not good for you. If you are ordering CT scans before examination, you've got it backwards.
Max Payne , says: Show Comment February 13, 2020 at 10:37 pm GMT
There are no causalities you guys over estimate the steadfastness of the US military.

Purple heart = disability cheque.

No one can disprove a concussion.

And that's the real embarrassment that the Pentagon is trying to hide.

These guys (US forces) teach other how to fake PTSD to get on disability. I've seen it countless times in Western armed forces. Its how I know Iran will never be invaded or even bombed back to the stone age. You have to have balls for that and clearly the West and Israel have none. (Bush invaded Iraq on the premise of an empty vial; the Iranian counterattack was a legit no-shit missile attack on US forces and . NOTHING HAPPENED).

As for reality I have colleagues who are so disconnected from international politics that reality (past their 9-5 job) means nothing. Reality won't kick in until it comes home to bite them in the ass. It's that simple. A programmer who does nothing for 10 years but play games and write software, what does he care about causalities in Iraq? Seriously. For him that was a 20 second twitter feed which entertained him on his way to work and that's it.

GuestAug , says: Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 12:10 am GMT
This should be no surprise. "The first causality of [any] war is the truth."
The Scalpel , says: Website Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 3:12 am GMT
@Curmudgeon Perhaps you have heard the old proverb, "It is best to keep your mouth shut and have people suspect you are ignorant, than to open it and prove to people that you are ignorant"

A subdural hematoma is (let me say this slowly for you) a sudural hematoma. A concussion is (again slowly) a concussion. They are two separate diagnoses.

Concussion: ICD-10-CM Diagnosis Code S06.0
Traumatic Subdural Hematoma: ICD-10-CM Diagnosis Code S06.5X0A

Pretty good chance you don't know what these codes mean. If not, there is this thing called Google. Look it up.

"things like pupils and reaction"

WTF? I think you might be trying to describe testing for pupils being reactive to light (the normal state of affairs.) Abnormally reactive pupils are not required for the diagnosis of concussion and, in fact, are not usually present.

Radiation is not good for you. If you are ordering CT scans before examination, you've got it backwards.

That, in fact, is all true. What is not true is that I made any sort of suggestion at all to order tests before an exam. You need to lay off the hash pipe.

FYI:

Concussion: A concussion is a type of brain injury. It is a short loss of normal brain function in response to a head injury. Concussions are a common type of sports injury. You can also suffer from one if you suffer a blow to the head or hit your head after a fall. After a concussion, you may have a

headache or neck pain. You may also experience nausea, ringing in your ears, dizziness, or tiredness. You may feel dazed or not your normal self

for several days or weeks after the injury.

https://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/S00-T88/S00-S09/S06/S06.0-

All these symptoms are subjective, i.e. they are basically what the patient reports – truthfully or not.

FWIW, I have found the most reliable symptom in diagnosing concussion is short term memory loss. The patient asks the same question over and over as if he never got an answer.

Curmudgeon , says: Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 8:14 pm GMT
@The Scalpel I'm well aware of what a CT is, I was doing them more than 40 years ago, likely before you were in med school. I know what a concussion is, I've had one, and went through the examination. If you actually read my response, I did not say that every concussion resulted in a subdural haematoma.
Patient reaction includes memory loss. Dizziness is what a patient reports. Of course what patients report is subjective, just as pain tolerance is, but it doesn't invalidate them.
The Scalpel , says: Website Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 8:47 pm GMT
I never said or implied that you did not know what a CT scan is. I think I get it now. You really are a curmudgeon (as in elderly) and your cognitive abilities are flagging. I am sorry for being rude earlier. As you may recall, the point being made was that a simple concussion is not visible on CT scan. A subdural hematoma is visible – as well as many other traumatic brain injuries, . A concussion is not visible. Subjective complaints are not invalid. They are as honest as the person making the complaint.
Buck Ransom , says: Show Comment February 16, 2020 at 3:36 pm GMT
@The Scalpel Are you suggesting that The Greatest Fighting Force in the Galaxy in All of History, the military of the world's Exceptional Nation, is riddled with grifters?

[Feb 16, 2020] The highwater mark in SEAsia was the helicopters evacuating the last invaders from Saigon. The highwater mark in the ME is going to be similar scenes in Iraq.

Feb 16, 2020 | off-guardian.org

Dungroanin ,

It seems that history is about to repeat. The highwater mark in SEAsia was the helicopters evacuating the last invaders from Saigon. The highwater mark in the ME is going to be similar scenes in Iraq.

A final warning has been issued to US troops there – 40 days after Soleimanis assassination – the Resistance is ready to move, an irresistible force about to meet a not so immovable object.

Along with Idlib and Allepo its been amazing start to 2020. And its not even spring!

[Feb 16, 2020] Imperialism and Liberation in the Middle East Feb 14, 2020 Written by P l Steigan, translated by Terje Maloy

Notable quotes:
"... Imperialism – the highest stage of capitalism ..."
"... Without the natives' consent and without the neighbouring countries approval, Moroccans, Somalis, and later Afghans and Syrians, found home in the EU thanks to madame Merkel. ..."
"... How ligitimate is that? ..."
Feb 16, 2020 | off-guardian.org

At the moment, the United States has great difficulty in retaining its hegemony in the Middle East. Its troops have been declared unwanted in Iraq; and in Syria, the US and their foreign legion of terrorists lose terrain and positions every month. The US has responded to this with a significant escalation, by deploying more troops and by constant threats against Iran. At the same time, we have seen strong protest movements in Lebanon, Iraq and Iran.

When millions of Iraqi took to the streets recently, their main slogan was "THE UNITED STATES OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST!"

How should one analyze this?

Obviously, there are a lot of social tensions in the Middle East – class based, ethnic, religious and cultural. The region is a patchwork of conflicts and tensions that not only goes back hundreds of years, but even a few thousand.

There are always many reasons to rebel against a corrupt upper class, anywhere in the world. But no rebellion can succeed if it is not based on a realistic and thorough analysis of the specific conditions in the individual country and region.

Just as in Africa, the borders in the Middle East are arbitrarily drawn. They are the product of the manipulations of imperialist powers, and only to a lesser extent products of what the peoples themselves have wanted.

During the era of decolonization, there was a strong, secular pan-Arab movement that wanted to create a unified Arab world. This movement was influenced by the nationalist and socialist ideas that had strong popular support at the time.

King Abdallah I of Jordan envisaged a kingdom that would consist of Jordan, Palestine and Syria. Egypt and Syria briefly established a union called the United Arab Republic . Gaddafi wanted to unite Libya, Syria and Egypt in a federation of Arab republics .

In 1958, a quickly dissolved confederation was established between Jordan and Iraq, called the Arab Federation . All these efforts were transient. What remains is the Arab League, which is, after all, not a state federation and not an alliance. And then of course we have the demand for a Kurdish state, or something similar consisting of one or more Kurdish mini-states.

Still, the most divisive product of the First World War was the establishment of the state of Israel on Palestinian soil. During the First World War, Britain's Foreign Minister Arthur Balfour issued what became known as the Balfour Declaration , which " view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."

But what is the basis for all these attempts at creating states? What are the prerequisites for success or failure?

The imperialist powers divide the world according to the power relations between them

Lenin gave the best and most durable explanation for this, in his essay Imperialism – the highest stage of capitalism . There, he explained five basic features of the era of imperialism:

The concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; The merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this "finance capital", of a financial oligarchy; The export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; The formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves; The territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed.

But Lenin also pointed out that capitalist countries are developing unevenly, not least because of the uneven development of productive forces in the various capitalist countries.

After a while, there arises a discrepancy between how the world is divided and the relative strength of the imperialist powers. This disparity will eventually force through a redistribution, a new division of the world based on the new relationship of strength. And, as Lenin states :

The question is: what means other than war could there be under capitalism to overcome the disparity between the development of productive forces and the accumulation of capital on the one side, and the division of colonies and spheres of influence for finance capital on the other?"

The two world wars were wars that arose because of unevenness in the power relationships between the imperialist powers. The British Empire was past its heyday and British capitalism lagged behind in the competition. The United States and Germany were the great powers that had the largest industrial and technological growth, and eventually this misalignment exploded. Not once, but twice.

Versailles and Yalta

The victors of the First World War divided the world between themselves at the expense of the losers. The main losers were Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia (the Soviet Union) and the Ottoman Empire. This division was drawn up in the Versailles treaty and the following minor treaties.

Europe after the Versailles Treaties (Wikipedia)

This map shows how the Ottoman Empire was partitioned:

At the end of World War II, the victorious superpowers met in the city of Yalta on the Crimean peninsula in the Soviet Union. Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin made an agreement on how Europe should be divided following Germany's imminent defeat. This map shows how it was envisaged and the two blocs that emerged and became the foundation for the Cold War.

Note that Yugoslavia, created after Versailles in 1919, was maintained and consolidated as "a country between the blocs". So it is a country that carries in itself the heritage of both the Versailles- and Yalta agreements.

The fateful change of era when the Soviet Union fell

In the era of imperialism, there has always been a struggle between various great powers. The battle has been about markets, access to cheap labor, raw materials, energy, transport routes and military control. And the imperialist countries divide the world between themselves according to their strength. But the imperialist powers are developing unevenly.

If a power collapses or loses control over some areas, rivals will compete to fill the void. Imperialism follows the principle that Aristotle in his Physics called horror vacui – the fear of empty space.

And that was what happened when the Soviet Union lost the Cold War. In 1991, the Soviet Union ceased to exist, and soon the Eastern bloc was also history. And thus the balance was broken, the one that had maintained the old order. And now a huge area was available for re-division. The weakened Russia barely managed to preserve its own territory, and not at all the area that just before was controlled by the Soviet Union.

Never has a so large area been open for redivision. It was the result of two horrible world wars that anew was up for grabs. It could not but lead to war." Pål Steigan, 1999

"Never has a so large area been open for re-division. It was the result of two horrible world wars that anew was up for grabs. It could not but lead to war." Map: Countries either part of the Soviet Union, Eastern Bloc or non-aligned (Yugoslavia)

When the Soviet Union disintegrated, both the Yalta and Versailles agreements in reality collapsed, and opened up the way for a fierce race to control this geopolitical empty space.

This laid the foundation for the American Geostrategy for Eurasia , which concentrated on securing control over the vast Eurasian continent. It is this struggle for redistribution in favor of the United States that has been the basis for most wars since 1990: Somalia, the Iraq wars, the Balkan wars, Libya, Ukraine, and Syria.

The United States has been aggressively spearheading this, and the process to expand NATO eastward and create regime changes in the form of so-called "color revolutions" has been part of this struggle. The coup in Kiev, the transformation of Ukraine into an American colony with Nazi elements, and the war in Donbass are also part of this picture. This war will not stop until Russia is conquered and dismembered, or Russia has put an end to the US offensive.

So, to recapitulate: Because the world is already divided between imperialist powers and there are no new colonies to conquer, the great powers can only fight for redistribution. What creates the basis and possibilities for a new division is the uneven development of capitalism. The forces that are developing faster economically and technologically will demand bigger markets, more raw materials, more strategic control.

The results of two terrible wars are again up for grabs

World War I caused perhaps 20 million deaths , as well as at least as many wounded. World War II caused around 72 million deaths . These are approximate numbers, and there is still controversy around the exact figures, but we are talking about this order of magnitude.

The two world wars that ended with the Versailles and Yalta treaties thus caused just below 100 million dead, as well as an incredible number of other suffering and losses.

Since 1991, a low-intensity "world war" has been fought, especially by the US, to conquer "the void". Donald Trump recently stated that the United States have waged wars based on lies, which have cost $ 8 trillion ($ 8,000 billion) and millions of people's lives. So the United States' new distribution of the spoils has not happened peacefully.

"The Rebellion against Sykes-Picot"

In the debate around the situation in the Middle East, certain people that would like to appear leftist, radical and anti-imperialist say that it is time to rebel against the artificial boundaries drawn by the Sykes-Picot and Versailles treaties. And certainly these borders are artificial and imperialist. But how leftist and anti-imperialist is it to fight for these boundaries to be revised now?

In reality, it is the United States and Israel that are fighting for a redistribution of the Middle East. This is the basis underlying Donald Trump's "Deal of the Century", which aims to bury Palestine forever, and it is stated outright in the new US strategy for partitioning Iraq.

Again, this is just an updated version of the Zionist Yinon plan that aimed to cantonize the entire Middle East, with the aim that Israel should have no real opponents and would be able to dominate the entire region and possibly create a Greater Israel.

It is not the anti-imperialists that are leading the way to overhaul the imperialist borders from 1919. It is the imperialists. To achieve this, they can often exploit movements that are initially popular or national, but which then only become tools and proxies in a greater game.

This has happened so many times in history that it can hardly be counted.

Hitler's Germany exploited Croatian nationalism by using the Ustaša gangs as proxies. From 1929 to 1945, they killed hundreds of thousands of Serbs, Jews and Roma people. And their ideological and political descendants carried out an extremely brutal ethnic cleansing of the Krajina area and forced out more than 200,000 Serbs in their so-called Operation Storm in 1995.

Hitler also used the extreme Ukrainian nationalists of Stepan Bandera's OUN, and after Bandera's death, the CIA continued to use them as a fifth column against the Soviet Union.

The US low-intensity war against Iraq, from the Gulf War in 1991 to the Iraq War in 2003, helped divide the country into enclaves. Iraqi Kurdistan achieved autonomy in the oil-rich north with the help of a US "no-fly zone". The United States thus created a quasi-state that was their tool in Iraq.

Undoubtedly, the Kurds in Iraq had been oppressed under Saddam Hussein. But also undoubtedly, their Iraqi "Kurdistan" became a client state under the thumb of United States. And there is also no doubt that the no-fly zones were illegal, as UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali admitted in a conversation with John Pilger .

And now the United States is still using the Kurds in Northern Iraq in its plan to divide Iraq into three parts. To that end, they are building the world's largest consulate in Erbil. What they are planning to do, is simply "creating a country".

As is well known, the United States also uses the Kurds in Syria as a pretext to keep 27 percent of the country occupied. It does not help how much the Kurdish militias SDF and PYD invoke democracy, feminism and communalism; they have ended up pleading for the United States to maintain the occupation of Northeast Syria.

Preparations for a New World War

Israel and the US are preparing for war against Iran. In this fight, they will develop as much "progressive" rhetoric as is required to fool people. Real dissatisfaction in the area, which there is every reason to have, will be magnified and blown out of all proportion. "Social movements" will be equipped with the latest news in the Israeli and US "riot kits" and receive training and logistics support, in addition to plenty of cold hard cash.

There may be good reasons to revise the 1919 borders, but in today's situation, such a move will quickly trigger a major war. Some say that the Kurds are entitled to their own state, and maybe so. The question is ultimately decided by everyone else, except the Kurds themselves.

The problem is that in today's geopolitical situation, creating a unified Kurdistan will require that "one" defeats Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. It's hard to see how that can happen without their allies, not least Russia and China, being drawn into the conflict.

And then we have a new world war on our hands. And in that case, we are not talking about 100 million killed, but maybe ten times as much, or the collapse of civilization as we know it. The Kurdish question is not worth that much.

This does not mean that one should not fight against oppression and injustice, be it social and national. One certainly should. But you have to realize that revising the map of the Middle East is a very dangerous plan and that you run the risk of ending up in very dangerous company. The alternative to this is to support a political struggle that undermines the hegemony of the United States and Israel and thereby creates better conditions for future struggles.

It is nothing new that small nations rely on geopolitical situations to achieve some form of national independence. This was the case, for example, for my home country Norway. It was France's defeat in the Napoleonic War that caused Denmark to lose the province of Norway to Sweden in 1814, but at the same time it created space for a separate Norwegian constitution and internal self rule.

All honor to the Norwegian founding fathers of 1814, but this was decided on the battlefields in Europe. And again, it was Russia's defeat in the Russo-Japanese War that laid the geopolitical foundation for the dissolution of the forced union with Sweden almost a hundred years later, in 1905. (This is very schematically presented and there are many more details, but there is no doubt that Russia's loss of most of its fleet in the Far East had created a power vacuum in the west, which was exploitable.)

Therefore, the best thing to do now is not to support the fragmentation of states, but to support a united front to drive the United States out of the Middle East. The Million Man March in Baghdad got the ball rolling. There is every reason to build up even more strength behind it. Only when the United States is out, will the peoples and countries in the region be able to arrive at peaceful agreements between themselves, which will enable a better future to be developed.

And in this context, it is an advantage that China develops the "Silk Road" (aka Belt and Road Initiative), not because China is any nobler than other major powers, but because this project, at least in the current situation, is non-sectarian, non-exclusive and genuinely multilateral. The alternative to a monopolistic rule by the United States, with a world police under Washington's control, is a multipolar world. It grows as we speak.

The days of the Empire are numbered. What this will look like in 20 or 50 years, remains to be seen.

This article is Creative Commons 4.0. Pål Steigan is a Norwegian veteran journalist and activist, presently editor of the independent news site Steigan.no . Translated by Terje Maloy. Facebook Twitter Reddit Pinterest WhatsApp vKontakte Email Filed under: 20th Century , historical perspectives , latest Tagged with: Croatia , Egypt , historical perspectives , imperialism , Israel , Jordan , Lenin , Middle East , Pal Steigan , Palestine , russia , Saudi Arabia , Stepan Bandera , Terje Maloy , ukraine , WWII can you spare $1.00 a month to support independent media

OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial backers. We are not funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only means of income. Even the smallest amount of support is hugely appreciated.

Connect with Connect with Subscribe newest oldest most voted Notify of

George Mc ,

Off topic – but there's nowhere else to put this at the moment:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/feb/16/fran-unsworth-bbc-election-coverge-licence-fee

The BBC was taken aback by leftwing attacks on its general election coverage

No idea what they are talking about. They patiently explained that Corbyn was Hitler. What more could they do?

Dungroanin ,

Ok roll up the sleeves, time to concentrate. I've had enough of being baited as a judae- phobe.

The 'Balfour Declaration' – he didn't write it and it was a contract published in the newspapers within hours of it being inveigled.

Ready?

'Balfour and Lloyd George would have been happy with an unvarnished endorsement of Zionism. The text that the foreign secretary agreed in August was largely written by Weizmann and his colleagues:

"His Majesty's Government accept the principle that Palestine should be reconstituted as the national home of the Jewish people and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object and will be ready to consider any suggestions on the subject which the Zionist Organisation may desire to lay before them."

Got that – AUGUST?

Dungroanin ,


The leading figure in that drama was a charismatic chemistry professor from Manchester, Chaim Weizmann – with his domed head, goatee beard and fierce intellect. Weizmann had gained an entrée into political circles thanks to CP Scott, the illustrious editor of the Manchester Guardian, and had then sold his Zionist project to government leaders, including David Lloyd George when he was chancellor of the exchequer.

Dungroanin ,

Author(s)
Walter Rothschild, Arthur Balfour, Leo Amery, Lord Milner

Signatories
Arthur James Balfour

Recipient
Walter Rothschild

Dungroanin ,

'In due course the blunt phrase about Palestine being "reconstituted as the national home of the Jewish people" was toned down into "the establishment of a home for the Jewish people in Palestine" – a more ambiguous formulation which sidestepped for the moment the idea of a Jewish state. '

Dungroanin ,

'Edwin Montagu, newly appointed as secretary of state for India, was only the third practising Jew to hold cabinet office. Whereas his cousin, Herbert Samuel (who in 1920 would become the first high commissioner of Palestine) was a keen supporter of Zionism, Montagu was an "assimilationist" – one who believed that being Jewish was a matter of religion not ethnicity. His position was summed up in the cabinet minutes:

Mr Montagu urged strong objections to any declaration in which it was stated that Palestine was the "national home" of the Jewish people. He regarded the Jews as a religious community and himself as a Jewish Englishman '

Dungroanin ,

'Montagu considered the proposed Declaration a blatantly anti-Semitic document and claimed that "most English-born Jews were opposed to Zionism", which he said was being pushed mainly by "foreign-born Jews" such as Weizmann, who was born in what is now Belarus.'

Dungroanin ,

The other critic of the proposed Declaration was Lord Curzon, a former viceroy of India, who therefore viewed Palestine within the geopolitics of Asia. A grandee who traced his lineage back to the Norman Conquest, Curzon loftily informed colleagues that the Promised Land was not exactly flowing with milk and honey, but nor was it an empty, uninhabited space.

According to the cabinet minutes, "Lord Curzon urged strong objections upon practical grounds. He stated, from his recollection of Palestine, that the country was, for the most part, barren and desolate a less propitious seat for the future Jewish race could not be imagined."

And, he asked, "how was it proposed to get rid of the existing majority of Mussulman [Muslim] inhabitants and to introduce the Jews in their place?"

Dungroanin ,

Sorry for the length of this bit – but it only makes sense in the whole:

'Between them, Curzon and Montagu had temporarily slowed the Zionist bandwagon. Lord Milner, another member of the war cabinet, hastily added two conditions to the proposed draft, in order to address the two men's respective concerns. The vague phrase about the rights of the "existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" hints at how little the government knew or cared about those who constituted roughly 90 per cent of the population of what they, too, regarded as their homeland.

After trying out the new version on a few eminent Jews, both of Zionist and accommodationist persuasions, and also securing a firm endorsement from America's President Woodrow Wilson, Lloyd George and Balfour took the issue back to the war cabinet on 31 October. By now the strident Montagu had left for India, and on this occasion Balfour, who could often be moody and detached, led from the front, brushing aside the objections that had been raised and reasserting the propaganda imperative. According to the cabinet minutes, he stated firmly: "The vast majority of Jews in Russia and America, as, indeed, all over the world, now appeared to be favourable to Zionism. If we could make a declaration favourable to such an ideal, we should be able to carry on extremely useful propaganda both in Russia and America."

This was standard cabinet tactics: a strong lead from a minister supported by the PM, daring his colleagues to argue back. And this time Curzon did not, though he did make another telling comment. He "attached great importance to the necessity of retaining the Christian and Moslem Holy Places in Jerusalem and Bethlehem". If this were done, Curzon added, he "did not see how the Jewish people could have a political capital in Palestine".'

Dungroanin ,

Dates again crucial and the smoking gun:

'securing a firm endorsement from America's President Woodrow Wilson, Lloyd George and Balfour took the issue back to the war cabinet on 31 October.'

Dungroanin ,

The two conditions had bought off the two main critics. That was all that seemed to matter, even though the reference to the "rights of the existing non-Jewish communities" stood in potential conflict with the first two clauses about the British supporting and using their "best endeavours" for the "establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people".

Dungroanin ,

There is MORE but I'll pause and see how many are really interested in FACTS, as opposed to invented History, Economics and Capital instead of the only real human motivations of the ages – Money and Power.

George Mc ,

the only real human motivations of the ages – Money and Power.

If this is true then we are all doomed.

Dungroanin ,

Not if we are aware of it George.

Dungroanin ,

Ok a summary fom Brittanica:

'Balfour Declaration Quick Facts

The Balfour Declaration, issued through the continued efforts of Chaim Weizmann and Nahum Sokolow, Zionist leaders in London, fell short of the expectations of the Zionists, who had asked for the reconstitution of Palestine as "the" Jewish national home. The declaration specifically stipulated that "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." The document, however, said nothing of the political or national rights of these communities and did not refer to them by name. Nevertheless, the declaration aroused enthusiastic hopes among Zionists and seemed the fulfillment of the aims of the World Zionist Organization (see Zionism).

The British government hoped that the declaration would rally Jewish opinion, especially in the United States, to the side of the Allied powers against the Central Powers during World War I (1914–18). They hoped also that the settlement in Palestine of a pro-British Jewish population might help to protect the approaches to the Suez Canal in neighbouring Egypt and thus ensure a vital communication route to British colonial possessions in India.

The Balfour Declaration was endorsed by the principal Allied powers and was included in the British mandate over Palestine, formally approved by the newly created League of Nations on July 24, 1922.

In May 1939 the British government altered its policy in a White Paper recommending a limit of 75,000 further immigrants and an end to immigration by 1944, unless the resident Palestinian Arabs of the region consented to further immigration.

Zionists condemned the new policy, accusing Britain of favouring the Arabs. This point was made moot by the outbreak of World War II (1939–45) and the founding of the State of Israel in 1948.'

Dungroanin ,

But what about the timing?

Well there are twin tracks, here is the first.

'But talking about the return of the Jews to the land of Israel was only meaningful because that land seemed up for grabs after the Ottoman Empire sided with Germany in 1914. For Britain, France and Russia – though primarily focused on Europe – war against a declining power long dubbed the "Sick Man of Europe" opened up the prospect of vast gains in the Levant and the Middle East.

The Ottoman army, however, proved no walkover. In 1915 it threatened the Suez Canal, Britain's imperial artery to India, and then repulsed landings by British empire and French forces on the Dardanelles at Gallipoli. Although Baghdad fell in March 1917, two British assaults on Gaza that spring were humiliatingly driven back, with heavy losses. Deadlock in the desert added to Whitehall's list of woes.

In this prescribed narrative of remembrance for 1914-18, what happened outside the Western Front has been almost entirely obscured. The British army's "Historical Lessons, Warfare Branch" has published in-house a fascinating volume of essays about what it tellingly entitles "The Forgotten Fronts of the First World War" – with superb maps and illustrations. The collection covers not only Palestine and Mesopotamia (roughly modern-day Iraq and Kuwait), but also Italy, Africa, Russia, Turkey and the Pacific – indeed much of the world – but sadly it is not currently available to the public. '

Dungroanin ,

The second track is the 'money' track and what everything is about and why we live in such a miasma of blatant lies.

IT can only make sense by asking questions such as :

Can we follow the money?

When was the Fed set up? Why? By whom?
How much money did it lend &
to whom?

When was the first world war started?

When did US declare war?

When did US troops arrive in numbers to enter that war?

What happened in Russia at the same time?

And in Mesopotamia?

How did it end?

How did it fail to end?

What happened to the contract?

Etc.

I have attempted to research and answer some of these already above.

Next I will attempt to walk the other track but be warned that opens more ancient tracks.

Dungroanin ,

'On 2 November, Balfour sent his letter to Lord Rothschild.

7 November, Lenin and the Bolsheviks had seized power in Petrograd. ransacked the Tsarist archives, they published juicy extracts from the "secret treaties" that the Allied powers had made among themselves in 1915-16 to divide the spoils of victory.
The same day the Ottoman Seventh and Eighth Armies evacuated the town of Gaza

9 November Letter published in Times.

Mid November – The Bolsheviks did not discover that the British were also playing footsie with the Turks. In the middle of November 1917, secret meetings took place with Ottoman dissidents in Greece and Switzerland about trying to arrange an armistice in the Near East. The war cabinet recognised that, as bait, it might have to let the Ottomans keep parts of their empire in the region, or at least retain some appearance of control. When Curzon got wind of this, he was incensed: "Almost in the same week that we have pledged ourselves, if successful, to secure Palestine as a national home for the Jewish people, are we to contemplate leaving the Turkish flag flying over Jerusalem?"

End November. The Manchester Guardian's correspondent in Petrograd, Morgan Philips Price, was able to examine the key documents overnight, and his scoop was published by the paper at the end of November. It revealed to the world, among other things, that the British also had an understanding with the French – the Sykes-Picot agreement of January 1916 – to carve up the Near East between them once the Ottoman empire had been defeated. In this, Palestine was slated for some kind of international condominium – not the British protectorate envisaged in the Balfour Declaration.

11 December Allenby formally entered Jerusalem. '

So just a few loose ends left to tie up anyone actually want to go there?

George Mc ,

No.

Dungroanin ,

🤣

Dungroanin ,

Ok on the back stretch:

https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/feds_formative_years

The paramount goal of the Fed's founders was to eliminate banking panics, but it was not the only goal. The founders also sought to increase the amount of international trade financed by US banks and to expand the use of the dollar internationally. By 1913 the United States had the world's largest economy, but only a small fraction of US exports and imports were financed by American banks. Instead, most exports and imports were financed by bankers' acceptances drawn on European banks in foreign currencies. (Bankers' acceptances are a type of financial contract used for making payments in the future, for example, upon delivery of goods or services. Bankers' acceptances are drawn on and guaranteed, i.e., "accepted," by a bank.) The Federal Reserve Act allowed national banks to issue bankers' acceptances and open foreign branches, which greatly expanded their ability to finance international transactions Further the Act authorized the Reserve Banks to purchase acceptances in the open market to ensure a liquid market for them, thereby spurring growth of that market.

President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act on December 23, 1913.

The task of determining the specific number of districts, district boundaries, and which cities would have Reserve Banks was assigned to a Reserve Bank Organization Committee.

On April 2, 1914, the Committee announced that twelve Federal Reserve districts would be formed, identified the boundaries of those districts, and named the cities that would have Reserve Banks.1 The Banks were quickly organized, officers and staff were hired, and boards of directors appointed. The Banks opened for business on November 16, 1914.
..

The Federal Reserve Act addressed perceived shortcomings by creating a new national currency -- Federal Reserve notes -- and requiring members of the Federal Reserve System to hold reserve balances with their local Federal Reserve Banks.

World War I began in Europe in August 1914, before the Federal Reserve Banks had opened for business. The war had a profound impact on the US banking system and economy, as well as on the Federal Reserve.

War disrupted European financial markets and reduced the supply of trade credit offered by European banks, providing US banks with an opening. Low US interest rates, abundant reserves, and new authority to issue trade acceptances enabled American banks to finance a growing share of world trade.

Dungroanin ,

So the denouement :

It appears that the 'first world war' was designed to diminish European banks and boost the US banks.

However the fuller history of the US bankers is worth knowing- the Jekyll Islanders story is widely publicised.

Into this time track enters the Balfour Declaration addressed to Lord Rothschild, steered by Milner (heir to Rhodes empire building and the old EIC), approved by the potus Wilson (another hireling) that finally sent US troops to overwhelm the Germans, while the great gamers took out the Romanovs and the Ottoman Empire.
-- --

When we try to understand such facts and timelines and are attacked as Judaeo-phobes, because we identify Bankers and Robber Barons, it becomes even clearer how deep and wide they have controlled history and it has NOTHING to do with RELIGION (except perhaps Ludism). Nothing to do with Judaism (except perhaps Old Jewry in the City, but Lombard Street was most powerful!) and EVERYTHING to do with POWER and it's representation MONEY. The obscuring of that through various Economic theories including Marxism is the work of the same old bastards who are responsible for all our current malaises.

Thankyou and good evening, if anyone made it this far!

😉

George Mc ,

Well OK Dunnie, let's say I go along with you and assume that all the shit we are facing has nothing to do with religion or all that "Marxian porridge" (as Guido Giacomo Preparata called it). The question is: What do we do about it?

Speaking of GGP , it seems to me that you and him have much in common. He also goes on about "Power" but seems to be on the verge of referring this "Power" to mystical entities in a disconcertingly Ickean manoeuvre. Not that I'm attibuting such a thing to yourself. (No irony intended.)

Dungroanin ,

George – i don't want you or anyone to just go along with me.

I want everyone to make their minds up on FACTS. That is the only way humanity has actually progressed by inventing the only self correcting philosophical system and method of the ages that goes beyond 'personal responsibility teligions' – SCIENTIFIC METHOD – that takes away arbitrary power to rule, from these that inhabit the top of the human pyramid by virtue of being born there and having control over the money and so the power to remain in these positions, which does not benefit the totality of humanity or all life on Earth.

I am not a messiah, I am angry as fuck and I am not going to sit around enjoying whatever soma has been handed to us to keep compliant and leave this Planet worse than I found it. That is the scientific conclusion I have reached.

I suppose some proto buddhist / zoroastrianism / animalist / Shinto / Jain & Quakers seek religious truth in inner experience, and place great reliance on conscience as the basis of morality.

I suppose Ghandi's non-violence rebellion against Imperialists is a model as are various peasants revolts – the Russian / Chinese / Korean / Vietnamese couldn't have survived without the literal grassroots!
..

As for Guido Giacomo Preparata that you have introduced to me – i had nevet heard of him before this morning – my first take on him is that he seems to have arrived at similar conclusions by similar methodology. He seems to have a lot of formal education and a enviable career so far – i'll have to look into him further but the interview that i just read seems to indicate concurrence with what i said above. I see no Ickean references – please give a link.

-- -

As a observation do you not find it funny that there is not a single objection to the verity of the facts which I have presented above?

Good luck George if you are a real seeker of truth. If not insta-karma awaits.

George Mc ,

The Preparata statement I was referring to is in this interview:

https://www.larsschall.com/2012/06/10/the-business-as-usual-behind-the-slaughter/

The statement itself is this:

Power is a purely human suggestion. Suggested by whom? That is the question. The NSDAP thus appeared to have been a front for some kind of nebula of Austro-German magi, dark initiates, and troubling literati (Dietrich Eckhart comes to mind), with very plausible extra-Teutonic ramifications of which we know next to nothing. Hitler came to be inducted in a lodge of this network, endowed as he seemed with a supernatural gift of inflaming oratory.

This is a theme that I am still studying, but from what I gathered, the adepts of the Thule Gesellschaft communed around the belief of being the blood heirs of a breed that seeks redemption / salvation / metempsychosis in some kind of eighth realm away from this earth, which is the shoddy creation of a lesser God -- the archangel of the Hebrews, Jehovah. It all sounds positively insane to post-modern ears, but it should be taken very seriously, I think.

Admittedly it isn't quite interdimensional reptiles but there is a distinct metaphysical flavour there.

I wouldn't go along with everything Preparata says but he is a wonderful writer and I have bought almost everything I can find by him. His "biggie" is "Conjuring Hitler". It was Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed that brought GGP to my attention via that book.

milosevic ,

images on this website look terrible, with very little colour. the problem seems to be caused by this rule, from the file "OffGstyle.css":

.content-wrap-spp img {

filter: sepia(20%) saturate(30%);

}

Open ,

This sepia effect usually works well with Off-Guardian articles, but with these maps in today's article it is definitely terrible. Why have maps if they don't want to show them clearly?
(any extra steps for the user to see the pictures clearly is not the answer)

Another area neglected on this website is crediting photos. The majority of images carry no atribution/credit, despite it [crediting photos] is the best ethical practice even for public domain pictures. I wish Admin gets expert advice on this.

Open ,

Look at the language used by the americans:

On feb. 12 [2020], Coalition forces, conducting a patrol near Qamishli, Syria , encountered a checkpoint occupied by pro-Syrian .. forces .

So, the supremacist unites states' army has found that Syrian forces are occupying Syrian land .. wow wow wow .. according to this logic, Russian forces are occupying Russian land. Iranian forces are occupying Iranian land (how dare they?!). But american forces are not occupying any land, and Israel is not occupying Palestinian and Syrian lands.

This language needs to be known more widely.

Open ,

The americans always use the term 'Coalition forces' when they talk about their illegal presence in Syria. I tried to search online for what countries are in this coalition. I recall I was able to find that in the past, but now, it seems this information is being pushed under wrap.

What are they afraid of? What are they hiding?

Joe ,

Just bring about the end of "Israel" and there'll be peace in the Middle East, and probably in the wider world, too.

Open ,

Ending the Israeli project is certainly a step in the right direction to improve global stability. However, alone, it will not bring about peace because the British/Five-Eyes/Washington's doctrine of spreading disorder and chaos permeates (saturates) the planet.

In fact, current disorders are the results of convergence of Israeli interests with those of Western White Supremacy's* resolve to dominate, erh, eveything.

* Western White Supremacy can also be called Western White Idiocy and Bigotry.

Israel manipulates the West's political and military might. The West also uses Israel to spread Chaos and Disorder.

Antonym ,

Right, back to the good old peace of the graveyard inspired by Mohamed's male sex riot ideology and plunder legitimization before the Westerners showed up with their superior (arms) tech legitimization for their plunder.
Before Israel's 1947 creation the world was a bed of roses .

Open ,

"srael's 1947 creation"

Without the natives' consent and without the neighbouring countries approval, Ukranians and Germans, and later South Americans, found home in the Middle East.

How ligitimate is that?

Antonym ,

Without the natives' consent and without the neighbouring countries approval, Moroccans, Somalis, and later Afghans and Syrians, found home in the EU thanks to madame Merkel.

How ligitimate is that?

Open ,

"Moroccans, Somalis, and later Afghans and Syrians .. etc.."

Do these comments reflect the Zionists' perspective? This is important because they prove that the whole existence of Israel is based on total fabrication and lies.

Maggie ,

Did you have to practice at being THAT stupid! Or did they lobotomise you in Langley?
Somalis, Afghans, Syrians would not have had any cause to leave their homeland had it not been for your employers the CIA/MOSSAD facilitating the raping and pillaging of their homes by the Oil Magnates, leaving them starving and desolate.
https://www.hiiraan.com/op2/2007/may/somalia_the_other_hidden_war_for_oil.aspx
and where does our Aid money go?

https://www.youtube.com/embed/5OInaYenHkU?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent
But of course Antonym, if you were in their situation, you would just stick it out?
Shame on you .

To those who care, read "The confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins" to understand how this corrupt system is conducted.

Richard Le Sarc ,

Its 'creation' in blood, murder, rape and terror, in a great ethnic cleansing-the sign of things to come, ceaselessly, for seventy years and ongoing.

paul ,

Ask the people in Gaza about the Zionist "peace of the graveyard."

Antonym ,

Gaza before 2005 was relatively peaceful + prosperous. After the Israeli withdrawal the inhabitants messed up their own economy but kept on making lots of babies just like before.
Quite the opposite of a graveyard or a Warsaw ghetto or a Dachau.

George Mc ,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza

Despite the disengagement, the United Nations, international human rights organisations and most legal scholars regard the Gaza Strip to still be under military occupation by Israel, though this is disputed by Israel and other legal scholars. Following the withdrawal, Israel has continued to maintain direct external control over Gaza and indirect control over life within Gaza: it controls Gaza's air and maritime space, and six of Gaza's seven land crossings, it maintains a no-go buffer zone within the territory, and controls the Palestinian population registry, and Gaza remains dependent on Israel for its water, electricity, telecommunications, and other utilities.

Interesting definition of "withdrawal". It's amazing those Gazans even managed to have babies!

Richard Le Sarc ,

You would have made a grand Nazi, Antsie-cripes, you have!

paul ,

Gaza was, and is, a huge Zionist concentration camp hermetically sealed off from the outside world and blockaded just like the Warsaw Ghetto. With Zionist thugs and kiddie killers shooting hundreds of kids in the head for the fun of it with British sniper rifles and dum dum bullets, and periodically dropping 20,000 tons of bombs at a time on it, a higher explosive yield than Hiroshima. With parties of Jews going along to hold barbecues and picnics to watch all the fun. Nice people, those chosen folk.

Richard Le Sarc ,

I rather think that Epstein, Weinstein, Moonves and all those orthodox and ultra-orthodox who are such prolific patrons of the sex industry in Israel, know a bit about 'male sex riot ideology', Antsie.

Dungroanin ,

Pathetic.
'Nandy won a major boost when members of the Labour affiliate Jewish Labour Movement gave her their backing after a hustings, saying she understood the need to change the party's culture.'
From the Groaniad

How many members? How many by denomination?

As for the Balfour Contract there were actual English Jewish establishment figures against its premise. Actual imperial servants. The declaration was a stitch up by the new banking powers in the US which then sent in the yanks to stop the Germans in 1917.

History is rewritten daily to memory hole such facts.

Capricornia Man ,

The 'Jewish Labour Movement' is so Jewish that most of its members are not Jewish. And it is so Labour-affiliated that it did not support Labour in the December general election. But it has no shortage of money. It exists solely to prosecute the interests of a foreign power. Much the same could be said for any politician who accepts its endorsement.

Rhys Jaggar ,

Given that Jews are vastly outnumbered by non Jews, the simplest way to stop Jewish manipulation of politics is to form a party from which Jews are specifically banned.

You will not propose any policies harming Jews in any way, you will just make it clear that this is a party free from any Jewish influence in its constitution.

If Jews cannot accept that, then they are utterly racist and must be dealt with without sensibility.

Maggie ,

A better solution Rhys would be to form a party that denies all and any dual citizens
That way all the Zionists would be barred.

Richard Le Sarc ,

Full public financing of political parties would end Zionist control.

paul ,

Thornberry has just thrown in the towel.
She will now have more time to "get down on her hands and knees" and "beg forgiveness" from the Board of Deputies.
Those good little Shabbos are so easily trained.

Dungroanin ,

BoD's??? Another random organisation!

Who are they? Who do they represent? How many people? Which people? How did they get elected? How can they be fired?

Richard Le Sarc ,

The next world war has already started, with the bio-warfare atttack on China aka Covid19.

lundiel ,

Why no comment on the government reshuffle? I don't agree with the Indian middle-class uplifting but totally agree with neutering the ultra-conservative treasury.

Maggie ,

I think it's a case of who gives a fck. We now know that our elections are rigged, and so there is no point in us being involved. My family and I all realised and voted for the last time.
They are all bloody crap actors reading their scripts and playing their parts, whilst the never changing suits in the background pull the strings.
I had to explain to my 10 year old Grandson how politics work, and he said "Why doesn't anyone know the names of, or see the suits?"
What I want to know is why no-one ever asks this question or demands an answer?

tonyopmoc ,

Completely Brilliant Article, but it is Valentines Day, so as I am 66 years old, and in love with my wife (nearly 40 years together = LOVE), I wrote this in response to Craig Murray, who has banned me again.

It may be off topic for him, but it ain't off topic for me. I am still in Love.

"Churchill's mental deterioration from syphilis – which the Eton and Oxford ."

Never had it, and she didn't either. We were young and in love, but we didn't know, if either of us had sex before, but I had a spotty dick, and went to the VD clinic. I had a blood test, and they gave me some zinc cream.

She also had the same thing, and showed her Mum.

We were both completely innocent, and had a sexually transmitted disease called Thrush. It is relatively harmless, but can also give you a sore throat.

We both laughed at each other, and nearly got married.

Natural Yoghurt, is completely brilliant at preventing it.

Far better than Canestan.

Happy Valentines Day, for Everyone still In Love.

Let us all look forwad to a Brighter Day for our Grandchildren.

Tony

Loverat ,

Hey Tony

Dont worry. Craig Murray might not like you but I do. Your stories, here and elsewhere have entertained me for many years.

Mind you, if I were your other half I would have chucked you years ago.

paul ,

Tell him how much you like haggis and tossing your caber.

Dungroanin ,

Without Stalins say so Poland would not have had its borders at the end of ww2.
Also,
On these maps just off the right hand edges is missing Afghanistan.. which the imperialists invaded in 2002 as the Taliban wiped out the opium crops. Back to full production immediately after invasion and 18 years later secret negotiations to hand over to Taliban while leaving 8,000 CUA troops delivering the huge cash crop.

binra ,

Seeking possession and control – in competition with those you see as seeking to dispossess and control or deny you – is the identity or belief in 'kill or be killed'.
This belief overrides and subordinates others – such as to subsume all else to such private agenda that will seek alliance against common threat but only as a shifting strategy of possession and control.

One of the things about this 'game' of power struggle, is that it loses any sense of WHY – and so it is a driven mind or dictate of power or possession for it own sake that cannot really ENJOY or HAVE and share what it Has. The image of the hungry ghost comes to mind here. It will never have enough until you are dead – and even then will offer you torment beyond the grave.

Until this mindset is recognised and released as an 'insanity' it operates as accepted currency of exchange, and maps our a world of its own conflicting and conflicted meanings.

The willingness to destroy or kill, deny or undermine and invalidate others in order to GET for a private agenda set over the whole instead of finding balance within the whole – is destructive to life, no matter how ingenious the thinking that frames it to seem to be progressive, protective, or in fact powerful.
But in our collective alignment and allegiance with such a way of thinking and identifying – we all give power to the destructive – as if to protect the life that it gives us.

The hungry ghost is also in the mass population when separated from their land and lives to seek connection or meaning in proffered 'products and services' instead of creating out of our own lives. Products and services that operate a hidden agenda of possession and control or market and mind capture under threat of fear of pain of loss in losing even the little that we have.

Having – on a spiritual level is our being – and not a matter of stuffing a hole.
Madness that can no longer mask as anything else is all about – and brings a choice to conscious awareness as to whether to persist in it or decide to find another way of seeing and being.

This is not to say there is no place to call upon or seek to limit people in positions of trust from serving an unjust outcome by calling for transparency and accountability – but not to wait on that or make that the be all and end all.

If there is another way and a better way than war masking in and misusing and thus corrupting anything and everything, then it has to be lived one to another.

Everyone seeks a better experience – but many seek it in a negative framing. Negative in the sense of self-lack seeking power in the terms of its current identity. Evils work their own destruction, but find sustainability in selling destructive agenda or toxic debt as ingeniously complex instruments of deceit – by which the targeted buyer believes they have or shall save their 'self' or add to their 'self' rather than growing hollow to a driven mindset of reactive fear-addiction.

I don't need to 'tell this to those who refuse to listen' – but I share it with any moment of a willingness to listen. In the final analysis, we are the ones who live the result of choices in our lives, whatever the times and conditions.

The 'repackaging' of reality to self-deceit, is not new but part of the human mind and experience throughout history. The evil changes forms – as if the good has and shall triumph. But truth undoes illusion by being accepted. It doesn't war on illusion and thus make it real – and remain truth.

Judgement divides to rule.
Discernment arises from the unwillingness to division.
One is set apart from and over life as the invocation of an alien will, dealing death, and the other as the will of true desire revealed.

The idea of independent autonomy is relative to a limited sphere of responsibilities in the world.
The idea of living our own life is an alignment within the same for others and the freedom to do so cannot take from others without becoming possessed by our denials, debts and transgressions – no less so in the driven mind of ingeniously repackaged and wilfully defended narrative identity.

In our own experience, this is not a matter of applied analysis, so much as awareness or space in which to seek and find truth in some willingness of recognition and acceptance or choice, while the triggering or baiting to madness is loud or compelling as the dictate of fear seeking protection and grievance seeking retribution – as if these give freedom and power rather than locking into a fear-framed limitation as substitution for life set in defiance and refusal to look on or share in truth – and so to such a one, war is truth, and love is weakness to exploit, use and weaponise for getting.

paul ,

If you look at the proposed new map of the Middle East, it mirrors Kushner's Deal Of The Century for Palestine – because it has the same Zionist authorship.
The same old dirty Zionist games of divide and rule – break up countries in the region into tiny defenceless little statelets setting different ethnic and religious groups at each others' throats, so that they can rule the roost and steal whatever they wish.
You see this in the past and the recent past. The way Lebanon was torn away from Syria. Or Kuwait from Iraq. Or the Ruritanian petty Gulf dictatorships like Bahrain, Qatar, Dubai.
Trump was being honest for the first time in his miserable life when he said none of these satellites and satraps would last a fortnight if they were not propped up by the US.

paul ,

George Galloway described the whole region as a flock of sheep surrounded by ravenous wolves.

At the same time, there is more than a grain of truth in the Zionists' contention that the people of the region are to some extent the authors of their own misfortune.

They always fall for the divide-and-rule games of outside powers, Britain, America, Israel, who invade, bomb, slaughter, humiliate and exploit them. If they had been united, Israel would not have been created. Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, would not have been destroyed and bombed back to the Stone Age. These countries would be genuinely independent and at peace.

When I speak to ordinary moslems, it is surprising and depressing to see how much visceral hatred they express for Shia moslems. They seem blind to the way they are being manipulated to serve outside interests.

So we see moslem Saudi Arabia trying to incite America and Israel to destroy Iran, and offering to pay for the whole cost of the war. Or S. Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, UAE et al, in bed with Israel, paying billions to bankroll the terrorist head choppers in Syria. Or Egypt, which does not even protest, let alone lift a finger, when Israeli aircraft use its air space to carpet bomb Gaza. Or going further back in history, when countries like Egypt and Syria sent troops to join the 1991 US invasion of Iraq. Even though Iraq had sent its forces to the Golan Heights in 1973 to fight and die to prevent Syria being overrun by Israel. How contemptible is all that? Yet those are just a few of many examples of all the backstabbing that has occurred over the years. If these people don't respect themselves, why should anybody else?

paul ,

And this has been going on for hundreds of years.
1096 marked the beginning of The Crusades, a disaster for the region on a par with the creation of Israel.
At that time, London was a little village of 25,000. Baghdad and Alexandria and Cordoba were sophisticated modern cities with populations of hundreds of thousands. They dismissed the Crusaders as mere bandits who would do some looting, steal some cattle, and go home. But 3 years later Jerusalem had been conquered and its inhabitants slaughtered, the start of a 200 year disaster for the region. How? Why?
Because the Arabs were so busy fighting a civil war at the time they barely noticed the foreign invaders. The old, old story. Civil war between Sunnis and Shias.

One day, they will wake up and realise that they have to hang together, or hang separately.
But I wouldn't hold your breath.
There seems to be an endless supply of quisling stooge dictators ready to do the bidding of hostile outside powers. The Mubaraks, the Sisis, the King Abdullahs, the Sinioras, the MBS's, to name but a few.
Conforming to all the worst stereotypes about Arabs and moslems.
You could argue that they deserve all they get, when they are ever ready to bend over and drop their trousers.
Is it really any surprise that they have been invaded, slaughtered, bombed back to the Stone Age, robbed, exploited and humiliated from time immemorial.
Maybe one day they will discover an ounce of dignity and self respect. Who knows?

Maggie ,

"1096 marked the beginning of The Crusades, a disaster for the region on a par with the creation of Israel.
At that time, London was a little village of 25,000. Baghdad and Alexandria and Cordoba were sophisticated modern cities with populations of hundreds of thousands. They dismissed the Crusaders as mere bandits who would do some looting, steal some cattle, and go home. But 3 years later Jerusalem had been conquered and its inhabitants slaughtered, the start of a 200 year disaster for the region. How? Why?"
Because despite the mendacious lies that are told about Muslims, they are tolerant and forgiving. They believe in one God, and live exemplary modest, generous lives in the belief that they will enter in to the kingdom of heaven.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/_2LEgowbzSc?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGz6nrWTsEI

And these are the people we are being encouraged to hate and fear? To enable the neo cons to invade and destroy everything in their path to get their oil.

Hundreds of millions of Muslims the world over 'live in democracies' of some shape or form, from Indonesia to Malaysia to Pakistan to Lebanon to Tunisia to Turkey. Tens of millions of Muslims' live in -- and participate in' -- Western democratic societies. The country that is on course to have the biggest Muslim population in the world in the next couple of decades is India, which also happens to be the world's biggest democracy. Yet a persistent pernicious narrative exists, particularly in the West, that Islam and democracy are incompatible. Islam is often associated with dictatorship, totalitarianism, and a lack of freedom, and many "well paid" analysts and pundits claim that Muslims are philosophically opposed to the idea of democracy .

Richard Le Sarc ,

'Democracy' as practised in the neo-liberal capitalist West, is a nullity, a fiction, a smoke-screen behind which the one and only power, that of the rich owners of the economy, acts alone.

Gall ,

I know. These Zionist morons droning on about how violent Islam is as religion yet ignoring the fact that the Bible is based on the God of Abraham granting them Canaan (like Trump giving the Israelis the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank) and urging them to commit complete and utter genocidal annihilation of the inhabitants by not leaving a single living thing breathing.

No violence there folks. Nope. The book of love my ass!

paul ,

Their God was a demented estate agent, rather like Trump or Kushner.

Gall ,

Personally I believe that the chapters of the bible were written after their genocidal blood lust simply to justify their despicable acts. Claiming that God made 'em do it.

Loverat ,

My experience of muslims in the UK is many express support for the Palestinians but don't identify or understand those states which still speak up for their rights, Syria, Iran and a few others.

Sadly like the general UK population they have been exposed to propaganda which excuses evil and mass murder carried out by Saudi Arabia and their lackeys and Israel. This is changing however. People are gradually waking up. Muslims and the general UK public if they really knew the extent of this would be out demonstrating on the streets.

The realisation these policies have exposed all of us to nuclear wipe out in seconds should be enough motivation for any normal person.
The wipe out or (preferably) demonstrations will happen. Just a question of when. You can see why the establishment and people like Higgins, Lucas and York are so active recently. These idiots, blinded by their pay checks can't see the harm they are causing through their irresponsible lies even to their own families. Perhaps they all have nuclear shelters in their back garden.

Richard Le Sarc ,

Saudi Arabia is NOT 'Moslem'. It is Wahhabist, a genocide cult created by doenmeh, ie crypto-Jewish followers of the failed 17th century Messiah, Sabbatai Zevi, which is homicidally opposed to all Moslems but fellow Wahhabists.

milosevic ,

I thought it was created by the British Empire, in order to provide reliable stooges and puppet regimes.

Richard Le Sarc ,

What people must realise is that,for the Zionassty secular and Talmudic religious leaderships, by far the dominant forces in Israel and among many of the Diaspora sayanim, the drive to create 'Eretz Yisrael', '..from the Nile to the Euphrates' (and some include the Arabian Peninsula as well), is a real, religious, ambition-indeed an obligation. With the alliance with the 'Christian Zionist' lunatics in the USA, the fate of humanity is in the hands of the Evil Brain Dead.

BigB ,

I despair. This is why there is 'No Deal For Nature' because the hegemonic cultural movement is to extend cultural hegemony over nature. We cannot seem to help it or stop ourselves. Do we suppose a glossy website will change that? Or empty sloganneering subvertisements? Or waiving placards outside banks? Or some other futile conscience salving symbolic gesture?

No, we have to subvert the cultural hegemony over nature at every point at every chance. Which is thankless because cultural normativity is ubiquitous. And it's killing us. And BRI is the very antithesis of alternative an eternal return into the cultural consumerism and commodification that is the global hegemony at least at an elite level. And we are among that elite – in terms of consumption and pollution. We are the problem. If we seek to extend or preserve our own Eurocentric priviliges and consumptions we can only do so by extracting evermore global resources and maldeveloping the Rest. Which is also what Samir Amin said: following Wallerstein's World Systems Theory.

The progressive packaging of all our sins and transferring them to something called 'American Imperialism' is nothing less than mass psychological transference to a Fetish. By which we maintain autonomy from any blame in the ecological disaster we are co-creating. Which is why it is a powerful cultural narrative constructivism. 'We' do not have to reform: the scapegoated Otherised 'they' do. Whilst we all sit smugly in our inauthentic imaginary autonomy: the ecological destruction caused entirely by our collectivist consumption carries on. 'They' have to clean up 'their' act – not us. 'We' align with the 'counter-hegemonic alliance': the alternative BRI. 'We' are so bourgeois and progressive in our invented independence and totally aligned with the destructive forces of capitalist endocolonised culture because of our own internalised screening discourse. Which is why there is #NoDealForNature. 'We' don't actually give a flying fuck not beyond some hollow totemic gestures in transference of our own responsibility.

'We' are pushing for the financialisation of nature: as the teleology of our particular complicit cultural narratives. It's not just 'them'. Supply and demand are dialectically exponential. Who is demanding less, more fairly distributed North to South? Exponential expansionism via BRI is no more alternative than colonising the Moon or Mars. For nature to have a deal: we have to stop demanding growth. And in doing that: become self-responsible right through to the narratives we produce. For which every person in the global consumer bourgeoisie – that's us – will have to change their imperatives from culture to nature. Which means a new naturalised culture: not just complicitly advocating the 'same old, same old' exponential expansionism of the extractivist commodification of every last standing resource. Under the guise of new narrative constructions like this. That's not progress: it's capitalist propaganda and personal self-propaganda. We are among the consumer elite. Which is driving the financialisation and commodification of everything. For us.

#NoDealForNature until we take full and honest self-responsibility to create one with our every enaction including speech-enactivism.

Gall ,

I'm sure Thomas Robert Malthus and Charles Darwin are smiling upon you my child from their very special place in hell.

Richard Le Sarc ,

Charles Darwin? What on Earth are you on about?

Gall ,

Ever heard of social Darwinism? This is how the elite justify genocide and theft of resources. It is one of the basics of Neoliberalism.

Richard Le Sarc ,

Darwin had NOTHING to do with 'social Darwinism'. It's like blaming Jesus for the KKK.

Gall ,

Uh huh:

"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage."
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

BigB ,

Every appraisal from a cultural POV extends the cultural hegemony over nature – with no exceptions. If we do not address the false dichotomy of culture and nature – and invert the privileged status of cultural domination over nature – this never changes. If nothing changes its going to be a very short century the last in the history of culture.

I'm expressing my own private POV with the intention of at least highlighting the issue of only ever expressing the distorted cultural-centric POV. It would be nice if we could all agree to do something other than waste our privileged status and access to resources for other than meaningless sarcasm. It's not like we'd all benefit from a change in POV and the entailed potential in a change of course that can only happen if we think of nature first, is it? 😉

Gall ,

The only thing I don't like about the environmentally "woke" is that many are easily manipulated by the neoliberal elite. Greta is a perfect example.

That is they go after the little guy while the Military and big industry continue to pollute unhampered.

George Mc ,

I despair.

Well that's what you do.

Dungroanin ,

The M5 highway is secured. Allepo access points too and Idlib is surrounded- where are the US backed /Saudi paid / Tukish passport holding Uighars and various Turkmen proxy jihadist anti Chinese / anti Russian, Central asian caliphate establishing mercenaries supposed to go now??

Pompeo is buzzing around Africa now like a blue bottomed cadaverous fly, non-stop buzzing from piles of shot, trying to find them homes – no Libya doesn't want anymore of them, nor the UAE and Saudis, or Turks maybe dump them in Canada with all these ex Ukrainian still nazis? Its a big country nobody will know!
Or bring them to the US and give them a ticker tape parade?

Or let them surrender and have them testify as to how the fuck they let themselves be bought for $$$$ maybe just fry them with the low yield nuke and blame Assad for it!

Dumbass yanks, fukus, 5+1 eyed gollum and Nutty- 'it's the Belgian airforce bombing Russian weapons in Syria' -yahoo!

Up-Pompeos farce and buzzing is about to sizzle in the blue light of death for dumbfuck poison spreading flies.

normal wisdom ,

so much disrespect here hare here.

these takfiri these giants these beards are hero

of the oded yinon plan

they raped murdered and stole
dustified atomised the syriana so
is rael can become real

the red heffers have been cloned the temple will grow

the semites must leave for norway,sweden wales scotland and detroit
already

the khazar ashkanazim need the land returned to it's true owners from the turkic russio steppe

tonight back to back i watch reality
fiddler on the roof and exodus and schindlers lists.
i watch bbc simon scharmas new rabbi revised history of mighty israel.
every day it grows massive every day hezbollah become weak husk

shirley you can sea more that

my life already

Francis Lee ,

Very interesting and informative article. Lenin's 5 conditions of the imperialism of his time have been matched by similar conditions in our own time, as listed by the Egyptian Marxist, Samir Amin. These conditions being as follows.

1. Control of technology.

2. Access to natural resources.

3. Finance.

4. Global media.

5. The means of mass destruction.

Only by overturning these monopolies can real progress be made. Easily said. But a life and death struggle for humanity.

The collapse of the Soviet Union opened up the space for increased penetration of Europe to the East by the US and its West European allies in NATO. At that time the subaltern US powers in Europe were the UK and West Germany, as it then was. There was a semblance of sovereignty in France under De Gaulle, but this has since disappeared. Europe as a whole is now occupied and controlled by the US which has used EU/NATO bloc to push right up to the Russian border. Most, if not all, the non-sovereign quasi states, in Europe, particularly Eastern Europe, are Quisling-Petainist puppet regimes regardless of whether they are inside our outside of the EU. (I say 'states' but of course if a country is not sovereign it cannot be a 'state' in the full meaning of the word).

A political, social and economic crisis in Europe seems to be taking taking shape. Perhaps the key problem, particularly Eastern Europe, has been depopulation. There is not one European state in which fertility (replacement) rates has reached 2.1 children. Western European imperial states have to large degree been able to counter-act this tendency by immigration from their former colonies, particularly the UK and France. But this has not been possible in states such as Sweden and Germany where the migration of non-christian guest workers from Turkey to Germany and Islamic refugees
from the middle-east hot-spots have had a free passage to Sweden. This has become a serious social and economic problem; a problem resulting from a neoliberal open borders policy. The fact of the matter is that radically different cultures will tend to clash. Thank you Mr Soros.

British immigration policy was successful in so far as immigrants from the Caribbean were English speakers, they were also protestant Christians, and the culture was not very different from the UK. Later immigration from the Indian sub-continent and Indian settled East Africa were generally professional and middle-class business people. Again English speakers. Assimilation of these newcomers was not unduly difficult.

However it wouldn't be exaggerating to say that Eastern Europe is facing a demographic disaster. This particular zone is literally bleeding people. Ukraine for example has lost 10 million people since 1990. Every month it is estimated that 100,000 Ukrainians leave the country, usually for good. In terms of migration – no-one wants to go to Eastern Europe, but everyone wants to leave, asap. This process is complemented by low birth rates, and high death rates. These are un-developing states in an un-developing world. But now we have new kids on the bloc. A counter-hegemonic alliance. No guesses who.

BigB ,

Rubbish. There is no 'counter-hegemonic alliance' to humanities rapacious demand for fossil fuels and ecological resources. Where are the material consumption resources for BRI coming from – the Moon, Mars? Passing asteroids? Or from the Earth?

When its gone: its gone. Russia and China provide absolutely no alternative to this. China's consumption alone is driving us over the brink. To which the real alternative is a complicit silence. As we all align with culture-centric capitalist views: there is no naturalistic 'counter-hegemonic alliance'. Just some hunters in the Amazon we are having shot right now so we can have the privilige of extending cultural hegemony over nature.

When it's gone: it's gone. And so will we be too. Probably as we are still praising the wonders of the 'counter-hegemonic alliance' that killed us.

Gall ,

Actually there is a naturalistic alliance forming but it seems you haven't been paying attention because you seem stuck in some Malthusian mind set. In order to defeat capitalism you have to defeat Globalism so you first have to eliminate the Anglo-American Hegemony and get back to a multipolar world.

Ranting on about like Gretchen doesn't do any good.

BigB ,

Resources are finite and thermodynamics exist. These are the ineliminable, indisputable, and rock solid epistemology of the Earth System. Everything else is metaphysics – literally 'beyond nature; beyond physics'. Or, as it is more commonly known – economics. The imaginary epistemology of political economics and political theory. 'Theory' is the non-scientific sense of unfounded opinion and non-sense. A philosophical truth-theory that is not and cannot ever be true. Hypothetical non-sense.

I get my information from a wide range of sources that realise these foundational predicates. That is: a foundational set of beliefs that require no underpinning. I can only paraphrase Eddington on thermodynamics: "if your theory is found to be against the second law I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."

Which is to say all modern political theory and economics – and by extension all opinions based on its internalisation – is the product of vivid and unfounded imagination. To which a naturalised epistemology is the only remedy.

There are lots of people working on the problem: but not in the political sphere. Which is why we are stuck in a hallucinated metaphysical political-economic theatre of the absurd and absolutised cultural non-sense. Which is not beyond anyone to rectify: if and when we accept the limitations of the physical-material Earth System. And apply them to our thinking.

#NoDealForNature until we accept that the thermodynamics of depletion naturally limit growth. Anything anyone says to the contrary should be treated with scepticism and cause a collapse into deepest humiliation of any rational thinker.

Richard Le Sarc ,

'Depopulation' is only a problem if you believe in the capitalist cancer cult of infinite growth on a finite planet, ie black magic. If you value Life on Earth, and its continuance, human depopulation is necessary. Best done slowly and humanely, by redistributing the wealth stolen by the capitalist parasites. The process seen in the Baltics and Ukraine is the capitalist way, cruel and inhumane. Even worse is planned for the Africans, south Asians and Chinese etc.

Gall ,

They don't for a minute believe in "infinite growth". They believe in the "bottom line","instant gratification" and "primitive accumulation". "Infinite growth" is a sales pitch that they use to sell the unwary on their rapaciousness. That is all. If they actually believed in "infinite growth" they've be investing in renewable resources not fracking, strip mining and other environmentally unfriendly practices.

Gall ,

The problem for Imperialists is that they only know how to plunder, rape and destroy thus all their weaponry and tactics is used for aggression they know nothing about actual defense which is their weak point. General George C Custer found this out some time back and so did Trump just recently when the American were assaulted by a barrage of missiles they couldn't stop.

Iran, Russia and China have one of the most advanced arsenal of defensive weapons ever developed such as the S- series of air defense system that can turn a Tomahawk attack into a turkey shoot. What was it? I think it was 100 Tomahawks fired on Syria after that false flag chemical attack and only 15 or so got through and this was the earlier version of the S missile defense S-300. They've already developed 500 which practically makes them impervious and is a true iron dome compared the iron sieve that the Israelis got for free during GW1 and then repackaged and sold back to the US Military for 15B with very few improvements except maybe for a pretty blue bow.

Not only that but they can return fire with hypersonic weapons that are unstoppable and can turn a base or Aircraft Carrier into a floating pinnate.

lundiel ,

Very well presented. Excellent article.

Gall ,

Actually the US proudly waving the banner of the East India Company is following in the footsteps of the deceased British Empire into the boneyard of empires which is Afghanistan. Iraq, Syria and Ukraine are just side shows. America can not escape history no matter what it does now since its days of empire are now numbered. Just as they were for the late unlamented Soviet Union.

The "New American Century" is ending preemptively early like Hitler's "Thousand Year Reich" and we can all breath a sigh of relief when it does.

Frank ,

The only thing that will get the bastard yanks out of the middle east is dead Americans.

Lots and lots of dead Americans.

Enough dead Americans to make the braindead jingoistic American masses notice.

Enough dead Americans to touch every family that produces grunts that serve their criminal state by raping and pillaging foreign countries.

Enough dead Americans to make dumbfuck Americans who say, 'Thank you for your service" squirm in literal pain at the words.

Dungroanin ,

They got brain damage in their bunkers in the best US base in the ME from just a handful of Kinetic energy missiles.

Their low yield nuke is their response.

The Israelis keep prodding the Bear – they even targeted a Russian Pantir system in Syria!

I suppose only a downing or infact destroying on the ground of a squadron of useless F35's with a threat to escalate into a full blown mobilisation is ever going to stop these imperialist chancers. Or a fully coordinated assassination campaign of the leads and their heirs as they frolic on their superyachts and space stations and secret Tracey islands.

And they can pay their taxes in full.

The Third world war is already fought – this really is a world war rather than some Anglo Imperialist bankers playing king of the castle – and they have LOST – the Empire is dead.

Long live the new Empire – the first not beholden to the bankers.

wardropper ,

Even with a new empire, our godless world would soon enough breed another generation of bankers to which we would be beholden.
That's what the fundamentally dishonest people in any society do.
Something wrong? Oh, well, we'll form a committee to discuss it, and in future we will look into creating a banking system which will enable us pay ourselves high wages for our invaluable contribution to human evolution.
It's MORALITY which is lacking today, not more legislation or a new constitution.

Gall ,

All one has to do is move off the centralized banking system developed and controlled by the Rothschilds that is totally based on creating finance out of thin air and return to a commodity based currency (not gold!!) that represents actual value like scrip or wampum or barter and the bankers will eventually starve.

Actually this system is starting to take hold in the US to a small extend to avoid the depredations of the IRS since Tax is based mostly on currency.

Stop using fiat currency and the problem's solved.

After WW II the French didn't have a press to press Francs so their standard of exchange became cigarettes and chocolate. It worked quite well until the presses started churning out paper again.

wardropper ,

My fear is that without the Rothschilds, some other over-ambitious family would simply step in and fill their shoes. It's the motivation to be greedy and wicked which needs addressing. How that would be done, of course, I have no idea.

Gall ,

This is only if you embrace the concept of centralized banking and the "magic" of compound interest. Current "banking" is all smoke and mirrors that favors the parasite who lives on the production of others through what is called "unearned income".

wardropper ,

I agree. But how to stop it?

Gall ,

Ignore the bastards instead. Just go off the grid.

wardropper ,

I can't deny the wisdom in that.

Dungroanin ,

The Red Shield ancient silk road trader and slaving company employees are only a family as say the Vatican is a family

wardropper ,

I know, but "only a family" with the wealth to buy whole nations
I find that very unsettling, to say the least.

Dungroanin ,

Indeed but there is always hope as the poet saw – THEY are the few, we are many.

Gall ,

Actually the Israelis are going a little slower now that isolated reports indicate that those flying turkeys AKA F-35s are getting popped out of the skies of Syria by antiquated Soviet SAMs. Of course there is no mention of this in the Mainstream Press. Just like there wasn't a word of a IDF General and his staff taken out by a shoulder launched RPG fired by Hezbollah in retaliation for attacking their media center in Beirut.

Antonym ,

Anybody who believes that the Israeli tail wags the US mil-ind. complex dog is contributing to the Jewish superiority myth.

Ken ,

They're not superior, but they do wag the US MIC dog in and ebb-and-flow kind of way. That 9/11 thing was quite the wag. Read Christopher Bollyn and study other aspects of the event if you're not sure of this.

Antonym ,

Langley and Riyadh love you; you fell for their ploy. See: Tel Aviv is much worse them.
The CIA/FBI failure explained.

The Mossad loves you too: for keeping mum on this Entebbe Mach 2.0 on their familiar New York crap they got huge US support in the ME.
Makes them look invincible too as a bonus .

5 dancing guys was all the proof needed – cheapest op in history.

Ken ,

"5 dancing guys was all the proof needed – cheapest op in history"

Oh please, that was such a minor bit of evidence of any Zionist/Israeli involvement, which spanned nearly every facet of the event and its aftermath.

The list of false flagging Zionist Jews in love with you is too long to list.

Gall ,

Oh please. What about the close to 200 Israelis who were arrested that day? Not to mention the helpful warning by Odigo which was only given to citizens of Israel?

Also one has to act who benefitted? Definitely not the Saudis or the Americans leaving Sharon who was trying to suppress a Palestinian uprising that he arrogantly started.

Speaking of your friendly five doing a fiddler on the roof on top of an Urban Moving Van that just happened to owned by another Israeli who fled the country. Didn't they say something stupid when arrested like "we are not your problem. It's the Palestinians who are your problem!"?

A pathetic frame up attempt but a frame none the less. Speaking of frame ups wasn't Fat Katz at SiteIntel (propaganda) who posted some stock footage of Palestinians celebrating which has been proven to be false since the only people who seem to celebrating that day was your friends the Dancing Israelis which doesn't prove their mental superiority at all but their arrogant stupidity,

Richard Le Sarc ,

The three, the USA, Saudi Arabia and the USA, are allies in destruction-the Real Axis of Evil. The dominant force, these days, given the control of the USA by Israel First Fifth Columnists, in the MSM, political 'contributions', the financial Moloch etc, is most certainly the Zionassties. Why don't you, like so many other Zionassties, glory in your power, Antsie. Nobody believes your ritual denials.

Gall ,

They don't really wag the dog by themselves. They have a lot of help from the Stand with Israel brain dead Christian Zionists who like Israelis consider themselves the chosen ones as well.

Ken ,

@Gall Yep! I had a long time friend who went Pentecostal and we drifted apart but still kept in touch. I lost him completely just after telling him that Israelis played a big part in 9/11.

Gall ,

Chuck Baldwin and a few other it seems have seen the light and are now questioning their colleagues undying support of Israel. Maybe you could show this article to your friend who seems enthralled by the terrorist snake er I mean state:
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2020/02/13/emperor-trump/

Ken ,

Thanks for that article. Were I ever able to get it in front of my estranged friend, it would make his head explode and kill him. Baldwin does seem to nail it. Chuck for president! I came across this rather intersting piece on 9/11 while at VT for your article.
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2020/02/10/9-11-the-bottom-line-an-open-letter-to-all-researchers/

Gall ,

Yes that pretty much sums up how 9/11 was carried on. Both Heinz Pommer and VT have done some excellent research based on facts not fantasy.

As far as your friend and many Christian Zionists in general. They seem to live in some alternative universe and dislike being confused by such irrelevant things as facts.

binra ,

It is a story that can be told in some detail – but when you say myth do you actually mean fallacy – ie – are you saying that Jewish power doesn't exercise considerable influence – if not control over US social and political and corporate development across of broad spectrum of leverages?

Richard Le Sarc ,

Yes-all those addresses of Congress, by Bibi, where the Congress critters compete to display the most extreme groveling and adulation, are just the natural expression of reverence and awe at his semi-Divine moral excellence. Denying the undeniable is SOP for Zionassties.

normal wisdom ,

what jews?
i do not see any jews
just a sea of khazar ashkanazim pirates
a kaballa talmudick race trick
a crime syndicate pretending to be semite
jew is just the cover
init

[Feb 15, 2020] Shifting narrative: Trump administration now Justifies Killing Soleimani for Past Actions, not Imminent Threat by Dave DeCamp

Notable quotes:
"... Although the memo says one purpose of the action was to "deter Iran from conducting or supporting further attacks against United States forces," it does not cite any specific threats. Both President Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the killing was done to prevent imminent attacks and led on like they had the intelligence to prove it. ..."
"... The New York Times recently reported that Iraqi military and intelligence officials believe the December 27 th rocket attack that killed a US contractor was likely carried out by ISIS, not the Shi'ite militia the US blamed and retaliated against. This attack led to a series of provocations that resulted in the assassination of Soleimani. Iraqi officials do not have proof that ISIS carried out the attack, but this possibility makes the US justification for killing Soleimani even more flimsy. ..."
"... Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) responded to the White House's memo in a statement on Friday, "The administration's explanation in this report makes no mention of any imminent threat and shows that the justification the president offered to the American people was false, plain and simple." ..."
Feb 14, 2020 | news.antiwar.com

The White House released a memo on Friday to Congress justifying the assassination of top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani. Despite earlier claims from the administration of Soleimani and his Quds Force planning imminent attacks on US personnel in the region, the memo uses past actions as the justification for the killing.

The memo says President Trump ordered the assassination on January 2nd "in response to an escalating series of attacks in preceding months by Iran and Iran-backed militias on United States forces and interests in the Middle East region."

Although the memo says one purpose of the action was to "deter Iran from conducting or supporting further attacks against United States forces," it does not cite any specific threats. Both President Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the killing was done to prevent imminent attacks and led on like they had the intelligence to prove it.

The New York Times recently reported that Iraqi military and intelligence officials believe the December 27 th rocket attack that killed a US contractor was likely carried out by ISIS, not the Shi'ite militia the US blamed and retaliated against. This attack led to a series of provocations that resulted in the assassination of Soleimani. Iraqi officials do not have proof that ISIS carried out the attack, but this possibility makes the US justification for killing Soleimani even more flimsy.

Lawmakers from both parties criticized Trump for killing Iran's top general without congressional approval. The memo argues that Trump had authority to order the attack under Article II of the US Constitution, and under the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq (2002 AUMF).

Congress is taking measures to limit Trump's ability to wage war with Iran. The Senate passed the Iran War Powers Resolution on Thursday, and the House voted to repeal the 2002 AUMF in January.

Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) responded to the White House's memo in a statement on Friday, "The administration's explanation in this report makes no mention of any imminent threat and shows that the justification the president offered to the American people was false, plain and simple."

[Feb 15, 2020] US assassinated Suleimani to quash Iran s talks with Gulf monarchies by Bill Van Auken

Feb 15, 2020 | www.wsws.org

The Trump administration ordered the January 3 assassination of Major General Qassem Suleimani, one of Iran's most senior officials, not because he posed some "imminent threat," but rather in a calculated bid to disrupt Tehran's attempts to reach an accommodation with Washington's allies in the region.

This is the inescapable conclusion flowing from a report published Thursday in the New York Times , citing unnamed senior officials from the US, Iran and other countries in the Middle East.

It recounts the arrival last September in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates, of a plane carrying senior Iranian officials for talks aimed at achieving a bilateral peace agreement between the two countries.

The trip came in the context of a steady sharpening of US-Iranian tensions as a result of Trump's abrogation of the Iranian nuclear agreement in 2018 along with the imposition of a punishing sanctions regime tantamount to a state of war. This was followed by a major escalation of the US military presence in the region a year later.

While the US dispatched an aircraft carrier strike group and a B-52-led bomber task force to the region in May of last year, the same month saw the use of limpet mines to damage four oil tankers near the Strait of Hormuz, the strategic "chokepoint" through which 20 percent of the world's oil is shipped.

In June of last year, the Iranians downed a US Navy spy drone over the same area, with the Trump White House first ordering and then calling off retaliatory air strikes against Iran. And in September, Saudi oil installations came under a devastating attack from drones and cruise missiles.

Washington blamed both the attacks on the oil tankers and the strike against the Saudi oil installations -- for which the Houthi rebels in Yemen claimed responsibility -- on Iran, charges that Tehran denied.

As early as last August, there were reports indicating concerns within Washington that the UAE was veering away from the anti-Iran front that the US has attempted to cobble together, based upon Israel and the Gulf oil sheikdoms. The Emirates' coast guard had signed a maritime security agreement with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and the UAE had clashed openly with Saudi Arabia over the control of southern Yemen's port city of Aden. At the time, the Washington Post warned that the UAE "is breaking ranks with Washington, calling into question how reliable an ally it would be in the event of a war between the United States and Iran."

According to the Times report, the meeting with the Iranian delegation in Abu Dhabi, which had been kept secret from Washington, "set off alarms inside the White House ... A united front against Iran -- carefully built by the Trump administration over more than two years -- seemed to be crumbling."

Both the Emirati monarchy and its counterpart in Saudi Arabia had become increasingly distrustful of Washington's Iran policy and concerned that they would find themselves on the frontline of any confrontation without any guarantee of the US defending them.

Saudi Arabia also began a secret diplomatic approach to Tehran, using the Iraqi and Pakistani governments as intermediaries. Suleimani played the central role in organizing the talks with both Gulf kingdoms, the Times reports.

In October, according to the report, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo flew to Tel Aviv for a meeting with Yossi Cohen, the chief of Mossad, who warned him that "Iran was achieving its primary goal: to break up the anti-Iran alliance."

Last month's assassination of General Suleimani was initially defended by Trump and administration officials as a preemptive strike aimed at foiling supposedly "imminent" attacks on US personnel or interests in the Middle East. This pretext soon fell apart, however, and the US president and his aides fell back to justifying the extra-judicial murder of a senior state official as revenge for his support for Shia militias that resisted the US occupation of Iraq 15 years earlier and retaliation for a missile strike that killed an American military contractor last December.

That strike was launched against a military base housing American troops in the northern Iraqi province of Kirkuk. Iraqi security officials have since contradicted the US claim that an Iranian-backed Shia militia was responsible for the attack. They have pointed out that the missiles were launched from a predominantly Sunni area where the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is active, and that Iraqi intelligence had warned US forces in November and December that ISIS was preparing to target the base.

The US responded to the missile strike on the base in Iraq by targeting Iraqi Shia militia positions on the Syria-Iraq border, killing 25 members of the Kataib Hezbollah militia. The attack provoked an angry demonstration that laid siege to the US embassy in Baghdad on December 31.

Two days later, a US Reaper drone fired missiles into a convoy at Baghdad International Airport, killing Suleimani along with Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, a central leader of Iraq's Popular Mobilization Forces, the coalition of militias that constitutes an arm of Iraq's security forces, as well as eight others.

In the wake of the drone assassinations, US Secretary of State Pompeo sarcastically told the media: "Is there any history that would indicate that it was remotely possible that this kind gentleman, this diplomat of great order -- Qassem Suleimani -- had traveled to Baghdad for the idea of conducting a peace mission? We know that wasn't true."

As the Times report indicates, that was precisely what Suleimani was doing in Baghdad, the US knew it and that is why it assassinated him. Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi said at the time that General Suleimani had flown into the country, on a commercial flight and using his diplomatic passport, for the express purpose of delivering an Iranian response to a message from Saudi Arabia as part of talks aimed at de-escalating tensions.

The more that emerges about the assassination of Suleimani, the more the abject criminality of his murder becomes clear. It was carried out neither as a reckless act of revenge nor to ward off unspecified attacks. Rather, it was a calculated act of imperialist terror designed to disrupt talks aimed at defusing tensions in the Persian Gulf and to convince the wavering Gulf monarchies that Washington is prepared to go to war against Iran.

This is the policy not merely of the Trump administration. Among the most significant moments in Trump's State of the Union address earlier this month was the standing ovation by Democratic lawmakers as he gloated over the murder of Suleimani, a war crime.

The resort to such criminal actions is a measure of the extreme crisis of a capitalist system that threatens to drag humanity into a new world war.

[Feb 14, 2020] More Lies on Iran The White House Just Can t Help Itself as New Facts Emerge by Philip Giraldi

Notable quotes:
"... It soon emerged that the Iranian was in fact in Baghdad to discuss with the Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi a plan that might lead to the de-escalation of the ongoing conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran, a meeting that the White House apparently knew about may even have approved. If that is so, events as they unfolded suggest that the US government might have encouraged Soleimani to make his trip so he could be set up and killed. Donald Trump later dismissed the lack of any corroboration of the tale of "imminent threat" being peddled by Pompeo, stating that it didn't really matter as Soleimani was a terrorist who deserved to die. ..."
"... It now appears that the original death of the American contractor that sparked the tit-for-tat conflict was not carried out by Kata'ib Hezbollah at all. An Iraqi Army investigative team has gathered convincing evidence that it was an attack staged by Islamic State. In fact, the Iraqi government has demonstrated that Kata'ib Hezbollah has had no presence in Kirkuk province, where the attack took place, since 2014. It is a heavily Sunni area where Shi'a are not welcome and is instead relatively hospitable to all-Sunni IS. It was, in fact, one of the original breeding grounds for what was to become ISIS. ..."
Feb 14, 2020 | www.unz.com

Admittedly the news cycle in the United States seldom runs longer than twenty-four hours, but that should not serve as an excuse when a major story that contradicts what the Trump Administration has been claiming appears and suddenly dies. The public that actually follows the news might recall a little more than one month ago the United States assassinated a senior Iranian official named Qassem Soleimani. Openly killing someone in the government of a country with which one is not at war is, to say the least, unusual, particularly when the crime is carried out in yet another country with which both the perpetrator and the victim have friendly relations. The justification provided by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, speaking for the administration, was that Soleimani was in Iraq planning an "imminent" mass killing of Americans, for which no additional evidence was provided at that time or since.

It soon emerged that the Iranian was in fact in Baghdad to discuss with the Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi a plan that might lead to the de-escalation of the ongoing conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran, a meeting that the White House apparently knew about may even have approved. If that is so, events as they unfolded suggest that the US government might have encouraged Soleimani to make his trip so he could be set up and killed. Donald Trump later dismissed the lack of any corroboration of the tale of "imminent threat" being peddled by Pompeo, stating that it didn't really matter as Soleimani was a terrorist who deserved to die.

The incident that started the killing cycle that eventually included Soleimani consisted of a December 27th attack on a US base in Iraq in which four American soldiers and two Iraqis were wounded while one US contractor, an Iraqi-born translator, was killed. The United States immediately blamed Iran, claiming that it had been carried out by an Iranian supported Shi'ite militia called Kata'ib Hezbollah. It provided no evidence for that claim and retaliated by striking a Kata'ib base, killing 25 Iraqis who were in the field fighting the remnants of Islamic State (IS). The militiamen had been incorporated into the Iraqi Army and this disproportionate response led to riots outside the US Embassy in Baghdad, which were also blamed on Iran by the US There then followed the assassinations of Soleimani and nine senior Iraqi militia officers. Iran retaliated when it fired missiles at American forces , injuring more than one hundred soldiers, and then mistakenly shot down a passenger jet , killing an additional 176 people. As a consequence due to the killing by the US of 34 Iraqis in the two incidents, the Iraqi Parliament also voted to expel all American troops.

It now appears that the original death of the American contractor that sparked the tit-for-tat conflict was not carried out by Kata'ib Hezbollah at all. An Iraqi Army investigative team has gathered convincing evidence that it was an attack staged by Islamic State. In fact, the Iraqi government has demonstrated that Kata'ib Hezbollah has had no presence in Kirkuk province, where the attack took place, since 2014. It is a heavily Sunni area where Shi'a are not welcome and is instead relatively hospitable to all-Sunni IS. It was, in fact, one of the original breeding grounds for what was to become ISIS.

This new development was reported in the New York Times in an article that was headlined "Was US Wrong About Attack That Nearly Started a War With Iran? Iraqi military and intelligence officials have raised doubts about who fired the rockets that started a dangerous spiral of events." In spite of the sensational nature of the report it generally was ignored in television news and in other mainstream media outlets, letting the Trump administration get away with yet another big lie, one that could easily have led to a war with Iran.

Iraqi investigators found and identified the abandoned white Kia pickup with an improvised Katyusha rocket launcher in the vehicle's bed that was used to stage the attack. It was discovered down a desert road within range of the K-1 joint Iraqi-American base that was hit by at least ten missiles in December, most of which struck the American area.

There is no direct evidence tying the attack to any particular party and the improvised KIA truck is used by all sides in the regional fighting, but the Iraqi officials point to the undisputed fact that it was the Islamic State that had carried out three separate attacks near the base over the 10 days preceding December 27th. And there are reports that IS has been increasingly active in Kirkuk Province during the past year, carrying out near daily attacks with improvised roadside bombs and ambushes using small arms. There had, in fact, been reports from Iraqi intelligence that were shared with the American command warning that there might be an IS attack on K-1 itself, which is an Iraqi air base in that is shared with US forces.

The intelligence on the attack has been shared with American investigators, who have also examined the pick-up truck. The Times reports that the US command in Iraq continue to insist that the attack was carried out by Kata'ib based on information, including claimed communications intercepts, that it refuses to make public. The US forces may not have shared the intelligence they have with the Iraqis due to concerns that it would be leaked to Iran, but senior Iraqi military officers are nevertheless perplexed by the reticence to confide in an ally.

If the Iraqi investigation of the facts around the December attack on K-1 is reliable, the Donald Trump administration's reckless actions in Iraq in late December and early January cannot be justified. Worse still, it would appear that the White House was looking for an excuse to attack and kill a senior Iranian official to send some kind of message, a provocation that could easily have resulted in a war that would benefit no one. To be sure, the Trump administration has lied about developments in the Middle East so many times that it can no longer be trusted. Unfortunately, demanding any accountability from the Trump team would require a Congress that is willing to shoulder its responsibility for truth in government backed up by a media that is willing to take on an administration that regularly punishes anyone or any entity that dares to challenge it

That is the unfortunate reality in America today.


AnonStarter , says: Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 12:25 am GMT

Well, the 9/11 Commission lied about Israeli involvement, Israeli neocons lied America into Iraq, and Netanyahu lied about Iranian nukes, so this latest news is just par for the course.
KA , says: Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 12:59 am GMT
@04398436986 lets stay focused.

Pompeo had evidence of immediate catastrophic attack. That turned out to be a lie and plain BS.
Why should we believe Pompeo or White House or intelligence about the situation developing around 27-29 Dec ? Is it because it's USA who is saying so?

anonymous [307] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 1:12 am GMT
[it would appear that the White House was looking for an excuse to attack and kill a senior Iranian official to send some kind of message, a provocation that could easily have resulted in a war that would benefit no one.]

The Jewish mafia stooge and fifth column, Trump, is a war criminal and an ASSASSIN.

... ... ...

melpol , says: Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 1:13 am GMT
War with Iran is off the table. Carpet bombing Iran would lead to the destruction of Israel and its nuclear facility...
Sean , says: Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 2:23 am GMT

Worse still, it would appear that the White House was looking for an excuse to attack and kill a senior Iranian official to send some kind of message, a provocation that could easily have resulted in a war that would benefit no one.

Soleimani was a soldier involved in covert operations, Iran's most celebrated hero, and had been featured in the Iraq media as the target of multiple Western assassination attempts. He did not have diplomatic status.

As it happens Iran did not declare war on America and America did not declare war on Iran. If Americans soldiers killed in Iraq should not have been there in the first place, then the same goes for an Iranian soldier killed there too.

KA , says: Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 2:30 am GMT
@04398436986 There is western assertion and western assertion only that Iran influences Iraqi administration and intelligence . It can be a projection from a failing America . It can be also a valid possibility .

But lying is America's alter ego . It comes easily and as default explanation even when admitting truth would do a better job .

Now let's focus on ISIS 's claims . Why is Ametica not taking it ( claim of ISIS) as truth and fact when USA has for last 19 years has jailed , bombed, attacked mentally retarded , caves and countries because somebody has pledged allegiance to Al Quida or to ISIS!!!

It seems neither truth nor lies , but what suits a particular psychopath at a particular time – that becomes USA's report ( kind of unassigned sex – neither truth nor lies – take your pick and find the toilet to flush it down memory hole) – so Pompeo lies to nation hoping no one in administration will ask . When administrative staff gets interested to know the truth , Pompeo tells them to suck it up , move on and get ready to explain the next batch of reality manufactured by a regime and well trained by philosopher Karl Rove

AnonStarter , says: Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 4:06 am GMT
@04398436986 conspiracy mongers

To what "conspiracy" are you referring? It's a well established fact that your ilk was, at the very least, aware that the 9/11 attacks would occur and celebrated them in broad daylight. No conspiracy theory needed. Mossad ordnance experts were living practically next door to the hijackers. Well established fact.

It's also undeniable that the 9/11 Commission airbrushed Israeli involvement from their report. No conspiracy theory there, either.

Same goes for Israeli neocons and their media mandarins using "faulty intel" to get their war in Iraq. "Clean Break"? "Rebuilding America's Defenses"? Openly written and published. Judith Miller's lies? Also no conspiracy.

And Israel's own intelligence directors were undermining Netanyahu's lies on Iran. Not a conspiracy in sight.

contemplating the outcome of normal everyday competition, influenced by good & bad luck, is just too much truth for some psychological makeups

That's one of the lamest attempts at deflection I've seen thus far, and I've seen quite a few here.

Those who deny the official version of 9/11 are in the majority now:

https://www.livescience.com/56479-americans-believe-conspiracy-theories.html

We've reached critical mass. Clearly, that's just too much truth for your psychological makeup. Were we really that worthy of ignoring, your people wouldn't be working 24/7/365 to peddle your malarkey in fora of this variety.

JUSA , says: Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 5:23 am GMT
I have thought that Trump's true impeachable crime was the illegal assassination of a foreign general who was not in combat. Pence should also be impeached for the botched coup in Venezuela. That was true embarrassment bringing that "El Presidente" that no one recognizes to the SOTU.

USA is basically JU-S-A now, Jews own and run this country from top to bottom, side to side, and because of it, pretty much run the world. China-Russia-Iran form their new "Axis of Evil" to be brought in line. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the Covid-19 is a bioweapon, except not one created by China. Israel has been working on an ethnic based bioweapon for years. US sent 172 military "athletes" to the Military World Games in Wuhan in October, 2019, two weeks before the first case of coronavirus appeared. Almost too coincidental.

animalogic , says: Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 6:20 am GMT
@Sean He wasn't there as a soldier -- he was there in a diplomatic role. (regardless of his official "status"). It also appears he was lured there with intent to assaninate.
Your last para is not only terrible logic but ignores the point of the article. Iran likely was not responsible for the US deaths. Even had it been responsible it would still not legitimate such a baldly criminal action.
Sean , says: Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 6:29 am GMT
@JUSA

[I]illegal assassination of a foreign general who was not in combat

Lawful combat according to the Geneva Convention in which war is openly declared and fought between two countries each of which have regular uniformed forces that do all the actual fighting is an extremely rare thing. It is all proxy forces, deniability and asymmetric warfare in which one side (the stronger) is attacked by phantom combatants.

The Israeli PM publically alluded to the fact that Soleimani had almost been killed in the Mossad operation to kill Imad Mughniyeh a decade ago. The Iranian public knew that Soleimani had narrowly escaped death from Israeli drones, because Soleimani appeared on Iranian TV in October and told the story. A plot kill him by at a memorial service in Iran was supposedly foiled. He came from Lebanon by way of Syria into Iraq as if none of this had happened. Trump had sacked Bolton and failed to react to the drone attack on Saudi oil.

Iran seems to have thought that refusal to actually fight in the type of war that the international conventions were designed to regulate is a licence to exert pressure by launch attacks without being targeted oneself. Now do they understand.

Ace , says: Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 8:41 am GMT
@Sean American troops invaded Iraq under false pretenses, killed thousands, and caused great destruction. Chaos and vengeful Sunnis spilled over into Syria where the US proceeded to grovel before the terrorists we fret about. Soleimani was effective in organizing resistance in Iraq and Syria and was in both countries with the blessing of their governments.

How you get Soleimani shouldn't be there out of that I have no idea.

Zen , says: Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 12:04 pm GMT
@04398436986 Yet you ignore that the Neocons have lied about virtually every cause if war ever. Lied about Iraq, North Korea and Iran nuclear info actions, about chem weapons in Syria, lied about Kosovo, lied about Libya, lied about Benghazi, lied about Venezuela. So Whom I gonna believe, no government, but a Neocon led one least of all
Vojkan , says: Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 1:05 pm GMT
@Sean American soldiers went there uninvited. Soleimani went there because he was invited. That makes a hell of a difference.
Robjil , says: Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 1:05 pm GMT
It is common knowledge that ISIS is a US/Israeli creation. ISIS is the Israeli Secret Intelligence Service. Thus, the US/Israel staged the attack on the US base on 12.27.2019.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/isis-is-a-us-israeli-creation-top-ten-indications/5518627

ISIS is a US-Israeli Creation: Indication #2: ISIS Never Attacks Israel

It is more than highly strange and suspicious that ISIS never attacks Israel – it is another indication that ISIS is controlled by Israel. If ISIS were a genuine and independent uprising that was not covertly orchestrated by the US and Israel, why would they not try to attack the Zionist regime, which has attacked almost of all of its Muslim neighbors ever since its inception in 1948? Israel has attacked Egypt, Syria and Lebanon, and of course has decimated Palestine. It has systemically tried to divide and conquer its Arab neighbors. It continually complains of Islamic terrorism. Yet, when ISIS comes on the scene as the bloody and barbaric king of Islamic terrorism, it finds no fault with Israel and sees no reason to target a regime which has perpetrated massive injustice against Muslims? This stretches credibility to a snapping point.

ISIS and Israel don't attack each other – they help each other. Israel was treating ISIS soldiers and other anti-Assad rebels in its hospitals! Mortal enemies or best of friends?

Coward Corps , says: Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 1:07 pm GMT
The MQ-9 pilot and sensor operator will be looking over their shoulders for a long time. They're as famous as Soleimani. Their command chain is well known too, hide though they might far away.

And who briefed the president that terror Tuesday? The murder program isn't Air Force.

Eek , says: Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 1:25 pm GMT
Hey now, you learn to put the best gloss on things when your troops are pathetic little timmies scared of rocks and 12-year olds. Bunch of pussies.

https://southfront.org/dumbfucks-russian-troops-react-to-us-forces-using-firearms-against-syrian-villagers/

The IRGC is going to make mincemeat of these chumps.

Moi , says: Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 1:36 pm GMT
@anonymous The kind of crap Trump pulled in the assassination of Soleimani is what he should be impeached about–not the piss-ant stuff about Hunter Biden's job in the Ukaranian gas company and his pappy's role in it.
Sick of Orcs , says: Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 1:49 pm GMT
We're really benefitting, carrying water for (((our greatest ally.)))
Really No Shit , says: Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 1:59 pm GMT
Iraq an ally of the United States! Is it some kind of a joke? How can a master and slave be equal? We, the big dog want their oil and the tail that wags us, Israel, want all Muslims pacified and the Congress, which is us wether we like or not, compliant out of financial fears. Unless we curb our own greedy appetite for fossil fuels and at the same time tell an ally, which Israel is by being equal in a sense that it can get away with murder and not a pip is raised, to limit its ambition, nothing is going to be done to improve the situation. Until then it's an exercise in futility, at best!
anonymous [307] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 2:46 pm GMT
@Ozymandias You are so ignorant.

Iran has NO choice but to defend itself from the savages. It has not been Iran that invaded US, but US with a plan that design years before 9/11 invaded many countries. Remember: seven countries in five years. Soleimani was a wise man working towards peace by creating options for Iran to defend itself. Iran is not the aggressor, but US -Israel-UK are the aggressor for centuries now. Is this so difficult to understand. 9/11 was staged by US/Israel killing 3000 Christians to implement their criminal plan.

Soleimani, was on a peace mission, where was assassinated by Trump, an Israeli firster and a fifth column and the baby killer Netanyahu. Is this difficult to understand by the Trump worshiper, a traitor.

Now, Khamenie is saying the same thing: "Iran should be strong in military warfare and sciences to prevent war and maintain PEACE.

Only ignorant, arrogant, and racists don't understand this fact and refuse to understand how the victims have been pushed to defend themselves.

The Assassin at the black house should receive the same fate in order to bring the peace.

anonymous [307] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 2:48 pm GMT
@Moi I totally agree with you. Both parties are a fifth column and criminals.
Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist , says: Website Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 2:57 pm GMT
When does Amerikastan *not* lie about anything? If an Amerikastani tells you the sun rises in the east, you're probably on Venus, where it rises in the west.
DaveE , says: Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 3:05 pm GMT
I think this article is getting close to the truth, that this whole operation was and is an ISIS (meaning Israeli Secret Intelligence Service) affair designed to pit America against the zionists' most formidable enemy thus far, Iran.

I'm of the opinion that Trump did not order the hit on Soleimani, but was forced to take credit for it, if he didn't want to forfeit any chance of being reelected this year. The same ISIS (Israeli) forces that did the hit also orchestrated the "retaliation" that Mr. Giraldi so heroically documents in this piece.

As usual, this is looking more and more like a zionist /jewish false flag attack on the Muslim world, with the real dirty-work to be done by the American military.

Ahoy , says: Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 3:17 pm GMT
The dealer in the M.E. poker game is Putin. This is what drives the very elite crazy. How could this have happened? We had conquered Russia in 1917.

Well, you must have made a small mistake along the way. Trumpstein can't save you. Soon the dollar won't have any value. There is nothing behind it.

The new policeman in the M.E. will be Iran. The legacy of Lawrence of Arabia has died long time ago.

Greg Bacon , says: Website Show Comment February 14, 2020 at 3:33 pm GMT

It soon emerged that the Iranian was in fact in Baghdad to discuss with the Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi a plan that might lead to the de-escalation of the ongoing conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran, a meeting that the White House apparently knew about may even have approved.

It's now obvious that the slumlord son-in-law Jared Kushner is really running the USA's ME policy.
Kushner is not only a dear friend of at-large war criminal Bibi Nuttyahoo, he also belongs to the Judaic religious cult of Chabad Lubavitcher, whom make the war-loving Christian Evangelicals almost look sane. Chabad also prays for some kind of Armageddon to bring forth their Messiah, just like the Evangelicals.

One can tell by Kushner's nasty comments he makes about Arabs/Persians and Palestinians in particular, that he loathes and despises those people and has an idiotic ear to cry into in the malignant form of Zion Don, AKA President Trump.

It's been said that Kushner is also a Mossad agent or asset, which is a good guess, since that agency has been placing their agents into the WH since at least the days of Clinton, who had Rahm Emmanuel to whisper hate into his ear.

That the Iranian General Soleimani was lured into Iraq so the WH could murder the man probably most responsible for halting the terrorist activities of the heart-eating, head-chopping US/Israel/KSA creation ISIS brings to mind the motto of the Israeli version of the CIA, the Mossad.

"By way of deception thou shalt make war."

Between Trump's incompetence, his vanity–and yes, his stupidity– and his appointing Swamp creatures into his cabinet and allowing Jared to run the ME show, Trump is showing himself to be a worse choice than Hillary.
If that maniac gets another 4 years, humanity is doomed. Or at least the USA for sure will perish.

[Feb 14, 2020] The Right-Wing Pro-Israel, Evangelical Agenda has Taken Over Trump's Middle East Policy

Notable quotes:
"... Until recently, President Donald Trump's pro-Israel policy was centered on taking steps related to fulfilling campaign promises and strengthening his standing domestically with his evangelical base. Chief among these steps was his decision to pull out of the nuclear accord with Iran, and the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (and at the same time announcing moving the American embassy to Jerusalem). Trump also signed a presidential proclamation recognizing "Israeli sovereignty" over the Golan Heights. ..."
"... By deciding to carry out this assassination operation, Trump has brought his pro-Israel policy to an entirely new, and dangerous level. ..."
"... Israel may have found in the Trump administration the perfect ally when it comes to the demonization of Iran and the groups it supports. ..."
Feb 14, 2020 | responsiblestatecraft.org

Until recently, President Donald Trump's pro-Israel policy was centered on taking steps related to fulfilling campaign promises and strengthening his standing domestically with his evangelical base. Chief among these steps was his decision to pull out of the nuclear accord with Iran, and the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (and at the same time announcing moving the American embassy to Jerusalem). Trump also signed a presidential proclamation recognizing "Israeli sovereignty" over the Golan Heights.

All of this has changed, however, with the assassination of the commander of the Quds Force in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) General Qassem Soleimani and the deputy head of the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), Abu Mehdi Al-Muhandis.

By deciding to carry out this assassination operation, Trump has brought his pro-Israel policy to an entirely new, and dangerous level.

Targeting the IRGC and PMF: An Israeli policy

It is worth remembering that Israel set the precedent for carrying out lethal operations in Iraq by targeting elements of the IRGC and the PMF.

Israel began these operations last year, with the first taking place on July 19 near the Iraqi town of Amerli. Iranian media later reported that senior IRGC commander Abu Alfazl Sarabian had died in the attack.

Another Israeli attack on August 25 led to the death of a senior PMF commander in the Iraqi town of Al-Qaim near the border with Syria, while 21 PMF members were killed in an Israeli operation near the city of Hit in Iraq's Anbar province on September 20.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu even admitted that Israel was behind these attacks.

"We are working against Iranian consolidation in Iraq as well [as in Syria]" remarked Netanyahu on August 22.

Trump administration officials adopt the Israel line of demonizing Iran

The Israeli fingerprints on U.S. policy could also be seen in the apparent stances taken by U.S. officials following the assassination of Soleimani and Al-Muhandis.

According to the New York Times , Trump administration officials have compared the assassination of Soleimani to the killing of former ISIS leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi. Such a comparison is no doubt to Israel's liking.

Not only has Israel long sought to equate the IRGC and its allies, including the Lebanese Hezbollah and the Iraqi PMF, with terrorist groups like al-Qaida and ISIS, it has even described the latter groups as being the lesser of the two evils.

According to sources in Washington, one of the most common complaints made by visiting Israeli officials over the past years was that the U.S. was focusing too much on fighting Sunni Jihadist groups (al-Qaida, ISIS, etc.) and not enough on fighting Iran and its network of allies.

Israel's former ambassador to Washington, Michael Oren referred to this dynamic in an interview with the Jerusalem Post back in September 2013, where he summed up the Israeli policy regarding Syria. "The initial message about the Syrian issue was that we always wanted (President) Bashar Assad to go" he stated, further adding; "we always preferred the bad guys who weren't back by Iran (al-Qaida affiliates) to the bad guys who were backed by Iran".

For his part, former Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon referred to an " axis of evil ' comprising Iran, Syria, and Lebanon.

Yaalon made those remarks during a meeting with former chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey in August 2013, underscoring that this "axis of evil" must not emerge victorious in Syria.

Israel may have found in the Trump administration the perfect ally when it comes to the demonization of Iran and the groups it supports.

Hard-core evangelicals like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Vice President Mike Pence have a strong ideological affinity for Israel and its anti-Iranian agenda.

During a Senate hearing last April, Pompeo repeated the long-debunked claim that Iran and al-Qaida have cooperated for years. "There is no doubt there is a connection between the Islamic Republic of Iran and al-Qaida. Period, full stop," Pompeo asserted.

Pence, meanwhile, has even gone so far as to claim that Soleimani was involved with 9/11 . Following the assassination, Pence tweeted that Soleimani had "assisted in the clandestine travel of 10 of the 12 terrorists who carried out the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States."

American troops in danger as a result of the Israeli evangelical agenda

With the assassination of Soleimani and Al-Muhandes, Israel and its Christian evangelical allies in Washington appear to have succeeded more than any time before in steering Trump's foreign policy. Their success, however, may have placed U.S. troops in the region in grave danger.

In a speech commemorating the death of Soleimani and Al-Muhandes, the leader of the Lebanese Hezbollah Hassan Nasrallah warned that retaliation would be aimed at U.S. military assets.

In remarks which brought back the memories of the 1983 attacks on the Marine Barracks in Beirut, Nasrallah suggested that the U.S. military presence in the region would become a target for suicide bombers.

"The suicide attackers who forced the Americans to leave our region in the past are still here today and in far greater numbers," Nasrallah asserted.

[Feb 10, 2020] Stench of Netanyahu in attack on K-1 base near Kirkuk: Did Washington Use a False Pretext for Its Recent Escalation in Iraq?

Notable quotes:
"... New York Times's ..."
Feb 08, 2020 | responsiblestatecraft.org

In a key piece of actual extensive, on-the-ground reporting , the New York Times's Alissa Rubin has raised serious questions about the official US account of who it was that attacked the K-1 base near Kirkuk, in eastern Iraq, on December 27. The United States almost immediately accused the Iran-backed Ketaib Hizbullah (KH) militia of responsibility. But Rubin quotes by name Brig. General Ahmed Adnan, the chief of intelligence for the Iraqi federal police at the same base, as saying, "All the indications are that it was Daesh" -- that is, ISIS.

She also presents considerable further detailed reporting on the matter. And she notes that though U.S. investigators claim to have evidence about KH's responsibility for the attack, they have presented none of it publicly. Nor have they shared it with the Iraqi government.

KH is a paramilitary organization that operates under the command of the Iraqi military and has been deeply involved in the anti-ISIS campaigns throughout the country.

The December 27 attack killed one Iraqi-American contractor and was cited by the Trump administration as reason to launch a large-scale attack on five KH bases some 400 miles to the west which killed around 50 KH fighters. Outraged KH fighters then mobbed the US embassy in Baghdad, breaking through an outside perimeter on its large campus, but causing no casualties. On January 2, Pres. Trump decided to escalate again, ordering the assassination of Iran's Gen. Qasem Soleimani and bringing the region and the world close to a massive shooting war.

The new evidence presented by Rubin makes it look as if Trump and his advisors had previously decided on a broad-scale plan to attack Iran's very influential allies in Iraq and were waiting for a triggering event– any triggering event!– to use as a pretext to launch it. The attack against the K-1 base presented them with that trigger, even though they have not been able to present any evidence that it was KH that undertook it.

This playbook looks very similar to the one that Ariel Sharon, who was Israel's Defense Minister in summer 1982, used to launch his wide attack against the PLO's presence in Lebanon in June that year. The "trigger" Sharon used to launch his long-prepared attack was the serious (but not fatal) wounding of Israel's ambassador in London, Shlomo Argov, which the Israeli government immediately blamed on the PLO.

Regarding London in 1982, as regarding K-1 last December, the actual identity of the assailant(s) was misreported by the government that used it as a trigger for escalation. In London, the police fairly speedily established that it was not the PLO but operatives of an anti-PLO group headed by a man called Abu Nidal who had attacked Argov. But by the time they had discovered and publicized that fact, Israeli tanks were already deep inside Lebanon.

The parallels and connections between the two cases go further. If, as now seems likely, the authors of the K-1 attack were indeed Da'esh, then they succeeded brilliantly in triggering a bitter fight between two substantial forces in the coalition that had been fighting against them in Iraq. Regarding the 1982 London attack, its authors also succeeded brilliantly in triggering a lethal conflict between two forces (one substantial, one far less so) that were both engaged in bitter combat against Abu Nidal's networks.

Worth noting: Abu Nidal's main backer, throughout his whole campaign against the PLO, was Saddam Hussein's brutal government in Iraq. (The London assailants deposited their weapons in the Iraqi embassy after completing the attack.) Many senior strategists and planners for ISIS in Iraq were diehard remnants of Saddam's formerly intimidating security forces.

Also worth noting: Three months in to Sharon's massive 1982 invasion of Lebanon, it seemed to have successfully reached its goals of expelling the PLO's fighting forces from Lebanon and installing a strongly pro-Israeli government there. But over the longer haul, the invasion looked much less successful. The lengthy Israeli occupation of south Lebanon that followed 1982 served to incubate the birth and growth of the (pro-Iranian) Hizbullah there. Today, Hizbullah is a strong political movement inside Lebanon that commands a very capable fighting force that expelled Israel's last presence from Lebanon in 2000, rebuffed a subsequent Israeli invasion of the country six years later, and still exerts considerable deterrent power against Israel today

Very few people in Israel today judge the 1982 invasion of Lebanon to have been a wise move. How will the historians of the future view Trump's decision to launch his big escalation against Iran's allies in Iraq, presumably as part of his "maximum pressure" campaign against Tehran?

This article has been republished with permission from Just World News .

[Feb 09, 2020] Following the US assassination of Soleimani, the Trump administration is leading American conduct abroad into a zone of probably unprecedented lawlessness by Patrick Lawrence

Notable quotes:
"... In our late-imperial phase, we seem to have reached that moment when, whatever high officials say in matters of the empire's foreign policy, we must consider whether the opposite is in fact the case. So we have it now. ..."
"... Lawlessness begets lawlessness is the operative (and obvious) principle. In a remarkable speech at the Hoover Institution last week, Pompeo termed the Soleimani assassination "the restoration of deterrence" and appeared to promise other such operations against other nations Washington considers adversaries. Ominously enough, Pompeo singled out China and Russia. ..."
"... Against the background of the events noted above, it is clear from this speech alone that our secretary of state is a dangerously incompetent figure when it comes to judging global events, the proper responses to them, and the probable consequences of a given response. If we are going to think about costs, the heaviest will fall on Americans in months to come. ..."
"... Immediately after the U.S. drone that killed Soleimani at Baghdad International Airport, Mohammad Javad Zarif sent out a message whose importance should not be missed. "End of US's malign presence in West Asia has begun," Iran's foreign minister wrote. These few words, rendered in Twitterese, bear careful consideration given they come from an official whose nation had just sustained a critical blow. ..."
"... Gradually but rather certainly now, the community of nations is losing its patience with late-phase imperial America. With exceptions such as Japan and Israel, the Baltics and Saudi Arabia, this is so across both oceans and more or less across the non–Western world. In the Middle East, the American presence will remain for the time being, but we are now in the beginning-of-the-end phase. This was Zarif's meaning. And we now know the end will come neither peaceably nor lawfully. ..."
"... Amazing how the US government is bringing back the old days: "Slave markets" See: reuters.com/article/us-libya-security-rights/executions-torture-and-slave-markets-persist-in-libya-u-n-idUSKBN1GX1JY "Pillage", as pointed out in this article. ..."
"... To have such a person as the top diplomat in the USA shows how low the USA has sunk. For him to pretend to be some sort of Christian is sinister and extremely dangerous for everyone. There is NO reason for the US animosity towards Iran except subservience to Israel, which, again without real justification, claims to be terrified of Iran, which unlike Israel is NOT attacking others and has not for centuries. ..."
"... SecStae's remarks about deterrence befit a military commander, NOT a diplomat. Paranoia, grandiosity and violence begin with potus and cascade downward and about. Congress does its part in investing in machinery of war. ..."
"... Pompeo reminds me of the pigs in Animal Farm. He is a grotesque figure, steely-eyed, cold-blooded, fanatical, and hateful. "We lied, cheated, and stole" Pompous Maximus will get his comeuppance one of these days ..."
"... Pillage as policy. The Empire has fully embraced gangster capitalism for its modus operandi. ..."
"... Here is an interesting article that explains how governments have changed the rules so that they can justify killing anyone who they believe may at some point in time have the potential to be involved in a terrorist plot: viableopposition.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-bethlehem-doctrine-and-new.html ..."
"... This rather Orwellian move gives governments the justification that they to kill any of us just because they feel that we might pose a threat and that is a very, very scary prospect. It is very reminiscent of the movie Minority Report where crimes of the future are punished in the present. ..."
Jan 21, 2020 | consortiumnews.com

Special to Consortium News

Of all the preposterous assertions made since the drone assassination of Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad on Jan. 3, the prize for bottomless ignorance must go to the bottomlessly ignorant Mike Pompeo.

Speaking after the influential Iranian general's death, our frightening secretary of state declaimed on CBS's Face the Nation , "There was sound and just and legal reason for the actions the President took, and the world is safer as a result." In appearances on five news programs on the same Sunday morning, the evangelical paranoid who now runs American foreign policy was a singer with a one-note tune. "It's very clear the world's a safer place today," Pompeo said on ABC's Jan. 5 edition of This Week.

In our late-imperial phase, we seem to have reached that moment when, whatever high officials say in matters of the empire's foreign policy, we must consider whether the opposite is in fact the case. So we have it now.

We are not safer now that Soleimani, a revered figure across much of the Middle East, has been murdered. The planet has just become significantly more dangerous, especially but not only for Americans, and this is so for one simple reason: The Trump administration, Pompeo bearing the standard, has just tipped American conduct abroad into a zone of probably unprecedented lawlessness, Pompeo's nonsensical claim to legality notwithstanding .

This is a very consequential line to cross.

Hardly does it hold that Washington's foreign policy cliques customarily keep international law uppermost in their minds and that recent events are aberrations. Nothing suggests policy planners even consider legalities except when it makes useful propaganda to charge others with violating international statutes and conventions.

Please donate to the Winter Fund Drive.

Neither can the Soleimani assassination be understood in isolation: This was only the most reckless of numerous policy decisions recently taken in the Middle East. Since late last year, to consider merely the immediate past, the Trump administration has acted ever more flagrantly in violation of all international legal authorities and documents -- the UN Charter, the International Criminal Court, and the International Court of Justice in the Hague chief among them.

Washington is into full-frontal lawlessness now.

'Keeping the Oil'

Shortly after Trump announced the withdrawal of U.S. forces from northern Syria last October, the president reversed course -- probably under Pentagon and State Department pressure -- and said some troops would remain to protect Syria's oilfields. "We want to keep the oil," Trump declared in the course of a Twitter storm. It soon emerged that the administration's true intent was to prevent the Assad government in Damascus from reasserting sovereign control over Syrian oilfields.

The Russians had the honesty to call this for what it was. "Washington's attempt to put oilfields there under [its] control is illegal," Sergei Lavrov said at the time. "In fact, it's tantamount to robbery," the Russian foreign minister added. (John Kiriakou, writing for Consortium News, pointed out that it is a violation of the 1907 Hague Convention. It is call pillage.)

Few outside the Trump administration, and possibly no one, has argued that Soleimani's murder was legitimate under international law. Not only was the Iranian general from a country with which the U.S. is not at war, which means the crime is murder; the drone attack was also a clear violation of Iraqi sovereignty, as has been widely reported.

In response to Baghdad's subsequent demand that all foreign troops withdraw from Iraqi soil, Pompeo flatly refused even to discuss the matter with Iraqi officials -- yet another openly contemptuous violation of Iraqi sovereignty.

It gets worse. In his own response to Baghdad's decision to evict foreign troops, Trump threatened sanctions -- "sanctions like they've never seen before" -- and said Iraq would have to pay the U.S. the cost of the bases the Pentagon has built there despite binding agreements that all fixed installations the U.S. has built in Iraq are Iraqi government-owned.

At Baghdad's Throat

Trump, who seems to have oil eternally on his mind, has been at Baghdad's throat for some time. Twice since taking office three years ago, he has tried to intimidate the Iraqis into "repaying" the U.S. for its 2003 invasion with access to Iraqi oil. "We did a lot, we did a lot over there, we spent trillions over there, and a lot of people have been talking about the oil," he said on the second of these occasions.

Baghdad rebuffed Trump both times, but he has been at it since, according to Adil Abdul–Mahdi, Iraq's interim prime minister. Last year the U.S. administration asked Baghdad for 50 percent of the nation's oil output -- in total roughly 4.5 million barrels daily -- in exchange for various promised reconstruction projects.

Rejecting the offer, Abdul–Mahdi signed an "oil for reconstruction" agreement with China last autumn -- whereupon Trump threatened to instigate widespread demonstrations in Baghdad if Abdul–Mahdi did not cancel the China deal. (He did not do so and, coincidentally or otherwise, civil unrest ensued.)

U.S. Army forces operating in southern Iraq, April. 2, 2003. (U.S. Navy)

Blueprints for Reprisal

If American lawlessness is nothing new, the brazenly imperious character of all the events noted in this brief résumé has nonetheless pushed U.S. foreign policy beyond a tipping point.

No American -- and certainly no American official or military personnel -- can any longer travel in the Middle East with an assurance of safety. All American diplomats, all military officers, and all embassies and bases in the region are now vulnerable to reprisals. The Associated Press reported after the Jan. 3 drone strike that Iran has developed 13 blueprints for reprisals against the U.S.

Lawlessness begets lawlessness is the operative (and obvious) principle. In a remarkable speech at the Hoover Institution last week, Pompeo termed the Soleimani assassination "the restoration of deterrence" and appeared to promise other such operations against other nations Washington considers adversaries. Ominously enough, Pompeo singled out China and Russia.

Here is a snippet from Pompeo's remarks:

"In strategic terms, deterrence simply means persuading the other party that the costs of a specific behavior exceed its benefits. It requires credibility; indeed, it depends on it. Your adversary must understand not only do you have the capacity to impose costs but that you are, in fact, willing to do so . In all cases we have to do this."

Against the background of the events noted above, it is clear from this speech alone that our secretary of state is a dangerously incompetent figure when it comes to judging global events, the proper responses to them, and the probable consequences of a given response. If we are going to think about costs, the heaviest will fall on Americans in months to come.

Immediately after the U.S. drone that killed Soleimani at Baghdad International Airport, Mohammad Javad Zarif sent out a message whose importance should not be missed. "End of US's malign presence in West Asia has begun," Iran's foreign minister wrote. These few words, rendered in Twitterese, bear careful consideration given they come from an official whose nation had just sustained a critical blow.

24 hrs ago, an arrogant clown -- masquerading as a diplomat -- claimed people were dancing in the cities of Iraq.

Today, hundreds of thousands of our proud Iraqi brothers and sisters offered him their response across their soil.

End of US malign presence in West Asia has begun. pic.twitter.com/eTDRyLN11c

-- Javad Zarif (@JZarif) January 4, 2020

Gradually but rather certainly now, the community of nations is losing its patience with late-phase imperial America. With exceptions such as Japan and Israel, the Baltics and Saudi Arabia, this is so across both oceans and more or less across the non–Western world. In the Middle East, the American presence will remain for the time being, but we are now in the beginning-of-the-end phase. This was Zarif's meaning. And we now know the end will come neither peaceably nor lawfully.

Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International Herald Tribune , is a columnist, essayist, author and lecturer. His most recent book is "Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century" (Yale). Follow him on Twitter @thefloutist . His web site is Patrick Lawrence . Support his work via his Patreon site .

The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.

Please donate to the Winter Fund Drive.

Jeff Harrison , January 21, 2020 at 19:38

Well, there's two relevant bits here. Bullshit walks and money talks. Our money stopped talking $23T ago. What goes around, comes around. Whenever, however it comes down, it's gonna hurt.

Antiwar7 , January 21, 2020 at 13:46

Amazing how the US government is bringing back the old days: "Slave markets" See: reuters.com/article/us-libya-security-rights/executions-torture-and-slave-markets-persist-in-libya-u-n-idUSKBN1GX1JY "Pillage", as pointed out in this article.

rosemerry , January 21, 2020 at 13:28

To have such a person as the top diplomat in the USA shows how low the USA has sunk. For him to pretend to be some sort of Christian is sinister and extremely dangerous for everyone. There is NO reason for the US animosity towards Iran except subservience to Israel, which, again without real justification, claims to be terrified of Iran, which unlike Israel is NOT attacking others and has not for centuries.

Even if the USA hates Iran, it has already done inestimable damage to the Islamic Republic before this disgraceful action. Cruelty to 80 million people who have never harmed, even really threatened, the mighty USA, by tossing out a working JCPOA and installing economic "sanctions", should not be accepted by the rest of the world-giving in to blackmail encourages worse behavior, as we have already seen.

"It requires credibility; indeed, it depends on it. " This is exactly what should be rejected by us all. These "leaders" will not change their behavior without solidarity among "allies" like the European Union, which has already caved in and blamed Iran for the changes -Iran has explained clearly why it made- to the JCPOA which the USA has left.

Abby , January 21, 2020 at 20:15

The only difference between Trump and Obama is that Trump doesn't hide the US naked aggression as well as Obama did. So far Trump hasn't started any new wars. By this time in Obama's tenure we had started bombing more countries and accepted one coup.

dfnslblty , January 21, 2020 at 12:43

SecStae's remarks about deterrence befit a military commander, NOT a diplomat. Paranoia, grandiosity and violence begin with potus and cascade downward and about. Congress does its part in investing in machinery of war.

Cheyenne , January 21, 2020 at 11:49

The above comment shows exactly why bellicose adventurism for oil etc. is so stupid and dangerous. If we continually prance around robbing people, they're gonna unite to slap us down.

Hardly seems like anyone should need that pointed out but if anybody mentioned it to Trump or any other gung ho warhawk, he must not have been listening.

Dan Kuhn , January 21, 2020 at 13:08

Trump and Pompeo seem to have entered the Wild West stage of recent American history. I think they watch too many western movies, without understanding the underrlying plot of 100% of them. It is the bad guys take over a town, where they impose their will on the population, terrorizing everyone into obediance. They steal everything in sight and any who oppose them are summarily killed off. In the end a good guy ( In American parlance, " a good guy with a gun" shows up . The town`s people approach him and beg him to oppose the bad guys. He then proceeds to kill off the bad guys after the general population joins him in his crusade. it looks as though we are at the stage in the movie where the general population is ready to take up arms against the bad guys.

The moral of the story the bad guys, the bullies, Pompeo and Trump, are either killed or chased out of town. But perhaps the problem is that this plot is too difficult for Trump and Pompeo to understand. So they don`t quite get the peril that there gunmen and killers are now in. They don`t see the writing on the wall.

Caveman , January 21, 2020 at 11:30

It seems the only US considerations in the assassination were – will it weaken Iran, will it strengthen the American position? On that perspective, the answer is probably yes on both counts. Legal considerations do not seem to have carried any weight. In the UK we recently saw a chilling interview with Brian Hook, U.S. Special Representative for Iran and Senior Policy Advisor to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. It was clear that he saw the assassination as another nail in the coffin of the Iranian regime, simply furthering a policy objective.

Vera Gottlieb , January 21, 2020 at 11:19

What is even sadder is the world's lack of gonads to stand up to this bully nation – that has caused so much grief and still does.

Michael McNulty , January 21, 2020 at 11:01

The US government became a crime syndicate. Today its bootleg liquor is oil, the boys they send round to steal it are armies and their drive-by shootings are Warthog strafings using DU ammunition. Their drug rackets in the back streets are high-grade reefer, heroin and amphetamines, with pharmaceutical-grade chemicals on Main Street. They still print banknotes just as before; but this time it's legal but still doesn't make them enough, so to make up the shortfalls they've taken armed robbery abroad.

paul easton , January 21, 2020 at 12:55

The US Government is running a protection racket, literally. In return for US protection of their sources of oil, the NATO countries provide international support for US war crimes. But now that the (figurative) Don is visibly out of his mind, they are likely to turn to other protectors.

Gary Weglarz , January 21, 2020 at 10:34

One need not step back very far in order to look at the bigger longer range picture. What immediately comes into focus is that this is simply the current moment in what is now 500 plus years of Western colonialism/neocolonialism. When has the law EVER had anything to do with any of this?

ML , January 21, 2020 at 10:31

Pompeo reminds me of the pigs in Animal Farm. He is a grotesque figure, steely-eyed, cold-blooded, fanatical, and hateful. "We lied, cheated, and stole" Pompous Maximus will get his comeuppance one of these days. I hope he plans more overseas trips for himself. He is a vile person, a psychopath proud of his psychopathy. He alone would make anyone considering conversion to Christianity, his brand of it, run screaming into the night. Repulsive man.

Michael Crockett , January 21, 2020 at 09:40

Pillage as policy. The Empire has fully embraced gangster capitalism for its modus operandi. That said, IMO, the axis of resistance has the military capability and the resolve to fight back and win. Combining China and Russia into a greater axis of resistance could further shrink the Outlaw US Empire presence in West Asia. Thank you Patrick for your keen insight and observations. The Empires days are numbered.

Sally Snyder , January 21, 2020 at 07:28

Here is an interesting article that explains how governments have changed the rules so that they can justify killing anyone who they believe may at some point in time have the potential to be involved in a terrorist plot: viableopposition.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-bethlehem-doctrine-and-new.html

This rather Orwellian move gives governments the justification that they to kill any of us just because they feel that we might pose a threat and that is a very, very scary prospect. It is very reminiscent of the movie Minority Report where crimes of the future are punished in the present.

[Feb 09, 2020] Trump Secretly Threatened Europe With Auto Tariffs If It Didn t Declare Iran In Breach Of Nuclear Deal

Notable quotes:
"... Trump's threats of auto tariffs to gain trade concessions with the Europeans is certainly nothing new, but using the same to dictate foreign policy is, notes WaPo's diplomatic correspondent John Hudson. ..."
"... Interestingly, in Wednesday's joint statement the European signatories attempted to distance their drastic action away from Washington's so-called "maximum pressure" campaign. "Our three countries are not joining a campaign to implement maximum pressure against Iran," they said . ..."
"... The statement also underscored Europe hopes to use the mechanism "to bring Iran back into full compliance with its commitments under the JCPOA" and in the words of one official quoted in The Guardian to prevent nuclear advancement to the point that the Iranians "learn something that it is not possible for them to unlearn" . ..."
Jan 15, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

A bombshell revelation from The Washington Post a day after France, Britain and Germany took unprecedented action against Iran by formally triggering the dispute resolution mechanism regulating conformity to the deal, seen as the harshest measure taken by the European signatories thus far. The European powers officially see Iran as in breach of the deal which means UN and EU punitive sanctions are now on the table.

But according to The Post , how things quickly escalated to this point is real story : " Days before Europeans warned Iran of nuclear deal violations, Trump secretly threatened to impose 25% tariff on European autos if they didn't," says the report.

This came as a "shock" to all three countries, with one top European official calling it essentially "extortion" and a new level of hardball tactics from the Trump administration.

After the US leveraged the new tariffs threat according to the report, European capitals moved quick to trigger the mechanism, which involved the individual European states formally notifying the agreement's guarantor, the European Union, that Iran is in breach of the nuclear deal.

This followed the Jan.6 declaration of Tehran's leadership to no longer be beholden to uranium enrichment limits. And that's where things got interesting as Washington's pressure campaign dramatically turned up the heat on Europe.

"Within days, the three countries would formally accuse Iran of violating the deal, triggering a recourse provision that could reimpose United Nations sanctions on Iran and unravel the last remaining vestiges of the Obama-era agreement," the report continues .

However, the report notes France, the UK, and Germany were already in deep discussion on moving forward with triggering the mechanism. "We didn't want to look weak, so we agreed to keep the existence of the threat a secret," a European official cited by WaPo claims.

Trump's threats of auto tariffs to gain trade concessions with the Europeans is certainly nothing new, but using the same to dictate foreign policy is, notes WaPo's diplomatic correspondent John Hudson.

Interestingly, in Wednesday's joint statement the European signatories attempted to distance their drastic action away from Washington's so-called "maximum pressure" campaign. "Our three countries are not joining a campaign to implement maximum pressure against Iran," they said .

The statement also underscored Europe hopes to use the mechanism "to bring Iran back into full compliance with its commitments under the JCPOA" and in the words of one official quoted in The Guardian to prevent nuclear advancement to the point that the Iranians "learn something that it is not possible for them to unlearn" .

Now that the mechanism has been enacted, the clock starts on 65 days of intensive negotiations before UN sanctions would be reimposed if no resolution is reached. Specifically a blanket arms embargo would be imposed among other measures, and certainly it would mark the deal's final demise, given the Europeans are Iran's last hope for being equal partners in the deal.

Also interesting is that in the hours before The Washington Post report was published, Iranian FM Zarif charged that the EU investigation into Iran's alleged non-compliance meant Europe is allowing itself to be bulled by the United States .

Indeed the new revelation of the secret threats attempting to dictate Europe's course appear to confirm precisely Zarif's words to reporters earlier on Wednesday : "They say 'We are not responsible for what the United States did.' OK, but you are independent" he began. And then added a stinging rebuke: "Europe, EU, is the largest global economy. So why do you allow the United States to bully you around?"

[Feb 09, 2020] The Deeper Story Behind The Assassination Of Soleimani

Highly recommended!
Looks like the end of Full Spectrum Dominance the the USA enjoyed since 1991. Alliance of Iran, Russia and China (with Turkey and Pakistan as two possible members) is serious military competitor and while the USA has its set of trump cards, the military victory against such an alliance no longer guaranteed.
Jan 09, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Federico Pieraccini via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

Days after the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani, new and important information is coming to light from a speech given by the Iraqi prime minister. The story behind Soleimani's assassination seems to go much deeper than what has thus far been reported, involving Saudi Arabia and China as well the US dollar's role as the global reserve currency .

The Iraqi prime minister, Adil Abdul-Mahdi, has revealed details of his interactions with Trump in the weeks leading up to Soleimani's assassination in a speech to the Iraqi parliament. He tried to explain several times on live television how Washington had been browbeating him and other Iraqi members of parliament to toe the American line, even threatening to engage in false-flag sniper shootings of both protesters and security personnel in order to inflame the situation, recalling similar modi operandi seen in Cairo in 2009, Libya in 2011, and Maidan in 2014. The purpose of such cynicism was to throw Iraq into chaos.

Here is the reconstruction of the story:

[Speaker of the Council of Representatives of Iraq] Halbousi attended the parliamentary session while almost none of the Sunni members did. This was because the Americans had learned that Abdul-Mehdi was planning to reveal sensitive secrets in the session and sent Halbousi to prevent this. Halbousi cut Abdul-Mehdi off at the commencement of his speech and then asked for the live airing of the session to be stopped. After this, Halbousi together with other members, sat next to Abdul-Mehdi, speaking openly with him but without it being recorded. This is what was discussed in that session that was not broadcast:

Abdul-Mehdi spoke angrily about how the Americans had ruined the country and now refused to complete infrastructure and electricity grid projects unless they were promised 50% of oil revenues, which Abdul-Mehdi refused.

The complete (translated) words of Abdul-Mahdi's speech to parliament:

This is why I visited China and signed an important agreement with them to undertake the construction instead. Upon my return, Trump called me to ask me to reject this agreement. When I refused, he threatened to unleash huge demonstrations against me that would end my premiership.

Huge demonstrations against me duly materialized and Trump called again to threaten that if I did not comply with his demands, then he would have Marine snipers on tall buildings target protesters and security personnel alike in order to pressure me.

I refused again and handed in my resignation. To this day the Americans insist on us rescinding our deal with the Chinese.

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

Nobody imagined that the threat was to be applied to General Soleimani, but it was difficult for Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi to reveal the weekslong backstory behind the terrorist attack.

I was supposed to meet him [Soleimani] later in the morning when he was killed. He came to deliver a message from Iran in response to the message we had delivered to the Iranians from the Saudis.

We can surmise, judging by Saudi Arabia's reaction , that some kind of negotiation was going on between Tehran and Riyadh:

The Kingdom's statement regarding the events in Iraq stresses the Kingdom's view of the importance of de-escalation to save the countries of the region and their people from the risks of any escalation.

Above all, the Saudi Royal family wanted to let people know immediately that they had not been informed of the US operation:

The kingdom of Saudi Arabia was not consulted regarding the US strike. In light of the rapid developments, the Kingdom stresses the importance of exercising restraint to guard against all acts that may lead to escalation, with severe consequences.

And to emphasize his reluctance for war, Mohammad bin Salman sent a delegation to the United States. Liz Sly , the Washington Post Beirut bureau chief, tweated:

Saudi Arabia is sending a delegation to Washington to urge restraint with Iran on behalf of [Persian] Gulf states. The message will be: 'Please spare us the pain of going through another war'.

What clearly emerges is that the success of the operation against Soleimani had nothing to do with the intelligence gathering of the US or Israel. It was known to all and sundry that Soleimani was heading to Baghdad in a diplomatic capacity that acknowledged Iraq's efforts to mediate a solution to the regional crisis with Saudi Arabia.

It would seem that the Saudis, Iranians and Iraqis were well on the way towards averting a regional conflict involving Syria, Iraq and Yemen. Riyadh's reaction to the American strike evinced no public joy or celebration. Qatar, while not seeing eye to eye with Riyadh on many issues, also immediately expressed solidarity with Tehran, hosting a meeting at a senior government level with Mohammad Zarif Jarif, the Iranian foreign minister. Even Turkey and Egypt , when commenting on the asassination, employed moderating language.

This could reflect a fear of being on the receiving end of Iran's retaliation. Qatar, the country from which the drone that killed Soleimani took off, is only a stone's throw away from Iran, situated on the other side of the Strait of Hormuz. Riyadh and Tel Aviv, Tehran's regional enemies, both know that a military conflict with Iran would mean the end of the Saudi royal family.

When the words of the Iraqi prime minister are linked back to the geopolitical and energy agreements in the region, then the worrying picture starts to emerge of a desperate US lashing out at a world turning its back on a unipolar world order in favor of the emerging multipolar about which I have long written .

The US, now considering itself a net energy exporter as a result of the shale-oil revolution (on which the jury is still out), no longer needs to import oil from the Middle East. However, this does not mean that oil can now be traded in any other currency other than the US dollar.

The petrodollar is what ensures that the US dollar retains its status as the global reserve currency, granting the US a monopolistic position from which it derives enormous benefits from playing the role of regional hegemon.

This privileged position of holding the global reserve currency also ensures that the US can easily fund its war machine by virtue of the fact that much of the world is obliged to buy its treasury bonds that it is simply able to conjure out of thin air. To threaten this comfortable arrangement is to threaten Washington's global power.

Even so, the geopolitical and economic trend is inexorably towards a multipolar world order, with China increasingly playing a leading role, especially in the Middle East and South America.

Venezuela, Russia, Iran, Iraq, Qatar and Saudi Arabia together make up the overwhelming majority of oil and gas reserves in the world. The first three have an elevated relationship with Beijing and are very much in the multipolar camp, something that China and Russia are keen to further consolidate in order to ensure the future growth for the Eurasian supercontinent without war and conflict.

Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, is pro-US but could gravitate towards the Sino-Russian camp both militarily and in terms of energy. The same process is going on with Iraq and Qatar thanks to Washington's numerous strategic errors in the region starting from Iraq in 2003, Libya in 2011 and Syria and Yemen in recent years.

The agreement between Iraq and China is a prime example of how Beijing intends to use the Iraq-Iran-Syria troika to revive the Middle East and and link it to the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative.

While Doha and Riyadh would be the first to suffer economically from such an agreement, Beijing's economic power is such that, with its win-win approach, there is room for everyone.

Saudi Arabia provides China with most of its oil and Qatar, together with the Russian Federation, supply China with most of its LNG needs, which lines up with Xi Jinping's 2030 vision that aims to greatly reduce polluting emissions.

The US is absent in this picture, with little ability to influence events or offer any appealing economic alternatives.

Washington would like to prevent any Eurasian integration by unleashing chaos and destruction in the region, and killing Soleimani served this purpose. The US cannot contemplate the idea of the dollar losing its status as the global reserve currency. Trump is engaging in a desperate gamble that could have disastrous consequences.

The region, in a worst-case scenario, could be engulfed in a devastating war involving multiple countries. Oil refineries could be destroyed all across the region, a quarter of the world's oil transit could be blocked, oil prices would skyrocket ($200-$300 a barrel) and dozens of countries would be plunged into a global financial crisis. The blame would be laid squarely at Trump's feet, ending his chances for re-election.

To try and keep everyone in line, Washington is left to resort to terrorism, lies and unspecified threats of visiting destruction on friends and enemies alike.

Trump has evidently been convinced by someone that the US can do without the Middle East, that it can do without allies in the region, and that nobody would ever dare to sell oil in any other currency than the US dollar.

Soleimani's death is the result of a convergence of US and Israeli interests. With no other way of halting Eurasian integration, Washington can only throw the region into chaos by targeting countries like Iran, Iraq and Syria that are central to the Eurasian project. While Israel has never had the ability or audacity to carry out such an assassination itself, the importance of the Israel Lobby to Trump's electoral success would have influenced his decision, all the more so in an election year .

Trump believed his drone attack could solve all his problems by frightening his opponents, winning the support of his voters (by equating Soleimani's assassination to Osama bin Laden's), and sending a warning to Arab countries of the dangers of deepening their ties with China.

The assassination of Soleimani is the US lashing out at its steady loss of influence in the region. The Iraqi attempt to mediate a lasting peace between Iran and Saudi Arabia has been scuppered by the US and Israel's determination to prevent peace in the region and instead increase chaos and instability.

Washington has not achieved its hegemonic status through a preference for diplomacy and calm dialogue, and Trump has no intention of departing from this approach.

Washington's friends and enemies alike must acknowledge this reality and implement the countermeasures necessary to contain the madness.

Boundless Energy , 1 minute ago link

Very good article, straight to the point. In fact its much worse. I know is hard to swallow for my US american brother and sisters.

But as sooner you wake up and see the reality as it is, as better chances the US has to survive with honor. Stop the wars around the globe and do not look for excuses. Isnt it already obvious what is going on with the US war machine? How many more examples some people need to wake up?

Noob678 , 8 minutes ago link

For those who love to connect the dots:

Iran Situation from Someone Who Knows Something

Not all said in video above is accurate but the recent events in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Africa are all related to prevent China from overtaking the zionist hegemonic world and to recolonize China (at least the parasite is trying to hop to China as new host).

Trade war, Huawei, Hong Kong, Xinjiang, Tibet ..... the concerted efforts from all zionist controlled media (ZeroHedge included) to slander, smearing, fake news against China should tell you what the Zionists agenda are :)

............

Trump Threatens to Kill Iraqi PM if He Doesn't Cancel China Oil Deal - MoA

The American President's threatened the Iraqi Prime Minister to liquidate him directly with the Minister of Defense. The Marines are the third party that sniped the demonstrators and the security men:

Abdul Mahdi continued:

"After my return from China, Trump called me and asked me to cancel the agreement, so I also refused, and he threatened me with massive demonstrations that would topple me. Indeed, the demonstrations started and then Trump called, threatening to escalate in the event of non-cooperation and responding to his wishes, so that the third party (Marines snipers) would target the demonstrators and security forces and kill them from the highest structures and the US embassy in an attempt to pressure me and submit to his wishes and cancel the China agreement, so I did not respond and submitted my resignation and the Americans still insist to this day on canceling the China agreement and when the defense minister said that who kills the demonstrators is a third party, Trump called me immediately and physically threatened me and defense minister in the event of talk about the third party."

.........


The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission found George W. Bush guilty of war crimes in absentia for the illegal invasion of Iraq. Bush, **** Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their legal advisers Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, William Haynes, Jay Bybee and John Yoo were tried in absentia in Malaysia.

... ... ..

Thom Paine , 9 minutes ago link

When Iran has nukes, what then Trump?

I think Israel's fear is loss of regional goals if Iran becomes untouchable

TupacShakur , 13 minutes ago link

Empire is lashing out of desperation because we've crossed peak Empire.

Things are going downhill and will get more volatile as we go.

Buckle up folks because the final act will be very nasty.

Stalking Wolf , 12 minutes ago link

Unfortunately, this article makes a lot of sense. The US is losing influence and lashing out carelessly. I hope the rest of the world realizes how detached majority of the citizens within the states are from the federal government. The Federal government brings no good to our nation. None. From the mis management of our once tax revenues to the corrupt Congress who accepts bribes from the highest bidder, it's a rats best that is not only harmful to its own people, but the world at large. USD won't go down without a fight it seems... All empires end with a bang. Be ready

[Feb 07, 2020] The Facts About Iran and Terrorism by Larry C Johnson

Jan 10, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

The Facts About Iran and Terrorism

When emotion rules the day facts do not matter. Sadly, that is the reality we confront when it comes to talking about Iran and terrorism. The U.S. Government and almost all of the media continue to declare that Iran is the biggest sponsor of terrorism. That is not true. That is a lie. I realize that calling this assertion a lie opens me to accusations of being an apologist for Iran. But simply look at the facts.

Here is the most recent U.S. State Department claim about Iran and terrorism :

Iran remains the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism. The regime has spent nearly one billion dollars per year to support terrorist groups that serve as its proxies and expand its malign influence across the globe. Tehran has funded international terrorist groups such as Hizballah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. It also has engaged in its own terrorist plotting around the world, particularly in Europe. In January, German authorities investigated 10 suspected Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Qods Force operatives. In the summer, authorities in Belgium, France, and Germany thwarted an Iranian plot to bomb a political rally near Paris, France. In October, an Iranian operative was arrested for planning an assassination in Denmark, and in December, Albania expelled two Iranian officials for plotting terrorist attacks. Furthermore, Tehran continued to allow an AQ facilitation network to operate in Iran, which sends fighters and money to conflict zones in Afghanistan and Syria, and it has extended sanctuary to AQ members residing in the country.

You notice what is absent? A list of specific attacks that caused actual casualties. Plans and plots are not the same as actions. If Iran's malevolent influence was so powerful, we should be able to point to specific attacks and specific casualties. But you will not find those facts in the U.S. State Department report because they do not exist. The statistical annex that details the attacks and the groups responsible reports the following:

The Taliban was responsible for 8,509 deaths and 4,943 injuries, about 25 percent of the total casualties attributed to terrorism globally in 2018. With 647 terrorist attacks, ISIS was the next-most-active terrorist organization, responsible for 3,585 fatalities and 1,761 injuries. Having conducted 535 attacks, al-Shabaab was responsible for 2,062 deaths and 1,278 injuries. Boko Haram was among the top-five terrorist perpetrators, with 220 incidents, 1,311 deaths, and 927 injuries. It should be noted that local sources do not always differentiate between Boko Haram and ISIS-West Africa.

Not a single group linked to Iran or supported by Iran is identified. Look at the this table from the statistical annex:

Table-3.1.-Top-10-Known-Perpetrator-Groups-With-the-Most-Incidents-2018

No Hezbollah and no Hamas. If a country is going to "sponsor" terrorism then we should expect to see terrorist attacks. The attacks that are taking place are predominantly from Sunni affiliated groups that have ties to Saudi Arabia, not Iran.

The State Department's explanation about Iranian support for terrorism exposes what the real issue is (I am quoting the 2016 report but, if you read the 2017 or 2018 versions there is no significant difference):

Designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism in 1984, Iran continued its terrorist-related activity in 2016, including support for Hizballah, Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza, and various groups in Syria, Iraq, and throughout the Middle East. Iran used the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps‑Qods Force (IRGC-QF) to implement foreign policy goals, provide cover for intelligence operations, and create instability in the Middle East. Iran has acknowledged the involvement of the IRGC-QF in the conflicts in Iraq and Syria and the IRGC-QF is Iran's primary mechanism for cultivating and supporting terrorists abroad.

In 2016, Iran supported various Iraqi Shia terrorist groups, including Kata'ib Hizballah, as part of an effort to fight ISIS in Iraq and bolster the Assad regime in Syria. Iran views the Assad regime in Syria as a crucial ally and Syria and Iraq as crucial routes to supply weapons to Hizballah, Iran's primary terrorist partner. Iran has facilitated and coerced, through financial or residency enticements, primarily Shia fighters from Afghanistan and Pakistan to participate in the Assad regime's brutal crackdown in Syria. Iranian-supported Shia militias in Iraq have committed serious human rights abuses against primarily Sunni civilians and Iranian forces have directly backed militia operations in Syria with armored vehicles, artillery, and drones.

The United States is upset with Iran because it has thwarted the U.S. covert action in Syria. It was the United States, along with the U.K., Saudi Arabia and Turkey, that helped ignite and escalate the civil war in Syria. Why? The Saudis and the Israelis were growing increasingly concerned in 2011 about Iran's spreading influence in the region. And what enabled Iran to do that? We did. When the United States removed Saddam Hussein and destroyed the Baathist movement in Iraq, the Bush Administration thought it was a dandy idea to install Iraqi Shia in positions of leadership. Not one of the key policymakers on the U.S. side of the equation expressed any qualms about the fact that these Iraqi politicians and military personnel had longstanding relationships with Iran, which included financial support.

Iran also had a longstanding relationship with Syria. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton decided that if we could eliminate Bashir Assad, the Syrian leader, then we would weaken Iran. This was a policy that many Republicans, most notably John McCain and Lindsey Graham, supported. But the scheme to weaken Iran backfired. Iran, along with Russia, came to the aid of the Government of Syria in full blown counter-insurgency campaign. Iran, the Russians and the Syrian Government were fighting radical Sunni islamists, many of whom were funded by the Western alliance.

Iran's military support for the Government of Syria clearly rankles U.S. policymakers, but it is not "terrorism." It is pure counter insurgency.

Wikipedia offers additional evidence about the true nature of international terrorism. I have reviewed the lists of incidents, which includes the description of the attacks, the perpetrators and the number of casualties for 2016-2018. I have only been able to put the 2016 incidents into a spreadsheet. Here are the actual facts.

In 2016 there were seven terrorist attacks that caused at least 100 casualties. All were attributed to ISIL aka the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Not one was linked to Iran or any group receiving financial support from Iran. There were a total of 1753 terrorist attacks and at least 15,993 deaths during 2016.

Here is the monthly breakdown for 2016:

  • January -- 105 terrorist attacks that caused the deaths of at least 1,351 people. There were no attacks linked to Kata'ib Hizballah, Hamas or Hezbollah. The seven attacks in Israel that left 7 dead were ascribed to a "Palestinian" lone-wolf.
  • February -- 72 attacks that left 1075 dead. There were no attacks linked to Kata'ib Hizballah, Hamas or Hezbollah. There were seven attacks and 3 dead attributed to "lone-wolf" Palestinians.
  • March -- 112 attacks leaving at least 778 dead. There were no attacks linked to Kata'ib Hizballah, Hamas or Hezbollah. There were 13 attacks in Israel identified as "lone-wolf" Palestinian. No significant Israeli casualties.
  • April -- 152 attacks that caused at least 1012 fatalities. There were no attacks linked to Kata'ib Hizballah, Hamas or Hezbollah.
  • May -- 202 attacks leaving at least 1600 dead. There were no attacks linked to Kata'ib Hizballah, Hamas or Hezbollah.
  • June -- 187 attacks and at least 1693 fatalities. There were no attacks linked to Kata'ib Hizballah, Hamas or Hezbollah.
  • July -- 187 attacks with at least 1684 deaths. There were no attacks linked to Kata'ib Hizballah, Hamas or Hezbollah.
  • August -- 139 terrorist attacks resulting in 1224 dead. There were no attacks linked to Kata'ib Hizballah, Hamas or Hezbollah.
  • September -- 128 terrorist attacks, which caused at least 849 fatalities. There were no attacks linked to Kata'ib Hizballah, Hamas or Hezbollah.
  • October -- 166 terrorist attacks and at least 2139 deaths. There were no attacks linked to Kata'ib Hizballah, Hamas or Hezbollah.
  • November -- 153 terrorist attacks that killed at least 1446. There were no attacks linked to Kata'ib Hizballah, Hamas or Hezbollah.
  • December -- 147 terrorist attacks, which resulted in at least 930 deaths. There were no attacks linked to Kata'ib Hizballah, Hamas or Hezbollah.

The U.S. State Department continues to insist that Iran is providing indirect support to Al Qaeda. That is pure nonsense. Iran is fighting and killing Al Qaeda forces inside Syria. They have no ideological affinity with Al Qaeda.

I wish the American people would take the time to be educated about the actual nature and extent of "international terrorism." There was a time in the 1980s when Iran was very active in using terrorism as weapon to attack U.S. military and diplomatic targets. But even those attacks were focused in areas where Iran's perceived national interests were at stake. I am not excusing nor endorsing their actions. But I do think we need to understand that terrorism usually has a context. It is not the actions of a mentally ill person who is angry and lashing out at the nearest available target. Those attacks were planned and very calculated.

The real issue that we should be focused on is whether or not we can halt the expansion of Iran's influence in the Middle East. This remains a major concern for Israel and Saudi Arabia. U.S. policymakers are betting that isolating Iran diplomatically, ratcheting up economic pressure and using some military power will somehow energize the regime opposition and lead to the overthrow of the Mullahs. We tried that same policy with Cuba. It did not work there and will not likely work now in Iran.

Iran has options and is pursuing them aggressively. China and Russia, who are facing their own bullying from the United States, already are helping Iran tweak the the nose of the Trump Administration. In late December 2019, Iran, Russia and China carried out a joint military exercise . The Iranians were very clear about their view of this cooperation:

"The most important achievement of these drills . . . is this message that the Islamic republic of Iran cannot be isolated," vice-admiral Gholamreza Tahani, a deputy naval commander, said. "These exercises show that relations between Iran, Russia and China have reached a new high level while this trend will continue in the coming years."

The Trump Administration needs to stop with its infantile ranting and railing about Iran and terrorism. The actual issues surrounding Iran's growing influence in the region have little to do with terrorism. Our policies and actions towards Iran are accelerating their cooperation with China and Russia, not diminishing it. I do not think that serves the longterm interests of the United States or our allies in the Middle East.

[Feb 05, 2020] Stumbling Into Catastrophe by Daniel McAdams

Feb 04, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Daniel McAdams via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,

There is a real danger for foreign policy advisors and analysts – and especially those they serve – when they are in a bubble, an echo chamber, and all of their conclusions are based on faulty inputs. Needless to say it's even worse when they believe they can create their own reality and invent outcomes out of whole cloth.

Things seldom go as planned in these circumstances.

President Trump was sold a bill of goods on the assassination of Iran's revered military leader, Qassim Soleimani, likely by a cabal around Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the long-discredited neocon David Wurmser. A former Netanyahu advisor and Iraq war propagandist, Wurmser reportedly sent memos to his mentor, John Bolton, while Bolton was Trump's National Security Advisor (now, of course, he's the hero of the #resistance for having turned on his former boss) promising that killing Soleimani would be a cost-free operation that would catalyze the Iranian people against their government and bring about the long-awaited regime change in that country. The murder of Soleimani – the architect of the defeat of ISIS – would "rattle the delicate internal balance of forces and the control over them upon which the [Iranian] regime depends for stability and survival," wrote Wurmser.

As is most often the case with neocons, he was dead wrong.

The operation was not cost-free. On the contrary. Assassinating Soleimani on Iraqi soil resulted in the Iraqi parliament – itself the product of our "bringing democracy" to the country – voting to expel US forces even as the vote by the people's representatives was roundly rejected by the people who brought the people the people's representatives. In a manner of speaking.

Trump's move had an effect opposite to the one promised by neocons. It did not bring Iranians out to the street to overthrow their government – it catalyzed opposition across Iraq's various political and religious factions to the continued US military presence and further tightened Iraq's relationship with Iran. And short of what would be a catastrophic war initiated by the US (with little or no support from allies), there is not a thing Trump can do about it.

Iran's retaliatory attack on two US bases in Iraq was initially sold by President Trump as merely a pin-prick. No harm, no foul, no injuries. This despite the fact that he must have known about US personnel injured in the attack. The reason for the lie was that Trump likely understands how devastating it would be to his presidency to escalate with Iran. So the truth began to trickle out slowly – 11 US military members were injured, but it was just "like a headache." Now we know that 50 US troops were treated for traumatic brain injury after the attack. This may not be the last of it – but don't count on the mainstream media to do any reporting.

The Iranian FARS news agency reported at the time of the attack that US personnel had been injured and the response by the US government was to completely take that media outlet off the Internet by order of the US Treasury !

Last week the US House voted to cancel the 2002 authorization for war on Iraq and to prohibit the use of funds for war on Iran without Congressional authorization. It is a significant, if largely symbolic, move to rein in the oft-used excuse of the Iraq war authorization for blatantly unrelated actions like the assassination of Soleimani and Obama's thousands of airstrikes on Syria and Iraq .

President Trump has argued that prohibiting funds for military action against Iran actually makes war more likely, as he would be restricted from the kinds of military-strikes-short-of-war like his attack on Syria after the alleged chemical attack in Douma in 2018 (claims which have recently fallen apart ). The logic is faulty and reflects again the danger of believing one's own propaganda. As we have seen from the Iranian military response to the Soleimani assassination, Trump's military-strikes-short-of-war are having a ratchet-like effect rather than a pressure-release or deterrent effect.

As the financial and current events analysis site ZeroHedge put it recently:

[S]ince last summer's "tanker wars", Trump has painted himself into a corner on Iran, jumping from escalation to escalation (to this latest "point of no return big one" in the form of the ordered Soleimani assassination) -- yet all the while hoping to avoid a major direct war. The situation reached a climax where there were "no outs" (Trump was left with two 'bad options' of either back down or go to war).

The Iranians have little to lose at this point and America's European allies are, even if impotent, fed up with the US obsession with Saudi Arabia and Israel as a basis for its Middle East policy.

So why open this essay with a photo of Trump celebrating his dead-on-arrival "Deal of The Century" for Israel and Palestine? Because this is once again a gullible and weak President Trump being led by the nose into the coming Middle East conflagration. Left without even a semblance of US sympathy for their plight, the Palestinians after the roll-out of this "peace" plan will again see that they have no friends outside Syria, Iran, and Lebanon. As Israel continues to flirt with the idea of simply annexing large parts of the West Bank, it is clear that the brakes are off of any Israeli reticence to push for maximum control over Palestinian territory. So what is there to lose?

Trump believes he's advancing peace in the Middle East, while the excellent Mondoweiss website rightly observes that a main architect of the "peace plan," Trump's own son-in-law Jared Kushner, "taunts Palestinians because he wants them to reject his 'peace plan.'" Rejection of the plan is a green light to a war of annihilation on the Palestinians.

It appears that the center may not hold, that the self-referential echo chamber that passes for Beltway "expert" analysis will again be caught off guard in the consequence-free profession that is neocon foreign policy analysis. "Gosh we didn't see that coming!" But the next day they are back on the teevee stations as great experts.

Clouds gathering...

Minamoto , 23 minutes ago link

It is hard to believe that Trump has any confidence in Jared Kushner. Yet, he does enough to go public with a one-sided plan developed without Palestinian input.

francis scott falseflag , 41 minutes ago link

a real danger for foreign policy advisors and analysts – and especially those they serve – when they are in a bubble, an echo chamber, and all of their conclusions are based on faulty inputs.

The same is true of the economists and financial analysts who live in the bubble of the NSYE and the echo chamber of Manhattan. All of their conclusions are based on faulty inputs.

Ruler , 1 hour ago link

The problem all incompetent leaders have, is seeing how their opponents see them.

Bokkenrijder , 1 hour ago link

If Trump continues to be 'dumb' enough to consistently hire these people and consistently listen to them, and if his supporters continue to be dumb enough to consistently believe all the lies and excuses, then Trump and his supporters are 100% involved in the neoCON.

RafterManFMJ , 1 hour ago link

Dude, it's 666D chess!

The Real John Bolton

[Feb 02, 2020] This neocon snake Pompeo

Feb 02, 2020 | newrepublic.com

Then Trump ordered the drone strike on Soleimani, drastically escalating a simmering conflict between Iran and the United States. All of a sudden the roles were reversed, with Bolton praising the president and asserting that Soleimani's death was " the first step to regime change in Tehran ." A chorus of neocons rushed to second his praise: Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA officer and prominent Never Trumper, lauded Trump's intestinal fortitude, while Representative Liz Cheney hailed Trump's "decisive action." It was Carlson who was left sputtering about the forever wars. "Washington has wanted war with Iran for decades," Carlson said . "They still want it now. Let's hope they haven't finally gotten it."

[Feb 02, 2020] The most interesting issue is the role of NSC in this impeachment story

Highly recommended!
Edited for clarity
Notable quotes:
"... Currently they can wrap themselves into constitution defenders flag and be pretty safe from any criticism. Because charges that Schiff brought to the floor are bogus, and probably were created out of thin air by NSC plotters. Senators on both sides understand this, creating a classic Kabuki theater environment. ..."
"... In any case, it is clear that Trump is just a marionette of more powerful forces behind him, and his impeachment does not means much, if those forces are untouchable. Impeachment Kabuki theatre is an attempt of restoration of NSC (read neocons) favored foreign policy from which Trump slightly deviated. ..."
Feb 02, 2020 | angrybearblog.com

likbez , February 2, 2020 10:40 pm

Far more interesting issue is the role of NSC in this impeachment story.

Potential whistleblower (actually CIA informant) was from NSC as were Fiona Hill, Alex Vindman and a couple of other major Ukrainegate players.

In this NSC coup d'état against the President or what ? About earlier role of NSC see

https://off-guardian.org/2020/02/01/secret-wars-forgotten-betrayals-global-tyranny-who-is-really-in-charge-of-the-u-s-military/

As for "evil republican senators", they would be viewed as evil by electorate if and only only if actual crimes of Trump regime like Douma false flag, Suleimani assassination (actually here Trump was set up By Bolton and Pompeo) and other were discussed.

Currently they can wrap themselves into constitution defenders flag and be pretty safe from any criticism. Because charges that Schiff brought to the floor are bogus, and probably were created out of thin air by NSC plotters. Senators on both sides understand this, creating a classic Kabuki theater environment.

Both sides are afraid to discuss real issues, real Trump regime crimes.

Schiff proved to be patently inept in this whole story even taking into account limitations put by Kabuki theater on him, and in case of Trump acquittal *which is "highly probable" borrowing May government terminology in Skripals case :-) to resign would be a honest thing for him to do.

Assuming that he has some honestly left. Which is highly doubtful with statements like:

"The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there so we don't have to fight Russia here."

And

"More than 15,000 Ukrainians have died fighting Russian forces and their proxies. 15,000."

Actually it was the USA interference in Ukraine (aka Nulandgate) that killed 15K Ukrainians, mainly Donbas residents and badly trained recruits of the Ukrainian army sent to fight them, as well as volunteers of paramilitary "death squads" like Asov battalion financed by oligarch Igor Kolomyskiy

In any case, it is clear that Trump is just a marionette of more powerful forces behind him, and his impeachment does not means much, if those forces are untouchable. Impeachment Kabuki theatre is an attempt of restoration of NSC (read neocons) favored foreign policy from which Trump slightly deviated.

[Feb 01, 2020] The Real John Bolton - CounterPunch.org

Notable quotes:
"... Washington Post, ..."
"... Bolton targeted every arms control and disarmament agreement over the past several decades, and played a major role in abrogating two of the most significant ones. As an arms control official in the Bush administration, he lobbied successfully for the abrogation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972. As soon as he joined the Trump administration, he went after the Intermediate-Nuclear Forces Treaty, which was abrogated in 2018. He criticized the Nunn-Lugar agreement in the 1990s, which played a key role in the denuclearization of former Soviet republics, and maligned the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons as well as the Iran nuclear accord. He helped to derail the Biological Weapons Conference in Geneva in 2001. ..."
Feb 01, 2020 | www.counterpunch.org

It isn't enough for the corporate media to praise John Bolton for his timely manuscript that confirms Donald Trump's explicit linkage between military aid to Ukraine and investigations into his political foe Joe Biden. As a result, the media have made John Bolton a "man of principle," according to the Washington Post, and a fearless infighter for the "sovereignty of the United States." Writing in the Post , Kathleen Parker notes that Bolton isn't motivated by the money he will earn from his book (in the neighborhood of $2 million), but that he is far more interested in "saving his legacy." Perhaps this is a good time to examine that legacy.

Bolton, who used student deferments and service in the Maryland National Guard to avoid serving in Vietnam, is a classic Chicken Hawk. He supported the Vietnam War and continues to support the war in Iraq. Bolton endorsed preemptive military strikes in North Korea and Iran in recent years, and lobbied for regime change in Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. When George W. Bush declared an "axis of evil" in 2002 consisting of Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, Bolton added an equally bizarre axis of Cuba, Libya, and Syria.

When Bolton occupied official positions at the Department of State and the United Nations, he regularly ignored assessments of the intelligence community in order to make false arguments regarding weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Cuba and Syria in order to promote the use of force. When serving as President Bush's Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and Disarmament, Bolton ran his own intelligence program, issuing white papers on WMD that lacked support within the intelligence community. He used his own reports to testify to congressional committees in 2002 in effort to justify the use of military force against Iraq.

Bolton presented misinformation to the Congress on a Cuban biological weapons program. When the Central Intelligence Agency challenged the accuracy of Bolton's information in 2003, he was forced to cancel a similar briefing on Syria. In a briefing to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2005, the former chief of intelligence at the Department of State, Carl Ford, referred to Bolton as a "serial abuser" in his efforts to pressure intelligence analysts. Ford testified that he had "never seen anybody quite like Secretary Bolton in terms of the way he abuses his power and authority with little people."

The hearings in 2005 included a statement from a whistleblower, a former contractor at the Agency for International Development, who accused Bolton of using inflammatory language and even throwing objects at her. The whistleblower told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff that Bolton made derogatory remarks about her sexual orientation and weight among other improprieties. The critical testimony against Bolton meant that the Republican-led Foreign Relations Committee couldn't confirm his appointment as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. President Bush made Bolton a recess appointment, which he later regretted.

The United Nations, after all, was an ironic assignment for Bolton, who has been a strong critic of the UN and most international organizations throughout his career because they infringed on the "sovereignty of the United States." In 1994, he stated there was no such thing as the United Nations, but there is an international community that "can be led by the only real power left in the world," the United States. Bolton stated that the "Secretariat Building in New York has 38 stories," and that if it "lost ten stories, it wouldn't make any difference."

Bolton said the "happiest moment" in his political career was when the United States pulled out of the International Criminal Court. Years later, he told the Federalist Society that Bush's withdrawal from the UN's Rome Statute, which created the ICC, was "one of my proudest achievements."

Bolton targeted every arms control and disarmament agreement over the past several decades, and played a major role in abrogating two of the most significant ones. As an arms control official in the Bush administration, he lobbied successfully for the abrogation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972. As soon as he joined the Trump administration, he went after the Intermediate-Nuclear Forces Treaty, which was abrogated in 2018. He criticized the Nunn-Lugar agreement in the 1990s, which played a key role in the denuclearization of former Soviet republics, and maligned the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons as well as the Iran nuclear accord. He helped to derail the Biological Weapons Conference in Geneva in 2001.

U.S. efforts at diplomatic reconciliation have drawn Bolton's ire. The two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian situation as well as Richard Nixon's one-China policy have been particular targets. He is also a frequent critic of the European Union, and a passionate supporter of Brexit. From 2013 to 2018, he was the chairman of the Gatestone Institute, a well-known anti-Muslim organization. He was the director of the Project for the New American Century, which led the campaign for the use of force against Iraq. The fact that he was a protege of former senator Jesse Helms should come as no surprise.

It is useful to have Bolton's testimony at the climactic moment in the current impeachment trial, but it should't blind us to his deceit and disinformation over his thirty years of opposition to U.S. international diplomacy. As an assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration, he fought against reparations to Japanese-Americans who had been held in internment camps during World War II. Two secretaries of state, Colin Powell and Condi Rice, have accused Bolton with holding back important information on important international issues, and Bolton did his best to sabotage Powell's efforts to pursue negotiations with North Korea. Bolton had a hand in the disinformation campaign against Iraq in the run-up to the U.S. invasion of 2003. The legacy of John Bolton is well established; his manuscript will not alter this legacy. Join the debate on Facebook More articles by: Melvin Goodman Melvin A. Goodman is a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and a professor of government at Johns Hopkins University. A former CIA analyst, Goodman is the author of Failure of Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA and National Insecurity: The Cost of American Militarism . and A Whistleblower at the CIA . His most recent book is "American Carnage: The Wars of Donald Trump" (Opus Publishing), and he is the author of the forthcoming "The Dangerous National Security State" (2020)." Goodman is the national security columnist for counterpunch.org .

[Feb 01, 2020] Bolton's mustache is trying to impeach his face: Trump tweets 'game over' after Bolton, Schiff videos resurface

Feb 01, 2020 | www.youtube.com

Matthew Rand , 22 hours ago

Bolton's mustache is trying to impeach his face.

G Blizzard , 1 day ago

Well, if his credibility is done, Michael Bolton can always go back to singing.


Curt Stolpe , 1 day ago

"We can't beat him so we have to impeach him" no truer words were ever spoken. Too bad they couldn't come up with a reason. I think November will be a Democrat Slaughter.

IJJ , 1 day ago

Bolton & Schiff - Bozo 1 and Bozo 2 😂


MoralHi , 1 day ago

That old man Bolton would sell his Gandma to sell his book !

[Jan 31, 2020] Tucker John Bolton has always been a snake

Bolton was appointed by Adelson.
Jan 27, 2020 | www.youtube.com

Bolton's tell-all book leaks during Senate trial. #FoxNews

Yamaha Venture , 3 days ago

Mitt Romney is a joke.

Michael Harvey , 2 days ago

John Bolton wants war everywhere to line his pockets with money.

Stephen C , 1 day ago

The "right" gets the left, but doesn't agree with them. The "left" doesn't understand the "right".

Citizen Se7en , 2 days ago

"Bolton's resignation was one of the highlights of the president's first term." Truer words have never been spoken.

Jack Albright , 2 days ago

This story is also called "the scorpion and the frog".

Ragnar Lothbrok , 3 days ago

John Bolton should be given a helmet and a gun and sent to the next war. Let's see how he likes it.

Stratchona , 1 day ago

Trump.." I don't know John Bolton,never met him,don't know what he does."

Jaret Glenn , 2 days ago

Time to investigate Romney's son working for the oil company in the Ukraine.

Regan Orr , 2 days ago

Romney's Holy Underwear is Cutting off the Blood Supply to his Deep St Brain!

Marjo , 2 days ago (edited)

I never liked Bolton. I sensed he was out for himself, at anyone's expense. War monger too. He had many people fooled.

Shara Kirkby , 3 days ago

Bolton wants war anywhere and forever!

David Dorrell , 1 day ago (edited)

Frickin' Globalist peckerwoods. John Bolton and his pal, Mitt Romney.

Olivier Bolton , 2 days ago

Bolton wanted war so he got the boot...the fact he brings out his book now just looks like vengean$$

Max Liftoff , 2 days ago

2:30 Because Bolton never served in the military he truly passionately loved war :)) LMAO Tucker nailed it.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ , 1 day ago

The left's championing of John Bolton is further proof that TDS has made their minds turn to sludge.

j abe , 3 days ago

Can someone expaine to me how mit romney is still geting votes from ppl

Mark Whitley , 2 days ago

Bolton is a war mongering narcissist that wanted his war, didn't get it, & is now acting like a spoilt child that didn't get his way & is laying on the floor kicking & screaming!

Tim Fronimos , 2 days ago

Regarding John Bolton's book, is this the first book that he's colored. just curious

newuserandhiscrew 22 , 2 days ago

Everyone: Bolton: "take me in oh tender woman, take me in for heaven's sake"

Brittany Ward , 1 day ago

I can't fathom that people actually believe everything the media says!

[Jan 31, 2020] Trump excoriates Bolton in tweets this morning

Highly recommended!
Trump is lying. Bolton was appointed by Adelson and Trump can't refuse Adelson protégé.
Jan 31, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Trump excoriates Bolton in tweets this morning:
"For a guy who couldn't get approved for the Ambassador to the U.N. years ago, couldn't get approved for anything since, 'begged' me for a non Senate approved job, which I gave him despite many saying 'Don't do it, sir,' takes the job, mistakenly says 'Libyan Model' on T.V., and ... many more mistakes of judgement [sic], gets fired because frankly, if I listened to him, we would be in World War Six by now, and goes out and IMMEDIATELY writes a nasty & untrue book. All Classified National Security. Who would do this?"

IMO, Trump is a fantastic POTUS for this day and age, but he wasn't on his A game when he brought Bolton onboard. He should have known better and, was, apparently, warned. Maybe Trump thought he could control him and use him as a threatening pit bull. Mistake. Bolton is greedy as well as vindictive.

Posted by: Eric Newhill | 29 January 2020 at 09:30 AM

[Jan 31, 2020] Two "nice" Americans

Jan 31, 2020 | off-guardian.org

Norn ,

"nice" Americans: .. Here is a sample of nice Americans who want to control our breath: Pompeo , Fri 24 Jan 2020: "You Think Americans Really Give A F**k About Ukraine?"

Michael Richard Pompeo (57 y.o.) is the United States secretary of state. He is a former United States Army officer and was Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from January 2017 until April 2018

Nuland , earlier than Feb 2014: "Fuck the EU."

Victoria Jane Nuland (59 y.o) is the former Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the United States Department of State. She held the rank of Career Ambassador, the highest diplomatic rank in the United States Foreign Service. She is the former CEO of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), and is also a Member of the Board of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED)

[Jan 30, 2020] The Neocons Strike Back by Jacob Heilbrunn

Notable quotes:
"... A chorus of neocons rushed to second his praise: Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA officer and prominent Never Trumper, lauded Trump's intestinal fortitude, while Representative Liz Cheney hailed Trump's "decisive action." It was Carlson who was left sputtering about the forever wars. "Washington has wanted war with Iran for decades," Carlson said . "They still want it now. Let's hope they haven't finally gotten it." ..."
"... Neoconservatism as a foreign policy ideology has been badly discredited over the last two decades, thanks to the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan. But in the blinding flash of one drone strike, neoconservatism was easily able to reinsert itself in the national conversation. It now appears that Trump intends to make Soleimani's killing -- which has nearly drawn the U.S. into yet another conflict in the Middle East and, in typical neoconservative fashion, ended up backfiring and undercutting American goals in the region -- a central part of his 2020 reelection bid . ..."
"... The neocons are starting to realize that Trump's presidency, at least when it comes to foreign policy, is no less vulnerable to hijacking than those of previous Republican presidents, including the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. The leading hawks inside and outside the administration shaping its approach to Iran include Robert O'Brien, Bolton's disciple and successor as national security adviser; Secretary of State Mike Pompeo; Special Representative for Iran Brian Hook; Mark Dubowitz, the CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies; David Wurmser, a former adviser to Bolton; and Senators Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton. Perhaps no one better exemplifies the neocon ethos better than Cotton, a Kristol protégé who soaked up the teachings of the political philosopher Leo Strauss while studying at Harvard. Others who have been baying for conflict with Iran include Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor who is now Trump's personal lawyer and partner in Ukrainian crime. In June 2018, Giuliani went to Paris to address the National Council of Resistance of Iran, whose parent organization is the Iranian opposition group Mujahedin-e-Khalq, or MeK. Giuliani, who has been on the payroll of the MeK for years, demanded -- what else? -- regime change. ..."
"... The fresh charge into battle of what Sidney Blumenthal once aptly referred to as an ideological light brigade brings to mind Hobbes's observation in Leviathan : "All men that are ambitious of military command are inclined to continue the causes of war; and to stir up trouble and sedition; for there is no honor military but by war; nor any such hope to mend an ill game, as by causing a new shuffle." The neocons, it appears, have caused a new shuffle. ..."
"... the killing of Soleimani revealed that the neocon military-intellectual complex is very much still intact, with the ability to spring back to life from a state of suspended animation in an instant. Its hawkish tendencies remain widely prevalent not only in the Republican Party but also in the media, the think-tank universe, and in the liberal-hawk precincts of the Democratic Party. Meanwhile, the influence and reach of the anti-war right remains nascent; even if this contingent has popular support, it doesn't enjoy much backing in Washington beyond the mood swings of the mercurial occupant of the Oval Office. ..."
"... The neocons supplied the patina of intellectual legitimacy for policies that might once have seemed outré. ..."
"... But it was the neoconservatives, not the paleocons, who amassed influence in the 1990s and took over the GOP's foreign policy wing. Veteran neocons like Michael Ledeen were joined by a younger generation of journalists and policymakers that included Robert Kagan, Bill Kristol (who founded The Weekly Standard in 1994), Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas J. Feith. The neocons consistently pushed for a hard line against Iraq and Iran. In his 1996 book, Freedom Betrayed, for example, Ledeen, an expert on Italian fascism, declared that the right, rather than the left, should adhere to the revolutionary tradition of toppling dictatorships. In his 2002 book, The War Against the Terror Masters, Ledeen stated , "Creative destruction is our middle name. We tear down the old order every day." ..."
"... Still, a number of neocons, including David Frum, Max Boot, Anne Applebaum, Jennifer Rubin, and Kristol himself, have continued to condemn Trump vociferously for his thuggish instincts at home and abroad. They are not seeking high-profile government careers in the Trump administration and so have been able to reinvent themselves as domestic regime-change advocates, something they have done quite skillfully. In fact, their writings are more pungent now that they have been liberated from the costive confines of the movement. ..."
"... And so, urged on by Mike Pompeo, a staunch evangelical Christian, and Iraq War–era figures like David Wurmser , Trump is apparently prepared to target Iran for destruction. In a tweet, he dismissed his national security adviser, the Bolton protégé Robert O'Brien, for declaring that the strike against Soleimani would force Iran to negotiate: "Actually, I couldn't care less if they negotiate," he said . "Will be totally up to them but, no nuclear weapons and 'don't kill your protesters.'" Neocons have been quick to recognize the new, more belligerent Trump -- and the potential maneuvering room he's now created for their movement. Jonathan S. Tobin, a former editor at Commentary and a contributor to National Review , rejoiced in Haaretz that "the neo-isolationist wing of the GOP, for which Carlson is a spokesperson, is losing the struggle for control of Trump's foreign policy." Tobin, however, added an important caveat: "When it comes to Iran, Trump needs no prodding from the likes of Bolton to act like a neoconservative. Just as important, the entire notion of anyone -- be it Carlson, former White House senior advisor Steve Bannon, or any cabinet official like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo -- being able to control Trump is a myth." ..."
"... One reason is institutional. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Hudson Institute, and AEI have all been sounding the tocsin about Iran for decades. Once upon a time, the neocons were outliers. Now they're the new establishment, exerting a kind of gravitational pull on debate, pulling politicians and a variety of news organizations into their orbit. The Hudson Institute, for example, recently held an event with former Iranian Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, who exhorted Iran's Revolutionary Guard to "peel away" from the mullahs and endorsed the Trump administration's maximum pressure campaign. ..."
"... Meanwhile, Wolfowitz, also writing in the Times , has popped up to warn Trump against trying to leave Syria: "To paraphrase Trotsky's aphorism about war, you may not be interested in the Middle East, but the Middle East is interested in you." With the "both-sides" ethos that prevails in the mainstream media, neocon ideas are just as good as any others for National Public Radio or The Washington Post, whose editorial page, incidentally, championed the Iraq War and has been imbued with a neocon, or at least liberal-hawk, tinge ever since Fred Hiatt took it over in 2000. ..."
"... Above all, Trump hired Michael Flynn as his first national security adviser. Flynn was the co-author with Ledeen of a creepy tract called Field of Fight, in which they demanded a crusade against the Muslim world ..."
"... At a minimum, the traditional Republican hard-line foreign policy approach has now fused with neoconservatism so that the two are virtually indistinguishable. At a maximum, neoconservatism shapes the dominant foreign policy worldview in Washington, which is why Democrats were falling over themselves to assure voters that Soleimani -- a "bad guy" -- had it coming. Any objections that his killing might boomerang back on the U.S. are met with cries from the right that Democrats are siding with the enemy. This truly is a policy of "maximum pressure" at home and abroad. ..."
Jan 23, 2020 | newrepublic.com

There was a time not so long ago, before President Donald Trump's surprise decision early this year to liquidate the Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani, when it appeared that America's neoconservatives were floundering. The president was itching to withdraw U.S. forces from Afghanistan. He was staging exuberant photo-ops with a beaming Kim Jong Un. He was reportedly willing to hold talks with the president of Iran, while clearly preferring trade wars to hot ones.

Indeed, this past summer, Trump's anti-interventionist supporters in the conservative media were riding high. When he refrained from attacking Iran in June after it shot down an American drone, Fox News host Tucker Carlson declared , "Donald Trump was elected president precisely to keep us out of disaster like war with Iran." Carlson went on to condemn the hawks in Trump's Cabinet and their allies, who he claimed were egging the president on -- familiar names to anyone who has followed the decades-long neoconservative project of aggressively using military force to topple unfriendly regimes and project American power over the globe. "So how did we get so close to starting [a war]?" he asked. "One of [the hawks'] key allies is the national security adviser of the United States. John Bolton is an old friend of Bill Kristol's. Together they helped plan the Iraq War."

By the time Trump met with Kim in late June, becoming the first sitting president to set foot on North Korean soil, Bolton was on the outs. Carlson was on the president's North Korean junket, while Trump's national security adviser was in Mongolia. "John Bolton is absolutely a hawk," Trump told NBC in June. "If it was up to him, he'd take on the whole world at one time, OK?" In September, Bolton was fired.

The standard-bearer of the Republican Party had made clear his distaste for the neocons' belligerent approach to global affairs, much to the neocons' own entitled chagrin. As recently as December, Bolton, now outside the tent pissing in, was hammering Trump for "bluffing" through an announcement that the administration wanted North Korea to dismantle its nuclear weapons program. "The idea that we are somehow exerting maximum pressure on North Korea is just unfortunately not true," Bolton told Axios . Then Trump ordered the drone strike on Soleimani, drastically escalating a simmering conflict between Iran and the United States. All of a sudden the roles were reversed, with Bolton praising the president and asserting that Soleimani's death was " the first step to regime change in Tehran ." A chorus of neocons rushed to second his praise: Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA officer and prominent Never Trumper, lauded Trump's intestinal fortitude, while Representative Liz Cheney hailed Trump's "decisive action." It was Carlson who was left sputtering about the forever wars. "Washington has wanted war with Iran for decades," Carlson said . "They still want it now. Let's hope they haven't finally gotten it."

Neoconservatism as a foreign policy ideology has been badly discredited over the last two decades, thanks to the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan. But in the blinding flash of one drone strike, neoconservatism was easily able to reinsert itself in the national conversation. It now appears that Trump intends to make Soleimani's killing -- which has nearly drawn the U.S. into yet another conflict in the Middle East and, in typical neoconservative fashion, ended up backfiring and undercutting American goals in the region -- a central part of his 2020 reelection bid .

The anti-interventionist right is freaking out. Writing in American Greatness, Matthew Boose declared , "[T]he Trump movement, which was generated out of opposition to the foreign policy blob and its endless wars, was revealed this week to have been co-opted to a great extent by neoconservatives seeking regime change." James Antle, the editor of The American Conservative, a publication founded in 2002 to oppose the Iraq War, asked , "Did Trump betray the anti-war right?"

In the blinding flash of one drone strike, neoconservatism was easily able to reinsert itself in the national conversation.

Their concerns are not unmerited. The neocons are starting to realize that Trump's presidency, at least when it comes to foreign policy, is no less vulnerable to hijacking than those of previous Republican presidents, including the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. The leading hawks inside and outside the administration shaping its approach to Iran include Robert O'Brien, Bolton's disciple and successor as national security adviser; Secretary of State Mike Pompeo; Special Representative for Iran Brian Hook; Mark Dubowitz, the CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies; David Wurmser, a former adviser to Bolton; and Senators Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton. Perhaps no one better exemplifies the neocon ethos better than Cotton, a Kristol protégé who soaked up the teachings of the political philosopher Leo Strauss while studying at Harvard. Others who have been baying for conflict with Iran include Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor who is now Trump's personal lawyer and partner in Ukrainian crime. In June 2018, Giuliani went to Paris to address the National Council of Resistance of Iran, whose parent organization is the Iranian opposition group Mujahedin-e-Khalq, or MeK. Giuliani, who has been on the payroll of the MeK for years, demanded -- what else? -- regime change.

The fresh charge into battle of what Sidney Blumenthal once aptly referred to as an ideological light brigade brings to mind Hobbes's observation in Leviathan : "All men that are ambitious of military command are inclined to continue the causes of war; and to stir up trouble and sedition; for there is no honor military but by war; nor any such hope to mend an ill game, as by causing a new shuffle." The neocons, it appears, have caused a new shuffle.

Donald Trump has not dragged us into war with Iran (yet). But the killing of Soleimani revealed that the neocon military-intellectual complex is very much still intact, with the ability to spring back to life from a state of suspended animation in an instant. Its hawkish tendencies remain widely prevalent not only in the Republican Party but also in the media, the think-tank universe, and in the liberal-hawk precincts of the Democratic Party. Meanwhile, the influence and reach of the anti-war right remains nascent; even if this contingent has popular support, it doesn't enjoy much backing in Washington beyond the mood swings of the mercurial occupant of the Oval Office.

But there was a time when the neoconservative coalition was not so entrenched -- and what has turned out to be its provisional state of exile lends some critical insight into how it managed to hang around respectable policymaking circles in recent years, and how it may continue to shape American foreign policy for the foreseeable future. When the neoconservatives came on the scene in the late 1960s, the Republican old guard viewed them as interlopers. The neocons, former Trotskyists turned liberals who broke with the Democratic Party over its perceived weakness on the Cold War, stormed the citadel of Republican ideology by emphasizing the relationship between ideas and political reality. Irving Kristol, one of the original neoconservatives, mused in 1985 that " what communists call the theoretical organs always end up through a filtering process influencing a lot of people who don't even know they're being influenced. In the end, ideas rule the world because even interests are defined by ideas."

At pivotal moments in modern American foreign policy, the neocons supplied the patina of intellectual legitimacy for policies that might once have seemed outré. Jeane Kirkpatrick's seminal 1979 essay in Commentary, "Dictatorships and Double Standards," essentially set forth the lineaments of the Reagan doctrine. She assailed Jimmy Carter for attacking friendly authoritarian leaders such as the shah of Iran and Nicaragua's Anastasio Somoza. She contended that authoritarian regimes might molt into democracies, while totalitarian regimes would remain impregnable to outside influence, American or otherwise. Ronald Reagan read the essay and liked it. He named Kirkpatrick his ambassador to the United Nations, where she became the most influential neocon of the era for her denunciations of Arab regimes and defenses of Israel. Her tenure was also defined by the notion that it was perfectly acceptable for America to cozy up to noxious regimes, from apartheid South Africa to the shah's Iran, as part of the greater mission to oppose the red menace.

The neocons supplied the patina of intellectual legitimacy for policies that might once have seemed outré.

There was always tension between Reagan's affinity for authoritarian regimes and his hard-line opposition to Communist ones. His sunny persona never quite gelled with Kirkpatrick's more gelid view that communism was an immutable force, and in 1982, in a major speech to the British Parliament at Westminster emphasizing the power of democracy and free speech, he declared his intent to end the Cold War on American terms. As Reagan's second term progressed and democracy and free speech actually took hold in the waning days of the Soviet Union, many hawks declared that it was all a sham. Indeed, not a few neocons were livid, claiming that Reagan was appeasing the Soviet Union. But after the USSR collapsed, they retroactively blessed him as the anti-Communist warrior par excellence and the model for the future. The right was now a font of happy talk about the dawn of a new age of liberty based on free-market economics and American firepower.

The fall of communism, in other words, set the stage for a new neoconservative paradigm. Francis Fukuyama's The End of History appeared a decade after Kirkpatrick's essay in Commentary and just before the Berlin Wall was breached on November 9, 1989. Here was a sharp break with the saturnine, realpolitik approach that Kirkpatrick had championed. Irving Kristol regarded it as hopelessly utopian -- "I don't believe a word of it," he wrote in a response to Fukuyama. But a younger generation of neocons, led by Irving's son, Bill Kristol, and Robert Kagan, embraced it. Fukuyama argued that Western, liberal democracy, far from being menaced, was now the destination point of the train of world history. With communism vanquished, the neocons, bearing the good word from Fukuyama, formulated a new goal: democracy promotion, by force if necessary, as a way to hasten history and secure the global order with the U.S. at its head. The first Gulf War in 1991, precipitated by Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, tested the neocons' resolve and led to a break in the GOP -- one that would presage the rise of Donald Trump. For decades, Patrick Buchanan had been regularly inveighing against what he came to call the neocon " amen corner" in and around the Washington centers of power, including A.M. Rosenthal and Charles Krauthammer, both of whom endorsed the '91 Gulf War. The neocons were frustrated by the measured approach taken by George H.W. Bush. He refused to crow about the fall of the Berlin Wall and kicked the Iraqis out of Kuwait but declined to invade Iraq and "finish the job," as his hawkish critics would later put it. Buchanan then ran for the presidency in 1992 on an America First platform, reviving a paleoconservative tradition that would partly inform Trump's dark horse run in 2016.

But it was the neoconservatives, not the paleocons, who amassed influence in the 1990s and took over the GOP's foreign policy wing. Veteran neocons like Michael Ledeen were joined by a younger generation of journalists and policymakers that included Robert Kagan, Bill Kristol (who founded The Weekly Standard in 1994), Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas J. Feith. The neocons consistently pushed for a hard line against Iraq and Iran. In his 1996 book, Freedom Betrayed, for example, Ledeen, an expert on Italian fascism, declared that the right, rather than the left, should adhere to the revolutionary tradition of toppling dictatorships. In his 2002 book, The War Against the Terror Masters, Ledeen stated , "Creative destruction is our middle name. We tear down the old order every day."

We all know the painful consequences of the neocons' obsession with creative destruction. In his second inaugural address, three and a half years after 9/11, George W. Bush cemented neoconservative ideology into presidential doctrine: "It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." The neocons' hubris had already turned into nemesis in Iraq, paving the way for an anti-war candidate in Barack Obama.

But it was Trump -- by virtue of running as a Republican -- who appeared to sound neoconservatism's death knell. He announced his Buchananesque policy of "America First" in a speech at Washington's Mayflower Hotel in 2016, signaling that he would not adhere to the long-standing Reaganite principles that had animated the party establishment.

The pooh-bahs of the GOP openly declared their disdain and revulsion for Trump, leading directly to the rise of the Never Trump movement, which was dominated by neocons. The Never Trumpers ended up functioning as an informal blacklist for Trump once he became president. Elliott Abrams, for example, who was being touted for deputy secretary of state in February 2017, was rejected when Steve Bannon alerted Trump to his earlier heresies (though he later reemerged, in January 2019, as Trump's special envoy to Venezuela, where he has pushed for regime change). Not a few other members of the Republican foreign policy establishment suffered similar fates.

Kristol's The Weekly Standard, which had held the neoconservative line through the Bush years and beyond , folded in 2018. Even the office building that used to house the American Enterprise Institute and the Standard, on the corner of 17th and M streets in Washington, has been torn down, leaving an empty, boarded-up site whose symbolism speaks for itself.

Still, a number of neocons, including David Frum, Max Boot, Anne Applebaum, Jennifer Rubin, and Kristol himself, have continued to condemn Trump vociferously for his thuggish instincts at home and abroad. They are not seeking high-profile government careers in the Trump administration and so have been able to reinvent themselves as domestic regime-change advocates, something they have done quite skillfully. In fact, their writings are more pungent now that they have been liberated from the costive confines of the movement.

It was Trump -- by virtue of running as a Republican -- who appeared to sound neoconservatism's death knell.

But other neocons -- the ones who want to wield positions of influence and might -- have, more often than not, been able to hold their noses. Stephen Wertheim, writing in The New York Review of Books, has perceptively dubbed this faction the anti-globalist neocons. Led by John Bolton, they believe Trump performed a godsend by elevating the term globalism "from a marginal slur to the central foil of American foreign policy and Republican politics," Wertheim argued . The U.S. need not bother with pesky multilateral institutions or international agreements or the entire postwar order, for that matter -- it's now America's way or the highway.

And so, urged on by Mike Pompeo, a staunch evangelical Christian, and Iraq War–era figures like David Wurmser , Trump is apparently prepared to target Iran for destruction. In a tweet, he dismissed his national security adviser, the Bolton protégé Robert O'Brien, for declaring that the strike against Soleimani would force Iran to negotiate: "Actually, I couldn't care less if they negotiate," he said . "Will be totally up to them but, no nuclear weapons and 'don't kill your protesters.'" Neocons have been quick to recognize the new, more belligerent Trump -- and the potential maneuvering room he's now created for their movement. Jonathan S. Tobin, a former editor at Commentary and a contributor to National Review , rejoiced in Haaretz that "the neo-isolationist wing of the GOP, for which Carlson is a spokesperson, is losing the struggle for control of Trump's foreign policy." Tobin, however, added an important caveat: "When it comes to Iran, Trump needs no prodding from the likes of Bolton to act like a neoconservative. Just as important, the entire notion of anyone -- be it Carlson, former White House senior advisor Steve Bannon, or any cabinet official like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo -- being able to control Trump is a myth."

In other words, whether the neocons themselves are occupying top positions in the Trump administration is almost irrelevant. The ideology itself has reemerged to a degree that even Trump himself seems hard pressed to resist it -- if he even wants to.

How were the neocons able to influence another Republican presidency, one that was ostensibly dedicated to curbing their sway?

One reason is institutional. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Hudson Institute, and AEI have all been sounding the tocsin about Iran for decades. Once upon a time, the neocons were outliers. Now they're the new establishment, exerting a kind of gravitational pull on debate, pulling politicians and a variety of news organizations into their orbit. The Hudson Institute, for example, recently held an event with former Iranian Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, who exhorted Iran's Revolutionary Guard to "peel away" from the mullahs and endorsed the Trump administration's maximum pressure campaign. The event was hosted by Michael Doran, a former senior director on George W. Bush's National Security Council and a senior fellow at the institute, who wrote in The New York Times on January 3, "The United States has no choice, if it seeks to stay in the Middle East, but to check Iran's military power on the ground." Then there's Jamie M. Fly, a former staffer to Senator Marco Rubio who was appointed this past August to head Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty; he previously co-authored an essay in Foreign Affairs contending that it isn't enough to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities: "If the United States seriously considers military action, it would be better to plan an operation that not only strikes the nuclear program but aims to destabilize the regime, potentially resolving the Iranian nuclear crisis once and for all."

Meanwhile, Wolfowitz, also writing in the Times , has popped up to warn Trump against trying to leave Syria: "To paraphrase Trotsky's aphorism about war, you may not be interested in the Middle East, but the Middle East is interested in you." With the "both-sides" ethos that prevails in the mainstream media, neocon ideas are just as good as any others for National Public Radio or The Washington Post, whose editorial page, incidentally, championed the Iraq War and has been imbued with a neocon, or at least liberal-hawk, tinge ever since Fred Hiatt took it over in 2000.

But there are plenty of institutions in Washington, and neoconservatism's seemingly inescapable influence cannot be chalked up to the swamp alone. Some etiolated form of what might be called Ledeenism lingered on before taking on new life at the outset of the Trump administration. Trump's overt animus toward Muslims, for example, meant that figures such as Frank Gaffney, who opposed arms-control treaties with Moscow as a member of the Reagan administration and resigned in protest of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, achieved a new prominence. During the Obama administration, Gaffney, the head of the Center for Security Policy, claimed that the Muslim Brotherhood had infiltrated the White House and National Security Agency.

Above all, Trump hired Michael Flynn as his first national security adviser. Flynn was the co-author with Ledeen of a creepy tract called Field of Fight, in which they demanded a crusade against the Muslim world: "We're in a world war against a messianic mass movement of evil people." It was one of many signs that Trump was susceptible to ideas of a civilizational battle against "Islamo-fascism," which Norman Podhoretz and other neocons argued, in the wake of 9/11, would lead to World War III. In their millenarian ardor and inflexible support for Israel, the neocons find themselves in a position precisely cognate to evangelical Christians -- both groups of true believers trying to enact their vision through an apostate. But perhaps the neoconservatives' greatest strength lies in the realm of ideas that Irving Kristol identified more than three decades ago. The neocons remain the winners of that battle, not because their policies have made the world or the U.S. more secure, but by default -- because there are so few genuinely alternative ideas that are championed with equal zeal. The foreign policy discussion surrounding Soleimani's killing -- which accelerated Iran's nuclear weapons program, diminished America's influence in the Middle East, and entrenched Iran's theocratic regime -- has largely occurred on a spectrum of the neocons' making. It is a discussion that accepts premises of the beneficence of American military might and hegemony -- Hobbes's "ill game" -- and naturally bends the universe toward more war.

At a minimum, the traditional Republican hard-line foreign policy approach has now fused with neoconservatism so that the two are virtually indistinguishable. At a maximum, neoconservatism shapes the dominant foreign policy worldview in Washington, which is why Democrats were falling over themselves to assure voters that Soleimani -- a "bad guy" -- had it coming. Any objections that his killing might boomerang back on the U.S. are met with cries from the right that Democrats are siding with the enemy. This truly is a policy of "maximum pressure" at home and abroad.

As Trump takes an extreme hard line against Iran, the neoconservatives may ultimately get their long-held wish of a war with the ayatollahs. When it ends in a fresh disaster, they can always argue that it only failed because it wasn't prosecuted vigorously enough -- and the shuffle will begin again.

Jacob Heilbrunn is the editor of The National Interest and the author of They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons. @ JacobHeilbrunn

Read More Politics , The Soapbox , Donald Trump , Islamic Republic of Iran , Qassem Soleimani , Bill Kristol , Irving Kristol , David Frum , John Bolton , Norman Podhoretz , Doug Feith , Paul Wolfowitz , George W. Bush , George H.W. Bush , Ronald Reagan , Pat Buchanan , Mike Pompeo , Tom Cotton , Lindsey Graham , Rudy Giuliani , Gulf War , Iraq War , Cold War , Francis Fukuyama , Jeane Kirkpatrick

[Jan 30, 2020] There is no shortage of great intellects in the Middle East to follow in his extraordinary footsteps

Notable quotes:
"... I think they were trying to start a war when they killed Soleimani, and the Iranians decided to use it against them instead. Which is smart. Neocons talk a lot but they are not smart. They are bullies and cowards. ..."
Jan 30, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

uncle tungsten , Jan 30 2020 22:27 utc | 117

Thanks b, that is a mighty good post:

This man had a mighty wish too

There is no shortage of great intellects in the Middle East to follow in his extraordinary footsteps.

Bemildred , Jan 30 2020 23:27 utc | 126

Posted by: Patroklos | Jan 30 2020 23:02 utc | 124

I think they were trying to start a war when they killed Soleimani, and the Iranians decided to use it against them instead. Which is smart. Neocons talk a lot but they are not smart. They are bullies and cowards.

At present what I notice is what you do, there is a lot going on, but you won't find it in the MSM. They are busy reducing their audience share with propaganda.

They kicked the jams out when they droned Soleiman. No more "deals".

But I expect Iran to do these things while this is going on:

1.) Annoy Trump and his minions and USG political class as much as possible, stay in their face.
2.) Watch, and help their "proxies" work on making life unbearable in the Middle East for us.

The Houthis seem to have just kicked the shit out of the Saudi coalition again. Quite a few damaged ships and down aircraft reports too, not just Afghanistan.


[Jan 30, 2020] Bush-era Iraq war authorization voted out by US House

Jan 30, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Likklemore , Jan 30 2020 21:45 utc | 108

Visions and intentions in reverse. For this news, with b's blessing, any thread is appropriate: Guess this goes with the impeaching-

Bush-era Iraq war authorization voted out by US House
The House of Representatives has voted along party lines to repeal a 2002 law authorizing the US to wage war on Iraq. The law was used by the Trump administration to justify the killing of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani.

The House voted 236 to 166 to kill the 2002 Authorization for Military Force (AUMF) on Iraq. The law was drafted during the presidency of George W. Bush to authorize the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and has been used by subsequent administrations to continue military activity in the country – most recently to justify the US drone assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad earlier this month.[.]

The bill was one of two pieces of legislation passed by the House on Thursday aimed at curbing Trump's warmaking powers. Prior to its passage, a bill prohibiting Trump from using federal funds for "unauthorized military force against Iran" cleared the House floor, again along party lines, with a vote of 228-175.[.]

[Jan 29, 2020] Pompeo Iranian Proxy Mobilizing in America's Backyard

Notable quotes:
"... Yet the U.S. has little real insight into what happens in hostile regimes like Maduro's, and "Pompeo is probably the least reliable person in the world when it comes to information about Iran or its proxies," said Abrahms. "He has a terrible track record; he is an ideologue. He is the opposite of an impartial empiricist. I would never accept anything he says without corroborating sources." ..."
"... According to what we know, a Hezbollah agent conducted years of surveillance on potential targets , and alleged sleeper agents within U.S. cities have so far not been activated, even in the wake of Iranian Quds force General Soleimani's death and the series of crippling sanctions the Trump administration has put on Iran. ..."
Jan 28, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Why is Pompeo suddenly directing increasingly heated rhetoric towards Iran and its proxies in South America?

"Anti-Iran hawks like Pompeo like to emphasize that Iran is not a defensively-minded international actor, but rather that it is offensively-minded and poses a direct threat to the United States," said Max Abrahms, associate professor of political science at Northeastern and fellow of the Quincy Institute said in an interview with The American Conservative. "And so for obvious reasons, underscoring Hezbollah's international tentacles helps to sell their argument that Iran needs to be dealt with in a military way, and that the key to dealing with Iran is through confrontation and pressure."

Stories highlighting the role of Hezbollah in America's backyard "are almost always peddled by anti-Iran hawks," he said.

Like Clare Lopez, vice president for research and analysis at the Center for Security Policy, who aligns with the argument that Hezbollah has been populating South America since the days of the Islamic revolution.

"From at least the 1980s, many Lebanese fled to South America, and among that flow Hezbollah embedded themselves," she told The American Conservative in a recent interview. Their activity "really expanded throughout the continent" during the presidencies of Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.

During that time, Lopez added, "there was a really strong relationship that developed Iranians established diplomatic facilities, enormous embassies and consulates, embedded IRGC cover positions and MOIS (intelligence services) within commercial companies and mosques and Islamic centers. This took place in Brazil in particular but Venezuela also."

Iran and Hezbollah intensified their involvement throughout the region in technical services like tunneling, money laundering, and drug trafficking. Venezuela offered Iran an international banking work-around during the period of sanctions, said Lopez.

Obviously security analysts like Lopez and even Pompeo, have been following this for years. But the timing here, as the Senate impeachment inquiry heats up, looks suspicious.

Last week, just as it looks increasingly likely that former national security advisor John Bolton and Pompeo himself will be hauled before the Senate as witnesses about the foreign aid hold-up to Ukraine, Pompeo praised Colombia, Honduras, and Guatemala for designating "Iran-backed Hezbollah a terrorist organization," and slammed Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro for embracing the terrorist group.

Hezbollah "has found a home in Venezuela under Maduro. This is unacceptable," Pompeo said when he met with Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido last week.

Asked by Bloomberg News how significant a role Hezbollah plays in the region, Pompeo responded, "too much."

From the interview:

Pompeo : " I mentioned it in Venezuela, but in the Tri-Border Area as well. This is again an area where Iranian influence – we talk about them as the world's largest state sponsor of terror. We do that intentionally. It's the world's largest; it's not just a Middle East phenomenon. So while – when folks think of Hezbollah, they typically think of Syria and Lebanon, but Hezbollah has now put down roots throughout the globe and in South America, and it's great to see now multiple countries now having designated Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. It means we can work together to stamp out the security threat in the region."

Question: "I'm struck by this, because even hearing you – what you're saying, right, now – I mean, to take a step back, an Iranian-backed terrorist organization has found a home in America's backyard."

Pompeo: "It's – it's something that we've been talking about for some time. When you see the scope and reach of what the Islamic Republic of Iran's regime has done, you can't forget they tried to kill someone in the United States of America. They've conducted assassination campaigns in Europe. This is a global phenomenon. When we say that Iran is the leading destabilizing force in the Middle East and throughout the world, it's because of this terror activity that they have now spread as a cancer all across the globe. "

Pompeo has also been publicly floating increasing sanctions on Venezuela. He called the behavior of Maduro's government "cartel-like" and "terror-like," intensifying the sense that there is a real security "threat" in our hemisphere.

Yet the U.S. has little real insight into what happens in hostile regimes like Maduro's, and "Pompeo is probably the least reliable person in the world when it comes to information about Iran or its proxies," said Abrahms. "He has a terrible track record; he is an ideologue. He is the opposite of an impartial empiricist. I would never accept anything he says without corroborating sources."

There's no question that Hezbollah has a presence in South America, said Abrahms, "but the nature of its presence has been politicized."

According to what we know, a Hezbollah agent conducted years of surveillance on potential targets , and alleged sleeper agents within U.S. cities have so far not been activated, even in the wake of Iranian Quds force General Soleimani's death and the series of crippling sanctions the Trump administration has put on Iran.

"What this underscores is that Iran could pull the trigger, it could bloody the U.S., including the U.S. homeland, but tends to avoid such violence. I think the question that needs to be asked isn't just, 'where in the world could Iran commit an attack?' but whether Iran is a rational actor that can be deterred," said Abrahms. "Interestingly, this administration as well as its hawkish supporters tend to emphasize their belief that Iran can in fact be deterred," since that is the logic behind "maximum pressure" against Iran, after all. "The main causal mechanism according to advocates of maximum pressure, is that it will force Iran as a rational actor to reconsider whether it wants to irritate the U.S By applying economic pressure through sanctions, [they hope to] succeed in coaxing Iran to restructure the nuclear deal and making additional concessions to the west and reigning in its activities in the Persian Gulf and the Levant. At least on a rhetorical level, the hawks say they believe Iran can be deterred," he said.

It would not be the first time that a president reacted to an intensifying impeachment inquiry by redirecting national focus to threats abroad. In December 1998, as the impeachment inquiry into then-President Bill Clinton heated up, Clinton launched airstrikes against Iraq. We should therefore apply some caution when we see decades-old threats amplified by administration officials.

Barbara Boland is TAC's foreign policy and national security reporter. Previously, she worked as an editor for the Washington Examiner and for CNS News. She is the author of Patton Uncovered, a book about General George Patton in World War II, and her work has appeared on Fox News, The Hill, UK Spectator, and elsewhere. Boland is a graduate from Immaculata University in Pennsylvania. Follow her on Twitter

[Jan 29, 2020] Pompeo about Hezbollah threat

Jan 29, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

J Villain • 19 hours ago

It leaves me yearning for the integrity of the Nixon foreign policy team and they were a certified pack of sociopaths.

[Jan 29, 2020] One of the passengers killed on the the Ukrainian International Airlines Flight PS752 was a businesswoman who ran two companies involved in running illegal arms and parts for military drones to Libya.

Jan 29, 2020 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

Jen January 25, 2020 at 8:36 pm

An unexpected bit of good news (if true) from the Ukrainian International Airlines Flight PS752 crash in Tehran: one of the passengers killed on the flight was a businesswoman who ran two companies involved in running illegal arms and parts for military drones to Libya.

"Ukrainian jet victim ran company suspected by UN of violating Libyan arms embargo"
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/24/europe/ukrainian-crash-victim-olena-malakhova-libya-iran-intl/index.html

Mark Chapman January 25, 2020 at 9:29 pm
Well, well; and the Ukrainian government backed her claims that there was no military cargo aboard the company plane that was blown up in Misrata. Makes you wonder how much jiggerypokery on the part of the Ukrainian government the USA is prepared to absorb, considering it was allegedly Solemani's plans to 'hurt Americans' that caused the USA to whack him. But here is a business associate of the Ukrainian government transferring military technology to tribal warlords in Libya.

Oh, I forgot – the USA needs to fight Russia in Ukraine so that it doesn't have to fight Russia in New York. So I guess that means they get a free pass.

Jen January 26, 2020 at 2:59 am
You have to wonder though, Malakhova was one of two Ukrainian passengers (I think) on a jet that was otherwise composed of diaspora Iranians. The plane was flying to Kiev and then presumably going straight to Toronto, to judge from the number of Iranian-background passengers with Canadian passports. What business did Malakhova have that she had been in Tehran to catch a UIA flight to go to Kiev? She must have had a reason to be there, if not to go sightseeing.
Jen January 26, 2020 at 3:21 am
Lo and behold! Able to answer my own query about the reason for Malakhova's presence in Tehran within a matter of minutes! She wasn't in Tehran just to admire the touristy sights.

It is now confirmed: Olena Malakhova, director of #SkyAviaTrans which played key role in illegal weapon smuggling from #Turkey to #Libya is among victims of Flight #PS752 shot-down! She was in #Iran to discuss about one of her businessjets in use as an Air Taxi in #Tehran . https://t.co/TYWk6DgwV7 pic.twitter.com/ztEu4ETwrT

-- Babak Taghvaee (@BabakTaghvaee) January 24, 2020

Air taxis would be very convenient for ferrying small quantities of goods on short trips within Iran or from Iran to somewhere else not far from the Iranian border – like Afghanistan on one side, Azerbaijan on another side or Kurdish-held northern Iraq and Turkey on yet another side.

Like Like

[Jan 28, 2020] Pompeo's Petty Despotism

Pompeo proved to be impulsive bully. Like Bolton, he is yet another "wise" Trump choice that disqualifies Trump for running in 2020 elections.
Jan 28, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Nomuka • 15 hours ago • edited
Well, it looks like I'll need to start contributing to NPR again. They are a little too woke for my tastes, but Pompeo is a liar, and frankly beyond the pale. A perfect representative of the current administration by the way. Kudos to NPR for standing up to him.
TomG • 10 hours ago
One correction--instead of "by acting as if he is a petty despot" it should read "evermore blatantly showing the world the petty despot he is."
bumbershoot • 10 hours ago
The Secretary of State has all of the vanity and arrogance of a diva, but none of the talent.

Hmm, that seems to remind me of someone else in this administration...

FL_Cottonmouth • 9 hours ago
Much like U.S. foreign policy, it seems that Mike Pompeo is going to ignore the facts and keep recklessly escalating the conflict. Surely he's aware that The Washington Post published the email correspondence between Ms. Kelley and press aide. This just makes him look like a coward.
ZizaNiam • 9 hours ago
From the Trump voter perspective, this journalist should feel lucky that she wasn't sent to Guantanamo Bay. All Trump voters think this way, there is no exception.
Taras77 • 6 hours ago
Absolutely no longer any surprises about this pathetic individual!

[Jan 28, 2020] the "American" interpreter's death that triggered the Soleimani assassination was a dual US/Iraqi citizen... doesn't the US often offer citizenship to useful locals in return for betraying their home country? Sometimes treason doesn't pay.

Jan 28, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

A P , Jan 27 2020 21:39 utc | 64

Unless the operatives on the US spy plane were carrying ID the Taliban can find, we'll never know who they really were. As if we could trust that either. (remember Colonel Flagg from MASH? New fake/cover ID every time he showed up) And funny how those "soldiers" with brain damage from the Iranian missile strikes have disappeared of the MSM news cycle... And the "American" interpreter's death that triggered the Soleimani assassination was a dual US/Iraqi citizen... doesn't the US often offer citizenship to useful locals in return for betraying their home country? Sometimes treason doesn't pay.

[Jan 28, 2020] US plane crashes in Ghazni, killing scores of officers

Jan 28, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

S , Jan 27 2020 16:43 utc | 7

One of the main Taliban Twitter accounts, @Zabehulah_M33 , has posted the following tweets (machine translated):
US invasion plane crashes in Ghazni, killing scores of officers

Following a raid today in Sadukhel district of Dehik district of Ghazni province, a US special aircraft carrier was flying over an intelligence mission in the area.

The aircraft was destroyed with all its crew and crew, including the major US intelligence officers (CIA).

It is noteworthy that recently, in the provinces of Helmand, Balkh and some other parts of the country, large numbers of enemy aircraft and helicopters have fallen and fallen.

( source )

# Important News:
A Ghazni helicopter crashed in the area near Sharana, the capital of Paktika province, this evening after the Ghazni incident.
The helicopter crew and the soldiers were all destroyed.

( source )

So Taliban has not taken responsibility for the E-11A crash (although many news outlets are reporting it, including Russian ones). Meanwhile, yet another helicopter crashed after the E-11A crash, so it's two crashes in one day.

c1ue , Jan 27 2020 16:17 utc | 4

If the $1.6 trillion cost of the US military being in Afghanistan is correct, then the loss of 4 helicopters and even the E11 won't significantly increase US overall spend there. $1.6 trillion over 18 years is a tad under $250 million per day
Piotr Berman , Jan 27 2020 17:15 utc | 13
When a colonial war goes wrong, one salient question was: who sold guns to the savages?

Among more recent examples, who explained technologically inept Iraqis how to make IEDs?

In the case of smaller weapons, the usual suspect is responsible. NYT By C. J. Chivers Aug. 24, 2016

... In all, Overton found, the Pentagon provided more than 1.45 million firearms to various security forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, including more than 978,000 assault rifles, 266,000 pistols and almost 112,000 machine guns. These transfers formed a collage of firearms of mixed vintage and type: Kalashnikov assault rifles left over from the Cold War; recently manufactured NATO-standard M16s and M4s from American factories; machine guns of Russian and Western lineage; and sniper rifles, shotguns and pistols of varied provenance and caliber, including a large order of Glock semiautomatic pistols, a type of weapon also regularly offered for sale online in Iraq.

----

That said, one needs something more sophisticated against helicopters and planes. I suspect that even if Iran were inclined to provide them to Taliban, it would not give them their own products, and, for sure, they cannot purchase Western missiles on regular markets. However, as valiant freedom fighters in Syria are provided with such weapons while being woefully underpaid...

[Jan 27, 2020] Pompeo's Revealing Meltdown

Jan 26, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Daniel Larison We saw how Mike Pompeo made a fool of himself on Friday with his angry tirade against Mary Louise Kelly, a reporter for NPR. That outburst came after an interview that he cut short in which he was asked legitimate questions that he could not answer. His response to the report about this was to malign the reporter with bizarre lies in what could be the most unhinged statement ever sent out by an American Secretary of State:

Official response from Pompeo about his NPR interview. Haven't seen anything like this before with a State Department seal on it: pic.twitter.com/Hi1P18ZS0A

-- Robbie Gramer (@RobbieGramer) January 25, 2020

Pompeo's accusatory statement confirmed the substance of what Kelly had reported, and absolutely no one believes him when he says that she lied to him. All of the available evidence supports Kelly's account, and nothing supports Pompeo's:

On the program, Ms. Kelly said Katie Martin, an aide to Mr. Pompeo who has worked in press relations, never asked for that conversation to be kept off the record, nor would she have agreed to do that.

Mr. Pompeo's statement did not deny Ms. Kelly's account of obscenities and shouting. NPR said Saturday that Ms. Kelly "has always conducted herself with the utmost integrity, and we stand behind this report." On Sunday, The New York Times obtained emails between Ms. Kelly and Ms. Martin that showed Ms. Kelly explicitly said the day before the interview that she would start with Iran and then ask about Ukraine. "I never agree to take anything off the table," she wrote.

It is the new definition of chutzpah for Pompeo to accuse someone else of lying and lack of integrity, since he has been daily shredding his credibility by making things up about non-existent U.S. policy successes and telling easily refuted lies about North Korea , Iran , Yemen , and Saudi Arabia . We have good reason to believe that the recent claim that there was an "imminent attack" from Iran earlier this month was another one of those lies . For her part, Kelly has a reputation for solid and reliable reporting, and no one thinks that she would do the things he accuses her of doing. Pompeo's dig at the end is meant to imply that she misidentified Ukraine on the blank map that he had brought in to test her. No one believes that claim, either. This is another preposterous lie that tells us that his version of events can't be true. Pompeo has been waging a war on the truth for the last year and a half, and this is just the most recent assault. The Secretary's meltdown this weekend has been useful in making it impossible to ignore this any longer.

Literally nobody thinks Mike Pompeo is telling the truth about this, or anything. He works for Donald Trump, who also lies about everything, always. https://t.co/yTzZDZl5Gw

-- Marc Lynch (@abuaardvark) January 25, 2020

All of this is appalling, unprofessional behavior from any government official, and in a sane administration this conduct along with his other false and misleading statements would be grounds for resignation. When Pompeo publicly attacks a journalist for doing her job and impugns her integrity to cover up for the fact that he doesn't have any, he is attacking the press and undermining public accountability. He is also undermining the department's advocacy for freedom of the press when he tries to intimidate journalists with his obnoxious outbursts. Pompeo already alienated and disgusted people in his department with his failure to come to the defense of officials that were being publicly attacked and smeared, and this latest display has further embarrassed them. We need a Secretary of State who isn't a serial liar, and right now we don't have one.

Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC , where he also keeps a solo blog . He has been published in the New York Times Book Review , Dallas Morning News , World Politics Review , Politico Magazine , Orthodox Life , Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week . He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter . email

[Jan 27, 2020] The end of Trump? Trump betrayed all major promises of his 2016 election campaign. Trump needs to go...

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... This may well be a fatal mistake of his. And while i have thought Trump to be the lesser evil compared to Clinton, i am now at a point where i seriously fear what his ignorance and slavery to the neocon doctrine may bring the world in 4 more years. ..."
"... besides much talk and showmastery, he has not really changed anything substantial in this regard; Nothing that could seriously change the course. ..."
"... So he stripped himself of any true argument to vote for him, besides for ultra neocons and ultra fundamental evangelical Christians. And even they don't seem to trust in his intentions. ..."
Jan 27, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

EveryoneIsBiased , 26 January 2020 at 04:40 PM

Thank you Colonel; I have been waiting for your take on this. And thank you for opening the comments again. If there is a problem with my post, please point them out to me.

And i agree. This may well be a fatal mistake of his. And while i have thought Trump to be the lesser evil compared to Clinton, i am now at a point where i seriously fear what his ignorance and slavery to the neocon doctrine may bring the world in 4 more years.

Still, immigration is another important issue, but besides much talk and showmastery, he has not really changed anything substantial in this regard; Nothing that could seriously change the course.

So he stripped himself of any true argument to vote for him, besides for ultra neocons and ultra fundamental evangelical Christians. And even they don't seem to trust in his intentions.

And China? He may have changed some small to medium problems for the better, but nothing is changed in the overall trend of the US continuing to loose while China emerges as the next global superpower.

It may have been slowed for some years; It may even have been accelerated, now that China has been waken up to the extend of the threat posed by the US.

North Korea? They surely will never denuclearize. Even less after how Trump showed the world how he treats international law and even allies.

With Trump its all photo ops and showmanship. And while he senses what issues are important, it is worth a damn if he butchers the execution, or values photo ops more than substantial progress.

Not that i would see a democratic alternative. No. But at least now everyone who wants to know can see, that he is neither one.

4 years ago, democracy was corrupted, but at least there was someone who presented himself as an alternative to that rotten establishment.
Now, even that small ray of light is as dark as it gets.
And that is the saddest thing. What worth is democracy, when one does not even have a true alternative, besides Tulsi on endless wars, and Bernie for the socialist ;) ?

I just have watched again the Ken Burns documentary of the civil war. I know it is not perfect (Though i love Shelby Foote's parts), but the sense of the divided 2 Americas there, is still the same today. Today, America seems to break apart culturally, socially and economically on the fault lines that have sucked it into the civil war over 150 years ago.

And just like with seeing no real way out politically, i sadly can see no way to heal and unite this country, as it never was truly united after the civil war, if not ever before. As you Colonel said some weeks ago, the US were never a nation.

And looking at other countries, only a major national crisis may change this.
A most sad realization. But this hold true also for other western countries, including my own.

An even worse decade seems to be ahead.

[Jan 27, 2020] American Pravda Mossad Assassinations by Ron Unz

Jan 27, 2020 | www.unz.com

From the Peace of Westphalia to the Law of the Jungle

The January 2nd American assassination of Gen. Qassem Soleimani of Iran was an event of enormous moment.

Gen. Soleimani had been the highest-ranking military figure in his nation of 80 million, and with a storied career of 30 years, one of the most universally popular and highly regarded. Most analysts ranked him second in influence only to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's elderly Supreme Leader, and there were widespread reports that he was being urged to run for the presidency in the 2021 elections.

The circumstances of his peacetime death were also quite remarkable. His vehicle was incinerated by the missile of an American Reaper drone near Iraq's Baghdad international airport just after he had arrived there on a regular commercial flight for peace negotiations originally suggested by the American government.

Our major media hardly ignored the gravity of this sudden, unexpected killing of so high-ranking a political and military figure, and gave it enormous attention. A day or so later, the front page of my morning New York Times was almost entirely filled with coverage of the event and its implications, along with several inside pages devoted to the same topic. Later that same week, America's national newspaper of record allocated more than one-third of all the pages of its front section to the same shocking story.

But even such copious coverage by teams of veteran journalists failed to provide the incident with its proper context and implications. Last year, the Trump Administration had declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard "a terrorist organization," drawing widespread criticism and even ridicule from national security experts appalled at the notion of classifying a major branch of Iran's armed forces as "terrorists." Gen. Soleimani was a top commander in that body, and this apparently provided the legal figleaf for his assassination in broad daylight while on a diplomatic peace mission.

But consider that Congress has been considering legislation declaring Russia an official state sponsor of terrorism , and Stephen Cohen, the eminent Russia scholar, has argued that no foreign leader since the end of World War II has been so massively demonized by the American media as Russian President Vladimir Putin. For years, numerous agitated pundits have denounced Putin as "the new Hitler," and some prominent figures have even called for his overthrow or death. So we are now only a step or two removed from undertaking a public campaign to assassinate the leader of a country whose nuclear arsenal could quickly annihilate the bulk of the American population. Cohen has repeatedly warned that the current danger of global nuclear war may exceed that which we faced during the days of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, and can we entirely dismiss such concerns?

Even if we focus solely upon Gen. Solemaini's killing and entirely disregard its dangerous implications, there seem few modern precedents for the official public assassination of a top-ranking political figure by the forces of another major country. In groping for past examples, the only ones that come to mind occurred almost three generations ago during World War II, when Czech agents assisted by the Allies assassinated Reinhard Heydrich in Prague in 1941 and the US military later shot down the plane of Japanese admiral Isoroku Yamamoto in 1943. But these events occurred in the heat of a brutal global war, and the Allied leadership hardly portrayed them as official government assassinations. Historian David Irving reveals that when one of Adolf Hitler's aides suggested that an attempt be made to assassinate Soviet leaders in that same conflict, the German Fuhrer immediately forbade such practices as obvious violations of the laws of war.

The 1914 terrorist assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, was certainly organized by fanatical elements of Serbian Intelligence, but the Serbian government fiercely denied its own complicity, and no major European power was ever directly implicated in the plot. The aftermath of the killing soon led to the outbreak of World War I, and although many millions died in the trenches over the next few years, it would have been completely unthinkable for one of the major belligerents to consider assassinating the leadership of another.

A century earlier, the Napoleonic Wars had raged across the entire continent of Europe for most of a generation, but I don't recall reading of any governmental assassination plots during that era, let alone in the quite gentlemanly wars of the preceding 18th century when Frederick the Great and Maria Theresa disputed ownership of the wealthy province of Silesia by military means. I am hardly a specialist in modern European history, but after the 1648 Peace of Westphalia ended the Thirty Years War and regularized the rules of warfare, no assassination as high-profile as that of Gen. Soleimani comes to mind.

The bloody Wars of Religion of previous centuries did see their share of assassination schemes. For example, I think that Philip II of Spain supposedly encouraged various plots to assassinate Queen Elizabeth I of England on grounds that she was a murderous heretic, and their repeated failure helped persuade him to launch the ill-fated Spanish Armada; but being a pious Catholic, he probably would have balked at using the ruse of peace-negotiations to lure Elizabeth to her doom. In any event, that was more than four centuries ago, so America has now placed itself in rather uncharted waters.

Different peoples possess different political traditions, and this may play a major role in influencing the behavior of the countries they establish. Bolivia and Paraguay were created in the early 18th century as shards from the decaying Spanish Empire, and according to Wikipedia they have experienced nearly three dozen successful coups in their history, the bulk of these prior to 1950, while Mexico has had a half-dozen. By contrast, the U.S. and Canada were founded as Anglo-Saxon settler colonies, and neither history records even a failed attempt.

During our Revolutionary War, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and our other Founding Fathers fully recognized that if their effort failed, they would all be hanged by the British as rebels. However, I have never heard that they feared falling to an assassin's blade, nor that King George III ever considered such an underhanded means of attack. During the first century and more of our nation's history, nearly all our presidents and other top political leaders traced their ancestry back to the British Isles, and political assassinations were exceptionally rare, with Abraham Lincoln's death being one of the very few that come to mind.

At the height of the Cold War, our CIA did involve itself in various secret assassination plots against Cuba's Communist dictator Fidel Castro and other foreign leaders considered hostile to US interests. But when these facts later came out in the 1970s, they evoked such enormous outrage from the public and the media, that three consecutive American presidents -- Gerald R. Ford , Jimmy Carter , and Ronald Reagan -- issued successive Executive Orders absolutely prohibiting assassinations by the CIA or any other agent of the US government.

Although some cynics might claim that these public declarations represented mere window-dressing, a March 2018 book review in the New York Times strongly suggests otherwise. Kenneth M. Pollack spent years as a CIA analyst and National Security Council staffer, then went on to publish a number of influential books on foreign policy and military strategy over the last two decades. He had originally joined the CIA in 1988, and opens his review by declaring:

One of the very first things I was taught when I joined the CIA was that we do not conduct assassinations. It was drilled into new recruits over and over again.

Yet Pollack notes with dismay that over the last quarter-century, these once solid prohibitions have been steadily eaten away, with the process rapidly accelerating after the 9/11 attacks of 2001. The laws on our books may not have changed, but

Today, it seems that all that is left of this policy is a euphemism.

We don't call them assassinations anymore. Now, they are "targeted killings," most often performed by drone strike, and they have become America's go-to weapon in the war on terror.

The Bush Administration had conducted 47 of these assassinations-by-another-name, while his successor Barack Obama, a constitutional scholar and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, had raised his own total to 542. Not without justification, Pollack wonders whether assassination has become "a very effective drug, but [one that] treats only the symptom and so offers no cure."

Thus over the last couple of decades American policy has followed a very disturbing trajectory in its use of assassination as a tool of foreign policy, first restricting its use to only the most extreme circumstances, next targeting small numbers of high-profile "terrorists" hiding in rough terrain, then escalating those same such killings to the many hundreds. And now under President Trump, the fateful step has been taken of America claiming the right to assassinate any world leader not to our liking whom we unilaterally declare worthy of death.

Pollack had made his career as a Clinton Democrat, and is best known for his 2002 book The Threatening Storm that strongly endorsed President Bush's proposed invasion of Iraq and was enormously influential in producing bipartisan support for that ill-fated policy. I have no doubt that he is a committed supporter of Israel, and he probably falls into a category that I would loosely describe as "Left Neocon."

But while reviewing a history of Israel's own long use of assassination as a mainstay of its national security policy, he seems deeply disturbed that America might be following along that same terrible path. Less than two years later, our sudden assassination of a top Iranian leader demonstrates that his fears may have been greatly understated.

"Rise and Kill First" ORDER IT NOW

The book being reviewed was Rise and Kill First by New York Times reporter Ronen Bergman, a weighty study of the Mossad, Israel's foreign intelligence service, together with its sister agencies. The author devoted six years of research to the project, which was based upon a thousand personal interviews and access to some official documents previously unavailable. As suggested by the title, his primary focus was Israel's long history of assassinations, and across his 750 pages and thousand-odd source references he recounts the details of an enormous number of such incidents.

That sort of topic is obviously fraught with controversy, but Bergman's volume carries glowing cover-blurbs from Pulitzer Prize-winning authors on espionage matters, and the official cooperation he received is indicated by similar endorsements from both a former Mossad chief and Ehud Barak, a past Prime Minister of Israel who himself had once led assassination squads. Over the last couple of decades, former CIA officer Robert Baer has become one of our most prominent authors in this same field, and he praises the book as "hands down" the best he has ever read on intelligence, Israel, or the Middle East. The reviews across our elite media were equally laudatory.

Although I had seen some discussions of the book when it appeared, I only got around to reading it a few months ago. And while I was deeply impressed by the thorough and meticulous journalism, I found the pages rather grim and depressing reading, with their endless accounts of Israeli agents killing their real or perceived enemies, with the operations sometimes involving kidnappings and brutal torture, or resulting in considerable loss of life to innocent bystanders. Although the overwhelming majority of the attacks described took place in the various countries of the Middle East or the occupied Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza, others ranged across the world, including Europe. The narrative history began in the 1920s, decades before the actual creation of the Jewish Israel or its Mossad organization, and ranged up to the present day.

The sheer quantity of such foreign assassinations was really quite remarkable, with the knowledgeable reviewer in the New York Times suggesting that the Israeli total over the last half-century or so seemed far greater than that of any other country. I might even go farther: if we excluded domestic killings, I wouldn't be surprised if the body-count exceeded the combined total for that of all other major countries in the world. I think all the lurid revelations of lethal CIA or KGB Cold War assassination plots that I have seen discussed in newspaper stories might fit comfortably into just a chapter or two of Bergman's extremely long book.

[Jan 27, 2020] The ME may yet destroy Trump

Trump outlived his shelf life. Money quote: "This may well be a fatal mistake of his. And while i have thought Trump to be the lesser evil compared to Clinton, i am now at a point where i seriously fear what his ignorance and slavery to the neocon doctrine may bring the world in 4 more years."
Notable quotes:
"... Some combination of the disasters that may emerge from these ME factors might well turn Trump's base against him and this result would be entirely of his own making ..."
"... This may well be a fatal mistake of his. And while i have thought Trump to be the lesser evil compared to Clinton, i am now at a point where i seriously fear what his ignorance and slavery to the neocon doctrine may bring the world in 4 more years. ..."
"... besides much talk and showmastery, he has not really changed anything substantial in this regard; Nothing that could seriously change the course. ..."
"... So he stripped himself of any true argument to vote for him, besides for ultra neocons and ultra fundamental evangelical Christians. And even they don't seem to trust in his intentions. ..."
"... Trump stands no chance if things get hot with Iran. He didn't win by enough to sacrifice the antiwar vote. ..."
"... Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo have got themselves in a no-win situation. NATO cannot occupy both Syria and Iraq, illegally. There are way too few troops. The bases in these nations are sitting ducks for the next precision ballistic missile attack. Any buildup would be contested. Ground travel curtailed. A Peace Treaty and Withdrawal is the only safe way out. ..."
"... Donald Trump is blessed with his opponents. Democrats who restarted the Cold War with Russia in 2014 are now using it to justify his Impeachment. If leaders cannot see reality clearly, they will keep making incredibly stupid mistakes. If Joe Biden is his opponent, I can't vote for either. Both spread chaos. ..."
"... President Trump controls part of the White House -- definitely not the NSC ..."
"... His hold elsewhere in the DC bureaucracy may be 5 - 15%. When the President decided to pull US troops out of Syria, his NSC Director flew to Egypt and Turkey to countermand the order. Facing the opposition of a united DC SWAMP, the President caved, and thereby delayed his formal impeachment by a year. ..."
"... Going out on a limb, President Trump continues to play a very weak hand and may survive to fight another day. Fortunately for the US, his tax and regulatory policies, as well as his economic negotiations with China, Japan, Korea and Mexico seem to be on target and successful. ..."
Jan 26, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

President Trump will easily be acquitted in the senate trial. This may occur this week and there will probably be no witnesses called. That will be an additional victory for him and will add to the effect of his trade deal victories and the general state of the US economy. These factors should point to a solid victory in November for him and the GOP in Congress.

Ah! Not so fast the cognoscenti may cry out. Not so fast. The Middle East is a graveyard of dreams:

1. Iraq. Street demonstrations in Iraq against a US alliance are growing more intense. There may well have been a million people in Muqtada al-Sadr's extravaganza. Shia fury over the death of Soleimani is quite real. Trump's belief that in a contest of the will he will prevail over the Iraqi Shia is a delusion, a delusion born of his narcissistic personality and his unwillingness to listen to people who do not share his delusions. A hostile Iraqi government and street mobs would make life unbearable for US forces there.

2. Syria. The handful of American troops east and north of the Euphrates "guarding" Syrian oil from the Syrian government are in a precarious position with the Shia Iraqis at their backs across the border and a hostile array of SAA, Turks, jihadis and potentially Russians to their front and on their flanks.

3. Palestine. The "Deal of the Century" is approaching announcement. From what is known of its contours, the deal will kill any remaining prospects for Palestinian statehood and will relegate all Palestinians (both Israeli citizens and the merely occupied) to the status of helots forever . Look it up. In return the deal will offer the helotry substantial bribes in economic aid money. Trump evidently continues to believe that Palestinians are untermenschen . He believe they will sell their freedom. The Palestinian Authority has already rejected this deal. IMO their reaction to the imposition of this regime is likely to be another intifada.

Some combination of the disasters that may emerge from these ME factors might well turn Trump's base against him and this result would be entirely of his own making . pl

Elora Danan , 26 January 2020 at 11:24 AM

...and his unwillingness to listen to people who do not share his delusions...

That precisely is the problem, apart from explosive shouting Pompeo, it seems he has recruited this extravanza of woman as adviser into the WH...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5w0kSkvusjI&feature=emb_title

Could it be true? If that is the case, it´s more scary than Elora thought when that of Soleimani happened....This starts to look as a frenopatic...isn´t it?

HK Leo Strauss , 26 January 2020 at 01:12 PM
With Iran and her allies holding the figurative Trump Card on escalation, will they ramp up the pressure to topple him? They could end up with a Dem who couldn't afford to "lose" Syria or Iraq.
JamesT , 26 January 2020 at 04:14 PM
I submit to you, Colonel, that the biggest threat to Trump is a Bernie/Tulsi ticket. Bernie is leading in the Iowa and NH polls, and the recent spat with Warren (in my opinion) leaves Bernie with no viable choice for VP other than Tulsi.
Barbara Ann said in reply to JamesT ... , 26 January 2020 at 05:32 PM
JamesT

Judging by what just happened at the embassy in Baghdad, the intentions of the Iraqi electorate would seem to be a more pressing concern.

EveryoneIsBiased , 26 January 2020 at 04:40 PM
Thank you Colonel; I have been waiting for your take on this. And thank you for opening the comments again. If there is a problem with my post, please point them out to me.

And i agree. This may well be a fatal mistake of his. And while i have thought Trump to be the lesser evil compared to Clinton, i am now at a point where i seriously fear what his ignorance and slavery to the neocon doctrine may bring the world in 4 more years.

Still, immigration is another important issue, but besides much talk and showmastery, he has not really changed anything substantial in this regard; Nothing that could seriously change the course.

So he stripped himself of any true argument to vote for him, besides for ultra neocons and ultra fundamental evangelical Christians. And even they don't seem to trust in his intentions.

And China? He may have changed some small to medium problems for the better, but nothing is changed in the overall trend of the US continuing to loose while China emerges as the next global superpower.

It may have been slowed for some years; It may even have been accelerated, now that China has been waken up to the extend of the threat posed by the US.

North Korea? They surely will never denuclearize. Even less after how Trump showed the world how he treats international law and even allies.

With Trump its all photo ops and showmanship. And while he senses what issues are important, it is worth a damn if he butchers the execution, or values photo ops more than substantial progress.

Not that i would see a democratic alternative. No. But at least now everyone who wants to know can see, that he is neither one.

4 years ago, democracy was corrupted, but at least there was someone who presented himself as an alternative to that rotten establishment.
Now, even that small ray of light is as dark as it gets.
And that is the saddest thing. What worth is democracy, when one does not even have a true alternative, besides Tulsi on endless wars, and Bernie for the socialist ;) ?

I just have watched again the Ken Burns documentary of the civil war. I know it is not perfect (Though i love Shelby Foote's parts), but the sense of the divided 2 Americas there, is still the same today. Today, America seems to break apart culturally, socially and economically on the fault lines that have sucked it into the civil war over 150 years ago.

And just like with seeing no real way out politically, i sadly can see no way to heal and unite this country, as it never was truly united after the civil war, if not ever before. As you Colonel said some weeks ago, the US were never a nation.

And looking at other countries, only a major national crisis may change this.
A most sad realization. But this hold true also for other western countries, including my own.

An even worse decade seems to be ahead.

turcopolier , 26 January 2020 at 05:15 PM
everyoneisbiased

The economy is actually quite good and he is NOT "a dictator." Dictators are not put on trial by the legislature. He is extremely ignorant and suffers from a life in which only money mattered.

emboil , 26 January 2020 at 05:27 PM
Once Bernie wins the nomination, it's going to be escalation time. Trump stands no chance if things get hot with Iran. He didn't win by enough to sacrifice the antiwar vote.
walrus , 26 January 2020 at 06:14 PM
I'm starting to think that Trumps weakness is believing that everyone and everything has a monetary price. I think perhaps his dealings with China may reinforce his perception, as, also, his alleged success in bullying the Europeans over Iran -- with the threat of tariffs on European car imports. His almost weekly references to Iraqi and Syrian oil, allies "not paying their way", financial threats to the Iraq Government, all suggest a fixation on finance that has served him well in business.

The trouble is that one day President Trump is going to discover there is something money can't buy, to the detriment of America.

VietnamVet , 26 January 2020 at 07:28 PM
Colonel,

Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo have got themselves in a no-win situation. NATO cannot occupy both Syria and Iraq, illegally. There are way too few troops. The bases in these nations are sitting ducks for the next precision ballistic missile attack. Any buildup would be contested. Ground travel curtailed. A Peace Treaty and Withdrawal is the only safe way out.

Donald Trump is blessed with his opponents. Democrats who restarted the Cold War with Russia in 2014 are now using it to justify his Impeachment. If leaders cannot see reality clearly, they will keep making incredibly stupid mistakes. If Joe Biden is his opponent, I can't vote for either. Both spread chaos.

My subconscious is again acting out. The mini-WWIII with Iran could shut off Middle Eastern oil at any time. The Fed is back to injecting digital money into the market. China has quarantined 44 million people. Global trade is fragile. Today there are four cases of Wuhan Coronavirus in the USA.

If confirmed that the virus is contagious without symptoms and an infected person transmits the virus to 2 to 3 people and with a 3% mortality rate and a higher 15% rate for the infirmed, the resupply trip to Safeway this summer could be both futile and dangerous.

Haralambos , 26 January 2020 at 07:48 PM
Two Greek words: "hubris" and "nemesis" come to mind.
Patrick Armstrong , 26 January 2020 at 08:19 PM
It's an old story. Mr X is elected POTUS; going to do this and that; something happens in the MENA. That's all anyone remembers. Maybe time to kiss Israel goodbye, tell SA to sell in whatever currency it wants, and realise that oil producers have to sell the stuff -- it's no good to them in the ground...
Petrel , 26 January 2020 at 08:31 PM
President Trump controls part of the White House -- definitely not the NSC -- and much of the Department of Commerce & Treasury. His hold elsewhere in the DC bureaucracy may be 5 - 15%. When the President decided to pull US troops out of Syria, his NSC Director flew to Egypt and Turkey to countermand the order. Facing the opposition of a united DC SWAMP, the President caved, and thereby delayed his formal impeachment by a year.

Going out on a limb, President Trump continues to play a very weak hand and may survive to fight another day. Fortunately for the US, his tax and regulatory policies, as well as his economic negotiations with China, Japan, Korea and Mexico seem to be on target and successful.

Godfree Roberts , 26 January 2020 at 09:19 PM
As Richard Nixon told a young Donald Rumsfeld when he asked about specializing in Latin America, "Nobody gives a shit about Latin America."

Nobody gives a shit about the Middle East.

Johnb , 26 January 2020 at 11:27 PM
We may yet see John McCains Revenge in the Senate Colonel, it only requires 4 Republican votes to move into Witnesses.
EEngineer , 26 January 2020 at 11:27 PM
Carthage must be destroyed! I don't know if Trump is going to war with Iran willingly or with a Neocon gun to his head, but if he's impeached I expect Pence to go on a holy crusade.

[Jan 27, 2020] An excellent interview of Elijah Magnier on a broad range of issues related to Iran, Iraq and US policy.

Jan 27, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Nathan Mulcahy , Jan 26 2020 16:26 utc | 8

In case you have missed this. Here is an excellent interview of Elijah Magnier on a broad range of issues related to Iran, Iraq and US policy. This link was previously posted by another commenter but I am reposting it because it is so informative. I apologize for not I remembering the name of the original poster was.

What the US attacks on Iran and military occupation of Iraq mean for the Axis of Resistance | Moderate Rebels

[Jan 27, 2020] On Fragile Footing in Yemen after the Soleimani Strike - War on the Rocks

Jan 27, 2020 | warontherocks.com

U.N. Special Envoy for Yemen Martin Griffiths sounded relieved in a briefing to the Security Council this week, noting that even after the American airstrike that killed Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani, "the immediate crisis seems to be over Yemen has been kept safe."

Griffiths may have spoken too soon.

Yemen has been an increasingly important and tragic theater in the confrontation between Iran, the United States, and their respective clients in the Middle East, with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates at the head of an intervening coalition on one side and the Houthis backed by Iran on the other. What will happen in Yemen following the killing of Soleimani and the escalation in tensions between the United States and Iran? And how can Yemen's civil war be insulated from the regional fallout?

News emerged late last week that the United States also targeted Abdul Reza Shahlai, a senior Quds commander, in Yemen. Had the strike succeeded, the Houthis or other Iranian-aligned forces in Yemen would almost certainly have had to respond, threatening an unruly escalation spiral. Instead, the operation was unsuccessful, and Iran's measured reaction was limited to Iraq. Nevertheless, the airstrike is unlikely to have put Houthi leadership in a conciliatory mood.

Ismaeil Ghaani, who served as Soleimani's deputy for decades, was quickly named Soleimani's replacement as head of the Quds Force. Following decades of leadership of the Quds Force, Ghaani is unlikely to deviate from Iran's approach of using proxies to push against opponents in the retaliation for Soleimani's killing.

At the same time, there is reason to hope that Yemen can avoid Iranian-backed escalation. But avoiding another round of escalation in Yemen's civil war will require the active participation of the United States and regional actors.

Yemen's Fragile Status Quo

One year after representatives of the Houthis and of Yemen's internationally-recognized government agreed to a limited ceasefire as part of the Stockholm Agreement, little concrete progress to implement the agreement has been made: Hodeidah, the port area at the center of the agreement, is still the most dangerous place in the country for civilians. Likewise, the Riyadh Agreement, which sought to patch a split between the official government and southern separatists supported by the United Arab Emirates, is faltering and in danger of total collapse.

Nevertheless, just a few weeks ago there were reasons to be cautiously optimistic that, after years of failed negotiations, the Saudi-led coalition's intervention in Yemen may have been winding down. Soleimani's assassination threatens to undo this fragile and halting progress. While Iraq remains the most likely arena for Iranian retaliation against the United States and its partners, Iranian officials also see their relationship with the Houthis as a mechanism for dialing pressure on its opponents up or down while maintaining plausible deniability for any particular attack. Yemen may therefore be a site of Iranian escalation in the coming weeks and months. Indeed, the Houthis expressed support for Iran and promised to respond "promptly and swiftly" to the airstrike. Whatever its form, public retaliation risks upsetting the nascent negotiations over Yemen's forgotten war.

What Will Happen Now in Yemen?

Iran is well aware that it would be badly overmatched in a conventional conflict, and is therefore likely to avoid all-out war with the United States. Rather, Iran's leadership is likely to retaliate via the asymmetric resources that Tehran -- in an effort led by Soleimani and the Quds Force -- has successfully cultivated in the region.

The Houthis have assumed greater importance in Tehran's regional strategy in recent years. Their geographic proximity to Saudi Arabia (and decades-long history of antagonistic relations) provides Iran with a convenient way to antagonize a long-time rival on its southern border and to retaliate horizontally for attacks on its partners in Syria. The relationship confers what Austin Carson calls escalation control : By maintaining plausible deniability, Tehran can signal its displeasure at American policies while giving opponents a face-saving way to avoid further reprisals, thereby dampening the risk of further escalation. Indeed, the recent strike on Saudi Aramco facilities claimed by the Houthis (but likely perpetrated by Iran) is indicative of this dynamic. The attack allowed Tehran to push back against the Trump administration's "maximum pressure" campaign while affording both sides an off-ramp.

There are a few reasons to expect that Tehran could turn to Yemen as it formulates its response to Soleimani's assassination. While Iran's leadership signaled that its retaliation would end after the missile strikes on bases in Iraq, analysts note that Iran is likely to return to its " forward defense " strategy of working through proxies to push back against what its leadership sees as American aggression in the region.

Ramping up Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates would allow Iran to signal its displeasure with Washington while attempting to avoid escalation that could lead to a conventional war. This would be consistent with the forward defense strategy and Tehran's past behavior in the region. Additionally, by coalescing domestic support, the American strike may empower hardliners in the Iranian regime who favor regional escalation.

And although the Houthis certainly receive significant support from Iran in the form of material support, as well as advice and training from Hizballah operatives on the ground, they are not as strategically close to Iran as other proxies like Hizballah are thought to be. As a recent New America report notes, "there is little evidence of firm Iranian command and control. Iran's reported provision of missiles and drones shapes the conflict, but its roots are local and would not disappear were Iran to fully abandon the Houthis." Even U.S. officials have sought to draw a distinction between Iranian and Houthi leadership in recent months.

Yet there are cautious signs that Houthi leadership could be willing to play along by following Iran's lead in this instance: Just a few days before the assassination of Soleimani, Houthi officials cautioned that targets within Saudi and Emirati territory remain on their list of potential military targets, suggesting a willingness to escalate. And, after the strike, Houthi leadership called for reprisals against the United States.

But the region's reaction to the Aramco attack -- which saw the Emiratis pursuing quiet talks with Iran and Saudi Arabia negotiating with the Houthis -- also provides reason to hope that regional actors may work together to head off Iranian escalation in Yemen.

First, the Houthis' relative autonomy from Iranian command-and-control gives them some leeway to resist pressure to escalate, although the failed U.S. strike in Yemen may affect this calculus. Confronted with the choice of either retaliating on Tehran's behalf, at the risk of inciting Saudi re-entry into the war, or resisting the external pressure, thereby preserving the odds of a favorable settlement, the Houthi leadership may decide to bet on the latter.

Second, while Saudi commentators delighted in the blow to their regional opponent, the Kingdom has publicly cautioned against escalation and reportedly urged the Trump administration to exercise restraint. This signals that the Arab Gulf states may continue in the more cautiously de-escalatory approach that they have taken on Yemen over the past several months, as the United Arab Emirates and Sudan began to withdraw troops from Yemen, Saudi Arabia negotiated with the Houthis, and the tempo of Saudi airstrikes declined precipitously.

As much as they vehemently oppose Iranian influence in the region, both Saudi and Emirati leadership want to avoid a direct confrontation with Iran, especially after the Trump administration's erratic policies have made it clear that they may not get American backing in such a confrontation. In other words, the factors that contributed to the intervening coalition's de-escalatory tendencies a few months ago are still relevant, even after the escalation in tensions between the United States and Iran.

The United States is well-positioned to reinforce de-escalatory dynamics in Yemen and support the nascent peace process there. The recent de-escalation in Yemen has shown that pressure works: Although both the Obama and Trump administrations initially supported the Saudi-led intervention, Congressional threats to leverage arms sales and invoke the War Powers Act to end American material support for the intervention in 2019 subdued Abu Dhabi and Riyadh and opened a new juncture in the conflict. The U.S. military ended its provision of aerial refueling to the Saudi-led coalition following the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in late 2018, and Secretary of Defense James Mattis reportedly pressured Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to negotiate a political settlement to the war in the lead-up to the Stockholm Agreement. While some of this de-escalatory behavior is attributable to a gradual acknowledgement that this war cannot be won, much can be attributed to U.S. pressure as well. Washington therefore can -- and should -- continue to pressure its regional partners to reach a negotiated agreement. The recent House vote invoking the War Powers Act with regards to Iran -- and supportive statements from a cross-party range of senators -- indicates that Congress is willing to maintain pressure on the administration to avoid escalation in the region, even in the midst of ongoing presidential impeachment proceedings.

Players in the region will also continue to play a critical role in Yemen in the weeks and months ahead. Saudi and Emirati leaders are tired of the resource and reputational drain of a war that appears increasingly unwinnable, leading to their willingness to draw down the coalition's intervention. With international support, regional actors like Oman and even the Gulf Cooperation Council can act as mediators and guarantors to deter potential spoilers and help implement any agreement.

Omani Sultan Qaboos bin Said's untimely death this past weekend is another potentially complicating factor here. Under Qaboos, Oman has played an important behind-the-scenes role in the negotiations that led to the nuclear agreement, and brokered negotiations between the Saudi Arabia and the Houthis beginning this past fall. Qaboos cut a unique figure in the region, acting as a mediator who had both the stature and credibility to broker agreements between warring parties in the region. His death and the drama around succession created some doubt about whether anyone would be able to take his place. Yet the new sultan Haitham bin Tariq, who was quickly sworn in, has pledged to continue Qaboos' diplomatic path. Leaders from across the region traveled to Muscat to pay their condolences to the new sultan, cementing the peaceful transition. This continuity is a hopeful sign that Oman can continue to play a productive role as regional mediator.

Finally, policymakers shouldn't forget about Yemeni actors themselves. While most western analysis of the conflict in Yemen focuses on the third-party intervention, this perspective neglects the indigenous dynamics that led to the outbreak of the civil war in the first place. The focus on external intervention is not without good reason, since regional actors dramatically exacerbated the conflict and prevented an earlier resolution. Yet the civil war in Yemen began over local issues around governance and resource-sharing, and it will not end without solving these underlying issues, thus undercutting potential spoilers .

Additionally, years of fighting has created a patchwork of splintered militia groups and local governance institutions that will prove very difficult to knit back together into a coherent, functioning polity. A resumption of local fighting could act as an invitation for external actors to intervene again, leading to a resumption of conflict. It is therefore essential for mediation efforts to take these local issues into account.

Over the past century, Yemen has often been a site for actors in the region to play out their own conflicts. A relapse in fighting in Yemen could provide future grounds for intervention and will act as a driver of regional instability. By contrast, ending the war in Yemen will eliminate a critical source of Iranian leverage in the Gulf.

Become a Member

Dr. Alexandra Stark is a senior researcher at New America. She was previously a research fellow at the Middle East Initiative, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University and a USIP-Minerva Peace and Security Scholar.

Image: Wikicommons (Photo by Fahd Sadi)

[Jan 27, 2020] The Drone Beats of War The U.S. Vulnerability to Targeted Killings - War on the Rocks by David Barno and Nora Bensahel

Notable quotes:
"... But U.S. adversaries were watching closely. As advanced technologies inexorably became cheaper and more widely available, the U.S. monopoly on these capabilities started to erode. By 2016, for example, eight countries other than the United States had conducted armed drone attacks , including Iran, Pakistan, and Nigeria. By 2019, Russia and two other countries joined this exclusive club. And at least one non-state actor has already used an armed drone for a targeted killing. According to one estimate, 27 other countries currently possess armed drones while dozens of states and non-state actors have unarmed drones . These capabilities can now be used against specific individuals even in the absence of large intelligence networks, thanks to the constant streams of personal information flowing from personal phones , fitness trackers , and other devices. ..."
Jan 21, 2020 | warontherocks.com
The fiery explosions from the recent U.S. drone attack that killed Iranian general Qassem Soleimani have sent shock waves reverberating across the Middle East. Those same shocks should now be rippling through the American national security establishment too. The strike against the man widely considered the second-most powerful leader of a long-standing U.S. adversary was unprecedented, and its ultimate effects remain unknown. But regardless of what happens next, one thing is certain: The United States has now made it even more likely that American military and civilian leaders will be targeted by future U.S. foes. As a result, the United States will have to dramatically improve the ways in which it protects those leaders and rethink how it commands its forces on the battlefield.

Over the last 20 years, the United States has been able to target and kill specific individuals almost anywhere around the world, by matching an increasingly advanced array of precision weapons with a strikingly effective intelligence system. It has employed this capability frequently , especially across the greater Middle East , as it has sought to eliminate senior leaders of the Taliban insurgency or highly placed terrorists directing jihadist cells. And it has been able to pursue this decapitation strategy with impunity, because it has held a monopoly on this bespoke use of force. Not even the most powerful states could attempt the types of complex targeted strikes that the U.S. military and CIA conducted so routinely.

But U.S. adversaries were watching closely. As advanced technologies inexorably became cheaper and more widely available, the U.S. monopoly on these capabilities started to erode. By 2016, for example, eight countries other than the United States had conducted armed drone attacks , including Iran, Pakistan, and Nigeria. By 2019, Russia and two other countries joined this exclusive club. And at least one non-state actor has already used an armed drone for a targeted killing. According to one estimate, 27 other countries currently possess armed drones while dozens of states and non-state actors have unarmed drones . These capabilities can now be used against specific individuals even in the absence of large intelligence networks, thanks to the constant streams of personal information flowing from personal phones , fitness trackers , and other devices.

The Soleimani strike has given potential U.S. adversaries every reason to accelerate their efforts to develop similar capabilities. Moreover, these same adversaries can now justify their own future targeted killings by invoking this U.S. precedent. Sooner or later -- and probably sooner -- senior U.S. civilian and military leaders will become vulnerable to the same types of decapitation strikes that the United States has inflicted on others. Enemies will almost certainly attempt to target and kill U.S. officials during any future major war, and such attacks will likely become a part of future irregular conflicts as well. Though such strikes would dangerously escalate any conflict, committed adversaries of the United States may still find that the advantages outweigh the costs, especially if they can plausibly deny responsibility or if the strength of their resolve makes them willing to accept any resulting consequences.

In the face of this growing threat, what does the United States need to do in order to protect its key military and civilian leaders from a potential decapitation strike? Here are some potential first steps.

  1. Improve personal protection for senior leaders. The president and the vice president are well protected against a myriad of threats by the Secret Service, but levels of protection quickly diminish for those who work beneath them. A number of senior officials, including cabinet officials and the chiefs of the military services, have their own security details, but those focus primarily on providing traditional physical security. They typically offer little if any protection against newly emerging threats such as a targeted missile attack or swarming suicide drones. Most senior military and civilian leaders have no security at all, and they and their family members (like most other Americans) are constantly emitting electronic signals that give away their location. Improving their protection will require rethinking nearly every aspect of their daily lives, especially their extensive vulnerabilities when traveling. For example, the obtrusive motorcades and conspicuous convoys of black SUVs currently favored by many senior U.S. officials may need to be replaced with lower visibility alternatives, to include employing decoys that travel along multiple routes in high risk situations.
  2. Harden key meeting locations, headquarters, and transition points. U.S. adversaries will be particularly interested in targeting locations where numbers of senior military and civilian leaders gather. Many such locations today in the United States and overseas are not sufficiently hardened against attack. The locations of most offices and meeting spaces are either publicly available or easily found, and few are protected from any sort of aerial attack. (At a minimum, senior officials should stop having their photos taken in front of their offices where the room number is clearly visible .) And even hardened command centers usually have key vulnerabilities at entrances and exits, and at exposed transition points between different modes of transportation (such as airfield aprons). Ironically, current U.S. military security measures can unintentionally make leaders more vulnerable in other ways. Shortly after the Soleimani strike, for example, many U.S. military bases imposed stricter security measures at their entry points, including extensive identification checks and reducing the number of open gates. These reflexive measures caused long traffic backups that spilled onto local roads and highways -- which made everyone entering the bases far more vulnerable as they sat in these traffic jams. Any senior leader stuck in those lines would have become a remarkably easy target with no clear avenues of escape.
  3. Exercise wartime succession in the U.S. military chain of command. Combatant commanders and other senior military officers often use high-level wargames to validate key war plans and operational concepts. Yet most exercises and simulations deliberately avoid removing senior commanders from the battlefield, which reinforces the flawed notion that they will always be in charge. This problem also extends to the tactical level, where commanders of brigades, divisions, and corps are rarely assessed as casualties. Exercises at all levels need to regularly include scenarios where one or more senior commanders are killed or incapacitated, to test succession plans and to ensure that subordinates gain valuable leadership experience.
  4. Further decentralize battlefield command and control. The military chain of command necessarily relies upon centralized control, with commanders directing the actions of their subordinates. The U.S. military does decentralize some authority through concepts like mission command , which empower subordinates to make independent decisions about the best ways to achieve the commander's overall intent. Yet as we've written extensively elsewhere , the military's growing culture of compliance and risk aversion already undermines this critical principle, and modern command and control systems make it far too easy for senior commanders to intervene in routine tactical operations. In an environment where senior commanders can be individually targeted and killed, truly decentralized authority becomes absolutely vital -- and even efforts to reinvigorate mission command may no longer be sufficient. One recent article, for example, called for an entirely new, bottom-up approach to command and control that would build resilience and speed by reducing the reliance on a small number of increasingly vulnerable senior leaders.

The U.S. government needs to acknowledge that its senior leaders are becoming more vulnerable to targeted attacks, and that the Soleimani attack will only accelerate the determination of U.S. adversaries to be able to conduct similar attacks themselves. Yet threats like this are too easily discounted or ignored until it is too late. The U.S. government must recognize the grave dangers of this threat before it occurs. It needs to protect its senior officials more effectively, and ensure that the military chain of command will continue to function effectively after one or more commanders are killed by a targeted strike.

Become a Member

Lt. Gen. David W. Barno, U.S. Army (ret.) and Dr. Nora Bensahel are visiting professors of strategic studies at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and senior fellows at the Philip Merrill Center for Strategic Studies. They are also contributing editors at War on the Rocks , where their column appears monthly. Sign up for Barno and Bensahel's Strategic Outpost newsletter to track their articles as well as their public events.

Editor's Note: Due to an internal error, we published the near-final version of this article rather than the final version. While the differences between the two drafts are minor, we apologize for the error and have fixed our mistake. The final version of this article is now published below.

I

[Jan 25, 2020] You Think Americans Really Give A Fk About Ukraine - Pompeo Flips Out On NPR Reporter

How tank maintenance mechanical engineer and military contractor who got into congress pretending to belong to tea party can became the Secretary of state? Only in America ;-)
Jan 25, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com
"You Think Americans Really Give A F**k About Ukraine?" - Pompeo Flips Out On NPR Reporter by Tyler Durden Sat, 01/25/2020 - 15:05 0 SHARES

Democrats' impeachment proceedings were completely overshadowed this week by the panic over the Wuhan coronavirus. Still, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is clearly tired of having his character repeatedly impugned by the Dems and the press claiming he hung one of his ambassadors out to dry after she purportedly resisted the administration's attempts to pressure Ukraine.

That frustration came to a head this week when, during a moment of pique, Secretary Pompeo launched into a rant and swore at NPR reporter Mary Louise Kelly after she wheedled him about whether he had taken concrete steps to protect former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch.

House Democrats last week released a trove of messages between Giuliani associate Lev Parnas and Connecticut Republican Congressional candidate Robert Hyde. The messages suggested that Yovanovitch might have been under surveillance before President Trump recalled her to Washington. One of the messages seems to reference a shadowy character able to "help" with Yovanovitch for "a price."

Kelly recounted the incident to her listeners (she is the host of "All Things Considered")

After Kelly asked Pompeo to specify exactly what he had done or said to defend Yovanovitch, whom Pompeo's boss President Trump fired last year, Pompeo simply insisted that he had "done what's right" with regard to Yovanovitch, while becoming visibly annoyed.

Once the interview was over, Pompeo glared at Kelly for a minute, then left the room, telling an aide to bring Kelly into another room at the State Department without her recorder, so they could have more privacy.

Once inside, Pompeo launched into what Kelly described as an "expletive-laden rant", repeatedly using the "f-word." Pompeo complained about the questions about Ukraine, arguing that the interview was supposed to be about Iran.

"Do you think Americans give a f--k about Ukraine?" Pompeo allegedly said.

The outburst was followed by a ridiculous stunt: one of Pompeo's staffers pulled out a blank map and asked the reporter to identify Ukraine, which she did.

"People will hear about this," Pompeo vaguely warned.

Ironically, Pompeo is planning to travel to Kiev this week.

The questions came after Michael McKinley, a former senior adviser to Pompeo, told Congress that he resigned after the secretary apparently ignored his pleas for the department to show some support for Yovanovitch.

Listen to the interview here. A transcript can be found here .

NPR's Mary Louise Kelly says the following happened after the interview in which she asked some tough questions to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. pic.twitter.com/cRTb71fZvX

-- Daniel Dale (@ddale8) January 24, 2020

Last we checked, the team at NPR is waiting on Pompeo to apologize

Mike Pompeo Does in fact owe Yovanovitch an apology https://t.co/imazFrG3Q6

-- Molly Jong-Fast (@MollyJongFast) January 25, 2020

We suspect they might be waiting a while...

CarteroAtómico , 5 minutes ago link

He's right. American don't give a **** about Ukraine. But why did Clinton and Obama and now Trump and Pompeo? Why are they spending our money there instead of either taking care of problems here or paying off the national debt?

MOLONAABE , 8 minutes ago link

The best thing that could happen to the Ukraine is for Russia to take it back.. they would clean up that train wreck of a country... they've proven themselves as to being the scumbags they are gypsies and grifters...

Goodsport 1945 , 11 minutes ago link

The Bidens do, so there must be $omething very attractive over there.

carman , 13 minutes ago link

He's right. Nobody cares about Ukraine. NPR= National Propaganda Radio.

CarteroAtómico , 1 minute ago link

But why are Trump and Pompeo continuing the policy of Obama and Clinton there? Remember Trump said he would pay off the national debt in 8 years? How about stop spending our money on the War Party's foreign interventions for a starter.

kindasketchy , 17 minutes ago link

I wish the same level of questioning was directed at Pompeo regarding Syria and Iran. You may like his response because of the particular topic, but it doesn't change the fact that he's a psycho neo-con fucktard who should be shot for treason.

Collectivism Killz , 21 minutes ago link

Truth. Most Americans know nothing about Ukraine, some just know orange man bad and orange man bad for Ukr

roach clipper , 21 minutes ago link

I despise fkn traitor Pompus from USMA (traitor training school) but in this case he doesn't owe yovanobitch anything.

morefunthanrum , 27 minutes ago link

People care about a secretary of state who supports his diplomats...about a president whose not a lying conniving spoiled piece of ****

roach clipper , 22 minutes ago link

There are NO diplomats in the Dept. of State, otherwise we wouldn't have been at war all century.

[Jan 25, 2020] Pompeo Crumbles Under Pressure

Jan 25, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

U.S. Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo participates in a press conference with U.S. President Donald J. Trump during the NATO Foreign Ministerial in Brussels on July 12, 2018. (State Department photo/ Public Domain)

January 24, 2020

|

9:21 pm

Daniel Larison Mike Pompeo has proven to be a blowhard and a bully in his role as Secretary of State, and nothing seems to bother him more than challenging questions from professional journalists. All of those flaws and more were on display during and after his interview with NPR's Mary Louise Kelly today. After abruptly ending the interview when pressed on his failure to defend members of the Foreign Service, Pompeo then threw a fit and berated the reporter who asked him the questions:

Immediately after the questions on Ukraine, the interview concluded. Pompeo stood, leaned in and silently glared at Kelly for several seconds before leaving the room.

A few moments later, an aide asked Kelly to follow her into Pompeo's private living room at the State Department without a recorder. The aide did not say the ensuing exchange would be off the record.

Inside the room, Pompeo shouted his displeasure at being questioned about Ukraine. He used repeated expletives, according to Kelly, and asked, "Do you think Americans care about Ukraine?" He then said, "People will hear about this."

People are certainly hearing about it, and their unanimous judgment is that it confirms Pompeo's reputation as an obnoxious, thin-skinned excuse for a Secretary of State. Kelly's questions were all reasonable and fair, but Pompeo is not used to being pressed so hard to give real answers. We have seen his short temper and condescension before when other journalists have asked him tough questions, and he seems particularly annoyed when the journalists calling him out are women. Pompeo probably has the worst working relationship with the press of any Secretary of State in decades, and this episode will make it worse.

When Pompeo realized he wouldn't be able to get away with his standard set of vacuous talking points and lies, he ended the conversation. The entire interview is worth reading to appreciate how poorly Pompeo performs when he is forced to explain how failing administration policies are "working." When pressed on his untrue claims that "maximum pressure" on Iran is "working," all that he could do was repeat himself robotically:

QUESTION: My question, again: How do you stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon?

SECRETARY POMPEO: We'll stop them.

QUESTION: How?

SECRETARY POMPEO: We'll stop them.

QUESTION: Sanctions?

SECRETARY POMPEO: We'll stop them.

Kelly refused to accept pat, meaningless responses, and she kept insisting that Pompeo provide something, anything, to back up his assertions. This is how administration officials should always be interviewed, and it is no surprise that the Secretary of State couldn't handle being challenged to back up his claims. The questions wouldn't have been that hard to answer if Pompeo were willing to be honest or the least bit humble, but that isn't how he operates. He sees every interview as an opportunity to snow the interviewer under with nonsense and to score points with the president, and giving honest answers would get in the way of both.

The section at the end concerned Pompeo's failure to stand up for State Department officials, especially Marie Yovanovitch, the former ambassador to Ukraine. Since Pompeo's support for these officials has been abysmal, there was nothing substantive that he could say about it and tried to filibuster his way out of it. To her credit, Kelly was persistent in trying to pin him down and make him address the issue. He had every chance to explain himself, but instead he fell back on defensive denials that persuade no one:

QUESTION: Sir, respectfully, where have you defended Marie Yovanovitch?

SECRETARY POMPEO: I've defended every single person on this team. I've done what's right for every single person on this team.

QUESTION: Can you point me toward your remarks where you have defended Marie Yovanovitch?

SECRETARY POMPEO: I've said all I'm going to say today. Thank you. Thanks for the repeated opportunity to do so; I appreciate that.

Pompeo could have defended Yovanovitch and other officials that have come under attack, but to do that would be to risk Trump's ire and it would require him to show the slightest bit of courage. In the end, his "swagger" is all talk and his rhetoric about supporting his "team" at State is meaningless. Pompeo made a fool of himself in this interview, and it is perfectly in keeping with his angry, brittle personality that he took out his frustrations by yelling at the reporter who exposed him as the vacuous blowhard that he is.

about the author Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC , where he also keeps a solo blog . He has been published in the New York Times Book Review , Dallas Morning News , World Politics Review , Politico Magazine , Orthodox Life , Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week . He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter . email

Clyde Schechter • 17 hours ago
Wow! She did a great interview there. Really a model for what all reporters should be doing.

Thanks for bringing this to light, Mr. Larison.

SFBay1949 • 16 hours ago • edited
I don't suppose you'll be interviewing Pompeo any time soon Daniel. I very much appreciate your being so honest about what you see and hear.
K squared • 14 hours ago
Left out was the part when pompeo had one of his minions bring out a blank world map and challenged her to find the Ukraine which she immediately did - i wonder if trump could find it
FL_Cottonmouth K squared • 7 hours ago
That's hilarious.
John Mann K squared • 2 hours ago
Apparently, Pompeo has suggested Kelly had pointed to Bangladesh, not Ukraine, on the map, and commented "It is worth noting that Bangladesh is NOT Ukraine."

I don't suppose we are ever likely to see conclusive evidence that will establish for certain where she pointed.

It's probably just a matter of looking at their respective records of lying, cheating, and stealing, and making a guess based on that.

stephen pickard • 5 hours ago
My God, can he get any worse. I suppose so since his boss always falls to a lower level. There is no bottom. Just admit that everyday brings a new low. Only thing surprising is that we get surprised at their despicable behavior.
Jeff Dickey stephen pickard • 3 hours ago
That's the problem with Trump henchmen: they can always get worse. There is no bottom, for to have a limit below which the henchmen will not go would embarrass the Capo di Tutti Capi for blowing through it on the way down. Henchmen have bills to pay, too, you know, just like people.
stephen pickard Jeff Dickey • an hour ago
As I said awhile back, lies are debts that must be repaid.
FL_Cottonmouth • 4 hours ago
Looming over her and leering down at her? What a creep!
Jonah • 3 hours ago
I'm sorry, is the "conservative" in the name of this blog some kind of parody? You all sure sound like liberal democrats. Never been here before, won't be coming back.

Oh, and you forgot about the part where Pompeo came ready to discuss one topic, which was agreed to beforehand, and the interviewer transitioned to a new topic. And the way she did so was to ask Pompeo if he owed Marie Yanokovich an apology. Yes, riveting journalism devoid of partisan bias. Lol! But it was Pompeo. Right.

Jonah Jonah • 3 hours ago
To the person who down voted me, I don't care. Honestly I'm glad you butthurt whiners have a place to share your hurt feelings. Maybe if you're lucky Joe Biden will be President soon and you can all rejoice that "decency" is back, or something.
SFBay1949 Jonah • 3 hours ago
Apparently Pompeo can only keep so many talking points in his head. One topic only. Are we to believe the Secretary of State can't expound on more than a single subject? It must be true, otherwise he wouldn't go around insisting he will only talk about one subject during an interview. I expect he won't be getting many invites for interviews outside of FOX. Just as well, he's a bag of hot air anyway.
Sandra Jonah • 2 hours ago
I think there are many conservatives writing and commenting on this site. But perhaps you are confusing "conservative" with "republican". There is little conservatism left in the republican party.
Awake and Uttering a Song Jonah • an hour ago
"...Pompeo came ready to discuss one topic, which was agreed to beforehand, and the interviewer transitioned to a new topic."

Oh, the humanity!

Secretary Pompous couldn't just give a little chuckle and say something like "Now, now. You know we agreed to talk only on one topic, so let's get together on another day to discuss other topics". ?

Just another guy in power who is too full of himself.

sglover Jonah • 20 minutes ago
It's terrible when the citizenry goes off-script, isn't it?
ChrisD • 2 hours ago
Pompeo just tweeted this statement about the NPR interview::

Personan0ngrata • an hour ago
QUESTION: My question, again: How do you stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon?

Italicized/bold text was excerpted from the website www.dni.gov within a US National Intelligence Estimate published in Nov2007 titled:

Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities

ANSWER: Key Judgements

A. We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons. We judge with high confidence that the halt, and Tehran's announcement of its decision to suspend its declared uranium enrichment program and sign an Additional Protocol to its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Safeguards Agreement, was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran's previously undeclared nuclear work.

https://www.dni.gov/files/d...

Italicized/bold text was excerpted from the website fas.org a report published (updated 20Dec2019) by the Congressional Research Service titled:

Page 53, 2nd paragraph -

Iran's Nuclear Program: Status

Director of National Intelligence Coats reiterated the last sentence in May 2017 testimony.330He testified in January 2019 that the U.S. intelligence community "continue[s] to assess that Iran is not currently undertaking the key nuclear weapons-development activities we judge necessary to produce a nuclear device." Subsequent statements from U.S. officials indicate that Iran has not resumed its nuclear weapons program. According to an August 2019 State Department report, the "U.S. Intelligence Community assesses that Iran is not currently undertaking the key nuclear weapons development activities judged necessary to produce a nuclear device." Any decision to produce nuclear weapons "will be made by the Supreme Leader," Clapper stated in April 2013.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuk...

[Jan 25, 2020] Aftermath: The Iran War After the Soleimani Assassination by Jim Kavanagh

Notable quotes:
"... It always goes to Iran ..."
"... But even I was flabbergasted by what Trump did. Absolutely gobsmacked. Killing Qassem Soleimani, Iranian general, leader of the Quds forces, and the most respected military leader in the Middle East? And ..."
"... The first thing, the thing that is so sad and so infuriating and so centrally symptomatic of everything wrong with American political culture, is that, with painfully few exceptions, Americans have no idea of what their government has done. They have no idea who Qassem Soleimani was, what he has accomplished, the web of relationships, action, and respect he has built, what his assassination means and will bring. The last person who has any clue about this, of course, is Donald Trump, who called Soleimani " a total monster ." His act of killing Soleimani is the apotheosis of the abysmal, arrogant ignorance of U.S. political culture. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Whatever their elected governments say, we'll will keep our army in Syria to "take the oil," and in Iraq to well, to do whatever the hell we want. ..."
"... Sure, we make the rules and you follow our orders. ..."
"... with nobody even noticing ..."
"... Christian Science Monitor ..."
"... under Trump's leadership ..."
Jan 24, 2020 | www.counterpunch.org

"Praise be to God, who made our enemies fools."

– Ayatollah Khamenei

The Killing

I've been writing and speaking for months about the looming danger of war with Iran, often to considerable skepticism.

In June, in an essay entitled " Eve of Destruction: Iran Strikes Back ," after the U.S. initiated its "maximum pressure" blockade of Iranian oil exports, I pointed out that "Iran considers that it is already at war," and that the downing of the U.S. drone was a sign that "Iran is calling the U.S. bluff on escalation dominance."

In an October essay , I pointed out that Trump's last-minute calling off of the U.S. attack on Iran in June, his demurral again after the Houthi attack on Saudi oil facilities, and his announced withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria were seen as "catastrophic" and "a big win for Iran" by the Iran hawks in Israel and America whose efforts New York Times (NYT) detailed in an important article, " The Secret History of the Push to Strike Iran ." I said, with emphasis, " It always goes to Iran ," and underlined that Trump's restraint was particularly galling to hard-line zionist Republican Senators, and might have opened a path to impeachment. I cited the reported statement of a "veteran political consultant" that "The price of [Lindsey] Graham's support would be an eventual military strike on Iran."

And in the middle of December, I went way out on a limb, in an essay suggesting a possible relation between preparations for war in Iran and the impeachment process. I pointed out that the strategic balance of forces between Israel and Iran had reached the point where Israel thinks it's "necessary to take Iran down now ," in "the next six months," before the Iranian-supported Axis of Resistance accrues even more power. I speculated that the need to have a more reliable and internationally-respected U.S. President fronting a conflict with Iran might be the unseen reason -- behind the flimsy Articles of Impeachment -- that explains why Pelosi and Schumer "find it so urgent to replace Trump before the election and why they think they can succeed in doing that."

So, I was the guy chicken-littling about impending war with Iran.

But even I was flabbergasted by what Trump did. Absolutely gobsmacked. Killing Qassem Soleimani, Iranian general, leader of the Quds forces, and the most respected military leader in the Middle East? And Abu Mahdi al-Mohandes, Iraqi commander of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) unit, Kataib Hezbollah? Did not see that coming. Rage. Fear. Sadness. Anxiety. A few days just to register that it really happened. To see the millions of people bearing witness to it. Yes, that happened.

Then there was the anxious anticipation about the Iranian response, which came surprisingly quickly, and with admirable military and political precision, avoiding a large-scale war in the region, for the moment.

That was the week that was.

But, as the man said: "It ain't over 'til it's over." And it ain't over. Recognizing the radical uncertainty of the world we now live in, and recognizing that its future will be determined by actors and actions far away from the American leftist commentariat, here's what I need to say about the war we are now in.

The first thing, the thing that is so sad and so infuriating and so centrally symptomatic of everything wrong with American political culture, is that, with painfully few exceptions, Americans have no idea of what their government has done. They have no idea who Qassem Soleimani was, what he has accomplished, the web of relationships, action, and respect he has built, what his assassination means and will bring. The last person who has any clue about this, of course, is Donald Trump, who called Soleimani " a total monster ." His act of killing Soleimani is the apotheosis of the abysmal, arrogant ignorance of U.S. political culture.

It's virtually impossible to explain to Americans because there is no one of comparable stature in the U.S. or in the West today. As Iran cleric Shahab Mohadi said , when talking about what a "proportional response" might be: "[W]ho should we consider to take out in the context of America? 'Think about it. Are we supposed to take out Spider-Man and SpongeBob? 'All of their heroes are cartoon characters -- they're all fictional." Trump? Lebanese Hezbollah's Hassan Nasrallah said what many throughout the world familiar with both of them would agree with: "the shoe of Qassem Soleimani is worth the head of Trump and all American leaders."

To understand the respect Soleimani has earned, not only in Iran (where his popularity was around 80% ) but throughout the region and across political and sectarian lines, you have to know how he led and organized the forces that helped save Christians , Kurds , Yazidis and others from being slaughtered by ISIS, while Barack Obama and John Kerry were still " watching " ISIS advance and using it as a tool to "manage" their war against Assad.

In an informative interview with Aaron Maté, Former Marine Intelligence Officer and weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, explains how Soleimani is honored in Iraq for organizing the resistance that saved Baghdad from being overrun by ISIS -- and the same could be said of Syria, Damascus, or Ebril:

He's a legend in Iran, in Iraq, and in Syria. And anywhere where, frankly speaking, he's operated, the people he's worked with view him as one of the greatest leaders, thinkers, most humane men of all time. I know in America we demonize him as a terrorist but the fact is he wasn't, and neither is Mr. Mohandes.

When ISIS [was] driving down on the city of Baghdad, the U.S. armed and trained Iraqi Army had literally thrown down their weapons and ran away, and there was nothing standing between ISIS and Baghdad

[Soleimani] came in from Iran and led the creation of the PMF [Popular Mobilization Forces] as a viable fighting force and then motivated them to confront Isis in ferocious hand-to-hand combat in villages and towns outside of Baghdad, driving Isis back and stabilizing the situation that allowed the United States to come in and get involved in the Isis fight. But if it weren't for Qassem Soleimani and Mohandes and Kataib Hezbollah, Baghdad might have had the black flag of ISIS flying over it. So the Iraqi people haven't forgotten who stood up and defended Baghdad from the scourge of ISIS.

So, to understand Soleimani in Western terms, you'd have to evoke someone like World War II Eisenhower (or Marshall Zhukov, but that gets another blank stare from Americans.) Think I'm exaggerating? Take it from the family of the Shah :

Beyond his leadership of the fight against ISIS, you also have to understand Soleimani's strategic acumen in building the Axis of Resistance -- the network of armed local groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon as well as the PMF in Iraq, that Soleimani helped organize and provide with growing military capability. Soleimani meant standing up; he helped people throughout the region stand up to the shit the Americans, Israelis, and Saudis were constantly dumping on them

More apt than Eisenhower and De Gaulle, in world-historical terms, try something like Saladin meets Che. What a tragedy, and travesty, it is that legend-in-his-own-mind Donald Trump killed this man.

Dressed to Kill

But it is not just Trump, and not just the assassination of Soleimani, that we should focus on. These are actors and events within an ongoing conflict with Iran, which was ratcheted up when the U.S. renounced the nuclear deal (JCPOA – Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) and instituted a "maximum pressure" campaign of economic and financial sanctions on Iran and third countries, designed to drive Iran's oil exports to zero.

The purpose of this blockade is to create enough social misery to force Iran into compliance, or provoke Iran into military action that would elicit a "justifiable" full-scale, regime-change -- actually state-destroying -- military attack on the country.

From its inception, Iran has correctly understood this blockade as an act of war, and has rightfully expressed its determination to fight back. Though it does not want a wider war, and has so far carefully calibrated its actions to avoid making it necessary, Iran will fight back however it deems necessary.

The powers-that-be in Iran and the U.S. know they are at war, and that the Soleimani assassination ratcheted that state of war up another significant notch; only Panglossian American pundits think the "w" state is yet to be avoided. Sorry, but the United States drone-bombed an Iranian state official accompanied by an Iraqi state official, in Iraq at the invitation of the Iraqi Prime Minister, on a conflict-resolution mission requested by Donald Trump himself. In anybody's book, that is an act of war -- and extraordinary treachery, even in wartime, the equivalent of shooting someone who came to parley under a white flag.

Indeed, we now know that the assassination of Soleimani was only one of two known assassination attempts against senior Iranian officers that day. There was also an unsuccessful strike targeting Abdul Reza Shahlai, another key commander in Iran's Quds Force who has been active in Yemen. According to the Washington Post , this marked a "departure for the Pentagon's mission in Yemen, which has sought to avoid direct involvement" or make "any publicly acknowledged attacks on Houthi or Iranian leaders in Yemen."

Of course, because it's known as "the world's worst humanitarian crisis," the Pentagon wants to avoid "publicly" bloodying its hands in the Saudi war in Yemen. Through two presidential administrations, it has been trying to minimize attention to its indispensable support of, and presence in, Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen with drone strikes , special forces operations , refueling of aircraft, and intelligence and targeting. It's such a nasty business that even the U.S. Congress passed a bipartisan resolution to end U.S. military involvement in that war, which was vetoed by Trump.

According to the ethic and logic of American exceptionalism, Iran is forbidden from helping the Houthis, but the U.S. is allowed to assassinate their advisors and help the Saudis bomb the crap out of them.

So, the Trump administration is clearly engaged in an organized campaign to take out senior Iranian leaders, part of what it considers a war against Iran. In this war, the Trump administration no longer pretends to give a damn about any fig leaf of law or ethics. Nobody takes seriously the phony "imminence" excuse for killing Soleimani, which even Trump say s "doesn't matter," or the "bloody hands" justification, which could apply to any military commander. And let's not forget: Soleimani was " talking about bad stuff ."

The U.S. is demonstrating outright contempt for any framework of respectful international relations, let alone international law. National sovereignty? Democracy? Whatever their elected governments say, we'll will keep our army in Syria to "take the oil," and in Iraq to well, to do whatever the hell we want. "Rules-based international order"? Sure, we make the rules and you follow our orders.

The U.S.'s determination to stay in Iraq, in defiance of the explicit, unequivocal demand of the friendly democratic government that the U.S. itself supposedly invaded the country to install, is particularly significant. It draws the circle nicely. It demonstrates that the Iraq war isn't over. Because it, and the wars in Libya and Syria, and the war that's ratcheting up against Iran are all the same war that the U.S. has been waging in the Middle East since 2003. In the end is the beginning, and all that.

We're now in the endgame of the serial offensive that Wesley Clark described in 2007, starting with Iraq and "finishing off" with Iran. Since the U.S. has attacked, weakened, divided, or destroyed every other un-coopted polity in the region (Iraq, Syria, Libya) that could pose any serious resistance to the predations of U.S. imperialism and Israel colonialism, it has fallen to Iran to be the last and best source of material and military support which allows that resistance to persist.

And Iran has taken up the task, through the work of the Quds Force under leaders like Soleimani and Shahlai, the work of building a new Axis of Resistance with the capacity to resist the dictates of Israel and the U.S. throughout the region. It's work that is part of a war and will result in casualties among U.S. and U.S.-allied forces and damage to their "interests."

What the U.S. (and its wards, Israel and Saudi Arabia) fears most is precisely the kind of material, technical, and combat support and training that allows the Houthis to beat back the Saudis and Americans in Yemen, and retaliate with stunningly accurate blows on crucial oil facilities in Saudi Arabia itself. The same kind of help that Soleimani gave to the armed forces of Syria and the PMF in Iraq to prevent those countries from being overrun and torn apart by the U.S. army and its sponsored jihadis, and to Hezbollah in Lebanon to deter Israel from demolishing and dividing that country at will.

It's that one big "endless" war that's been waged by every president since 2003, which American politicians and pundits have been scratching their heads and squeezing their brains to figure out how to explain, justify (if it's their party's President in charge), denounce (if it's the other party's POTUS), or just bemoan as "senseless." But to the neocons who are driving it and their victims -- it makes perfect sense and is understood to have been largely a success. Only the befuddled U.S. media and the deliberately-deceived U.S. public think it's "senseless," and remain enmired in the cock-up theory of U.S. foreign policy, which is a blindfold we had better shed before being led to the next very big slaughter.

The one big war makes perfect sense when one understands that the United States has thoroughly internalized Israel's interests as its own. That this conflation has been successfully driven by a particular neocon faction, and that it is excessive, unnecessary and perhaps disruptive to other effective U.S. imperial possibilities, is demonstrated precisely by the constant plaint from non-neocon, including imperialist, quarters that it's all so "senseless."

The result is that the primary object of U.S. policy (its internalized zionist imperative) in this war is to enforce that Israel must be able, without any threat of serious retaliation, to carry out any military attack on any country in the region at any time, to seize any territory and resources (especially water) it needs, and, of course, to impose any level of colonial violence against Palestinians -- from home demolitions, to siege and sniper killings (Gaza), to de jure as well as de facto apartheid and eventual further mass expulsions, if deems necessary.

That has required, above all, removing -- by co-option, regime change, or chaotogenic sectarian warfare and state destruction -- any strong central governments that have provided political, diplomatic, financial, material, and military support for the Palestinian resistance to Israeli colonialism. Iran is the last of those, has been growing in strength and influence, and is therefore the next mandatory target.

For all the talk of "Iranian proxies," I'd say, if anything, that the U.S., with its internalized zionist imperative, is effectively acting as Israel's proxy.

It's also important, I think, to clarify the role of Saudi Arabia (KSA) in this policy. KSA is absolutely a very important player in this project, which has been consistent with its interests. But its (and its oil's) influence on the U.S. is subsidiary to Israel's, and depends entirely on KSA's complicity with the Israeli agenda. The U.S. political establishment is not overwhelmingly committed to Saudi/Wahhabi policy imperatives -- as a matter, they think, of virtue -- as they are to Israeli/Zionist ones. It is inconceivable that a U.S. Vice-President would declare "I am a Wahhabi," or a U.S. President say "I would personally grab a rifle, get in a ditch, and fight and die" for Saudi Arabia -- with nobody even noticing . The U.S. will turn on a dime against KSA if Israel wants it; the reverse would never happen. We have to confront the primary driver of this policy if we are to defeat it, and too many otherwise superb analysts, like Craig Murray, are mistaken and diversionary, I think, in saying things like the assassination of Soleimani and the drive for war on Iran represent the U.S. " doubling down on its Saudi allegiance ." So, sure, Israel and Saudi Arabia. Batman and Robin.

Iran has quite clearly seen and understood what's unfolding, and has prepared itself for the finale that is coming its way.

The final offensive against Iran was supposed to follow the definitive destruction of the Syrian Baathist state, but that project was interrupted (though not yet abandoned) by the intervention of Syria's allies, Russia and Iran -- the latter precisely via the work of Soleimani and the Quds Force.

Current radical actions like the two assassination strikes against Iranian Quds Force commanders signal the Trump administration jumping right to the endgame, as that neocon hawks have been " agitating for ." The idea -- borrowed, perhaps from Israel's campaign of assassinating Iranian scientists -- is that killing off the key leaders who have supplied and trained the Iranian-allied networks of resistance throughout the region will hobble any strike from those networks if/when the direct attack on Iran comes.

Per Patrick Lawrence , the Soleimani assassination "was neither defensive nor retaliatory: It reflected the planning of the administration's Iran hawks, who were merely awaiting the right occasion to take their next, most daring step toward dragging the U.S. into war with Iran." It means that war is on and it will get worse fast.

It is crucial to understand that Iran is not going to passively submit to any such bullying. It will not be scared off by some "bloody nose" strike, followed by chest-thumping from Trump, Netanyahu, or Hillary about how they will " obliterate " Iran. Iran knows all that. It also knows, as I've said before , how little damage -- especially in terms of casualties -- Israel and the U.S. can take. It will strike back. In ways that will be calibrated as much as possible to avoid a larger war, but it will strike back.

Iran's strike on Ain al-Asad base in Iraq was a case in point. It was preceded by a warning through Iraq that did not specify the target but allowed U.S. personnel in the country to hunker down. It also demonstrated deadly precision and determination, hitting specific buildings where U.S. troops work, and, we now know, causing at least eleven acknowledged casualties.

Those casualties were minor, but you can bet they would have been the excuse for a large-scale attack, if the U.S. had been entirely unafraid of the response. In fact, Trump did launch that attack over the downing of a single unmanned drone -- and Pompeo and the neocon crew, including Republican Senators, were " stunned " that he called it off in literally the last ten minutes . It's to the eternal shame of what's called the "left" in this country that we may have Tucker Carlson to thank for Trump's bouts of restraint.

There Will Be Blood

But this is going to get worse, Pompeo is now threatening Iran's leaders that "any attacks by them, or their proxies of any identity, that harm Americans, our allies, or our interests will be answered with a decisive U.S. response." Since Iran has ties of some kind with most armed groups in the region and the U.S. decides what "proxy" and "interests" means, that means that any act of resistance to the U.S., Israel, or other "ally" by anybody -- including, for example, the Iraqi PMF forces who are likely to retaliate against the U.S. for killing their leader -- will be an excuse for attacking Iran. Any anything. Call it an omnibus threat.

The groundwork for a final aggressive push against Iran began back in June, 2017, when, under then-Director Pompeo, the CIA set up a stand-alone Iran Mission Center . That Center replaced a group of "Iran specialists who had no special focus on regime change in Iran," because "Trump's people wanted a much more focused and belligerent group." The purpose of this -- as of any -- Mission Center was to "elevate" the country as a target and "bring to bear the range of the agency's capabilities, including covert action" against Iran. This one is especially concerned with Iran's "increased capacity to deliver missile systems" to Hezbollah or the Houthis that could be used against Israel or Saudi Arabia, and Iran's increased strength among the Shia militia forces in Iraq. The Mission Center is headed by Michael D'Andrea, who is perceived as having an "aggressive stance toward Iran." D'Andrea, known as "the undertaker" and " Ayatollah Mike ," is himself a convert to Islam, and notorious for his "central role in the agency's torture and targeted killing programs."

This was followed in December, 2017, by the signing of a pact with Israel "to take on Iran," which took place, according to Israeli television, at a "secret" meeting at the White House. This pact was designed to coordinate "steps on the ground" against "Tehran and its proxies." The biggest threats: "Iran's ballistic missile program and its efforts to build accurate missile systems in Syria and Lebanon," and its activity in Syria and support for Hezbollah. The Israelis considered that these secret "dramatic understandings" would have "far greater impact" on Israel than Trump's more public and notorious recognition of Jerusalem as Israeli's capital.

The Iran Mission Center is a war room. The pact with Israel is a war pact.

The U.S. and Israeli governments are out to "take on" Iran. Their major concerns, repeated everywhere, are Iran's growing military power, which underlies its growing political influence -- specifically its precision ballistic missile and drone capabilities, which it is sharing with its allies throughout the region, and its organization of those armed resistance allies, which is labelled "Iranian aggression."

These developments must be stopped because they provide Iran and other actors the ability to inflict serious damage on Israel. They create the unacceptable situation where Israel cannot attack anything it wants without fear of retaliation. For some time, Israel has been reluctant to take on Hezbollah in Lebanon, having already been driven back by them once because the Israelis couldn't take the casualties in the field. Now Israel has to worry about an even more battle-hardened Hezbollah, other well-trained and supplied armed groups, and those damn precision missiles . One cannot overstress how important those are, and how adamant the U.S. and Israel are that Iran get rid of them. As another Revolutionary Guard commander says : "Iran has encircled Israel from all four sides if only one missile hits the occupied lands, Israeli airports will be filled with people trying to run away from the country."

This campaign is overseen in the U.S. by the likes of " praying for war with Iran " Christian Zionists Mike Pompeo and Mike Pence, who together " urged " Trump to approve the killing of Soleimani. Pence, whom the Democrats are trying to make President, is associated with Christians United For Israel (CUFI), which paid for his and his wife's pilgrimage to Israel in 2014, and is run by lunatic televangelist John Hagee, whom even John McCain couldn't stomach. Pompeo, characterized as the "brainchild" of the assassination, thinks Trump was sent by God to save Israel from Iran. (Patrick Lawrence argues the not-implausible case that Pompeo and Defense Secretary Esper ordered the assassination and stuck Trump with it.) No Zionists are more fanatical than Christian Zionists. These guys are not going to stop.

And Iran is not going to surrender. Iran is no longer afraid of the escalation dominance game. Do not be fooled by peace-loving illusions -- propagated mainly now by mealy-mouthed European and Democratic politicians -- that Iran will return to what's described as "unconditional" negotiations, which really means negotiating under the absolutely unacceptable condition of economic blockade, until the U.S. gets what it wants. Not gonna happen. Iran's absolutely correct condition for any negotiation with the U.S. is that the U.S. return to the JCPOA and lift all sanctions.

Also not gonna happen, though any real peace-loving Democratic candidate would specifically and unequivocally commit to doing just that if elected. The phony peace-loving poodles of Britain, France, and Germany (the EU3) have already cast their lot with the aggressive American policy, triggering a dispute mechanism that will almost certainly result in a " snapback " of full UN sanctions on Iran within 65 days, and destroy the JCPOA once and for all. Because, they, too, know Iran's nuclear weapons program is a fake issue and have "always searched for ways to put more restrictions on Iran, especially on its ballistic missile program." Israel can have all the nuclear weapons it wants, but Iran must give up those conventional ballistic missiles. Cannot overstate their importance.

Iran is not going to submit to any of this. The only way Iran is going to part with its ballistic missiles is by using them. The EU3 maneuver will not only end the JCPOA, it may drive Iran out of the Nuclear Weapons Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). As Moon of Alabama says, the EU3 gambit is "not designed to reach an agreement but to lead to a deeper conflict" and ratchet the war up yet another notch. The Trump administration and its European allies are -- as FDR did to Japan -- imposing a complete economic blockade that Iran will have to find a way to break out of. It's deliberately provocative, and makes the outbreak of a regional/world war more likely. Which is its purpose.

This certainly marks the Trump administration as having crossed a war threshold the Obama administration avoided. Credit due to Obama for forging ahead with the JCPOA in the face of fierce resistance from Netanyahu and his Republican and Democratic acolytes, like Chuck Schumer. But that deal itself was built upon false premises and extraordinary conditions and procedures that -- as the current actions of the EU3 demonstrate -- made it a trap for Iran.

With his Iran policy, as with Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, what Trump is doing -- and can easily demonstrate -- is taking to its logical and deadly conclusion the entire imperialist-zionist conception of the Middle East, which all major U.S. politicians and media have embraced and promulgated over decades, and cannot abandon.

With the Soleimani assassination, Trump both allayed some of the fears of Iran war hawks in Israel and the U.S. about his "reluctance to flex U.S. military muscle" and re-stoked all their fears about his impulsiveness, unreliability, ignorance, and crassness. As the the Christian Science Monitor reports, Israel leaders are both "quick to praise" his action and "having a crisis of confidence" over Trump's ability to "manage" a conflict with Iran -- an ambivalence echoed in every U.S. politician's "Soleimani was a terrorist, but " statement.

Trump does exactly what the narrative they all promote demands, but he makes it look and sound all thuggish and scary. They want someone whose rhetorical finesse will talk us into war on Iran as a humanitarian and liberating project. But we should be scared and repelled by it. The problem isn't the discrepancy in Trump between actions and attitudes, but the duplicity in the fundamental imperialist-zionist narrative. There is no "good" -- non-thuggish, non-repellent way -- way to do the catastrophic violence it demands. Too many people discover that only after it's done.

Trump, in other words, has just started a war that the U.S. political elite constantly brought us to the brink of, and some now seem desperate to avoid, under Trump's leadership . But not a one will abandon the zionist and American-exceptionalist premises that make it inevitable -- about, you know, dictating what weapons which countries can "never" have. Hoisted on their own petard. As are we all.

To be clear: Iran will try its best to avoid all-out war. The U.S. will not. This is the war that, as the NYT reports , "Hawks in Israel and America have spent more than a decade agitating for." It will start, upon some pretext, with a full-scale U.S. air attack on Iran, followed by Iranian and allied attacks on U.S. forces and allies in the region, including Israel, and then an Israeli nuclear attack on Iran -- which they think will end it. It is an incomprehensible disaster. And it's becoming almost impossible to avoid.

The best prospect for stopping it would be for Iran and Russia to enter into a mutual defense treaty right now. But that's not going to happen. Neither Russia nor China is going to fight for Iran. Why would they? They will sit back and watch the war destroy Iran, Israel, and the United States.

Happy New Year.

[Jan 25, 2020] It's Time to Get Out of Iraq by Daniel Larison

Jan 24, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com
There are massive street demonstrations in Baghdad today calling for the exit of U.S. troops from the country. The demonstrations are in response to call for protests from Muqtada al-Sadr. Estimates of the crowd size vary, but it is a huge turnout of Iraqis that wants us gone:

100's of thousands protest in Baghdad, calling for all US troops to leave Iraq, close all bases & embassies, if they don't they will be considered an occupying force. pic.twitter.com/C3CqBqpxyD

-- Ali Arouzi (@aliarouzi) January 24, 2020

Some more photos of the march by Sadrists today in Baghdad, the turnout is huge by any measure, perhaps the largest in #Baghdad so far, and perhaps the most noticeable aspect is the lack of violence and troubles despite the scale of it #IraqProtests #Iraq #US pic.twitter.com/2xXGk2dSVY

-- Farhad Alaaldin (@farhad965) January 24, 2020

Baghdad today. pic.twitter.com/RlVU5K1RnP

-- мυнαммα∂ αℓ-ωαєℓι 🇮🇶 (@muhammadalwaeli) January 24, 2020

The Trump administration has violated Iraqi sovereignty earlier this month by taking military action inside Iraq against both Iraqis militias and the Iranian government without Baghdad's consent, and their government wants our forces out of the country. Sadr has considerable influence in Iraqi politics, and he has wanted U.S. forces out for a long time. When opponents of our military presence can organize such huge popular demonstrations, it is time for us to go. The U.S. should have withdrawn from Iraq years ago, and it would have been better to leave on our own terms. Now the U.S. cannot stay without provoking armed opposition from Iraqis to our continued presence.

So far the administration position has been to threaten Iraq with punishment for upholding its own sovereignty. That's a disgraceful and imperialist position to take, and it is also an untenable one. There have been enough American wars in Iraq. Trump should yield to the Iraqi government's wishes and bring these troops home before any more Americans are injured or killed as a result of his destructive Iran policy.

Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC , where he also keeps a solo blog . He has been published in the New York Times Book Review , Dallas Morning News , World Politics Review , Politico Magazine , Orthodox Life , Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week . He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter . email

ZizaNiam • a day ago

AP tried to downplay the protests, reporting only 'hundreds. There must be close to a million people out there (as reported by the Baghdad Chief of Police) and the fact that Sadr and the other Iraqi Shia militias can organize this massive demonstrations proves that the assassination of Soleimani, the protector of Syria and Iraq's Christians, did absolutely nothing to drive a wedge between the various Iraqi Shia militia groups, the vast majority of which are not Iranian sponsored but true Iraqi national patriots.
Barlaam of Weimerica • a day ago
There is never a bad time to leave a country that we never should have invaded and occupied. Not that I expect wisdom, common sense,or basic morality from a foreign policy establishment that formulated a strategy for the Middle East, saw that it would entail the genocide of Christians, Yezidis, and other minorities, and decided, "That's a price worth paying."

[Jan 24, 2020] It's amazing all the money in the State Department and other intelligence agencies should be attracting the best minds. Yet a bunch of us sitting here watching this from our boring office jobs realize how genuinely stupid US foreign policy has been.

Jan 24, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Danny , Jan 24 2020 15:11 utc | 25

It's amazing all the money in the State Department and other intelligence agencies should be attracting the best minds. Yet a bunch of us sitting here watching this from our boring office jobs realize how genuinely stupid US foreign policy has been.

A separate Sunni state in West Iraq would be doomed. We need to leave these people alone, we've made enough foolish mistakes and this will get a lot of people killed. That's along with US troops being put in harms way for ridiculous reasons like stealing Syrian oil and now occupying Iraq against their parliaments wishes.

Back in the day you told someone you were American and they wanted to shake your hand and ask you about this place or that. Now they want to spit in our faces

[Jan 24, 2020] How Are Iran and the "Axis of the Resistance" Affected by the US Assassination of Soleimani by Elijah J. Magnier

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The US President Donald Trump assassinated the commander of the "Axis of the Resistance", the (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) IRGC – Quds Brigade Major General Qassem Soleimani at Baghdad airport with little consideration of the consequences of this targeted killing. It is not to be excluded that the US administration considered the assassination would reflect positively on its Middle Eastern policy. Or perhaps the US officials believed the killing of Sardar Soleimani would weaken the "Axis of the Resistance": once deprived of their leader, Iran's partners' capabilities in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen would be reduced. Is this assessment accurate? ..."
Jan 22, 2020 | www.globalresearch.ca

The US President Donald Trump assassinated the commander of the "Axis of the Resistance", the (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) IRGC – Quds Brigade Major General Qassem Soleimani at Baghdad airport with little consideration of the consequences of this targeted killing. It is not to be excluded that the US administration considered the assassination would reflect positively on its Middle Eastern policy. Or perhaps the US officials believed the killing of Sardar Soleimani would weaken the "Axis of the Resistance": once deprived of their leader, Iran's partners' capabilities in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen would be reduced. Is this assessment accurate?

A high-ranking source within this "Axis of the Resistance" said " Sardar Soleimani was the direct and fast track link between the partners of Iran and the Leader of the Revolution Sayyed Ali Khamenei. However, the command on the ground belonged to the national leaders in every single separate country. These leaders have their leadership and practices, but common strategic objectives to fight against the US hegemony, stand up to the oppressors and to resist illegitimate foreign intervention in their affairs. These objectives have been in place for many years and will remain, with or without Sardar Soleimani".

"In Lebanon, Hezbollah's Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah leads Lebanon and is the one with a direct link to the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. He supports Gaza, Syria, Iraq and Yemen and has a heavy involvement in these fronts. However, he leads a large number of advisors and officers in charge of running all military, social and relationship affairs domestically and regionally. Many Iranian IRGC officers are also present on many of these fronts to support the needs of the "Axis of the Resistance" members in logistics, training and finance," said the source.

In Syria, IRGC officers coordinate with Russia, the Syrian Army, the Syrian political leadership and all Iran's allies fighting for the liberation of the country and for the defeat of the jihadists who flocked to Syria from all continents via Turkey, Iraq and Jordan. These officers have worked side by side with Iraqi, Lebanese, Syrian and other nationals who are part of the "Axis of the Resistance". They have offered the Syrian government the needed support to defeat the "Islamic State" (ISIS/IS/ISIL) and al-Qaeda and other jihadists or those of similar ideologies in most of the country – with the exception of north-east Syria, which is under US occupation forces. These IRGC officers have their objectives and the means to achieve a target already agreed and in place for years. The absence of Sardar Soleimani will hardly affect these forces and their plans.

In Iraq, over 100 Iranian IRGC officers have been operating in the country at the official request of the Iraqi government, to defeat ISIS. They served jointly with the Iraqi forces and were involved in supplying the country with weapons, intelligence and training after the fall of a third of Iraq into the hands of ISIS in mid-2014. It was striking and shocking to see the Iraqi Army, armed and trained by US forces for over ten years, abandoning its positions and fleeing the northern Iraqi cities. Iranian support with its robust ideology (with one of its allies, motivating them to fight ISIS) was efficient in Syria; thus, it was necessary to transmit this to the Iraqis so they could stand, fight, and defeat ISIS.

The Lebanese Hezbollah is present in Syria and Yemen, and also in Iraq. The Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki asked Sayyed Nasrallah to provide his country with officers to stand against ISIS. Dozens of Hezbollah officers operate in Iraq and will be ready to support the Iraqis if the US forces refuse to leave the country. They will abide by and enforce the decision of the Parliament that the US must leave by end January 2021. Hezbollah's long warfare experience has resulted in painful experiences with the US forces in Lebanon and Iraq throughout several decades and has not been forgotten.

Sayyed Nasrallah, in his latest speech, revealed the presence in mid-2014 of Hezbollah officials in Kurdistan to support the Iraqi Kurds against ISIS. This was when the same Kurdish Leader Masoud Barzani announced that it was due to Iran that the Kurds received weapons to defend themselves when the US refused to help Iraq for many months after ISIS expanded its control in northern Iraq.

The Hezbollah leaders did not disclose the continuous visits of Kurdish representatives to Lebanon to meet Hezbollah officials. In fact, Iraqi Sunni and Shia officials, ministers and political leaders regularly visit Lebanon to meet Hezbollah officials and its leader. Hezbollah, like Iran, plays an essential role in easing the dialogue between Iraqis when these find it difficult to overcome their differences together.

The reason why Sayyed Nasrallah revealed the presence of his officers in Kurdistan when meeting Masoud Barzani is a clear message to the world that the "Axis of the Resistance" doesn't depend on one single person. Indeed, Sayyed Nasrallah is showing the unity which reigns among this front, with or without Sardar Soleimani. Barzani is part of Iraq, and Kurdistan expressed its readiness to abide by the decision of the Iraqi Parliament to seek the US forces' departure from the country because the Kurds are not detached from the central government but part of it.

Prior to his assassination, Sardar Soleimani prepared the ground to be followed (if killed on the battlefield, for example) and asked Iranian officials to nominate General Ismail Qaani as his replacement. The Leader of the revolution Sayyed Ali Khamenei ordered Soleimani's wish to be fulfilled and to keep the plans and objectives already in place as they were. Sayyed Khamenei, according to the source, ordered an "increase in support for the Palestinians and, in particular, to all allies where US forces are present."

Sardar Soleimani was looking for his death by his enemies and got what he wished for. He was aware that the "Axis of the Resistance" is highly aware of its objectives. Those among the "Axis of the Resistance" who have a robust internal front are well-established and on track. The problem was mainly in Iraq. But it seems the actions of the US have managed to bring Iraqi factions together- by assassinating the two commanders. Sardar Soleimani could have never expected a rapid achievement of this kind. Anti-US Iraqis are preparing this coming Friday to express their rejection of the US forces present in their country.

Sayyed Ali Khamenei , in his Friday prayers last week, the first for eight years, set up a road map for the "Axis of the Resistance": push the US forces out of the Middle East and support Palestine.

All Palestinian groups, including Hamas, were present at Sardar Soleimani's funeral in Iran and met with General Qaani who promised, "not only to continue support but to increase it according to Sayyed Khamenei's request," said the source. Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas Leader, said from Tehran: "Soleimani is the martyr of Jerusalem".

Many Iraqi commanders were present at the meeting with General Qaani. Most of these have a long record of hostility towards US forces in Iraq during the occupation period (2003-2011). Their commander, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes, was assassinated with Sardar Soleimani and they are seeking revenge. Those leaders have enough motivation to attack the US forces, who have violated the Iraq-US training, cultural and armament agreement. At no time was the US administration given a license to kill in Iraq by the government of Baghdad.

The Iraqi Parliament has spoken: and the assassination of Sardar Soleimani has indeed fallen within the ultimate objectives of the "Axis of the Resistance". The Iraqi caretaker Prime Minister has officially informed all members of the Coalition Forces in Iraq that "their presence, including that of NATO, is now no longer required in Iraq". They have one year to leave. But that absolutely does not exclude the Iraqi need to avenge their commanders.

Palestine constitutes the second objective, as quoted by Sayyed Khamenei. We cannot exclude a considerable boost of support for the Palestinians, much more than the actually existing one. Iran is determined to support the Sunni Palestinians in their objective to have a state of their own in Palestine. The man – Soleimani – is gone and is replaceable like any other man: but the level of commitment to goals has increased. It is hard to imagine the "Axis of the Resistance" remaining idle without engaging themselves somehow in the US Presidential campaign. So, the remainder of 2020 is expected to be hot.

*

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

[Jan 24, 2020] Trump Envoy Issues Death Threat to Soleimani Successor, Head of Iran's Quds Force

Jan 24, 2020 | ronpaulinstitute.org

21st Century Wire Thursday January 23, 2020
undefined

Just when you thought that Washington could not sink any lower in the international diplomacy game, the Trump White House compounds its previous misdeed by issuing a public death threat against the successor of assassinated Quds Force General Qasem Soleimani.

Presidential US Special Envoy to Iran, Brian Hook, gave a statement to the Arabic language newspaper, Asharq al-Awsat , where he warned new General of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Esmail Ghaani, that he will end up like Soleimani should he be accused of killing any Americans, remarking that, "follows the same path of killing Americans then he will meet the same fate."

Soleimani was killed by a US drone strike on January 3 , along with senior Iraqi PMU commander, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis.

Hook continued saying,"We will hold the regime and its agents responsible for any attack on Americans or American interests in the region."

Hook also went on to boast that Washington's state-sponsored assassination of Soleimani has made the Middle East a safer place because it has "create a vacuum that the Regime will not be able to fill," inferring that Ghaani will not be able to marshal "Iran's agents in the region".

Hook also repeated the common talking point that Soleimani was the 'world's most dangerous terrorist' – a label which hardly corresponds with facts which clearly demonstrate that the Iranian military leader was leading the fight against ISIS and al-Qaeda in Iraq and Syria.

In the interview, Hook also used the opportunity to reinforce another State Department narrative which still claims that Iran somehow launched the September attack on Saudi Arabia's Aramco oil facilities – even though the likely culprit, Yemen's Houthi rebel forces, had already taken credit for the attack.

Reprinted with permission from 21st Century Wire .

[Jan 24, 2020] Trump adopts Biden's Iraq plan.

Jan 24, 2020 | caucus99percent.com

US seeking to carve out Sunni state as its influence in Iraq wanes

Backed into a corner and influence waning, the United States has in recent weeks been promoting a plan to create an autonomous Sunni region in western Iraq, officials from both countries told Middle East Eye.

The US efforts, the officials say, come in response to Shia Iraqi parties' attempts to expel American troops from their country.

Iraq represents a strategic land bridge between Iran and its allies in Syria, Lebanon and Palestine.

Establishing a US-controlled Sunni buffer zone in western Iraq would deprive Iran of using land routes into Syria and prevent it from reaching the eastern shores of the Mediterranean.

For Washington, the idea of carving out a Sunni region dates back to a 2007 proposition by Joe Biden, who is now vying to be the Democratic Party's presidential candidate.

Biden's plan was actually an attempt to ethnically cleanse Iraq into three distinct enclaves (because an integrated, multicultural Iraq is anathema to the US colonial divide and conquer strategy).

Across racial and religious boundaries, Iraqi politicians on Saturday bemoaned Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama's choice of running mate, known in Iraq as the author of a 2006 plan to divide the country into ethnic and sectarian enclaves.

"This choice of Biden is disappointing, because he is the creator of the idea of dividing Iraq," Salih al-Mutlaq, head of National Dialogue, one of the main Sunni Arab blocs in parliament, told Reuters.

"We rejected his proposal when he announced it, and we still reject it. Dividing the communities and land in such a way would only lead to new fighting between people over resources and borders. Iraq cannot survive unless it is unified, and dividing it would keep the problems alive for a long time."

For all his brazen denials about his Iraq involvement, one wonders whether, if Joe Biden hadn't been selected Obama's Vice President, he might have eventually been named Iraq Viceroy.

Now Trump is adopting Biden's plan.

Same as it ever was.... up 12 users have voted. --

Tom Steyer is my favorite billionaire. Let's eat him last.

OzoneTom on Fri, 01/24/2020 - 1:51pm

All of Iraq was a Sunni buffer zone before the invasion /nt

@Not Henry Kissinger

From the link in b's post.

US seeking to carve out Sunni state as its influence in Iraq wanes

Backed into a corner and influence waning, the United States has in recent weeks been promoting a plan to create an autonomous Sunni region in western Iraq, officials from both countries told Middle East Eye.

The US efforts, the officials say, come in response to Shia Iraqi parties' attempts to expel American troops from their country.

Iraq represents a strategic land bridge between Iran and its allies in Syria, Lebanon and Palestine.

Establishing a US-controlled Sunni buffer zone in western Iraq would deprive Iran of using land routes into Syria and prevent it from reaching the eastern shores of the Mediterranean.

For Washington, the idea of carving out a Sunni region dates back to a 2007 proposition by Joe Biden, who is now vying to be the Democratic Party's presidential candidate.

Biden's plan was actually an attempt to ethnically cleanse Iraq into three distinct enclaves (because an integrated, multicultural Iraq is anathema to the US colonial divide and conquer strategy).

Across racial and religious boundaries, Iraqi politicians on Saturday bemoaned Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama's choice of running mate, known in Iraq as the author of a 2006 plan to divide the country into ethnic and sectarian enclaves.

"This choice of Biden is disappointing, because he is the creator of the idea of dividing Iraq," Salih al-Mutlaq, head of National Dialogue, one of the main Sunni Arab blocs in parliament, told Reuters.

"We rejected his proposal when he announced it, and we still reject it. Dividing the communities and land in such a way would only lead to new fighting between people over resources and borders. Iraq cannot survive unless it is unified, and dividing it would keep the problems alive for a long time."

For all his brazen denials about his Iraq involvement, one wonders whether, if Joe Biden hadn't been selected Obama's Vice President, he might have eventually been named Iraq Viceroy.

Now Trump is adopting Biden's plan.

Same as it ever was....

[Jan 24, 2020] Trump doesn't want to be the president that lost Iraq

Jan 24, 2020 | caucus99percent.com

Trump needs to claim victory over ISIS and get the hell out. Those one million peaceful protesters will turn into something really ugly, probably joined by parts or all of the Iraqi military. That will be far worse for him, with scenes of US diplomats being airlifted out of the embassy by helicopter. up 10 users have voted. --

Capitalism has always been the rule by the oligarchs. You only have two choices, eliminate them or restrict their power.

[Jan 24, 2020] Dissociated Press Sees "Hundreds" Where Pictures Show Millions. Iraqis are ready to fight and die to evict the US troups.

Jan 24, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Hoarsewhisperer , Jan 24 2020 13:32 utc | 11

Dissociated Press Sees "Hundreds" Where Pictures Show Millions

mpn , Jan 24 2020 13:44 utc | 15

B - AP isn't the only outlet falsely reporting the protest. Please get screen shots from the other "reports" (like Bloomberg) and add them to this post to document the media manipulation.

Thanks for all your effort.

b , Jan 24 2020 15:32 utc | 29
Cultural competence (not) by the Washington Post

Iraqi demonstrators demand withdrawal of U.S. troops

Around Baghdad's Hurriyah Square, the streets were a sea of black, white and red, as protesters clutched Iraqi flags and wore shrouds around their shoulders to evoke the country's dead.

White shrouds around their shoulders do not "evoke the country's dead" but a a sign of willingness for martyrdom. Those guys ( vid ) are ready to fight and die for their aim.

Laguerre , Jan 24 2020 15:38 utc | 30
It's a Shi'te motif, b, wearing a shroud. Ready for martyrdom, like the Shi'a Imams. They have a big thing about death.
Peter AU1 , Jan 24 2020 15:45 utc | 32
Cultural competence...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-iran-iraq/soleimani-killing-adds-dangerous-new-dimension-to-iraq-unrest-idUSKBN1ZL28K
"It is likely to end up at the gates of the U.S. Embassy, the seat of U.S. power in Iraq..."

A more recent article had the same wording "USembassy, seat of US power in Iraq" but it was changed a few hours ago. The article does however end with this "Outside the U.S. embassy in Baghdad's fortified Green Zone, a sign read "Warning. Do not cross this barrier, we will use pre-emptive measures against any attempt to cross"."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-security-sadr/no-no-america-iraq-protesters-demand-expulsion-of-u-s-troops-idUSKBN1ZN0RI

Virgile , Jan 24 2020 18:28 utc | 51
A separate Sunni state in West Iraq will be an ISIS haven financed by Saudi Arabia, the US and Israel.
Iran will never let this to happen..
Laguerre , Jan 24 2020 18:33 utc | 52
Posted by: Peter AU1 | Jan 24 2020 18:14 utc | 50

Yes, I was thinking about something along those lines, and was about to write a comment. There are conservative tribal leaders, who were at one point relatively favourable to the US, and who might be susceptible to this manoeuvre, and to Saudi persuasion. I was thinking in particular of Abu Risheh. However, unfortunately, their peoples along the Euphrates got flattened by the fighting during the Surge (after the period you're citing), so I don't know how enthusiastic they're going to be. It's a conventional problem, if the US makes a deal with a chief, indeed MbS is an example, they presume that they've got the whole people. They haven't.

psychohistorian , Jan 24 2020 18:55 utc | 53
Below is a BBC link with an embedded Reuters picture that shows not all of Western media is misrepresenting the march in Iraq.

Huge rally as Iraqis demand US troops pull out

div> please, do not try to search for US policy sense in the whole ME. all the moves there are done by the Israel firsters: destroy first then invent "senses". even the first Gulf War was lacking any policy consideration. I hope one day before she dies, to listen to what US Ambassador at that time, April Gillepsie, has to say about "her" entrapment of Saddam Hussein, a sort of McNamara hour of acknowledging.

Posted by: nietzsche1510 , Jan 24 2020 18:59 utc | 54

please, do not try to search for US policy sense in the whole ME. all the moves there are done by the Israel firsters: destroy first then invent "senses". even the first Gulf War was lacking any policy consideration. I hope one day before she dies, to listen to what US Ambassador at that time, April Gillepsie, has to say about "her" entrapment of Saddam Hussein, a sort of McNamara hour of acknowledging.

Posted by: nietzsche1510 | Jan 24 2020 18:59 utc | 54

Likklemore , Jan 24 2020 19:01 utc | 55
in the next 2 years, the U.S. will be leaving Iraq. It will not be safe to keep U.S. personnel on Iraqi soil.


First, it was "No injuries" resulting from Iran's retaliation
Then, it was only 11 "suffering headaches"

Now the Pentagon Says 34 Personnel Diagnosed With Concussions After Iran Strikes on Bases in Iraq


WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - Thirty-four US service members have been diagnosed with concussions and traumatic brain injuries after Iran conducted ballistic missile strikes on two bases in Iraq with half of them still undergoing medical treatment, Department of Defence spokesman Jonathan Hoffman said in a press briefing on 24 January.

"With regard to the number of recent injuries here is the latest update 34 total members have diagnosed with concussions and TBI [traumatic brain injury]", Hoffman told reporters.

Concussions or Headaches.? When it's serious we have to lie -

Paging Dr. Donald J. Trump

Paging any available Dr. or resident at Mayo Clinic

Laguerre , Jan 24 2020 19:06 utc | 56
I wouldn't deny the US is capable of creating an Iraqi al-Tanf. The US is always capable of air-supporting isolated bases, as long as there is the determination to do so. It's been shown many times, from Vietnam to Afghanistan. More, I don't see. The Sunnis have seen the way the Syrian Kurds were abandoned, so nobody's going to be enthused. And the surge has not been forgotten.
Kooshy , Jan 24 2020 19:15 utc | 57
"The Shi'a can certainly get their people out - which by the way is why they have such effective militias. The Sunnis don't have similarly effective militias (though such would probably also be politically difficult)."

Wondering why ? Because the don't want to live as minorities any more, specially where they are the majority. There is need for a collective security across the Shia community throughout the Western Asia and has nothing to do with US. Because US and UK, historically and continually have supported and inspired Sunni clients against Shia uprisings
For equal rights, US and UK and their clients have become a common threat to Shia resistance. This resistance and sense of common security within Shia communities is so strong and imbedded that killing one leader here one commander there will not change the outcome. As an example Abbas Mussavie was assassinated by IDF in 1992 who replaced him that became more dangerous and kicked Israel out of Lebanon, one Hassan Nassrollah
US will end up leaving like in VM No matter what she does

Peter AU1 , Jan 24 2020 19:18 utc | 58
Laguerre

I was thinking along the lines of Saudi intermediaries doing deals with tribes as Mcgurk pulled off in the Raqqa meeting when he brought in a Saudi intermediary or envoy to do a deal with the tribes of Deir Ezzor. I see the tribe break down into clans, so suppose it would or may be the heads of clans that deals would have to be done with.

What strikes me about this though is that US are looking at retreating into the area ISIS have retreated to and where they arose - the Iraq Syria border regions.

nietzsche1510 , Jan 24 2020 19:19 utc | 59
the battle for the Green Zone will start the liberation of Iraq, that´s why the US embassy there has a lot of rooftops.
Willy2 , Jan 24 2020 15:47 utc | 33

- Muqtada Al Sadr is an iraqi nationalist. As long as he can get help from Iran he will take it. But when that help is no longer needed then he will try to reduce the "influence" of the iranians as much as possible. Prehaps the words "boot them out" is a bit "over the top".
- But the relationship will Always remain friendly. But he is "his own man".
- In this regard this a re-run of what happened in the year 2003 & 2004. Back then the US wanted to pick their own sock puppet but the shiites out-witted the US.

Yonatan , Jan 24 2020 19:32 utc | 61
A photo essay of the Iraqi protests - plenty of images showing the scale and also close up images.

https://z5h64q92x9.net/proxy_u/ru-en.en/https/colonelcassad.livejournal.com/5590284.html

jayc , Jan 24 2020 19:33 utc | 62

Interesting that the number of US troops suffering concussive injuries from the Iran retaliatory strikes has been quietly reassessed to 44 persons. That seems significant in light of the extensive threats beforehand that any injury to a US person would ignite thunderous reprisal. It seems, then, the Americans have no plan, the Soleimaini hit was not thought through, and they are not in any way prepared for a necessary readjustment of their position in the region. Trump at Davos dismissed the protests and again threatened sanctions on Iraq - the fulcrum of US power has now visibly shifted from the military to the dominance of the reserve currency in the form of economic reprisals (sanctions). Reduced to imposing or threatening economic blockades on adversary populations is not a winning long-term strategy.

Sasha , Jan 24 2020 19:36 utc | 63

It is not only the MSM coordinated blackout on the important events developing in Iraq, notice also the scarce half hundred comments here in this thread on the same events by the usual and otherwise prolific regulars, who preferred to comment on so used Boeing or whatever old topic instead...

Meanwhile, those of us who wished to comment got banned, as they seemed to be some other who wanted to comment by other media, like Pepe Escobar in Facebook...

Elijah Magnier says,

Someone should write an article on how Main Stream Media and most reputable agencies either ignored what happened in #Baghdad #Iraq today or deliberately downplayed it because it calls for the #US to leave.

News is strikingly manipulated s since the war in #Syria 2011.

https://twitter.com/ejmalrai/status/1220758301266321408

[Jan 24, 2020] Apparently this is the new US policy in Iraq: US seeking to carve out Sunni state as its influence in Iraq wanes

Jan 24, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Laguerre , Jan 24 2020 11:44 utc | 1

This seems more relevant here than on the open thread:

Apparently this is the new US policy in Iraq.

US seeking to carve out Sunni state as its influence in Iraq wanes

Incredible, isn't it? A policy of parcellisation which has already failed twice, in Iraq and then again in Syria. And now Trump is going to do it again, according to reports which could well be right. They're sufficiently stupid. They're actually expecting the poor suffering Fallujans, who suffered through more than a month of being tortured by US troops, are going to stand up and fight for the US.

It's a complete misappreciation of the situation, not unusual in the US. It is of course true that the Sunnis suffer from the unthinking policies of the Shi'a, and are treated like an occupied country. But that doesn't mean that the Sunnis think they can stand up an independent state. They don't, particularly if the US only stations a handful of troops there.

The US could of course militarily occupy the area, but that's not Trump's plan, as it would be too politically intrusive back home.

By the way I hear we're about to receive Trump's overall peace plan for the Middle East. Given that the first rollouts fell totally flat, I wouldn't be too optimistic about its new reception in the Middle East.

Willy2 , Jan 24 2020 12:03 utc | 4

- Carving out a state in North-Western Iraq is part of "The Biden plan" of 2006 (/2007 ?). The Biden plan was to divide Iraq into 3 parts: Kurdistan, "Sumnnistan" and "Shia-stan".
- Was this the reason why the US "created" ISIS (in 2014) ??
Laguerre , Jan 24 2020 12:28 utc | 5
The Shi'a can certainly get their people out - which by the way is why they have such effective militias. The Sunnis don't have similarly effective militias (though such would probably also be politically difficult).

The US certainly doesn't have much idea how to tackle such a movement. The renewal of the plan for parcellisation just shows up the bankruptcy of US policy, nothing spoke to me so strongly of the failure of US thinking. For all the number of Washington think-tanks concentrating on the ME, they can't come up with workable ideas.

Laguerre , Jan 24 2020 12:56 utc | 7
Posted by: Ernesto Che | Jan 24 2020 12:32 utc | 6

Al-Sadr is indeed an Iraqi nationalist, and not particularly pro-Iranian, others are more. He more profited from Iran's safe haven, than became pro-Iranian.

On the other hand, he's unlikely to become Prime Minister, as too extreme. The US, if it gets a say in the choice of the next PM, will veto. And he's a sort who is in permanent opposition to everything, rather than in government, much like Corbyn in Britain.

somebody , Jan 24 2020 13:17 utc | 9
Posted by: Laguerre | Jan 24 2020 11:44 utc | 1

Surely, this has become obsolete with Saudi needing an agreement with Iran?

I just checked. On January 22 this happened in Yemen :

On January 18, Houthi rebels targeted the al Estiqbal military training camp, used by the Saudi-led coalition and forces loyal to Yemen's UN-recognised government. The strikes resulted in at least 116 deaths and dozens (if not hundreds) of injuries. Those struck had reportedly just finished praying at the base's mosque. According to Saudi media, the Houthis used a combination of ballistic missiles and drones.
Sasha , Jan 24 2020 13:23 utc | 10
The fake media are trying to trasvesticize these protests as antigovernment protests in the eyes of the Waestern and American population, fortunately, the images are worth thousands words:

https://twitter.com/passenger_to/status/1220620900166520833

Love these arabs´humor when they protest...

bevin , Jan 24 2020 13:48 utc | 16
During the first of the various criminal attacks on Fallujah, Sadr famously promised to deploy the Mahdi Army there to defend the largely sunni community.
The US fears nothing more than nationalism in the middle east- all its policies are aimed at atomising communities and fostering sectarian division. It is a tactic that has worked well in the United States for centuries- preserving the absolute power of the capitalist oligarchy by setting black against white, catholic against protestant, settler against indigenous, migrant against native.
It is difficult to conceive of a more evil policy than that of encouraging shi'ites to bully sunnis and vice versa, while dissecting society into shreds of ethnic and sectarian entities , which are then armed and trained to fight and kill one another.
This was the basis of the surge under Petraus. Of course the British had established the practice themselves. Among other things they employed christian Assyrians as police.
bevin , Jan 24 2020 13:52 utc | 17
An interesting view.
https://journal-neo.org/2020/01/24/is-iraq-between-the-hammer-and-the-anvil/
Sasha , Jan 24 2020 14:16 utc | 18
Al Mayadeen is reporting testimonies from all confesional sides on that this is an united clamor coming from the whole Iraqi society, who sees a clear link between occupation and corruption, in spite of their internal political differences, seeing no future while the US remains in the country corrupting and compromising Iraqi reconstruction and progress.

They are saying that the numbers seen demonstrating today in Iraq, in the anniversary of the other historical 1920 anticolonial demonstration, equates a popular referendum on the US illegal and forced presence in the country.

The representatives of the protesters are stating that there are being stablished diplomatic means for the US to go out, but, in case it refuses doing it by these means, the resistance will come into action. Thus a way of no return for the US is being delineated here...

Crowd demonstration against US military presence in Iraq


CarlD , Jan 24 2020 14:22 utc | 19
Slightly? off subject

Since the assassination drones cannot fly all the way from US territory to their intended targets,
any country that harbors the drones is actually complicit to the crimes of the US of A.

They must be made to understand that these assassinations will cost them eventually as accessories
to these crimes.

BM , Jan 24 2020 14:27 utc | 20
Possibly the most potent leverage Iraq can have on the US is for the Iraqi parliament to decree that all legal previously agreed immunity for US military guilty of crimes in Iraq is null and void. All US war criminals immediately liable to be tried in Iraq under Iraq law, unless the US commit to a prompt and orderly withdrawal. Right to prosecute still reserved in case of US non-compliance with any such commitment.

Whether or to what extent this could be made retrospective to the beginning of the current agreement (on the grounds that the agreement has been violated) I don't know. Maybe it might be possible to apply retrospectively at least to the first verifiable breech of the agreement by the US, I have no idea. Or maybe the agreement can only be deemed void with effect from a statement by the parliament, I have no idea. In any case, the US is now there illegally: any US soldier can legally be arrested and imprisoned at any time; and any US soldier from now on killing or injuring any person in Iraq is automatically a war criminal.

If it can so some extent legally be made retrospective, the US would automatically face a terrifying situation.

(Any prisons containing US prisoners in Iraq need full military protection though - I recall previously the US destroyed a prison with a tank where some soldiers were arrested).

Sasha , Jan 24 2020 14:28 utc | 21
@Posted by: Sasha | Jan 24 2020 14:16 utc | 18

The link from Al Mayadeen includes live stream with commentary in Arabic of the crowds gathering who seem in the sizes of Arbaeen pilgrimage...or more.....since multiconfessional...

Sasha , Jan 24 2020 14:37 utc | 22
Lesson to be learnt...on the future of the destroyers...
(CARTOON) The "Pax americana", in an image

"They made a desert and called it peace"
Tacit, in reference to "Pax Romana" after the destruction of Carthage.

https://twitter.com/Amor_y_Rabia/status/1219921555775467520

[Jan 24, 2020] This shows how the steady stream of propaganda impacts.....

Jan 24, 2020 | caucus99percent.com

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/479795-poll-41-approve-of-trump-airst...

A new poll shows a plurality of Americans approve of President Trump's decision to order the drone strike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani.

Forty-one percent of Americans agreed with the decision, according to the Associated Press and NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll released Friday. Thirty percent disapproved and the remaining 30 percent were indifferent.

On Jan. 3 the U.S. killed Soleimani at the Baghdad airport. The move raised tensions in the Middle East and fears of a new war. Iran launched rocket attacks on two bases with U.S. personnel in Iraq days later.

[Jan 24, 2020] Lawrence Wilkerson Lambasts 'the Beast of the National Security State' by Adam Dick

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Wilkerson provided a harsh critique of US foreign policy over the last two decades. Wilkerson states: ..."
"... America exists today to make war. How else do we interpret 19 straight years of war and no end in sight? It's part of who we are. It's part of what the American Empire is. ..."
"... We are going to lie, cheat and steal, as [US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo] is doing right now, as [President Donald Trump] is doing right now, as [Secretary of Defense Mark Esper] is doing right now, as [Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC)] is doing right now, as [Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR)] is doing right now, and a host of other members of my political party -- the Republicans -- are doing right now. We are going to cheat and steal to do whatever it is we have to do to continue this war complex. That's the truth of it, and that's the agony of it. ..."
"... That base voted for Donald Trump because he promised to end these endless wars, he promised to drain the swamp. Well, as I said, an alligator from that swamp jumped out and bit him. And, when he ordered the killing of Qassim Suleimani, he was a member of the national security state in good standing, and all that state knows how to do is make war. ..."
Jan 13, 2020 | ronpaulinstitute.org

Lawrence Wilkerson, a College of William & Mary professor who was chief of staff for Secretary of State Colin Powel in the George W. Bush administration, powerfully summed up the vile nature of the US national security state in a recent interview with host Amy Goodman at Democracy Now.

Asked by Goodman about the escalation of US conflict with Iran and how it compares with the prior run-up to the Iraq War, Wilkerson provided a harsh critique of US foreign policy over the last two decades. Wilkerson states:

Ever since 9/11, the beast of the national security state, the beast of endless wars, the beast of the alligator that came out of the swamp, for example, and bit Donald Trump just a few days ago, is alive and well.

America exists today to make war. How else do we interpret 19 straight years of war and no end in sight? It's part of who we are. It's part of what the American Empire is.

We are going to lie, cheat and steal, as [US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo] is doing right now, as [President Donald Trump] is doing right now, as [Secretary of Defense Mark Esper] is doing right now, as [Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC)] is doing right now, as [Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR)] is doing right now, and a host of other members of my political party -- the Republicans -- are doing right now. We are going to cheat and steal to do whatever it is we have to do to continue this war complex. That's the truth of it, and that's the agony of it.

What we saw President Trump do was not in President Trump's character, really. Those boys and girls who were getting on those planes at Fort Bragg to augment forces in Iraq, if you looked at their faces, and, even more importantly, if you looked at the faces of the families assembled along the line that they were traversing to get onto the airplanes, you saw a lot of Donald Trump's base. That base voted for Donald Trump because he promised to end these endless wars, he promised to drain the swamp. Well, as I said, an alligator from that swamp jumped out and bit him. And, when he ordered the killing of Qassim Suleimani, he was a member of the national security state in good standing, and all that state knows how to do is make war.

Wilkerson, over the remainder of the two-part interview provides many more insightful comments regarding US foreign policy, including recent developments concerning Iran. Watch Wilkerson's interview here:

Wilkerson is an Academic Board member for the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

Copyright © 2020 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute Related

[Jan 23, 2020] Incredible level of naivety of people who still think that a single individual, or even two, can change the direction of murderous US policies that are widely supported throughout the bureaucracy?

Elections now serve mainly the legitimizing of the deep state rule function; election of a partuclar induvudual can change little, althouth there is some space of change due to the power of executive branch.
Jan 23, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
Trailer Trash , Jan 23 2020 18:30 utc | 44

For example, Trump managed to speed up the process od destruction of the USA-centered neoliberal empire considerably. Especially by lauching the trade war with China. He also managed to discredit the USA foreign policy as no other president before him. Even Bush II.

>This is the most critical U.S. election in our lifetime
> Posted by: Circe | Jan 23 2020 17:46 utc | 36

Hmmm, I've been hearing the same siren song every four years for the past fifty. How is it that people still think that a single individual, or even two, can change the direction of murderous US policies that are widely supported throughout the bureaucracy?

Bureaucracies are reactionary and conservative by nature, so any new and more repressive policy Trumpy wants is readily adapted, as shown by the continuing barbarity of ICE and the growth of prisons and refugee concentration camps. Policies that go against the grain are easily shrugged off and ignored using time-tested passive-aggressive tactics.

One of Trump's insurmountable problems is that he has no loyal organization behind him whose members he can appoint throughout the massive Federal bureaucracy. Any Dummycrat whose name is not "Biden" has the same problem. Without a real mass-movement political party to pressure reluctant bureaucrats, no politician of any name or stripe will ever substantially change the direction of US policy.

But the last thing Dummycrats want is a real mass movement, because they might not be able to control it. Instead Uncle Sam will keep heading towards the cliff, which may be coming into view...

[Jan 23, 2020] In a day like yesterday....US merits to remain in Iraq getting 50% oil revenues while contributing zero to rebuilt the country they previosuly destroyed and funding and spreading chaos, unrest and terrorism...

Jan 23, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Sasha , Jan 23 2020 23:09 utc | 116

In a day like yesterday....US merits to remain in Iraq getting 50% oil revenues while contributing zero to rebuilt the country they previosuly destroyed and funding and spreading chaos, unrest and terrorism...
On this day in 1991, the US bombed an infant formula production plant in Iraq as part of Operation Desert Storm. The US lied, calling it a biological weapons facility, but in actuality, "it was the only source of infant formula food for children one year and younger in Iraq."

https://twitter.com/Americas_Crimes/status/1219824455712694272


Lurker in the Dark , Jan 23 2020 23:29 utc | 119

This is already a hot war the US is prosecuting against Iran.

[Jan 23, 2020] If the U.S. can do it or rather, have been assassinating other countries Officials, so can others and eventually, they will retaliate.

Jan 23, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Beibdnn , Jan 23 2020 15:44 utc | 5

@Likklemore No 1.

If the U.S. can do it or rather, have been assassinating other countries Officials, so can others and eventually, they will retaliate. No U.S. official will be safe, even in the mainland U.S. An old saying applies here. You sew the wind and reap the whirlwind.
The world is rapidly tiring of the classless thuggery of the U.S.A.

xLemming , Jan 23 2020 16:25 utc | 15

Posted by: Beibdnn | Jan 23 2020 15:44 utc | 5

Excellent point... and furthermore, if Russia & others are capable of clandestine hits (as per the accusations against them, i.e. Skripal, MH17, Litvinenko) then why on earth would US invite such operations against themselves?

I'm sure if they (Russia/Iran/others) really wanted to, unfortunate mishaps, like traceless, self-inflected, nail-gun accidents are easily possible

Just when you think ZATO couldn't get any stupider...

[Jan 23, 2020] The Iraqi Shia, 66% of the 40 million Iraqi population, are expressing their hatred towards US forces in particular and all foreign forces in general.

Jan 23, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Bruce , Jan 23 2020 18:02 utc | 38

"The Iraqi Shia, 66% of the 40 million Iraqi population, are expressing their hatred towards US forces in particular and all foreign forces in general. Iraq would like to see these forces depart for good, putting an end to US influence in Mesopotamia and West Asia. A massive protest has been organised for this Friday 24th January, led by Sayyed Moqtada al-Sadr, who is warning the US of the consequences of ignoring this Parliamentary decision. It is expected to be the most massive protest in the history of Iraq. But this protest is only the beginning."
https://ejmagnier.com/2020/01/22/immediate-us-withdrawal-due-to-its-violation-of-the-agreement-and-iraq-sovereignty/

Likklemore , Jan 23 2020 15:29 utc | 1

The murder of Soleimani was not a one-off: it will be the policy to take out leaders and US vassals dare not speak up: Murder and Sanctions (aka "Financial Warfare" ) is what they do.


US Warns New Quds Force Commander Could 'Meet Same Fate' as Slain Predecessor.

[.]

The US will assassinate Quds Force Commander Brig. Gen. Esmail Ghaani if he targets Americans, US special representative for Iran Brian Hook has warned.

"If Ghaani follows the same path of killing Americans then he will meet the same fate," Hook said, speaking to Asharq al-Awsat, a London-based Arabic newspaper, in an interview published Thursday.

According to the US diplomat, President Trump has made it very "clear that any attack on Americans or American interests will be met with a decisive response, which the president demonstrated on January 2".

Hook also said he believed that "the Iranian regime" now "understands that they cannot attack America and get away with it".

Yes and soon.

Europe needs new instruments to be able to defend itself from licentious extraterritorial sanctions.

The World Looks to Abandon the Dollar as US Sanctions Tighten Their Grip

Jackrabbit , Jan 23 2020 18:36 utc | 46

Likklemore @1

Red line / Green light

USA has just but a bulls-eye on every American in Iraq and Syria.

Every anti-Iranian ideologue (starting with Netanyahu) will now start planning false-flag attacks.

Just another dog whistle like Obama's "red-line" farce.

PS Did any media confirm the death of the US translator that caused USA to bomb the Iraqi PMU? His name wasn't even released for a couple of week AFTER he was killed and AFAIK no one really knows who killed him.

<> <> <> <> <> <>

Probably little happens until UN sanctions "snap-back". That will light the fuse and the fireworks start a number of weeks later but certainly before July (somebody wrote about Russia's being able to sell arms to Iran on the 5th-year anniversary of the JCPOA on July 14th).

Sadly, the false-flag needed to energize the masses with "war fever" (like after 9-11) is likely to require that many Americans are killed. And possibly not just military but civilians.

Aside: The cover of the 2015 Economist comes to mind. Two arrows on the lower right contain the numbers "11.5" and "11.3". The sand behind the arrows might represent the middle east. Do the two arrows represent a date range (European-like dates) of March 11th to May 11th? FYI: Persian New Year is March 21st, UN sanctions are likely to "snap-back" by mid-March.

The eleventh of the month has gained significance due to 9-11 and 7-11 (in England). Thus, 3-11, 4-11, and 5-11 would have symbolic value as for a "terrorist" incident.

How could the Economist have predicted such a date range? I've said many times that I thought that the JCPOA was a delaying tactic that was needed simply because Syrian regime change was taking longer than expected. From such a point of view, it's reasonable to assume that steps are taken to end the agreement and/or prompt strikes (symbolized by the arrows on the Economist's cover) prior to the end of the agreement or important anniversary milestones (like Ruissia's being able to sell arms after 5 years).

While some might say that such musings are irrational "conspiracy theory", I bring it up because neocons and other bad actors engage in long-term planning to achieve their goals. We are not suppose to notice such planning and then when things happen (like 9-11 and the 2008 Global Financial Crisis) it is quickly claimed that "no one could've foreseen" such things - which becomes an excuse for the bad actors to go unpunished.

!!

Jackrabbit , Jan 23 2020 18:36 utc | 46

3.11.2004 Madrid Atocha train station attacks happened...allegedly AQ autorship...

1.7.2015 Charlie Hebdo attack...IS/AQ autorship...allegedly...

1.7.2020 Soleimani´s muder...US autorship....confirmed....

Already exposed that IS/AQ is a byproduct of US

@

[Jan 23, 2020] The USA threatens with more extrajudicial killing of Iran officials

Jan 23, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Likklemore , Jan 23 2020 15:29 utc | 1

The murder of Soleimani was not a one-off: it will be the policy to take out leaders and US vassals dare not speak up: Murder and Sanctions (aka "Financial Warfare" ) is what they do.


US Warns New Quds Force Commander Could 'Meet Same Fate' as Slain Predecessor.

[.]

The US will assassinate Quds Force Commander Brig. Gen. Esmail Ghaani if he targets Americans, US special representative for Iran Brian Hook has warned.

"If Ghaani follows the same path of killing Americans then he will meet the same fate," Hook said, speaking to Asharq al-Awsat, a London-based Arabic newspaper, in an interview published Thursday.

According to the US diplomat, President Trump has made it very "clear that any attack on Americans or American interests will be met with a decisive response, which the president demonstrated on January 2".

Hook also said he believed that "the Iranian regime" now "understands that they cannot attack America and get away with it".

Yes and soon.

Europe needs new instruments to be able to defend itself from licentious extraterritorial sanctions.

The World Looks to Abandon the Dollar as US Sanctions Tighten Their Grip

[Jan 23, 2020] Trump's Katyusha Conundrum

Jan 23, 2020 | original.antiwar.com

by William Walter Kay Posted on January 23, 2020 January 22, 2020 Katyushas are short-range, unguided artillery rockets typically fired in salvos from truck-mounted launch-tubes. Iraq's insurgents deploy three types.

The smallest is 107 millimeters in diameter and 1 meter long. Its 19 kilogram weight includes an 8 kg high-explosive, shrapnel-bearing warhead. The 107mm is often fired from a 12-tube launcher, however, infantry-portable single-tube tripods are common. An experienced crew with a standardized weapon can hit a 400 X 400 meter target from 8 kilometers away. During the Vietnam War the US Army considered the 107mm to be their adversaries' most formidable weapon.

The 122mm 'Grad' Katyusha is 3 meters long and weighs 75 kg. Its warhead spans a third of its length and weighs 18 kg. It has a 20-kilometer range and a 30-meter lethal radius.

220mm Katyushas hurl 100 kg warheads 30 kilometers.

Katyushas have advantages over mortars. They deliver the same payload twice the distance and they fire multiple ordnance more rapidly. The globally ubiquitous BM-21 Grad fires forty 122mm rockets in three minutes. Reloading takes 10 minutes. Thus, Katyushas excel at "shoot-and-scoot" operations. As well, Katyushas' flat trajectories permit line-of-sight attacks and their 700 meter-per-second velocities provide unique anti-building potential.

After helping suppress the ISIS-led insurgency (2014-17) US forces defaulted to their previous occupation plan. Central to this program are segregated compounds situated inside Iraqi Armed Forces bases. These installations, always near airstrips, contain mere hundreds (not thousands) of US and Coalition troops who ride herd over the Iraqi Army whilst grooming and directing Iraq's 15,000-strong Special Forces.

Embassies and consulates are integral to the occupation. The sprawling US Embassy compound dominates Baghdad's fortified "Green Zone" which also houses Coalition partners' embassies, and the headquarters of the many NGOs insinuated throughout Iraqi society.

The occupation facilitates local activities of American and European businesses. These require office blocks, oil-field infrastructure; and, gated communities for imported talent.

Pre-2011 Americans relied on bases containing thousands of troops. These were remotely located and allocated substantial resources to thwart indirect (mortar and rocket) attacks through: counter-artillery, drone surveillance, and fighting patrols. Despite this, indirect fire inflicted 3,000 casualties (including 211 fatalities) on American forces; many occurring inside 'secure' bases.

The US-led Coalition's current archipelago of military, diplomatic, intelligence, business and NGO installations are ill-equipped to defend themselves against indirect fire. Proximity to cities makes them sitting ducks.

In September 2018 persons unknown began targeting US installations with Katyushas. This list chronicles these attacks. * (A dozen mortar attacks are not listed; Katyushas being the weapon of choice.)

  1. September 8, 2018 – four rockets (three 107mms and one 122mm) fall near the Green Zone.
  2. September 8, 2018 – two salvos of 107mms land near the US Consulate beside Basra Airport.
  3. September 28, 2018 – three 107mms are fired at the Basra Consulate; two land on site.
  4. December 27, 2018 – two 107mms are fired at Al-Asad Airbase (160 kilometers west of Baghdad) during Trump's visit.
  5. February 2, 2019 – an attack on Al-Asad Airbase is aborted. Three ready-to-launch 122mms are captured.
  6. February 12, 2019 – three 107mms hit Q-West Airfield (an off-the-books base south of Mosul).
  7. May 1, 2019 – two 107mms hit Camp Al-Taji: a 'training' institute, 40 kilometers north of Baghdad.
  8. May 19, 2019 – two rockets land near the US Embassy.
  9. June 10, 2019 – rocket attack on Camp Al-Taji.
  10. June 12, 2019 – rocket attack on a "northern air base" starts a fire.
  11. June 13, 2019 – rocket attack on Nineveh Command Headquarters (Mosul Presidential Palace).
  12. June 14, 2019 – a rocket lands near the US Embassy.
  13. June 17, 2019 – three rockets hit Camp Al-Taji.
  14. June 18, 2019 – Nineveh HQ is attacked by two 122mms; one hits, one misses.
  15. June 19, 2019 – rockets strike a gated community outside Basra (home to Exxon staff).
  16. September 23, 2019 – two rockets hit the Green Zone; one lands near the US Embassy.
  17. October 30, 2019 – two rockets hit the Green Zone, killing an Iraqi soldier.
  18. November 8, 2019 – seventeen rockets target Q-West Airfield.
  19. November 17, 2019 – rockets hit the Green Zone.
  20. November 29, 2019 – a rocket hits the Green Zone.
  21. December 3, 2019 – Al-Asad Airbase is "rocked" by five 122mms.
  22. December 5, 2019 – five 107mms hit Balad Airbase (80 kilometers north of Baghdad).
  23. December 6, 2019 – a 240mm rocket lands near Baghdad Airport (then housing a US base).
  24. December 9, 2019 – four 240mms strike Baghdad Airport killing 2, and wounding 5, Iraqi soldiers.
  25. December 11, 2019 – two 240mms land outside Baghdad Airport.
  26. December 27, 2019 – thirty-six 107mms hammer K1 Base (15 kilometers northwest of Kirkuk); killing an American translator and wounding several US troops.
  27. December 29, 2019 – four rockets hit Camp Al-Taji.
  28. December 29, 2019 – five rockets hit Al-Asad Airbase.
  29. January 4, 2020 – two rockets hit Balad Airbase.
  30. January 4, 2020 – several rockets hit the Green Zone. One lands near the US Embassy; another closes a major street.
  31. January 5, 2020 – six rockets are fired at the Green Zone; three hit the target.
  32. January 8, 2020 – two rockets hit the Green Zone.
  33. January 12, 2020 – eight rockets hit Balad Airbase, wounding several Iraqi soldiers.
  34. January 14, 2020 – a five-rocket attack on Camp Al-Taji.
  35. January 20, 2020 – three rockets hit Green Zone. They were fired from Al Zafraniya (15 kilometers away).

Attacks are becoming more frequent and are trending toward bigger rockets and higher volume salvos.

The insurgents' strategy is working. Katyusha attacks shuttered the US Basra Consulate in September 2018. Attacks in May and June 2019 forced Exxon to evacuate much of its foreign staff. Throughout 2019 the US State Department extracted personnel and the Defense Department consolidated bases into more secure facilities. By late 2019 US authorities were begging Iraqis for help whilst threatening retaliation.

The last straw came December 27 when the barrage onto K1 Base killed an American translator. The US responded with airstrikes on five Kata'ib Hezbollah bases (90 casualties) and with the January 3 assassination of Iranian General Soleimani. (The decision to assassinate Soleimani – in the event of an American fatality – was made June 24, 2019 following a week of near daily Katyusha attacks.)

While Iran and Iran's Iraqi allies are blamed for these attacks; this is dubious. Reportage following attacks invariably drops the phrase " no one claimed responsibility " – which is notable because perpetrators often boast of such achievements. Ten years ago, when Kata'ib Hezbollah targeted US facilities with "lob bombs" (improvised rockets), they posted videos of their handiwork. They deny involvement in these recent attacks as do other Iranian-linked militias.

The reportage often describes the attacks as " mysterious " or as a " whodunit. " Authors relay US intelligence theories of Iranian involvement without evidence.

On several occasions insurgents abandoned launchers and/or launch vehicles after the attack, often with fail-to-launch rockets inside. Investigators also possess fragments of successfully fired rockets. Tellingly, US officials, renowned for straining at gnats for evidence of Iranian complicity, do not utilize this material to incriminate Tehran.

The launchers themselves are obviously manufactured by local artisans. Moreover, an article from Kurdistan – 24 describes the rockets as " locally made ." Even globalist-militarist instrumentalities like the Washington Institute, Long War Journal, and Center for Strategic and International Studies concede some Katyushas are manufactured in Iraq.

Iraq has a burgeoning steel industry and, due to the calamities of the past 20 years, an enormous scrap metal industry. Katyushas' cardinal virtue is their simplicity.

Circa 2014 twelve countries hosted non-state armed groups that deployed Katyushas. (Post-2014 Yemen's Houthis joined this list, then outdid the pack in innovation and output.)

During the 2003-11 era Iraqi insurgents looted Katyushas from local arsenals. Other Katyushas came from Iran (officially or via the black market) and possibly from any of 32 other countries manufacturing them. Experts bemoan the difficulty of determining a rocket's origin.

Circa 2008 Iraqi artisans manufactured a variety of launchers. A 2009 raid in Maysan Governorate discovered 107mm, 122mm and 220mm rail launchers; and 1,700 carjacks. (Jacks were affixed to the bottoms of stationary tripods to permit changes in launch angle.) Insurgents developed creative mobile launch platforms i.e. inside ice cream trucks or towed behind motorcycles etc. They debuted remote control triggers and GPS reconnaissance.

Circa 2011 poor quality of locally acquired rockets compelled insurgents to continue to rely on imports. The insurgents were, however, manufacturing "lob bomb" rockets and anti-armor mines; although Iran stood accused of being their sole supplier.

Post-2011 insurgents honed their craft. Remember: Hamas, operating inside Gaza with a tiny fraction of the resources of Iraq's insurgents, manufactures crude Katyushas.

Prime suspects in the Katyusha campaign are not pro-Iranian militias; but rather the milieu around Mahdi Army successor, the Promise Day Brigades (PDB). This political tendency, nominally led by Moqtada al-Sadr, is concentrated in Iraq's densely populated central and southern regions, but boasts a militant contingent in Mosul. This milieu overlaps the Saairun Alliance which includes Iraq's far left; who carry their own legacy of armed struggle.

The insurgency's Von Braun might be Jawad al-Tulaybani. An Iran-Iraq War veteran, al-Tulaybani possesses 40 years of combat rocketry experience. A war wound left him partially disabled. He appeared on US radar in 2008 after masterminding a barrage that wounded 15 US soldiers.

The org-chart of the Saairun/PDB/al-Sadr movement remains obscured. Notably, on January 8, 2020 al-Sadr counseled refrain from military actions. Four Katyusha attacks happened since.

What is clear is that this general political tendency is not particularly beholden to Iran. They appear nonsectarian, if not secularist, and they advance a left-nationalist agenda. Prior to the 2018 election (wherein Saairun emerged as the most popular bloc) Iran's Foreign Minister warned Iran would never tolerate an Iraq run by " liberals and communists " – meaning Saairun.

Then again, Trump's thrill kill of Soleimani (and Iraq's Popular Mobilization Units' Deputy Commander) completely reshuffled the deck, creating unprecedented unity amongst hitherto rivals.

As Katyushas veto pacification efforts, US forces return to square one. They must retreat to sprawling, remotely situated camps equipped to suppress indirect fire. This, however, means surrendering Iraq's political theater to adversaries who will marshal Iraqi Government resources against them.

Katyushas are driving the Trump Administration's Iraq policy. Prisoners of groupthink they react by doubling-down on the Big Lie that Iraq's national liberation movement consists only of "Iranian terrorists." In reality, their most effective opponents are as indigenous and legitimate as the French Resistance.

*Note on Sources

Data came from scanning 1,000 articles then parsing several dozen of them. Preference went to state media: i.e. Voice of America, Al Jazeera, Xinhua et al; although Military Times and Kurdistan-24 proved germane. Rogue Rocketeers: Artillery Rockets and Armed Groups (Small Arms Survey, Geneva Switzerland, 2014) is a must-read. Data on the first 7 Katyusha attacks was lifted without corroboration from Michael Knights' Responding to Iranian Harassment of U.S. Facilities in Iraq (Washington Institute, May 21, 2019). As Knights is the only analyst to grasp the seriousness of the Katyusha attacks. His reports are a trove. Being intimately connected to US and Israeli intelligence, he slavishly relays the anti-Iran party line.

Major attacks generate scores of reports. Lesser attacks are mentioned only in passing. Some articles tally the attacks but the numbers do not jibe. Certain attacks go unreported. Probably, 50+ mortar and Katyusha attacks hit US facilities between September 8, 2018 and January 14, 2020.

William Walter Kay is a researcher and writer from Canada. His most recent book is From Malthus to Mifepristone: A Primer on the Population Control Movement.

[Jan 23, 2020] Iraq's paramilitary force Hashd Shaabi said on Thursday that it opened fire at an unidentified drone flying over its bases near the border with Syria in the western province of Anbar

Jan 23, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Qparticle , Jan 24 2020 0:32 utc | 133

Xinhua repoted:

BAGHDAD, Jan. 23 (Xinhua) -- Iraq's paramilitary force Hashd Shaabi said on Thursday that it opened fire at an unidentified drone flying over its bases near the border with Syria in the western province of Anbar.

On Dec. 29, the Hashd Shaabi's 45th and 46th brigades belonging to Kata'ib Hezbollah in Iraq were attacked by U.S. airstrikes, leaving more than 25 Hashd Shaabi members killed and 51 others injured.

... ... ...

[Jan 23, 2020] Who Created the Persian Gulf Tinderbox

Jan 23, 2020 | www.strategic-culture.org

Joe Biden's statement that "President Trump just tossed a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox" by assassinating Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani was not inaccurate. But it skirts an all-important question: who created the tinderbox in the first place?

The answer, of course, is the United States.

In the long history of imperial folly and recklessness, nothing compares to U.S. policy in the Persian Gulf. Yes, the British shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan in 1838, and, yes, JFK shouldn't have backed the overthrow of South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem in November 1963. If they had thought things through more carefully, one wouldn't have lost an entire army in the retreat from Kabul while the other wouldn't have stumbled into a dozen-year-long quagmire that would leave the U.S. military depleted and demoralized – not to mention killing more than a million or more Vietnamese.

But those were momentary miscalculations compared to the slow-motion disaster in the gulf. For nearly half a century, every U.S. president – liberal, conservative, or whatever – has pumped up a regional arms race that has set the stage for ever more destructive wars. The death and destruction have been incalculable. Yet not once throughout the long sorry saga have Americans paused for even a moment to consider where it was all going.

The process began in 1973 when Arab oil exporters quadrupled prices after Richard Nixon provided Israel with $2.2 billion in emergency aid in the midst of the nineteen-day Yom Kippur War. America considered seizing Saudi oil fields in retaliation. But once passions cooled, it opted for a pragmatic policy of mutual accommodation in which Arab oil producers and western consumers would accept Israeli victory and higher energy prices alike as faits accomplis and forge a workable settlement out of the rubble.

The result from a U.S. point of view was a win-win situation if ever there was one. At a stroke, it acquired a powerful military ally in the Jewish state, a valuable export market in the gulf, and a much-needed conservative Muslim ally at a time when secular Arab radicalism was shooting through the roof. The big payoff came in 1989 when a US-backed Saudi-organized jihad drove the Soviets out of Afghanistan, causing the entire Soviet bloc to unravel just two years later.

Washington was dizzy with success. "What is more important in world history," exulted Zbigniew Brzezinski, the architect of the Afghanistan plan, in 1998. "The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some agitated Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?" A top CIA strategist named Graham Fuller added a year later:

"The policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping them against our adversaries worked marvelously well in Afghanistan against the Red Army. The same doctrines can still be used to destabilize what remains of Russian power and especially to counter the Chinese influence in Central Asia."

What could go wrong? Plenty, as it turned out: the emergence of jihad as a global phenomenon, the birth of hyper-sectarian Sunni terrorists like Al Qaeda and ISIS, and a cycle of violence that has since proved unstoppable. Since Carter declared unilateral U.S. military jurisdiction over the Persian Gulf in January 1980, the region has seen no fewer than seven major wars:

  • The Afghan jihad (1979-89).
  • The Iran-Iraq war (1980-88).
  • The gulf war (1990-91).
  • The U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq (2001-03).
  • The US-Saudi assault on Syria (starting in late 2011).
  • And the US-backed Saudi war on Yemen (beginning in March 2015 and still ongoing).

Toss in such "minor" incidents as the Saudi-UAE invasion of Bahrain in order to crush democratic protests in March 2011 or the Saudi economic blockade of Qatar in June 2017, and the list grows to nine, surely a record for American "peacekeepers."

Yet the United States, the world's leading military exporter, has piled up the tinder ever higher by accelerating military exports to absolutist states like Saudi Arabia and Qatar that, as even Hillary Clinton has admitted , "are providing clandestine financial and logical support to ISIL [i.e. Islamic State] and other radical Sunni groups in the region."

Never has imperialism been more nihilistic. Yet Donald Trump has dialed up the craziness even more by abrogating the 2015 Iran nuclear accord and imposing a trade embargo that has brought the Iranian economy to its knees. Not content with economic warfare, he's now advancing to physical warfare by "droning" Soleimani and threatening massive retaliation against both military and cultural targets if Iran dares raise a hand in response.

The effect is to propel himself into the front ranks of international war criminals. But Trump could never have done it on his own if a long line of American militarists hadn't paved the way. Daniel Lazare January 8, 2020 | Security Who Created the Persian Gulf Tinderbox? Joe Biden's statement that "President Trump just tossed a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox" by assassinating Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani was not inaccurate. But it skirts an all-important question: who created the tinderbox in the first place?

The answer, of course, is the United States.

In the long history of imperial folly and recklessness, nothing compares to U.S. policy in the Persian Gulf. Yes, the British shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan in 1838, and, yes, JFK shouldn't have backed the overthrow of South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem in November 1963. If they had thought things through more carefully, one wouldn't have lost an entire army in the retreat from Kabul while the other wouldn't have stumbled into a dozen-year-long quagmire that would leave the U.S. military depleted and demoralized – not to mention killing more than a million or more Vietnamese.

But those were momentary miscalculations compared to the slow-motion disaster in the gulf. For nearly half a century, every U.S. president – liberal, conservative, or whatever – has pumped up a regional arms race that has set the stage for ever more destructive wars. The death and destruction have been incalculable. Yet not once throughout the long sorry saga have Americans paused for even a moment to consider where it was all going.

The process began in 1973 when Arab oil exporters quadrupled prices after Richard Nixon provided Israel with $2.2 billion in emergency aid in the midst of the nineteen-day Yom Kippur War. America considered seizing Saudi oil fields in retaliation. But once passions cooled, it opted for a pragmatic policy of mutual accommodation in which Arab oil producers and western consumers would accept Israeli victory and higher energy prices alike as faits accomplis and forge a workable settlement out of the rubble.

The result from a U.S. point of view was a win-win situation if ever there was one. At a stroke, it acquired a powerful military ally in the Jewish state, a valuable export market in the gulf, and a much-needed conservative Muslim ally at a time when secular Arab radicalism was shooting through the roof. The big payoff came in 1989 when a US-backed Saudi-organized jihad drove the Soviets out of Afghanistan, causing the entire Soviet bloc to unravel just two years later.

Washington was dizzy with success. "What is more important in world history," exulted Zbigniew Brzezinski, the architect of the Afghanistan plan, in 1998. "The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some agitated Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?" A top CIA strategist named Graham Fuller added a year later:

"The policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping them against our adversaries worked marvelously well in Afghanistan against the Red Army. The same doctrines can still be used to destabilize what remains of Russian power and especially to counter the Chinese influence in Central Asia."

What could go wrong? Plenty, as it turned out: the emergence of jihad as a global phenomenon, the birth of hyper-sectarian Sunni terrorists like Al Qaeda and ISIS, and a cycle of violence that has since proved unstoppable. Since Carter declared unilateral U.S. military jurisdiction over the Persian Gulf in January 1980, the region has seen no fewer than seven major wars:

  • The Afghan jihad (1979-89).
  • The Iran-Iraq war (1980-88).
  • The gulf war (1990-91).
  • The U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq (2001-03).
  • The US-Saudi assault on Syria (starting in late 2011).
  • And the US-backed Saudi war on Yemen (beginning in March 2015 and still ongoing).

Toss in such "minor" incidents as the Saudi-UAE invasion of Bahrain in order to crush democratic protests in March 2011 or the Saudi economic blockade of Qatar in June 2017, and the list grows to nine, surely a record for American "peacekeepers."

Yet the United States, the world's leading military exporter, has piled up the tinder ever higher by accelerating military exports to absolutist states like Saudi Arabia and Qatar that, as even Hillary Clinton has admitted , "are providing clandestine financial and logical support to ISIL [i.e. Islamic State] and other radical Sunni groups in the region."

Never has imperialism been more nihilistic. Yet Donald Trump has dialed up the craziness even more by abrogating the 2015 Iran nuclear accord and imposing a trade embargo that has brought the Iranian economy to its knees. Not content with economic warfare, he's now advancing to physical warfare by "droning" Soleimani and threatening massive retaliation against both military and cultural targets if Iran dares raise a hand in response.

The effect is to propel himself into the front ranks of international war criminals. But Trump could never have done it on his own if a long line of American militarists hadn't paved the way.

© 2010 - 2020 | Strategic Culture Foundation | Republishing is welcomed with reference to Strategic Culture online journal www.strategic-culture.org . The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation. Joe Biden's statement that "President Trump just tossed a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox" by assassinating Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani was not inaccurate. But it skirts an all-important question: who created the tinderbox in the first place?

The answer, of course, is the United States.

In the long history of imperial folly and recklessness, nothing compares to U.S. policy in the Persian Gulf. Yes, the British shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan in 1838, and, yes, JFK shouldn't have backed the overthrow of South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem in November 1963. If they had thought things through more carefully, one wouldn't have lost an entire army in the retreat from Kabul while the other wouldn't have stumbled into a dozen-year-long quagmire that would leave the U.S. military depleted and demoralized – not to mention killing more than a million or more Vietnamese.

But those were momentary miscalculations compared to the slow-motion disaster in the gulf. For nearly half a century, every U.S. president – liberal, conservative, or whatever – has pumped up a regional arms race that has set the stage for ever more destructive wars. The death and destruction have been incalculable. Yet not once throughout the long sorry saga have Americans paused for even a moment to consider where it was all going.

The process began in 1973 when Arab oil exporters quadrupled prices after Richard Nixon provided Israel with $2.2 billion in emergency aid in the midst of the nineteen-day Yom Kippur War. America considered seizing Saudi oil fields in retaliation. But once passions cooled, it opted for a pragmatic policy of mutual accommodation in which Arab oil producers and western consumers would accept Israeli victory and higher energy prices alike as faits accomplis and forge a workable settlement out of the rubble.

The result from a U.S. point of view was a win-win situation if ever there was one. At a stroke, it acquired a powerful military ally in the Jewish state, a valuable export market in the gulf, and a much-needed conservative Muslim ally at a time when secular Arab radicalism was shooting through the roof. The big payoff came in 1989 when a US-backed Saudi-organized jihad drove the Soviets out of Afghanistan, causing the entire Soviet bloc to unravel just two years later.

Washington was dizzy with success. "What is more important in world history," exulted Zbigniew Brzezinski, the architect of the Afghanistan plan, in 1998. "The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some agitated Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?" A top CIA strategist named Graham Fuller added a year later:

"The policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping them against our adversaries worked marvelously well in Afghanistan against the Red Army. The same doctrines can still be used to destabilize what remains of Russian power and especially to counter the Chinese influence in Central Asia."

What could go wrong? Plenty, as it turned out: the emergence of jihad as a global phenomenon, the birth of hyper-sectarian Sunni terrorists like Al Qaeda and ISIS, and a cycle of violence that has since proved unstoppable. Since Carter declared unilateral U.S. military jurisdiction over the Persian Gulf in January 1980, the region has seen no fewer than seven major wars:

  • The Afghan jihad (1979-89).
  • The Iran-Iraq war (1980-88).
  • The gulf war (1990-91).
  • The U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq (2001-03).
  • The US-Saudi assault on Syria (starting in late 2011).
  • And the US-backed Saudi war on Yemen (beginning in March 2015 and still ongoing).

Toss in such "minor" incidents as the Saudi-UAE invasion of Bahrain in order to crush democratic protests in March 2011 or the Saudi economic blockade of Qatar in June 2017, and the list grows to nine, surely a record for American "peacekeepers."

Yet the United States, the world's leading military exporter, has piled up the tinder ever higher by accelerating military exports to absolutist states like Saudi Arabia and Qatar that, as even Hillary Clinton has admitted , "are providing clandestine financial and logical support to ISIL [i.e. Islamic State] and other radical Sunni groups in the region."

Never has imperialism been more nihilistic. Yet Donald Trump has dialed up the craziness even more by abrogating the 2015 Iran nuclear accord and imposing a trade embargo that has brought the Iranian economy to its knees. Not content with economic warfare, he's now advancing to physical warfare by "droning" Soleimani and threatening massive retaliation against both military and cultural targets if Iran dares raise a hand in response.

The effect is to propel himself into the front ranks of international war criminals. But Trump could never have done it on his own if a long line of American militarists hadn't paved the way. The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation. Tags: Afghanistan Iran Islam Middle East Terrorism United States War Print this article See also January 7, 2020 How Iran Can Checkmate Trump January 6, 2020 A Terrorist Attack Against Eurasian Integration December 13, 2019 Disconnect Over Afghanistan War Shows Dysfunction of US Politics January 9, 2018 Protecting the Belt and Road Initiative From US-Led Terrorism: Will China Send Troops to Syria? January 22, 2020 The United States: a Record-Holder in Political Assassinations January 21, 2020 Drone Strikes Leave Innocent Widows and Orphans December 19, 2019 The Afghanistan Fiasco and the Decline and Fall of the American Military January 23, 2020 An Army for Hire: Trump Wants to Make Money by Renting Out American Soldiers January 20, 2020 The End of U.S. Military Dominance: Unintended Consequences Forge a Multipolar World Order January 18, 2020 Soleimani's Only Public Interview January 16, 2020 Interview: How the Libyan Landscape Is Changing As New Players Get Boots on the Ground January 14, 2020 ISIS Applauds Trump's Killing Soleimani January 21, 2020 How Michael Bloomberg's 'Journalists' Propagandize for More U.S. Aggressions January 20, 2020 The Many Matryoska Dolls to America's Way of Imagining Iran January 19, 2020 Why Iran Should Ditch the Hopeless Nuclear Deal January 17, 2020 Trump, Iran Coordinated De-escalation for Now January 16, 2020 What's the Point of NATO If You Are Not Prepared to Use It Against Iran? January 15, 2020 Trump Steps Back From the Edge. Neocons Rage Accordingly January 15, 2020 Reading Sun Tzu in Tehran January 11, 2020 General Soleimani's Network of Revenge January 9, 2020 America the Repugnant. Assassinating Foreign Leaders Is an Act of War December 31, 2019 Washington's Iraq Catastrophe December 17, 2019 Never Trust a Failing Empire December 6, 2019 NATO Splits Reveal Alliance is Redundant January 16, 2020 Did Soleimani Kill 600 Americans? -- Questions For Corbett January 23, 2020 Things are Getting Harder for the US's Global Military December 26, 2019 The Afghanistan Papers Are Establishment Whitewash BS December 17, 2019 Endless Wars and Endless Lies Also by this author Daniel Lazare Daniel Lazare is an American freelance journalist, publicist and blogger. Bernie Sanders Walks Straight Into the Russiagate Trap Impeachment: Does Anyone Even Care? American Collapse One and a Half Cheers for Tulsi Gabbard You Can't Fool All the People All the Time Sign up for the Strategic Culture Foundation Newsletter Subscribe See also

[Jan 21, 2020] Maybe we should put sanctions on Pompeo

Jan 21, 2020 | www.unz.com

Old and grumpy , says: Show Comment January 21, 2020 at 3:48 pm GMT

Maybe we should put sanctions on Pompeo. He could use the diet. Maybe raiding his pantry would feed Iraqi for a couple months. He is truly perfect spokesman American empire. Sadistic, bloated, and corrupt.
Just passing through , says: Show Comment January 21, 2020 at 4:20 pm GMT
@Old and grumpy Trump also needs to have food sanctions placed on him. His body is being oppressed and is crying out for (diet) regime change.

[Jan 21, 2020] Trump Tries Real Hard to Start a War for Israel. He Should be Impeached Because He is a War Criminal by Kurt Nimmo

Notable quotes:
"... In my last post, I said it was time to close down this blog, mostly due to its ineffectiveness, short reach, and choir preaching. I wrote that I might as well pound sand for all the good it did. ..."
"... The US began targeting Iran following the 1979 Islamic Revolution. This included "freezing" -- polite-speak for theft -- around $12 billion in Iranian assets, including gold, property, and bank holdings. After Obama agreed to return this filched property and money as part of the nuke deal (minus any real nukes), neocons said he gave away US taxpayer money to international terrorists. This warped lie became part of the narrative, yet another state-orchestrated fake news "alternative fact." ..."
Jan 06, 2020 | www.globalresearch.ca

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

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

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

Let's begin with this teleprompter reader and "presenter" from Al Jazeera:

"This is what happens when you put a narcissistic, megalomaniacal, former reality TV star with a thin skin and a very large temper in charge of the world's most powerful military You know who else attacks cultural sites? ISIS. The Taliban." – me on Trump/Iran on MSNBC today: pic.twitter.com/YCRARB2anv

-- Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan) January 5, 2020

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

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

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

Nice job trump and Pompeo you dimwits. You've completed the neocon move to have Iraq become a satellite of Iran. You have to be the dumbest people ever to run the US government. You can add that to being the most corrupt. Get these guys out of here. https://t.co/gQHhHSeiJQ

-- Howard Dean (@GovHowardDean) January 5, 2020

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

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

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

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

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

STEPHANOPOULOS: The Geneva Conventions outlaws attacks on cultural objects & places of worship. Why is Trump threatening Iran w/ war crimes?

POMPEO: We'll behave lawfully

S: So to be clear, Trump's threat wasn't accurate?

P: Every target that we strike will be a lawful target pic.twitter.com/zOGTpfYmba

Invoking the United Nations' Historic "Uniting for Peace" Resolution 377 Before Trump Embroils Us in War with Iran

-- Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 5, 2020

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

Now THIS is grounds for #impeachment – treachery unleashing the unthinkable for Americans & people the world over: Trump asked Iraqi prime minister to mediate with #Iran then assassinated Soleimani – on a mediation mission. https://t.co/f0F9FEMALD

-- Dr. Jill Stein 🌻 (@DrJillStein) January 5, 2020

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

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

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

The latest:
-- Iraqi lawmakers voted to oust U.S. troops
-- U.S.-led coalition fighting ISIS has paused operations
-- Hundreds of thousands mourned General Suleimani in Iran
-- President Trump said the U.S. has 52 possible targets in Iran in case of retaliation https://t.co/pmUuAQdKlc

-- The New York Times (@nytimes) January 5, 2020

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

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

I'm concerned President Trump's impulsive foreign policy is dragging America into another endless war in the Middle East that will make us less safe.

Congress must assert itself.

President Trump does not have authority for war with Iran. pic.twitter.com/tra71uY9Ao

-- Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) January 5, 2020

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

It is absolutely crazy that Twitter is auto-locking the accounts of anyone who posts this "No war on Iran" image, and forcing them to delete the anti-war tweet in order to unlock their account.

Will @TwitterSupport say what's going on? Very screwed up https://t.co/zGTvVfNNqt

-- Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) January 5, 2020

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

Trump faces Iran crisis with fewer experienced advisers and strained relations with traditional allies https://t.co/Xi3vKw9Bw9

-- Steven Ginsberg (@stevenjay) January 5, 2020

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

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

"In mid-October Soleimani instructed his top ally in Iraq, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, and other powerful militia leaders to step up attacks on U.S. targets in the country using sophisticated new weapons provided by Iran "

That's why we hit him https://t.co/56XKm9Kqwe

-- John Cardillo (@johncardillo) January 5, 2020

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

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

Neither Iran nor Soleimani were linked to the terror attack in the "9/11 Commission Report." Pence didn't even get the number of hijackers right. https://t.co/QtQZm2Yyh9

-- HuffPost Politics (@HuffPostPol) January 5, 2020

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

In Opinion

The editorial board writes, "It is crucial that influential Republican senators like Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio and Mitch McConnell remind President Trump of his promise to keep America out of foreign quagmires" https://t.co/2swusvBWbg

-- The New York Times (@nytimes) January 5, 2020

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

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

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

*

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

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

[Jan 21, 2020] The first term of the Trump administration has revealed that the US war empire is run by the military-intelligence apparatus, not by President administration. Trump is simply a puppet.

Notable quotes:
"... Are You Tired Of The Lies And Non-Stop Propaganda? ..."
"... Get Your FREE Daily Newsletter No Advertising - No Government Grants - This Is Independent Media ..."
Jan 21, 2020 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

Originally from: Opinion - The Angry Arab US Violated Unspoken Rule of Engagement with Iran

As'ad AbuKhalil analyzes the Trump administration's decision

to escalate hostilities with Iran and its regional allies.

By As`ad AbuKhalil

January 21, 2020 " Information Clearing House " - S omething big and unprecedented has happened in the Middle East after the assassination of one of Iran's top commanders, Qasim Suleimani.

The U.S. has long assumed that assassinations of major figures in the Iranian "resistance-axis" in the Middle East would bring risk to the U.S. military-intelligence presence in the Middle East. Western and Arab media reported that the U.S. had prevented Israel in the past from killing Suleimani. But with the top commander's death, the Trump administration seems to think a key barrier to U.S. military operations in the Middle East has been removed.

The U.S. and Israel had noticed that Hizbullah and Iran did not retaliate against previous assassinations by Israel (or the U.S.) that took place in Syria (of Imad Mughniyyah, Jihad Mughniyyah, Samir Quntar); or for other attacks on Palestinian and Lebanese commanders in Syria.

The U.S. thus assumed that this assassination would not bring repercussions or harm to U.S. interests. Iranian reluctance to retaliate has only increased the willingness of Israel and the U.S. to violate the unspoken rules of engagement with Iran in the Arab East.

For many years Israel did perpetrate various assassinations against Iranian scientists and officers in Syria during the on-going war. But Israel and the U.S. avoided targeting leaders or commanders of Iran. During the U.S. occupation of Iraq, the U.S. and Iran collided directly and indirectly, but avoided engaging in assassinations for fear that this would unleash a series of tit-for-tat.

But the Trump administration has become known for not playing by the book, and for operating often according to the whims and impulses of President Donald Trump.

Different Level of Escalation

The decision to strike at Baghdad airport, however, was a different level of escalation. In addition to killing Suleimani it also killed Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, a key leader of Hashd forces in Iraq. Like Suleimani, al-Muhandis was known for waging the long fight against ISIS. (Despite this, the U.S. media only give credit to the U.S. and its clients who barely lifted a finger in the fight against ISIS.)

On the surface of it, the strike was uncharacteristic of Trump. Here is a man who pledged to pull the U.S. out of the Middle East turmoil -- turmoil for which the U.S and Israel bear the primary responsibility. And yet he seems willing to order a strike that will guarantee intensification of the conflict in the region, and even the deployment of more U.S. forces.

Are You Tired Of The Lies And Non-Stop Propaganda?

Get Your FREE Daily Newsletter No Advertising - No Government Grants - This Is Independent Media

The first term of the Trump administration has revealed the extent to which the U.S. war empire is run by the military-intelligence apparatus. There is not much a president -- even a popular president like Barack Obama in his second term -- can do to change the course of empire. It is not that Obama wanted to end U.S. wars in the region, but Trump has tried to retreat from Middle East conflicts and yet he has been unable due to pressures not only from the military-intelligence apparatus but also from their war advocates in the U.S. Congress and Western media, D.C. think tanks and the human-rights industry. The pressures to preserve the war agenda is too powerful on a U.S. president for it to cease in the foreseeable future. But Trump has managed to start fewer new wars than his predecessors -- until this strike.

Trump's Obama Obsession

Trump in his foreign policy is obsessed with the legacy and image of Obama. He decided to violate the Iran nuclear agreement (which carried the weight of international law after its adoption by the UN Security Council) largely because he wanted to prove that he is tougher than Obama, and also because he wanted an international agreement that carries his imprint. Just as Trump relishes putting his name on buildings, hotels, and casinos he wants to put his name on international agreements. His decision, to strike at a convoy carrying perhaps the second most important person in Iran was presumably attached to an intelligence assessment that calculated that Iran is too weakened and too fatigued to strike back directly at the U.S.

Iran faced difficult choices in response to the assassination of Suleimani. On the one hand, Iran would appear weak and vulnerable if it did not retaliate and that would only invite more direct U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iranian targets.

On the other hand, the decision to respond in a large-scale attack on U.S. military or diplomatic targets in the Middle East would invite an immediate massive U.S. strike inside Iran. Such an attack has been on the books; the U.S military (and Israel, of course) have been waiting for the right moment for the U.S. to destroy key strategic sites inside Iran.

Furthermore, there is no question that the cruel U.S.-imposed sanctions on Iran have made life difficult for the Iranian people and have limited the choices of the government, and weakened its political legitimacy, especially in the face of vast Gulf-Western attempts to exploit internal dissent and divisions inside Iran. (Not that dissent inside Iran is not real, and not that repression by the regime is not real).

Nonetheless, if the Iranian regime were to open an all-out war against the U.S., this would certainly cause great harm and damage to U.S. and Israeli interests.

Iran Sending Messages

In the last year, however, Iran successfully sent messages to Gulf regimes (through attacks on oil shipping in the Gulf, for which Iran did not claim responsibility, nor did it take responsibility for the pin-point attack on ARAMCO oil installations) that any future conflict would not spare their territories.

That quickly reversed the policy orientations of both Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which suddenly became weary of confrontation with Iran, and both are now negotiating (openly and secretively) with the Iranian government. Ironically, both the UAE and Saudi regimes -- which constituted a lobby for war against Iran in Western capitals -- are also eager to distance themselves from U.S. military action against Iran . And Kuwait quickly denied that the U.S. used its territory in the U.S. attack on Baghdad airport, while Qatar dispatched its foreign minister to Iran (officially to offer condolences over the death of Suleimani, but presumably also to distance itself and its territory from the U.S. attack).

The Iranian response was very measured and very specific. It was purposefully intended to avoid causing U.S. casualties; it was intended more as a message of Iranian missile capabilities and their pin point accuracy. And that message was not lost on Israel.

Hasan Nasrallah, the leader of Hizbullah, sent a more strident message. He basically implied that it would be left to Iran's allies to engineer military responses. He also declared a war on the U.S. military presence in the Middle East, although he was at pains to stress that U.S. civilians are to be spared in any attack or retaliation.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/6yyC897UliI

Supporters of the Iran resistance axis have been quite angry in the wake of the assassination. The status of Suleimani in his camp is similar to the status of Nasrallah although Nasrallah -- due to his charisma and to his performance and the performance of his party in the July 2006 war -- may have attained a higher status.

It would be easy for the Trump administration to ignite a Middle East war by provoking Iran once again, and wrongly assuming that there are no limits to Iranian caution and self-restraint. But if the U.S. (and Israel with it or behind it) were to start a Middle East war, it will spread far wider and last far longer than the last war in Iraq, which the U.S. is yet to complete.

As'ad AbuKhalil is a Lebanese-American professor of political science at California State University, Stanislaus. He is the author of the "Historical Dictionary of Lebanon" (1998), "Bin Laden, Islam and America's New War on Terrorism (2002), and "The Battle for Saudi Arabia" (2004). He tweets as @asadabukhal

This article was originally published by " Consortium News " -

[Jan 21, 2020] Lavrov expressed his condolences over the killing," the statement said. "The ministers stressed that such actions by the United States grossly violate the norms of international law

Jan 21, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Jen , Jan 20 2020 22:07 utc | 45

BJD @ 39:

Russia's Lavrov, Iran's Zarif discuss Soleimani killing: statement

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov spoke with his Iranian counterpart Mohammad Javad Zarif over the phone on Friday to discuss the killing of Iran's military chief Qassem Soleimani, the Russian foreign ministry said in a statement.

"Lavrov expressed his condolences over the killing," the statement said. "The ministers stressed that such actions by the United States grossly violate the norms of international law."

Likklemore , Jan 20 2020 21:41 utc | 36

Well, today Moscow Warns Iran Against Reckless Steps as Tehran Threatens to Quit Non-Proliferation Treaty
Earlier, Iranian Foreign Ministry's spokesman Seyyed Abbas Mousavi said that Tehran continues to adhere to the 2015 nuclear deal, adding that the European powers' claims about Iran violating the deal were unfounded.

Moscow warns Tehran against making 'reckless steps' to quit the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Russia's deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov said. He added that Russia urges Iran to comply with its obligations to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

According to the Russian Foreign Ministry, giving those who oppose the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) further reasons for escalation is "counterproductive".

Is there a friend anywhere? Kim or Khan of Pakistan to ship one in.
Alternative, Moscow could declare its nuclear capabilities are extended to Iran. Just can't leave Iran hanging on a twig.

Bubbles , Jan 20 2020 22:29 utc | 53

Posted by: Likklemore | Jan 20 2020 21:41 utc | 36

Maybe it's because trump has a history with Russian mobsters and money laundering?


Or maybe it's just smart to say that? What's to be gained by setting off man child trump and spurring yet another temper tantrum via twitter?

trump did lotsa bidnezz with the International cabal that plundered Russia after the disillusion of the USSR. They stole from the Russian people, and laundered their ill begotten gains with chumps, like trump.

[Jan 21, 2020] US Officials Admit Covert Tech Program Is Fueling Iran Protests

Notable quotes:
"... Image source: Zuma Press/DW.com ..."
"... Financial Times ..."
"... "We work with technological companies to help free flow of information and provide circumvention tools that helped in [last week's] protest ," ..."
"... they were actively assisting in organizing recent protests ..."
Jan 21, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

US Officials Admit Covert Tech Program Is Fueling Iran Protests by Tyler Durden Mon, 01/20/2020 - 21:55 0 SHARES

After major protests hit multiple cities across Iran in November following a drastic government slash in gasoline subsidies which quickly turned anti-regime, broad internet outages were reported -- some lasting as long as a week or more nationwide -- following Tehran authorities ordering the blockage of external access.

And during smaller January protests over downed Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752, more widespread internet outages were reported recently, likely as Iranian security services fear protest "crackdown" videos would fuel outrage in western media , and after months ago Mike Pompeo expressly urged Iranians in the streets to send the State Department damning videos that would implicate Tehran's leaders and police.

But now Washington appears to have initiated the "Syria option" inside Iran: covertly fueling and driving "popular protests " to eventually create conditions for large-scale confrontation on the ground geared toward regime change.

Image source: Zuma Press/DW.com

Financial Times reports Washington's 'covert' efforts are now increasing, and are more out in the open :

US government-funded technology companies have recorded an increase in the use of circumvention software in Iran in recent weeks after boosting efforts to help Iranian anti-regime protesters thwart internet censorship and use secure mobile messaging .

The outreach is part of a US government program dedicated to internet freedom that supports dissident pressure inside Iran and complements America's policy of "maximum pressure" over the regime. A US state department official told the Financial Times that since protests in Iran in 2018 -- at the time the largest in almost a decade -- Washington had accelerated efforts to provide Iranians more options on how they communicate with each other and the outside world .

Similar efforts had long been in place with anti-Assad groups prior to the outbreak of conflict in Syria in 2011, WikiLeaks cables previously revealed.

The US State Department is now openly boasting it's enacted this program for Iran , which includes "providing apps, servers and other technology to help people communicate, visit banned websites, install anti-tracking software and navigate data shutdowns," according to FT .

Confirmed: Drop in internet connectivity registered at #Sharif University, Tehran from 11:50 UTC where students are protesting for colleagues and alumni killed on flight #PS752 ; national connectivity remains stable despite sporadic disruptions on third day of #Iran protests📉 pic.twitter.com/LjaNNd4Ut2

-- NetBlocks.org (@netblocks) January 13, 2020

And dangerously, many Iranians may not even realize they could be in some instances relying on such US-funded countermeasures to circumvent domestic internet blockages:

"Many Iranians rely on virtual private networks (VPNs) that receive US funding or are beamed in with US support , not knowing they are relying on Washington-backed tools."

Iran is on occasion known to round of citizen-journalists and accuse them of being CIA assets -- thus the State Department's open boasting about its program, which is further connected to a broader $65.5 million "Internet Freedom program" in troubled spots throughout the world -- could only serve to increase this trend.

"We work with technological companies to help free flow of information and provide circumvention tools that helped in [last week's] protest ," one US state department official told the FT. "We are able to sponsor VPNs -- and that allows Iranians to use the internet."

So there it is: US officials explicitly admitting they were actively assisting in organizing recent protests which followed Soleimani's killing and the Ukrainian airliner shoot down.

I have asked the Iranian protestors to send us their videos, photos, and information documenting the regime's crackdown on protestors. The U.S. will expose and sanction the abuses. https://t.co/korr5p0woA

-- Secretary Pompeo (@SecPompeo) November 21, 2019

At least one circumvention software is actually identified in the report as being produced by Canada-based Psiphon, which receives American government funds. Of course the company sees its role more as facilitating "free flow of information" and less as essentially a willing asset in pursuing covert regime change in Tehran.

Interestingly, the revelation comes just as other US-funded propaganda campaigns related to Iran are coming to light:

One of the most viral videos about Iran last week -- and a reason #IraniansDetestSoleimani was trending -- was made by a lobbyist who had worked for a militia group in Libya https://t.co/fN7v6Vztyo

-- BuzzFeed News (@BuzzFeedNews) January 17, 2020

All of this suggests neocons in Washington could be a big step closer to fulfilling their long-term dream of seeing US-sponsored regime change come to Iran -- a policy plan which goes back to at least the 1990's and was given greater impetus and urgency under the Bush administration.

VodkaInKrakow , 6 hours ago link

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false" - Wm. Casey, former Director of the CIA under President (and Iranian arms dealer) Ronald Reagan(R).

So, when does Trump send ISIS to Iran? Oh, MEK is already there.

I remember when Trump supporters pointed out how Hillary supported a coup in Honduras. Well, Trump has Bolivia.

Then Obama created ISIS. Well, ISIS has been around since about 2000. And Trump signed NDAA's that sent money to "freedom fighters" in Syria.. .guess who...

Obama is a loser in Afghanistan and so are the Generals. Well, there was Bush. And now? Trump... going on 4 years of losing in Afghanistan with his own Generals.

Hillary and Libya. Trump and Libya.

Obama and NK? Trump and NK.

Obama and Venezuela? Trump and Venezuela. And what threat does Venezuela pose to The US? No one can answer that question.

Trump says "no more wars", is engaged in wars and trying to start one with Iran.

THE MORE THINGS CHANGE, THE MORE THEY REMAIN THE SAME.

The Program is complete...

QABubba , 9 hours ago link

And are the protesters in Iran getting a paycheck too?
Those in the Ukraine did. Those in Libya did. Those in Syria did.

Put's the lie to indigenous protest.

Son of Captain Nemo , 10 hours ago link

"The outreach is part of a US government program dedicated to internet freedom that supports dissident pressure inside Iran and complements America's policy of "maximum pressure" over the regime. A US state department official told the Financial Times that since protests in Iran in 2018 -- at the time the largest in almost a decade -- Washington had accelerated efforts to provide Iranians more options on how they communicate with each other and the outside world ."...

VOA LIVE$...

Sure wish somebody in our government could have alerted Bobby McIIlvaine ( https://www.ae911truth.org/get-involved/bobby-mcilvaine-act ) with "emergency" internet services to his phone nearly 18 1/2 years ago to what his own government was about to do to him before he went into the office that day along with the other 2,976 victims?!!!

One thing I'll say for the American government since the banker bailouts, they "don't hide what they are doing" when it comes to subverting governments for looting purposes ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL_GShyGv3o )!... At least the Iranian leadership knows what is coming before it happens these days!...

Davidduke2000 , 15 hours ago link

The Iranian people are not stupid to commit suicide , they have seen the us handy work in 1953 when Iran had the first democracy in the middle east to be bamboozled by the cia who removed their elected prime minister and installed the shah.

of course some university students want a sexual revolution like in the us are revolting but they are a handful and they are being subdued .

mark1955 , 13 hours ago link

Agree 100%!

The Iranian people lived through CIA/MOSSAD style "Democracy" from 1953-1980 and will fight "Tooth and nail" not to return to those Horrific days of the Shah!

MARDUKTA , 15 hours ago link

BEHIND IT ALL:

https://truthernews.wordpress.com/2015/03/31/10-reasons-why-switzerland-is-home-to-the-cia-central-intelligence-agency/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Thinking123 , 18 hours ago link

Yes, this is what US government has been doing all over the world "Wars and Regime Changes".. Bowing down to Israel to accomplish "The Greater Israel Project". : https://www.globalresearch.ca/greater-israel-the-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east/5324815

STR88 , 18 hours ago link

How naive do you have to be to think the US is just giving out free internet for the sake of the Iranian people? even after they've done the same thing all throughout the middle east to cause mass riots and civil unrest.

The last thing you will ever get from the US government is the truth.

[Jan 21, 2020] Propaganda and Lies Iran and Ukrainian Flight PS752 - Global ResearchGlobal Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

Jan 21, 2020 | www.globalresearch.ca

Propaganda and Lies: Iran and Ukrainian Flight PS752 Exploited to further fan the flames of unrest in Iran. By Kurt Nimmo Global Research, January 21, 2020 Region: Middle East & North Africa Theme: Intelligence , Media Disinformation , US NATO War Agenda In-depth Report: IRAN: THE NEXT WAR?

Here is the cardinal rule about government -- everything it says through its spokespersons, hired guns, public relations adepts, and the mockingbird corporate media should be considered a self-serving lie, or at best a distortion hammered into shape to fit a predefined agenda.

For instance, we should question who is ultimately responsible for the shootdown of the Ukrainian airliner in Tehran following the assassination of Qassem Soleimani.

Former CIA military intelligence officer Philip Giraldi believes there is a possibility Ukraine International Airlines flight PS752 was a false flag designed to put further pressure on the government of Iran and feed the USAID "opposition" to the mullahs.

Giraldi writes "there just might be considerably more to the story involving cyberwarfare carried out by the U.S. and possibly Israeli governments."

False Flag? Fmr CIA Officer Suggests US Hacked Ukrainian Plane Transponder To Provoke Iran Shootdown https://t.co/DHpDjGrIGf

-- zerohedge (@zerohedge) January 19, 2020

What seems to have been a case of bad judgements and human error does, however, include some elements that have yet to be explained. The Iranian missile operator reportedly experienced considerable "jamming" and the planes transponder switched off and stopped transmitting several minutes before the missiles were launched. There were also problems with the communication network of the air defense command, which may have been related.

Giraldi explains the

SA-15 Tor defense system used by Iran has one major vulnerability. It can be hacked or "spoofed," permitting an intruder to impersonate a legitimate user and take control. The United States Navy and Air Force reportedly have developed technologies "that can fool enemy radar systems with false and deceptively moving targets." Fooling the system also means fooling the operator. The Guardian has also reported independently how the United States military has long been developing systems that can from a distance alter the electronics and targeting of Iran's available missiles.

Naturally, this possibility is not even mentioned by the corporate war propaganda media, with the notable exception of The Guardian. Instead, we are pelted with tweets and news articles purporting to show just how angry the Iranian people supposedly are over the shootdown, accidental or otherwise.

Kimia Alizadeh, the only Iranian woman to win an Olympic medal, announced that she had defected. She is part of growing public outrage in Iran after the military admitted to shooting down a Ukraine International Airlines jet. https://t.co/NkwtCTP0yw

-- New York Times World (@nytimesworld) January 13, 2020

Protests erupt in Iran after country admits to downing Ukraine plane https://t.co/Nsg0v34rGQ pic.twitter.com/MJk17XVJV9

-- The Hill (@thehill) January 12, 2020

Iran reporters quit state TV amid protests over Ukraine flight shootdown https://t.co/0ZOQWT2K8l

-- Newsweek (@Newsweek) January 13, 2020

The establishment media, long-serving as war propagandists, would have you believe the people of Iran care more about the shootdown of an passenger airliner than the four-decade long economic war against them waged by the USG, Israel, and Saudia Arabia -- a war that has the possibility of breaking out into a conflict that will kill far more than the 176 who died when two missiles hit flight PS752.

This reminds me of a murderous trick pulled by the Israelis. In September 2018, Syrian anti-aircraft defenses shot down a Russian military plane near the Hmeimim airbase where the Russians stage military operations against USG supported terrorists in Syria (and invited, along with Iran and Hezbollah, to do so by Syria, unlike the illegal American occupation and the apparently endless Israeli air raids).

"A Russian military spokesman said Israeli F-16 pilots were using the Russian plane as a shield while carrying out missile strikes against targets in Syria's Latakia province and put it in the line of fire from Syrian anti-aircraft batteries," The Guardian reported at the time.

Russia's defence minister, Sergei Shoigu, told a senior Israeli official that Israel bore "full responsibility" for the incident and the death of the Russian crew, a military spokesman said later on Tuesday. Israel's ambassador in Moscow was summoned to the Russian foreign ministry over the incident.

Putin let it go, however, realizing that pushing the issue too far would worsen the conflict and possibly result in further Russian casualities.

Such caution, however, cannot be attributed to the USG and certainly not Israel. Bibi Netanyahu, the Israeli PM, said Bashar al-Assad and the Syrians were solely responsible for the attack.

No such caution or diplomacy can be expected from the USG and its current loudmouth know-nothing president, Donald Trump. The death of nearly two hundred people is simply an excuse to whip up hysteria and push forward the covert war against Iran.

First and foremost, when you read the "news" dispensed by the war propaganda media, you should assume, unless otherwise proven and verified independently, that what they say about Iran and the Middle East is nothing less than a carelessly and hastily assembled pack of lies, distortion, and omissions, all designed to destroy Iran and kill thousands, possibly millions of innocent men, women, and children.

*

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

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

[Jan 21, 2020] Given that the US military has known capabilities to alter or mask IFF transponder signals, as does the Israeli regime, it is entirely possible that this tragedy, which led some protesters to blame the Iranian government, may have been deliberately caused by the US in collusion with its Zionist ally in hopes of triggering their goal of regime change

Jan 21, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Smith , Jan 21 2020 18:53 utc | 36

An update for Flight 752 storey from Press TV:

"The accidental and most regrettable downing of Ukrainian International Airlines Flight PS-752, may involve more than human error under incredibly tense conditions. With the plane's IFF transponder switched off, the Tor missile defense system, which had reverted to manual operation because of an unknown source jamming communications, would have automatically identified the plane as "hostile". The Iranian missile operator, unable to contact higher-ups for verification due to the disrupted communications and given the high level of alert, had little basis to question the hostile tag applied by Tor to the aircraft.

Given that the US military has known capabilities to alter or mask IFF transponder signals, as does the Israeli regime, it is entirely possible that this tragedy, which led some protesters to blame the Iranian government, may have been deliberately caused by the US in collusion with its Zionist ally in hopes of triggering their goal of regime change.

While no clear evidence of tampering with the transponder has surfaced as yet, it is known that the 737-800, whose registration or "tail number" was UR-PSR, was photographed at the Israeli entity's Ben Gurion Airport five times since March of 2017, the last time being on October 18, 2019 at approximately 2:40 in the afternoon."

ADKC , Jan 21 2020 19:02 utc | 38

According to Reuters, Iran have confirmed that two Tor missiles were fired at PS752.

Iran Seeks Help Reading Downed Planes Black Boxes in New Standoff

PavewayIV , Jan 21 2020 19:39 utc | 45
Smith@36 - PressTV: "..With the plane's IFF transponder switched off,..."

Civilian aircraft have ATC SSR radar transponders, not military IFF transponders.

IFF aircraft interrogations are ALWAYS military only and ALWAYS encrypted. Their only job, if used by the TOR, is to confirm that a radar target was an Iranian military aircraft. PS752 1) couldn't understand encrypted TOR IFF interrogations, 2) wouldn't be able to provide encrypted replies to any TOR IFF interrogations, and 3) would still be considered "not an Iranian military aircraft" by the TOR. PS752's transponder would need a military IFF encoder/decoder which it does not have.

Likewise, TORs and their acquisition radars DO NOT have civilian ATC SSR radar capabilities to identify civilian aircraft. They do NOT interrogate civilian aircraft for ID, altitude, GPS or any other information, nor do they listen for civilian aircraft ADS-B broadcasts which also provide that information.

Surveillance radars higher up in the air defense network may have civilian aircraft ID capability and can assign appropriate IDs to radar targets BEFORE they appear on the TORs radar screen, but that requires a good data link to the network. That encrypted data link (also used for voice communications) was down at the time, and any ID information that may have been assigned by higher layers of the Iranian AD network wouldn't have appeared on the TOR or been considered by its classification and targeting software.

Sorry - I don't know how else to explain this. PressTV doesn't understand the distinction, nor does it understand the TORs capabilities.

Hausmeister , Jan 21 2020 22:26 utc | 58
"Sorry - I don't know how else to explain this. PressTV doesn't understand the distinction, nor does it understand the TORs capabilities."

Posted by: PavewayIV | Jan 21 2020 19:39 utc | 45

But 7 civilian planes had passed that area before. How to explain that?

/div> schroedingersrat 11 hours ago remove Share link Copy Key Architect of 2003 Iraq War Is Now a Key Architect of Trump Iran Policy

https://theintercept.com/2020/01/16/david-wurmser-iran-suleimani-iraq-war/

schroedingersrat 11 hours ago remove Share link Copy Key Architect of 2003 Iraq War Is Now a Key Architect of Trump Iran Policy

https://theintercept.com/2020/01/16/david-wurmser-iran-suleimani-iraq-war/ /div

[Jan 21, 2020] Iran, Trump, and the neoliberal/neoconservative compact by Bill Martin

Notable quotes:
"... In the larger global picture, if the U.S. is to find its own balance in the contemporary world, Friedman argues that the seemingly-endless instability in the Middle East is the first and foremost problem that must be solved. Iran is a major problem here, but so is Israel, and Friedman argues that the US must find the path toward "quietly distanc[ing] itself from Israel" (p.6). ..."
"... This course of action regarding Iran and Israel (and other actors in the Muslim world, including Pakistan and Turkey) is, in Friedman's geopolitical perspective, not so much a matter of supporting U.S. global hegemony as it is recognizing the larger course that the U.S. will be compelled to take. ..."
"... So, it's back to Plan A for the Democrats and the "Left" that would be laughably absurd if it wasn't so reactionary, to get the neoliberal/ neoconservative endless-war agenda back on track, so that the march toward Iran can continue sooner rather than later. For now, the more spectacular the failure of this impeachment nonsense, the better! ..."
Jan 19, 2020 | off-guardian.org

Let's be clear, there is a difference between substituting geopolitical power calculations for a universal perspective on the good of humanity, and, on the other hand, recognizing that the existing layout of the world has to be taken into account in attempts to open up a true politics. (My larger perspective on the problem of "opening" is presented in the long essay, "The Fourth Hypothesis," at counterpunch.org.)

Personally, I find the geopolitical analyses of George Friedman very much worthwhile to consider, especially when he is looking at things long-range, as in his books The Next 100 Years and The Next Decade. The latter was published at the beginning of 2012, and so we are coming to the close of the ten-year period that Friedman discusses.

One of the major arguments that Friedman makes in The Next Decade is that the United States will have to reach some sort of accommodation with Iran and its regional ambitions. The key to this, Friedman argues, is to bring about some kind of balance of power again, such as existed before Iraq was torn apart.

This is the key in general to continued U.S. hegemony in the world, in Friedman's view -- regional balances that keep regional powers tied up and unable to rise on the world stage. (An especially interesting example here is that Friedman says that Poland will be built up as a bulwark between Russia and Germany.)

In the larger global picture, if the U.S. is to find its own balance in the contemporary world, Friedman argues that the seemingly-endless instability in the Middle East is the first and foremost problem that must be solved. Iran is a major problem here, but so is Israel, and Friedman argues that the US must find the path toward "quietly distanc[ing] itself from Israel" (p.6).

This course of action regarding Iran and Israel (and other actors in the Muslim world, including Pakistan and Turkey) is, in Friedman's geopolitical perspective, not so much a matter of supporting U.S. global hegemony as it is recognizing the larger course that the U.S. will be compelled to take.

(As the founder, CEO, and "Chief Intelligence Officer" of Stratfor, Friedman aimed to provide "non-ideological" strategic intelligence. My understanding of "non-ideological" is that the analysis was not formulated to suit the agendas of the two mainstream political parties in the U.S. However, my sense is that Friedman does believe that U.S. global hegemony is on the whole good for the world.)

In his book that came out before The Next Decade (2011), The Next 100 Years (2009), Friedman makes the case that the U.S. will not be seriously challenged globally for decades to come -- in fact, all the way until about 2080!

Just to give a different spin to something I said earlier, and that I've tried to emphasize in my articles since March 2016: questions of mere power are not questions of politics. Geopolitics is not politics, either -- in my terminology, it is "anti-politics."

For my part, I am not interested in supporting U.S. hegemony, not in the present and not in the future, and for the most part not in the past, either.

For the moment, let us simply say that the historical periods of the U.S. that are more supportable -- because they make some contribution, however flawed, to the greater, universal, human project -- are either from before the U.S. entered the road of seeking to compete with other "great powers" on the world stage, or quite apart from this road.

In my view, the end of U.S. global hegemony and, for that matter, the end of any "great nation-state" global hegemony, is a condition sine qua non of a human future that is just and sustainable. So, again, the brilliance that George Friedman often brings to geopolitical analysis is to be understood in terms of a coldly-realistic perspective, not a warmly-normative one.)

Of course, this continued U.S. hegemony depends on certain "wise" courses of action being taken by U.S. leaders (Friedman doesn't really get into the question of what might be behind these leaders), including a "subtle" approach to the aforementioned questions of Israel and Iran.

Obviously, anything associated with Donald Trump is not going to be overly subtle! On the other hand, here we are almost at the end of Friedman's decade, so perhaps the time for subtlety has passed, and the U.S. is compelled to be a bit heavy-handed if there is to be any chance of extricating itself from the endless quagmire.

However, there's a certain fly, a rather large one, in the ointment that seems to have eluded Friedman's calculations: "the rise of China."

It isn't that Friedman avoids the China question, not at all; Friedman argues, however, that by 2020 China will not only not be contending with the United States to have the largest economy in the world, but instead that China will fragment, perhaps even devolve into civil war, because of deep inequalities between the relatively prosperous coastal urban areas, and the rural interior.

Certainly I know from study, and many conversations with people in China, this was a real concern going into the 2010s and in the first half of the decade.

The chapter dealing with all this in The Next 100 Years (Ch. 5) is titled, "China 2020: Paper Tiger," the latter term being one that Chairman Mao used regarding U.S. imperialism. Friedman writes of another "figure like Mao emerg[ing] to close the country off from the outside, [to] equalize the wealth -- or poverty " (p.7).

Being an anti-necessitarian in philosophy, I certainly believe anything can happen in social matters, but it seems as though President Xi Jinping and the current leadership of the Communist Party of China have, at least for the time being, managed to head off fragmentation at the pass, so to speak.

Friedman argued that the "pass" that China especially had to deal with is unsustainable growth rates; but it appears that China has accomplished this, by purposely slowing its economy down.

One of the things that Friedman is especially helpful with, in his larger geopolitical analysis, is understanding the role that naval power plays in sustaining U.S. hegemony. (In global terms, such power is what keeps the neoliberal "free market" running, and this power is far from free.)

*

... ... ...

Two of the best supporters of Trump's stated agenda are Tucker Carlson and Steve Hilton. Neither of them pull any punches on this issue when it comes to Republicans, and both of them go some distance beyond Trump in stating an explicitly anti-war agenda.

They perhaps do not entirely fit the mold of leftist anti-imperialism as it existed from the 1890s through the Sixties (as in the political decade, perhaps 1964-1974 or so) and 1970s, but they do in fact fit this mold vastly better than almost any major figure of the Democratic Party, with the possible exceptions of Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, and Andrew Yang. (But none of them has gone as far as Trump on this question!)

Certainly Elizabeth Warren is no exception, and at the moment of this writing she has made the crucial turn toward sticking the knife back into Bernie's back. That is her job, in my view, and part of it is to seem close to Bernie's positions (whatever their defects, which I'll discuss elsewhere), at least the ones that are more directly "economic," while winking at the ruling class.

There are a few things Carlson and Hilton say on the Iran situation and the Middle East in general that I don't agree with. But in the main I think both are right on where these issues are concerned.

As I've quoted Carlson a number of times previously, and as I also want to put forward Hilton as an important voice for a politics subservient to neither the liberal nor the conservative establishments, here let me quote what Hilton said in the midst of the Iran crisis, on January 5, 2020:

The best thing America can do to put the Middle East on a path that leads to more democracy, less terrorism, human rights and economic growth is to get the hell out of there while showing an absolute crystal clear determination to defend American interests with force whenever they are threatened.

That doesn't mean not doing anything, it means intervening only in ways that help America.

It means responding only to attacks on Americans disproportionately as a deterrent, just as we saw this week and it means finally accepting that it's not our job to fix the Middle East from afar.

The only part of this I take exception to is the "intervening only in ways that help America"-bit -- that opens the door to exactly the kinds of problems that Hilton wants the U.S. to avoid, besides the (to me, more important) fact that it is just morally wrong to think it is acceptable to intervene if it is in one's "interests."

My guess is that Hilton thinks that there is some built-in utilitarian or pragmatic calculus that means the morally-problematic interventions will not occur. I do not see where this has ever worked, but more importantly, this is where philosophy is important, theoretical work and abstract thinking are important.

It used to be that the Left was pretty good at this sort of thing, and there were some thoughtful conservatives who weren't bad, either. (A decent number of the latter, significantly, come from the Catholic intellectual tradition.) Now there are still a few of the latter, and there are ordinary people who are "thoughtful conservatives" in their "unschooled way" -- which is often better! -- but the Left has sold its intellectual soul along with its political soul.

That's a story for elsewhere (I have told parts of it in previous articles in this series); the point here is that the utilitarianism and "pragmatism" of merely calculating interests is not nearly going to cut it. (I have partly gone into this here because Hilton also advocates "pragmatism" in his very worthwhile book, Positive Populism -- it is the "affirmative" other side to Tucker Carlson's critical, "negative" expose, Ship of Fools.)

The wonderful philosophical pragmatism of William James is another matter; this is important because James, along with his friend Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain), were leading figures of the Anti-Imperialist League back in the 1890s, when the U.S. establishment was beating the drums loudly to get into the race with Europeans for colonies.

They were for never getting "in" -- and of course they were not successful, which is why "get the hell out" is as important as anything people can say today.

What an insane world when the U.S. president says this and the political establishment opposes him, and "progressives" and "the Left" join in with the denunciations!

It has often been argued that the major utilitarian philosophers, from Bentham and Mill to Peter Singer, have implicit principles that go beyond the utilitarian calculus; I agree with this, and I think this is true of Steve Hilton as well.

In this light, allow me to quote a little more from the important statement he made on his Fox News Channel program, "The Next Revolution," on January 5; all of this is stuff I entirely agree with, and that expresses some very good principles:

The West's involvement in the Middle East has been a disaster from the start and finally, with President Trump, America is in a position to bring it to an end. We don't need their oil and we don't need their problems.

Finally, we have a U.S. president who gets that and wants to get out. There are no prospects for Middle East peace as long as we are there.

We're never going to defeat the ideology of Islamist terror as long as these countries are basket cases and one of the reasons they are basket cases is that our preposterous foreign policy establishment with monumental arrogance have treated the middle east like some chess game played out in the board rooms in Washington and London.

– [foxnews.com, transcribed by Yael Halon]

So then there is the usual tittering about this and that regarding Carlson and Hilton from liberal and progressive Democrats and leftists who support the Democrats, and it seems to me that there is one major reason why there is this foolish tittering: It is because these liberals and leftists really don't care about, for example, the destruction of Libya, or the murder of Berta Caceres.

Or, maybe they do care, but they have convinced themselves that these things have to swept under the rug in the name of defeating the pure evil of Trump. What this amounts to, in the "nationalist" discourse, is that Trump is some kind of nationalist (as he has said numerous times), perhaps of an "isolationist" sort, while the Democrats are in fact what can be called "nationalists of the neoliberal/neoconservative compact."

My liberal and leftist friends (some of them Maoists and post-Maoists and Trotskyists or some other kinds of Marxists or purported radicals -- feminists or antifa or whatever) just cannot see, it simply appears to be completely beyond the realm of their imaginations, that the latter kind of nationalism is much worse and qualitatively worse than what Trump represents, and it completely lacks the substantial good elements of Trump's agenda.

But hey, don't worry my liberal and leftist friends, it is hard to imagine that Joe Biden's "return to normalcy" won't happen at some point -- it will take not only an immense movement to even have a chance of things working out otherwise, but a movement that likes of which is beyond everyone's imagination at this point -- a movement of a revolutionary politics that remains to be invented, as all real politics are, by the masses.

Liberals and leftists have little to worry about here, they're okay with a Deep State society with a bullshit-democratic veneer and a neoliberal world order; this set-up doesn't really affect them all that much, not negatively at any rate, and the deplorables can just go to hell.

*

The Left I grew up with was the Sixties Left, and they used to be a great source of historical memory, and of anti-imperialism, civil rights, and ordinary working-people empowerment.

The current Left, and whatever array of Democratic-Party supporters, have received their marching orders, finally, from commander Pelosi (in reality, something more like a lieutenant), so the two weeks or so of "immense concern" about Iran has given way again to the extraordinarily-important and solemn work of impeachment.

But then, impeachment is about derailing the three main aspects of Trump's agenda, so you see how that works. Indeed, perhaps the way this is working is that Trump did in fact head off, whatever one thinks of the methods, a war with Iran (at this time! – and I do think this is but a temporary respite), or more accurately, a war between Iran and Israel that the U.S. would almost certainly be sucked into immediately.

So, it's back to Plan A for the Democrats and the "Left" that would be laughably absurd if it wasn't so reactionary, to get the neoliberal/ neoconservative endless-war agenda back on track, so that the march toward Iran can continue sooner rather than later. For now, the more spectacular the failure of this impeachment nonsense, the better!

Bill Martin is a philosopher and musician, retired from DePaul University. He is completing a book with the title, "The Trump Clarification: Disruption at the Edge of the System (toward a theory)." His most recent albums are "Raga Chaturanga" (Bill Martin + Zugzwang; Avant-Bass 3) and "Emptiness, Garden: String Quartets nos. 1 and 2 (Ryokucha Bass Guitar Quartet; Avant-Bass 4). He lives in Salina, Kansas, and plays bass guitar with The Radicles.

Dungroanin ,

I have read through finally. And comments too.

My opinion is Bill Martin is on the ball except for one personage- Hilton. If he is Camerons Hilton and architect of the Brexit referendum – for which he is rewarded with a 'seat at the table' of the crumbling Empire. The Strafor man too is just as complicit in the Empires wickedness.

But I'll let Bill off with that because he mentioned the Anti-Imperialist Mark Twain – always a joy to be reminded of Americas Dickens.

On Trump – he didn't use the Nuclear codes 10 minutes after getting them as warned by EVERYONE. Nor start a war with RocketMan, or Russia in Syria, or in Ukraine or with the Chinese using the proxy Uighars, or push through with attempted Bay of Pigs in Venezuela or just now Hong Kong. The Wall is not built and the ineffectual ripoff Obamacare version of a NHS is still there.
Judge by deeds not words.

Soleimani aside – He may have stopped the drive for war. Trumps direct contact with fellow world leaders HAS largely bypassed the war mongering State Department and also the Trillion dollar tax free Foundations set up last century to deliver the world Empire, that has so abused the American peoples and environment. He probably wasn't able to stop Bolivia.
The appointments of various players were not necessarily in his hands as Assad identified- the modern potus is merely a CEO/Chair of a board of directors who are put into place by the special interests who pour billions, 10's of billions into getting their politicians elected. They determine 'National Interests'. All he can do is accept their appointment and give them enough rope to hang themselves – which most have done!
These are that fight clubs rules.

On the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation – after 20 full years of working towards cohesion- they have succeeded. Iran is due to become a full member – once it is free of UN sanctions, which is why Trump was forced into pulling the treaty with them, so that technicality could stop that membership. China is not having it nor is Russia – Putins clear statement re the 'international rules' not being mandatory for them dovetails with the US position of Exceptionality. Checkmate.

As for the Old Robber Baron Banker Pirates idea that they should be allowed a Maritime Empire as consolation- ha ha ha, pull the other one.

The ancient sea trading routes from Africa to China were active for thousands of years before the Europeans turned up and used unequal power to disrupt and pillage at their hearts content.

What made that possible was of course explained in the brilliant Guns, Germs and Steel.

These ancients have ALL these and are equal or advanced in all else including Space, Comms and AI. A navy is not so vital when even nuclear subs are visible from low orbit satellites except in the deepest trenches – not a safe place to hide for months and also pretty crowded with all the other subs trying to hide there. As for Aircraft carrier groups – just build an island! Diego Garcia has a rival.

Double Checkmate.

The Empire is Dead. Long live the Empire.

Dungroanin ,

And this is hilarious about potus turning the tables on the brass who tried to drag him into the 'tank'.

https://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2020/01/the-betrayal-of-trump-by-larry-c-johnson.html

'Grab the damn fainting couch. Trump told the assembled military leaders who had presided over a military stalemate in Afghanistan and the rise of ISIS as "losers." Not a one of them had the balls to stand up, tell him to his face he was wrong and offer their resignation. Nope. They preferred to endure such abuse in order to keep their jobs. Pathetic.

This excerpt in the Washington Post tells the reader more about the corruption of the Deep State and their mindset than it does about Trump's so-called mental state. Trump acted no differently in front of these senior officers and diplomats than he did on the campaign trail. He was honest. That is something the liars in Washington cannot stomach. '

Rhys Jaggar ,

I am not an expert on US Constitutional Law, but is there any legal mechanism for a US President to hold a Referendum in the way that the UK held a 'Brexit Referendum' and Scotland held an 'Independence Referendum'?

How would a US Referendum in 'Getting the hell out of the Middle East, bringing our boys and girls home before the year is out' play out, I wonder?

That takes the argument away from arch hawks like Bolton et al and puts it firmly in the ambit of Joe Schmo of Main Street, Oshkosh

wardropper ,

Great idea.
Main problem is that most Americans are brought up to think their government is separate from themselves, and should not be seriously criticized.
By "criticized", I mean, taken to task in a way which actually puts them on a playing field where they are confronted by real people.
Shouting insults at the government from the rooftops is simply greeted with indulgent smiles from the guilty elite.

Richard Le Sarc ,

George Friedman is a bog standard Zionist, therefore, out of fear, a virulent Sinophobe, because the Zionists will never control China as they do the Western slave regimes. China surpassed the USA as the world' s largest economy in 2014, on the PPP calculus that the CIA,IMF and just about everyone uses. It' s growing three times as fast as the USA, too. The chance of China fragmenting by 2020 is minuscule, certainly far less than that of the USA. The Chinese have almost totally eliminated poverty, and will raise the living standard of all to a ' middle income' by 2049. It is, however, the genocidal policy of the USA, on which it expend billions EVERY year, to do its diabolical worst to attempt to foment and foster such a hideous fate inside China, by supporting vermin like the Hong Kong fascist thugs, the Uighur salafist terrorist butchers, the medieval theocrats of the Dalai clique and separatist movements in Inner Mongolia, ' Manchuria', Taiwan, even Guandong and Guangxi. It takes a real Western thug to look forward to the ghastly suffering that these villainous ambitions would unleash.

Antonym ,

In RlS's nut shell: China can annex area but Israel: no way!

Dungroanin ,

Which area is China looking to annex?

Richard Le Sarc ,

Ant is a pathological Zionist liar, but you can see his loyalty to ' Eretz Yisrael' , ' ..from the Nile to the Euphrates', and ' cleansed' of non-Jews, can' t you.

alsdkjf ,

I'm surprised that this author can even remember the counter culture of the 60s given his Trump love.

Yet more Trumpism from Off Guardian. One doesn't have to buy into the politics of post DLC corporate owned DNC to know Trump for what he is. A fascist.

It's just amazing this Trump "left". Pathetic.

Antonym ,

Trump .. better than HRC but the guy is totally hypnotized by the level of the New York stock exchanges: even his foreign policy is improvised around that. He simply thinks higher is a proof of better forgetting that 90% of Americans don't own serious quantity of stock and that levels are manipulated by big players and the FED. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/08/business/economy/stocks-economy.html

Look at his dealing with China: tough as much as the US stock market stays benign in the short term. Same for Iran etc.

Sure, he is crippled by Pelosi & the FBI / CIA, but he is also by his own stock dependent mind. Might be the reason he is still alive ???

alsdkjf ,

Trump crippled by the CIA? Trump?

I mean the fascist jerk appointed ex CIA torture loving Pompeo to replace swamp creature oil tycoon as Secretary of State, no?

He appointed torture queen within the CIA to become CIA Director, no?

He went to the CIA headquarters on day one of his Administration to lavish praise, no?

He took on ex CIA Director Woolsey as advisor on foreign policy during his campaign, no?

I tell ya that Trump is a real adversary of the CIA!

Gall ,

Roger that. Trump appoints a dominatrix as DCI. Only a masochist or a sadist would Dream of Gina..you know the head of the torture squad under Bush. Otherwise nice girl. PompAss is a total clown but a dangerous one who even makes John Bolton look sane. Now that's scary!

This guy is Hilary Clinton in drag. The only thing missing is the evil triumphalist cackle after whacking Soleimani. Maybe it wasn't recorded.

So much for "draining the swamp". The Whitehouse has become an even bigger swamp.

Antonym ,

Forgot about John Brennan ex- CIA head or James Clapper ex-DNI honcho?
John Brennan On 'All Roads With Trump Lead To Putin' | The Last Word | MSNBC
They practically too Trump hostage in his first year.

one ,

my take from this article:
There are, among the murderers and assassins in Washington, a couple of characters who appear to have 2% of human DNA.
They author may confirm.

two ,

"israel is right in the cen "
sorry, the muderous regime israel has repeatedly proven, it's never never right . please avoid this usage.

three ,

There are 53 or 54 'I's in the article, including his partner's Is. The author may confirm.

Dungroanin ,

Phew!

That is a lot of words mate. Fingers must be sore. I won't comment more until trying to re-read again except quote this:

"Being an anti-necessitarian in philosophy,.."

I must say i had a wtf moment at that point see ya later.

paul ,

The idea that Trump's recent actions in the Middle East were part of some incredibly cunning plan to avoid war with Iran, strikes me as somewhat implausible, to put it (very) charitably.

Even Hitler didn't want war. He wanted to achieve his objectives without fighting. When that didn't work, war was Plan B. Trump probably has very little actual control over foreign policy. He is surrounded by people who have been plotting and scheming against him from long before he was elected. He heads a chaotic and dysfunctional administration of billionaires, chancers, grifters, conmen, superannuated generals, religious nut jobs, swamp creatures, halfwits and outright criminals, lurching from one crisis and one fiasco to the next. Some of these people like Bolton were foisted upon him by Adelson and various other backers and wire pullers, but that is not to absolve Trump of personal responsibility.

Competing agencies which are a law unto themselves have been free to pursue their own turf wars at the expense of anything remotely resembling a rational and coherent strategy. So have quite low level bureaucrats, formulating and implementing their own policies with little regard for the White House. In Syria, the Pentagon, the CIA, and the State Department went their own way, each supporting competing and mutually antagonistic factions and terrorist groups. Agreements that were reached with Russia over Syria, for example, were deliberately sabotaged by Ashton Carter in 24 hours. Likewise, Bolton did everything he could to wreck Trump's delicate negotiations with N. Korea.

paul ,

Seen in this light, US policy (or the absence of any coherent policy) is more understandable. What passes for US leadership is the worst in its history, even given a very low bar. Arrogant, venal, corrupt, delusional, irredeemably ignorant, and ideologically driven. The only positive thing that can be said is that the alternative (Clinton) would probably have been even worse, if that is possible.

That may also be the key to understanding the current situation. For all his pandering to Israel, Trump is more of a self serving unprincipled opportunist than a true Neocon/ Zionist believer in the mould of Pence, Bolton and Pompeo. For that reason he is not trusted by the Zionist Power Elite. He is too much of a loose cannon. They will take all his Gives, like Jerusalem and the JCPOA, but without any gratitude.

It has taken them a century of plotting, scheming and manoeuvring to achieve their political, financial, and media stranglehold over the US. but America is a wasting asset and they are under time pressure. It is visibly declining and losing its influence. And the parasite will find it difficult to find a similar host. Who else is going to give Israel billions a year in tribute, unlimited free weaponry and diplomatic cover? Russia? Are Chinese troops "happy to die for Israel" asUS ones are (according to their general)?

paul ,

And they are way behind schedule. Assad was supposed to be dead by now, and Syria another defenceless failed state, broken up into feuding little cantons, with Israel expanding into the south of the country. The main event, the war with Iran, should have started lond ago.

That is the reason for the impeachment circus. This is not intended to be resolved one way or the other. It is intended to drag on indefinitely, for months and years, to distract and weaken Trump and make it possible to extract what they want. One of the reasons Trump agreed to the murder of Soleimani and his Iraqi opposite number was to appease some Republican senators like Graham whose support is essential to survive impeachment. They were the ones who wanted it, along with Bolton and Netanyahu.

paul ,

It is instructive that all the main players in the impeachment circus are Jews, under Sanhedrin Chief Priests Schiff and Nadler, apart from a few token goys thrown in to make up the numbers. That even goes for those defending Trump.

Richard Le Sarc ,

Don' t forget that Lebanon up to the Litani is the patrimony of the Jewish tribes of Asher and Naphtali, and, as Smotrich, Deputy Speaker of the Knesset, said on Israeli TV a few years ago, ' Damascus belongs to the Jews'.

bevin ,

" China will fragment, perhaps even devolve into civil war, because of deep inequalities between the relatively prosperous coastal urban areas, and the rural interior."

This is not Bill, but Bill's mate the Stratcor geopolitical theorist for hire.

What is happening in the world is that the only empire the globe, as a whole, has ever seen- the pirate kingdom that the Dutch, then the British and finally the US, leveraged out of the plunder and conquest of America -the maritime empire, of sea routes and navies is under challenge by a revival of the Eurasian proto-empires that preceded it and drove its merchants and princes on the Atlantic coast, to sea.

We know who the neo-liberals are the current iteration of the gloomy philosophies of the Scots Enlightenment, (Cobbett's 'Scotch Feelosophy') utilitarianism in its crudest form and the principles of necessary inequalities, from the Austrian School back to the various crude racisms which became characteristic of the C19th.
The neo-cons are the latest expression of the maritime powers' fear of Eurasia and its interior lines of communication. Besides which the importance of navies and of maritime agility crumble.
Bill mentions that China has not got much of a navy. I'm not so sure about that, but isn't it becoming clear that navies-except to shipyards, prostitutes and arms contractors- are no longer of sovereign importance? There must be missile commanders in China drooling over the prospect of catching a US Fleet in all its glory within 500 miles of the mainland. Not to mention on the east coast of the Persian Gulf.
The neo-cons are the last in a long line of strategists, ideologists and, for the most part, mercenary publicists defying the logic of Halford Mackinder's geo-strategy for a lot more than a penny a line. And what they urge, is all that they can without crossing the line from deceitfulness to complete dishonesty: chaos and destabilisation within Eurasia, surrounding Russia, subverting Sinkiang and Tibet, employing sectarian guerrillas, fabricating nationalists and nationalisms.. recreate the land piracy, the raiding and the ethnic explosions that drove trade from the land to the sea and crippled the Qing empire.
The clash is between war, necessary to the Maritime Empire and Peace, vital to the consolidation and flowering of Eurasia.

As to Israel, and perhaps we can go into this later: it looms much larger in the US imagination (and the imaginations the 'west' borrows from the US) than anywhere else. It is a tiny sliver of a country. Far from being an elephant in any room, it is simply a highly perfumed lapdog which also serves as its master's ventriloquist's dummy. Its danger lies in the fact that after decades of neglect by its idiotic self indulgent masters, it has become an openly fascist regime, which was definitely not meant to happen, and, misled by its own exotic theories of race, has come to believe that it can do what it wants. It can't-and this is one reason why Bill misjudges the reasoning behind the Soleimani killing- but it likes to act, or rather threaten to act, as if it could.

(By the way-note to morons across the web-Bill's partner quotes Adorno and writes about him too: cue rants about Cultural Marxism.)

Hugh O'Neill ,

Thanks, Bevin. The article was so long, I had quite forgotten that he laid too much emphasis on the Stratcor Unspeakable. Clever he may be, but not much use without a moral compass. Talking of geo-strategists, you will doubtless be aware of the work of A.T. Mahan whose blueprint for acquisition of inspired Teddy Roosevelt and leaders throughout Europe, Russia, Japan.

Richard Le Sarc ,

Friedman is a snake oil peddler. He tells the ruling psychopaths what they want to hear, like ' China crumbling', their favourite wet-dream.

bevin ,

I agree about Mahan's importance. He understood what lay behind the Empire on which the sun never set but he had enough brains to have been able to realise that current conditions make those fleets obsolete. In fact the Germans in the last War realised that too- their strategy was Eurasian, it broke down over the small matter of devouring the USSR. The expiry date on the tin of Empire has been obvious for a long time- there is simply too much money to be made by ignoring it.
Russia has always been the problem, either real (very occasionally) or latent for the Dutch/British/US Empire because it is just so clear that the quickest and most efficient communications between Shanghai and Lisbon do not go through the Straits of Malacca, the Suez Canal, or round the cape . Russia never had to do a thing to earn the enmity of the Empire, simply existing was a challenge. And that remains the case- for centuries the Empire denounced the Russians because of the Autocracy, then it was the anarchism of the Bolsheviks, then it was the autocracy again, this time featuring Stalin, then it was the chaos of the oligarchs and now we are back with the Tsar/Stalin Putin.

Hugh O'Neill ,

Phenomenal diagnosis, Bevin. However, one suspects that there is still too much profit to be made by the MIC in pursuing useless strategies. I imagine Mahan turning in his grave in his final geo-strategic twist.

Richard Le Sarc ,

Yes-Zionist hubris will get Israel into a whole world of sorrow.

MASTER OF UNIVE ,

More USA Deep State conspiracy theorizing which makes the author American paternalism posing as authorship that is revenue neutral when it ain't.

Any article with mention of mother-'Tucker' Carlson is one that is pure propagandistic tripe in the extreme. Off-G is a UK blog yet this Americanism & worn out aged propaganda still prevails in the minds of US centric myopics writ large across all states in the disunity equally divided from cities to rural towns all.

MOU

johny conspiranoid ,

"More USA Deep State conspiracy theorizing which makes the author American paternalism posing as authorship that is revenue neutral when it ain'"
Is this even a sentence?

MASTER OF UNIVE ,

It was a sentence when I was smoking marijuana yesterday, Johnny C. Today it is still a sentence IMHO, but you transcribed it incorrectly, and forgot the end of the sentence.

NOTE: When I smoke marijuana I am allowed to write uncoordinated sentences. These are the rules in CANADA. If you don't like it write to your local politician and complain bitterly.

MOU

Charlotte Russe ,

Bush, Obama, and Clinton are despicable. In fact, they're particularly disgusting, inasmuch, as they were much more "cognizant" than Trump of how their actions would lead to very specific insidious consequences. In addition, they were more able to cleverly conceal their malevolent deeds from the public. And that's why Trump is now sitting in the Oval Office–he won because of public disgust for lying politicians.

However, Trump is "dangerous" because he's a "misinformed idiot," and as such is extremely malleable. Of course, ignorance is no excuse when the future of humanity is on the line

In any event, Trump is often not aware of the outcome of his actions. And when you're surrounded and misinformed by warmongering neoconservative nutcases, especially ones who donated to your campaign chances are you'll do stupid things. And that's what they're counting on.

alsdkfj ,

Trump is some virtuous example of a truth teller? Trump?

The biggest liar to every occupy the White House and that is saying a lot.

Swamp Monster fascist Trump. So much to love, right?

He could murder one of your friends and you'd still apologize for him, is my guess.

Hugh O'Neill ,

It was a long read, but I got there. In essence, I agreed with 99%, but I hesitate to share too much praise for Trump's qualities as a Human Being – though he may be marginally more Human than the entire US body politic. I was walking our new puppy yesterday when he did his usual attempt to leap all over other walkers. I pleaded their forgiveness and explained that his big heart was in inverse proportion to his small brain. It occurred to me later that the opposite would be pure evil i.e. a small heart but big brain. Capitalism as is now infects the Human Experiment, has reduced both brains and hearts: propagandists believe their own lies, and too few trust their own instincts and innate compassion, ground down by the relentless distractions of lies and 'entertainment' (at least the Romas gave you free bread!).
I get the impression that Trump's world view hasn't altered much since he was about 11 years old. I do not intend to insult all eleven-year-olds, but his naivety is not a redeeming feature of his spoilt brat bully personality. He has swallowed hook, line and sinker every John Wayne cowboy movie and thinks the world can be divided into good guys and bad guys depending on what colour hat they wear. In the days of Black & White TV, it was either black or white. The world seemed so much simpler aged 11 .(1966).

Dungroanin ,

Yet I have yet to see one photo of Trump with a gun or in uniform.

MASTER OF UNIVE ,

The Duck learned to dress appropriately for business, I'll give him that. As a New York Real Estate scion you will never see him dress otherwise. Protocol in business is a contemporary business suit. No other manner of dress is allowed for the executive class in North America or UK.

[Jan 21, 2020] The Middle East Strategic "Balance" Shredded -- Strategic Culture

Jan 21, 2020 | www.strategic-culture.org

The U.S. was having some success with turning protest messaging against Iran – until, that is – its killing and wounding of so many Iraqi security force members last week (Ketaib Hizbullah is a part of Iraq's armed forces).

Escalation of maximum-pressure was one thing (Iran was confident of weathering that); but assassinating such a senior official on his state duties, was quite something else. We have not observed a state assassinating a most senior official of another state before.

And the manner of its doing, was unprecedented too. Soleimani was officially visiting Iraq. He arrived openly as a VIP guest from Syria, and was met on the tarmac by an equally senior Iraqi official, Al-Muhandis, who was assassinated also, (together with seven others). It was all open. General Soleimani regularly used his mobile phone as he argued that as a senior state official, if he were to be assassinated by another state, it would only be as an act of war.

This act, performed at the international airport of Baghdad, constitutes not just the sundering of red lines, but a humiliation inflicted on Iraq – its government and people. It will upend Iraq's strategic positioning. The erstwhile Iraqi attempt at balancing between Washington and Iran will be swept away by Trump's hubristic trampling on the country's sovereignty. It may well mark the beginning of the end of the U.S. presence in Iraq (and therefore Syria, too), and ultimately, of America's footprint in the Middle East.

Trump may earn easy plaudits now for his "We're America, Bitch!", as one senior White House official defined the Trump foreign policy doctrine; but the doubts – and unforeseen consequences soon may come home to roost.

Why did he do it? If no one really wanted 'war', why did Trump escalate and smash up all the crockery? He has had an easy run (so far) towards re-election, so why play the always unpredictable 'wild card' of a yet another Mid-East conflict?

Was it that he wanted to show 'no Benghazi'; no U.S. embassy siege 'on my watch' – unlike Obama's handling of that situation? Was he persuaded that these assassinations would play well to his constituency (Israeli and Evangelical)? Or was he offered this option baldly by the Netanyahu faction in Washington? Maybe.

Some in Israel are worried about a three or four front war reaching Israel. Senior Israeli officials recently have been speculating about the likelihood of regional conflict occurring within the coming months. Israel's PM however, is fighting for his political life, and has requested immunity from prosecution on three indictments – pleading that this was his legal right, and that it was needed for him to "continue to lead Israel" for the sake of its future. Effectively, Netanyahu has nothing to lose from escalating tensions with Iran -- but much to gain.

Opposition Israeli political and military leaders have warned that the PM needs 'war' with Iran -- effectively to underscore the country's 'need' for his continued leadership. And for technical reasons in the Israeli parliament, his plea is unlikely to be settled before the March general elections. Netanyahu thus may still have some time to wind up the case for his continued tenure of the premiership.

One prime factor in the Israeli caution towards Iran rests not so much on the waywardness of Netanyahu, but on the inconstancy of President Trump: Can it be guaranteed that the U.S. will back Israel unreservedly -- were it to again to become enmeshed in a Mid-East war? The Israeli and Gulf answer seemingly is 'no'. The import of this assessment is significant. Trump now is seen by some in Israel – and by some insiders in Washington – as a threat to Israel's future security vis à vis Iran. Was Trump aware of this? Was this act a gamble to guarantee no slippage in that vital constituency in the lead up to the U.S. elections? We do not know.

So we arrive at three final questions: How far will Iran absorb this new escalation? Will Iran confine its retaliation to within Iraq? Or will the U.S. cross another 'red line' by striking inside Iran itself, in any subsequent tit for tat?

Is it deliberate (or is it political autism) that makes Secretary Pompeo term all the Iraqi Hash'd a-Sha'abi forces – whether or not part of official Iraqi forces – as "Iran-led"? The term seems to be used as a laissez-passer to attack all the many Hash'd a-Sha'abi units on the grounds that, being "Iran-linked", they therefore count as 'terrorist forces'. This formulation gives rise to the false sequitur that all other Iraqis would somehow approve of the killings. This would be laughable, if it were not so serious. The Hash'd forces led the war against ISIS and are esteemed by the vast majority of Iraqis. And Soleimani was on the ground at the front line, with those Iraqi forces.

These forces are not Iranian 'proxies'. They are Iraqi nationalists who share a common Shi'a identity with their co-religionists in Iran, and across the region. They share a common zeitgeist, they see politics similarly, but they are no puppets (we write from direct experience).

But what this formulation does do is to invite a widening conflict: Many Iraqis will be outraged by the U.S. attacks on fellow Iraqis and will revenge them. Pompeo (falsely) will then blame Iran. Is that Pompeo's purpose: casus belli?

But where is the off-ramp? Iran will respond Is this affair simply set to escalate from limited military exchanges and from thence, to escalate until what? We understand that this was not addressed in Washington before the President's decision was made. There are no real U.S. channels of communication (other than low level) with Iran; nor is there a plan for the next days. Nor an obvious exit. Is Trump relying on gut instinct again?

[Jan 21, 2020] The Many Matryoska Dolls to America's Way of Imagining Iran -- Strategic Culture

Notable quotes:
"... The Open Society and its Enemies ..."
"... "Since President Donald Trump ordered the drone strike that killed [Soleimani – justified in terms of deterrence, and allegedly halting an attack] a handful of Trump's advisers, however, [espied another] strategic benefit to killing Soleimani: Call it regime disruption ..."
"... "The case for disruption is outlined in a series of unclassified memos sent to [John Bolton]in May and June 2019 their author, David Wurmser, is a longtime adviser to Bolton who then served as a consultant to the National Security Council. Wurmser argues that Iran is in the midst of a legitimacy crisis. Its leadership, he writes, is divided between camps that seek an apocalyptic return of the Hidden Imam, and those that favour of the preservation of the Islamic Republic. All the while, many Iranians have grown disgusted with the regime's incompetence and corruption. ..."
"... "Wurmser's crucial insight [is that] – were unexpected, rule-changing actions taken against Iran, it would confuse the regime. It would need to scramble," he writes. Such a U.S. attack would "rattle the delicate internal balance of forces and the control over them upon which the regime depends for stability and survival." Such a moment of confusion, Wurmser writes, will create momentary paralysis -- and the perception among the Iranian public that its leaders are weak. ..."
"... "Wurmser's memos show that the Trump administration has been debating the blow against Soleimani since the current crisis began, some seven months ago After Iran downed a U.S. drone [in June], Wurmser advised Bolton that the U.S. response should be overt and designed to send a message that the U.S. holds the Iranian regime, not the Iranian people, responsible. "This could even involve something as a targeted strike on someone like Soleimani or his top deputies," Wurmser wrote in a June 22 memo. ..."
"... In these memos, Wurmser is careful to counsel against a ground invasion of Iran. He says the U.S. response "does not need to be boots on the ground (in fact, it should not be)." Rather, he stresses that the U.S. response should be calibrated to exacerbate the regime's domestic legitimacy crisis. ..."
"... Coping with Crumbling States ..."
"... Clean Break ..."
Jan 21, 2020 | www.strategic-culture.org

lastair Crooke January 20, 2020 © Photo: Flickr / DonkeyHotey On the 17 September 1656, Oliver Cromwell, a Protestant Puritan, who had won a civil war, and had the English king beheaded in public, railed against England's enemies. There was, he told Parliament that day, an axis of evil abroad in the world. And this axis – led by Catholic Spain – was, at root, the problem of a people that had placed themselves at the service of 'evil'. This 'evil', and the servitude that it beget, was the evil of a religion – Catholicism – that refused the English peoples' desire for simple liberties: " [an evil] that put men under restraint under which there was no freedom and under which, there could be 'no liberty of individual consciousness'".

That was how the English protestant leader saw Catholic Spain in 1656. And it is very close to how key orientations in the U.S. sees Iran today : The evil of religion – of Shi'ism – subjecting (they believe) Iranians to repression, and to serfdom. In Europe, this ideological struggle against the 'evil' of an imposed religious community (the Holy 'Roman' Axis, then) brought Europe to 'near-Armageddon', with the worst affected parts of Europe seeing their population decimated by up to 60% during the conflict.

Is this faction in the U.S. now intent on invoking a new, near-Armageddon – on this occasion, in the Middle East – in order, like Cromwell, to destroy the religious 'community known' as the Shi'a Resistance Axis, seen to stretch across the region, in order to preserve the Jewish "peoples' desire for simple liberties"?

Of course, today's leaders of this ideological faction are no longer Puritan Protestants (though the Christian Evangelicals are at one with Cromwell's 'Old Testament' literalism and prophesy). No, its lead ideologues are the neo-conservatives, who have leveraged Karl Popper's hugely influential The Open Society and its Enemies – a seminal treatise, which to a large extent, has shaped how many Americans imagine their 'world'. Popper's was history understood as a series of attempts, by the forces of reaction, to smother an open society with the weapons of traditional religion and traditional culture:

Marx and Russia were cast as the archetypal reactionary threat to open societies. This construct was taken up by Reagan, and re-connected to the Christian apocalyptic tradition (hence the neo-conservative coalition with Evangelists yearning for Redemption , and with liberal interventionists, yearning for a secular millenarianism). All concur that Iran is reactionary, and furthermore, the posit, poses a grave threat to Israel's self-proclaimed 'open society'.

The point here is that there is little point in arguing with these people that Iran poses no threat to the U.S. (which is obvious) – for the 'project' is ideological through and through. It has to be understood by these lights. Popper's purpose was to propose that only liberal globalism would bring about a "growing measure of humane and enlightened life" and a free and open society – period.

All this is but the outer Matryoshka – a suitable public rhetoric, a painted image – that can be used to encase the secret, inner dolls. Eli Lake, writing in Bloomberg , however, gives away the next doll:

"Since President Donald Trump ordered the drone strike that killed [Soleimani – justified in terms of deterrence, and allegedly halting an attack] a handful of Trump's advisers, however, [espied another] strategic benefit to killing Soleimani: Call it regime disruption

"The case for disruption is outlined in a series of unclassified memos sent to [John Bolton]in May and June 2019 their author, David Wurmser, is a longtime adviser to Bolton who then served as a consultant to the National Security Council. Wurmser argues that Iran is in the midst of a legitimacy crisis. Its leadership, he writes, is divided between camps that seek an apocalyptic return of the Hidden Imam, and those that favour of the preservation of the Islamic Republic. All the while, many Iranians have grown disgusted with the regime's incompetence and corruption.

"Wurmser's crucial insight [is that] – were unexpected, rule-changing actions taken against Iran, it would confuse the regime. It would need to scramble," he writes. Such a U.S. attack would "rattle the delicate internal balance of forces and the control over them upon which the regime depends for stability and survival." Such a moment of confusion, Wurmser writes, will create momentary paralysis -- and the perception among the Iranian public that its leaders are weak.

"Wurmser's memos show that the Trump administration has been debating the blow against Soleimani since the current crisis began, some seven months ago After Iran downed a U.S. drone [in June], Wurmser advised Bolton that the U.S. response should be overt and designed to send a message that the U.S. holds the Iranian regime, not the Iranian people, responsible. "This could even involve something as a targeted strike on someone like Soleimani or his top deputies," Wurmser wrote in a June 22 memo.

In these memos, Wurmser is careful to counsel against a ground invasion of Iran. He says the U.S. response "does not need to be boots on the ground (in fact, it should not be)." Rather, he stresses that the U.S. response should be calibrated to exacerbate the regime's domestic legitimacy crisis.

So there it is – David Wurmser is the 'doll' within: no military invasion, but just a strategy to blow apart the Iranian Republic. Wurmser, Eli Lake reveals, has quietly been advising Bolton and the Trump Administration all along. This was the neo-con, who in 1996, compiled Coping with Crumbling States (which flowed on from the infamous Clean Break policy strategy paper, written for Netanyahu, as a blueprint for destructing Israel's enemies). Both these papers advocated the overthrow of the Secular-Arab nationalist states – excoriated both as "crumbling relics of the 'evil' USSR" (using Popperian language, of course) – and inherently hostile to Israel (the real message).

Well ( big surprise ), Wurmser has now been at work as the author of how to 'implode' and destroy Iran. And his insight? "A targeted strike on someone like Soleimani"; split the Iranian leadership into warring factions; cut an open wound into the flesh of Iran's domestic legitimacy; put a finger into that open wound, and twist it; disrupt – and pretend that the U.S. sides with the Iranian people, against its government.

Eli Lake seems, in his Bloomberg piece, to think that the Wurmser strategy has worked. Really? The problem here is that narratives in Washington are so far apart from the reality that exists on the ground – they simply do not touch at any point. Millions attended Soleimani's cortege. His killing gave a renewed cohesion to Iran. Little more than a dribble have protested.

Now let us unpack the next 'doll': Trump bought into Wurmser's 'play', albeit, with Trump subsequently admitting that he did the assassination under intense pressure from Republican Senators. Maybe he believed the patently absurd narrative that Iranians would 'be dancing in the street' at Soleimani's killing. In any event, Trump is not known, exactly, for admitting his mistakes. Rather, when something is portrayed as his error, the President adopts the full 'salesman' persona: trying to convince his base that the murder was no error, but a great strategic success – "They like us", Trump claimed of protestors in Iran.

Tom Luongo has observed : "Trump's impeachment trial in the Senate begins next week, and it's clear that this will not be a walk in the park for the President. Anyone dismissing this because the Republicans hold the Senate, simply do not understand why this impeachment exists in the first place. It is [occurring because it offers] the ultimate form of leverage over a President whose desire to end the wars in the Middle East is anathema to the entrenched powers in the D.C. Swamp." Ah, so here we arrive at another inner Matryoshka.

This is Luongo's point: Impeachment was the leverage to drive open a wedge between Republican neo-conservatives in the Senate – and Trump. And now the Pelosi pressure on Republican Senators is escalating . The Establishment threw cold water over Trump's assertion of imminent attack, as justification for murdering Soleimani, and Trump responds by painting himself further into a corner on Iran – by going the full salesman 'monte'.

On the campaign trail, the President goes way over-the-top, calling Soleimani a "son of a b -- -", who killed 'thousands' and furthermore was responsible for every U.S. veteran who lost a limb in Iraq. And he then conjures up a fantasy picture of protesters pouring onto the streets of Tehran, tearing down images of Soleimani, and screaming abuse at the Iranian leadership.

It is nonsense. There are no mass protests (there have been a few hundred students protesting at one main Tehran University). But Trump has dived in pretty deep, now threatening the Euro-Three signatories to the JCPOA, that unless they brand Iran as having defaulted on JCPOA at the UNSC disputes mechanism, he will slap an eye-watering 25% tariff on their automobiles.

So, how will Trump avoid plunging in even deeper to conflict if – and when – Americans die in Iraq or Syria at the hands of militia – and when Pompeo or Lindsay Graham will claim, baldly, 'Iran's proxies did it'? Sending emollient faxes to the Swiss to pass to Tehran will not do. Tehran will not read them, or believe them, even if they did.

It all reeks of stage-management; a set up: a very clever stage-management, designed to end with the U.S. crossing Iran's 'red line', by striking at a target within Iranian territory. Here, finally, we arrive at the innermost doll.

Cui bono ? Some Senators who never liked Trump, and would prefer Pence as President; the Democrats, who would prefer to run their candidate against Pence in November, rather than Trump. But also, as someone who once worked with Wurmser observed tartly: when you hear that name (Wurmser), immediately you think Netanyahu, his intimate associate.

Matryoshka herself?

[Jan 20, 2020] Some people, in the US, still do not understand why Iranian people do not "love" America...If you had around 100.000 casualties by nerve gas that was sold by the US and his poodles (forget other western countries, you know who is "the boss" in the game) full aligned with Iraq,

Jan 20, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

DFC , Jan 20 2020 20:36 utc | 25

b said:

"During the Iran-Iraq war Iraq's Saddam Hussein ordered the use of chemical weapons against Iranian front lines and cities. Ten thousand Iranians died of those and many more were wounded by them"

Nope, in fact the estimate body count is much higher:

"According to a 2002 article in the Star-Ledger, 20,000 Iranian combatants and combat medics were killed on the spot by nerve gas." (this was only a part, there were also many civilians killed)

"In a declassified 1991 report, the CIA estimated that Iran had suffered more than 50,000 casualties from Iraq's use of several chemical weapons,[10] though current estimates are more than 100,000"

"Reporter Michael Dobbs of the Washington Post stated that Reagan's administration was well aware that the materials sold to Iraq would be used to manufacture chemical weapons for use in the war against Iran"
"According to Reagan's foreign policy, every attempt to save Iraq was necessary and legal.[4]"

All of this is in the wikipedia, hardly a "hardcore iranian trolls" web:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_attacks_against_Iran

Some people, in the US, still do not understand why Iranian people do not "love" America...If you had around 100.000 casualties by nerve gas that was sold by the US and his poodles (forget other western countries, you know who is "the boss" in the game) full aligned with Iraq, and then you attack Iran with sanctions and threats again and again, and at the peak of hypocrisy in 2003 USA invaded Iraq "to counter the threat of WMD" (sold by the US)...What do you think of the US if you are an Iranian were living all your live under the "Damocles sword" of the threats and sactions of the Empire?

DFC , Jan 20 2020 22:27 utc | 52

@ Posted by: Laguerre | Jan 20 2020 21:48 utc | 38

Let me see if I understand your point:

First US give permissions in September 1980 (if not encouraged) to Saddam to invade Iran, to finish the new Islamic regime that was seen as an enemy by Washington; and then when Iranians, at a huge costs, retaliates and turn the tide, then the US thought it was justified to supply Iraq with the chemicals (the "dual-use" technology) to make huge amounts of nerve gases and support the use against Iranian soldiers (with some unavoidable thousands of "collateral damages"), and also helping them with intelligence, satellite imagery and etc...Is that your point?

Do you think US would have permitted Iraq attacks Iran if the Shah was governing Iran? Do you think all the US did is justified? Do you think the people of Iran has no reasons for not "loving" America?

[Jan 19, 2020] Friedman s Hapless Fear-mongering

Notable quotes:
"... They have promoted dishonest claims about the JCPOA and made unfounded claims about Iran's so-called "nuclear ambitions" in order to make it seem as if the Iranian government is trying to acquire nuclear weapons. They have done this to justify their hard-line policies and to lay the groundwork for pursuing regime change and war. Every time that someone repeats false claims about a non-existent "nuclear weapons program" in Iran, it creates unnecessary fear and plays into the administration's hands. ..."
"... The administration is already working overtime to propagandize the public and scare Americans into supporting aggressive and destructive policies against Iran, and no one should be giving them extra help. ..."
"... "Friedman's claim that Iran restarted a "nuclear weapons program" is completely false. That isn't what the Iranian government did, and it is irresponsible to say this when it is clearly untrue." ..."
"... Friedman isn't usually thought of as a devotee of Truth, and the chance of him correcting even the most egregious falsehoods you point out is approximately zero. At heart he's a propaganda guy, not a fact-based analyst. ..."
"... Friedman does it for Israel. It is their line, their constant foreign policy push. The NYT lets him, seems to encourage it, due to its own complex ties to Israel. ..."
"... The Israel Lobby is behind vast wars, killing, and waste. It has become an endless evil. ..."
"... Friedman seems to forget that Iran is a signatory of the NPT and inspectors come and monitor activities, all outside JPCOA. But hey, Iraq had WMD at the time the international inspectors were saying that it didn't and their message and activities were obstructed and blocked by the US. Same as with the alleged gas attacks in Syria and the OPCW "mishandling" the reporting... US has learned since Iraq and wanted compliance from these types of organizations. ..."
theamericanconservative.com

Friedman's latest column obviously wasn't fact-checked before it was published:

And then, a few weeks later, Trump ordered the killing of Suleimani, an action that required him to shift more troops into the region and tell Iraqis that we're not leaving their territory, even though their Parliament voted to evict us. It also prompted Iran to restart its nuclear weapons program [bold mine-DL], which could well necessitate U.S. military action. And then, a few weeks later, Trump ordered the killing of Suleimani, an action that required him to shift more troops into the region and tell Iraqis that we're not leaving their territory, even though their Parliament voted to evict us. It also prompted Iran to restart its nuclear weapons program [bold mine-DL], which could well necessitate U.S. military action.
Friedman's claim that Iran restarted a "nuclear weapons program" is completely false. That isn't what the Iranian government did, and it is irresponsible to say this when it is clearly untrue. Iran has no nuclear weapons program, and it hasn't had anything like that for more than sixteen years. The Iranian government took another step in reducing its compliance with the JCPOA in the days following the assassination, but contrary to other misleading headlines their government did not abandon the nuclear deal. Iran has not repudiated its commitment to keep its nuclear program peaceful, and it doesn't help in reducing tensions to suggest that they have. Trump's recent actions are reckless and dangerous, but it is wrong to say that those actions have caused Iran to start up a nuclear weapons program. That isn't the case, and engaging in more threat inflation when tensions are already so high is foolish.

Friedman is not the only one to make this blunder, but it is the sort of sloppy mistake we expect from him. If this were just another error from Friedman, it would be annoying but it wouldn't matter very much. This has to do with the nature of our debate over Iran policy and the nuclear issue in particular. This matters because there is a great deal of confusion in this country about Iran's nuclear program that the Trump administration has deliberately encouraged. They have promoted dishonest claims about the JCPOA and made unfounded claims about Iran's so-called "nuclear ambitions" in order to make it seem as if the Iranian government is trying to acquire nuclear weapons. They have done this to justify their hard-line policies and to lay the groundwork for pursuing regime change and war. Every time that someone repeats false claims about a non-existent "nuclear weapons program" in Iran, it creates unnecessary fear and plays into the administration's hands.

The administration is already working overtime to propagandize the public and scare Americans into supporting aggressive and destructive policies against Iran, and no one should be giving them extra help. The second part of Friedman's sentence is also quite dangerous, because it encourages his readers to think that the U.S. would somehow be justified in attacking Iran in the unlikely event that they started developing a nuclear weapon. He suggests that an Iranian nuclear weapons program might "necessitate" military action, but any attack on Iran under those circumstances would be illegal and a war of choice just like the invasion of Iraq that Friedman supported almost 17 years ago. Even when Friedman seems to be skeptical of something that the government has done, he can't help but indulge in threat inflation and lend support to the idea of preventive war.

Friedman's claim that Iran restarted a "nuclear weapons program" is completely false. That isn't what the Iranian government did, and it is irresponsible to say this when it is clearly untrue. Iran has no nuclear weapons program, and it hasn't had anything like that for more than sixteen years. The Iranian government took another step in reducing its compliance with the JCPOA in the days following the assassination, but contrary to other misleading headlines their government did not abandon the nuclear deal. Iran has not repudiated its commitment to keep its nuclear program peaceful, and it doesn't help in reducing tensions to suggest that they have. Trump's recent actions are reckless and dangerous, but it is wrong to say that those actions have caused Iran to start up a nuclear weapons program. That isn't the case, and engaging in more threat inflation when tensions are already so high is foolish.

... ... ...

He suggests that an Iranian nuclear weapons program might "necessitate" military action, but any attack on Iran under those circumstances would be illegal and a war of choice just like the invasion of Iraq that Friedman supported almost 17 years ago. Even when Friedman seems to be skeptical of something that the government has done, he can't help but indulge in threat inflation and lend support to the idea of preventive war. The second part of Friedman's sentence is also quite dangerous, because it encourages his readers to think that the U.S. would somehow be justified in attacking Iran in the unlikely event that they started developing a nuclear weapon. He suggests that an Iranian nuclear weapons program might "necessitate" military action, but any attack on Iran under those circumstances would be illegal and a war of choice just like the invasion of Iraq that Friedman supported almost 17 years ago. Even when Friedman seems to be skeptical of something that the government has done, he can't help but indulge in threat inflation and lend support to the idea of preventive war.

Gospel Free • 3 days ago

"Friedman's claim that Iran restarted a "nuclear weapons program" is completely false. That isn't what the Iranian government did, and it is irresponsible to say this when it is clearly untrue."

Friedman isn't usually thought of as a devotee of Truth, and the chance of him correcting even the most egregious falsehoods you point out is approximately zero. At heart he's a propaganda guy, not a fact-based analyst.

Mark Thomason • 2 days ago
Friedman does it for Israel. It is their line, their constant foreign policy push. The NYT lets him, seems to encourage it, due to its own complex ties to Israel.

The Israel Lobby is behind vast wars, killing, and waste. It has become an endless evil.

Donna • 2 days ago
Friedman's readers are the choir, and he's just singing to them. People who have seen through his fabrications stopped reading him years ago. Friedman will always have his little clique of deluded pseudo-intellectuals, but truly intelligent people don't waste their time with him.
blimbax • 2 days ago
I think the picture of Friedman that accompanies this article tells a big part of the story. His furrowed brow, the intensity of his studied gaze, his penetrating and knowing look into the the complexities that only someone of his intelligence can unravel. It is really the picture of a stuffed shirt.

Friedman represents something really wrong with our society and culture: The incompetent, the ignorant, and the arrogant ones are given positions of power and influence, and the wise and knowledgeable are marginalized.

Taras77 • 2 days ago
It is difficult to name a more odious shill for Israel war mongering than friedman but than he does have competition in the NYT staff. NYT is a bugle for Israel.
FL_Cottonmouth • 2 days ago • edited
Mr. Friedman recently called Gen. Soleimani "the dumbest man in Iran" for sponsoring terrorist forces in Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen backing paramilitary forces fighting terrorism in Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen.

Mr. Friedman is one of the dumbest pundits in the media class and almost certainly the dumbest ever to work for The New York Times. He just can't help himself...

kouroi • a day ago
Friedman seems to forget that Iran is a signatory of the NPT and inspectors come and monitor activities, all outside JPCOA. But hey, Iraq had WMD at the time the international inspectors were saying that it didn't and their message and activities were obstructed and blocked by the US. Same as with the alleged gas attacks in Syria and the OPCW "mishandling" the reporting... US has learned since Iraq and wanted compliance from these types of organizations.

[Jan 19, 2020] Crisis in Iran will drive wedge between Europe and Washington

Jan 19, 2020 | www.politico.eu

Ellie Geranmayeh is a senior policy fellow and deputy head of the Middle East and North Africa program at the European Council on Foreign Relations. She specializes in European foreign policy in relation to Iran, particularly on the nuclear and regional dossiers and sanctions policy.

... ... ...

The response from Tehran could be immediate or more long term, ranging from military action in the region to cyber attacks inside the U.S. and heavy political pushback. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has repeatedly warned that there would not be war with the U.S. and Iran has so far acted in a calculated and rational fashion to Trump's "maximum pressure" campaign. If this position holds, Tehran will attempt to manage the risk of direct conflict, continuing to deploy asymmetric tactics to undermine U.S. interests, albeit with the red lines now redrawn.

The gravity and scale of Iranian compliance will be influenced by the recent escalation with the U.S.

The extensive U.S. military presence in the Middle East and Afghanistan means the U.S. is likely to bear the brunt of retaliation. Iran has deep ties to both state and non-state actors across Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Yemen that can be utilized to inflict pain on America. Soleimani's death has already triggered a new decline in the Trump administration's relations with Baghdad that may extend to Kabul, and is also likely to heat up the long debate inside Tehran over how far to push U.S. military forces out of neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan.

... ... ...

If Tehran takes drastic steps on the nuclear file, it could mark the total collapse of the agreement.

... ... ...

In the space of six months, the U.S. and Iran have gone from targeting drones, oil installations and bases, to killing personnel. It is still unclear how and when Iran will choose to respond to Soleimani's assassination. But the new commander of the Quds Force -- appointed within 12 hours of Soleimani's death -- will no doubt be eager to demonstrate his willingness to exact revenge against America.

When that happens, neither the Middle East nor Europe will be isolated from the blowback.

[Jan 19, 2020] The murder of Qasem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis will resonate hugely throughout Iraq

Jan 19, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

uncle tungsten , Jan 19 2020 10:57 utc | 104

The murder of Qasem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis will resonate hugely throughout Iraq. Trump in so many ways represents the bad ruler Gilgamesh who is poorly advised in his conquest by Enkidu (Pompeo) and they brutally slay the guardian of the forest to steal the precious timber. Then they murder the sacred bull of heaven (Soleimani and al-Muhandis) for prowess and nothing more. This slaughter of the sacred bull enrages the gods and they slay Enkidu which breaks Gilgamesh heart. etc etc. (drastically simplified and likely contested).

This tale is deeply known throughout the lands of the Middle East in all manner of old and modern iterations.

Trump is so unwise and devoid of subtlety that he has ended any chance of salvation in that land and has started every chance of retribution on a scale he could not conceive. His assault on all culture and sacred leaders is bonded to the deepest sense of existential being that any further aggression will simply escalate the payback. The USA urgently needs some cooler heads to intervene but they are not yet impacting on him. Indeed Trump is so eager to pat himself on the back with his adrenalin rush of murdering other leaders that it is disgusting.

[Jan 19, 2020] ISIS had become a proxy army of the CIA; that's likely why Soleimani had to be killed.

Jan 19, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

michael888 , Jan 19 2020 13:19 utc | 114

Almost all of the "terrorism" affecting the West has been Wahabbi Salafist Sunni driven. Iran, despite their religious head, is a more modern sectarian nation than Saudi Arabia. ISIS had become a proxy army of the CIA; that's likely why Soleimani had to be killed. It is time to align with Iran and the Shia for a change. They also have oil! Would send a nice message to our "allies" Israel and Saudi Arabia as well.

Sasha , Jan 19 2020 13:23 utc | 115

Trump has given signals of opposition to the wisdom of the use of jihadi proxies,

@Posted by: BM | Jan 19 2020 11:09 utc | 107

Really?

Revealed: US moves IS leaders to Al-Anbar, Iraq

After only a week or so after this heinous crime, we are assisting already to a new campaign on whitewashing Trump at each of the US military blogs...SST at the head...as always...but following the rest...be it a editorial level, be it at commentariat level...

What part of Trump admitting he personally ordered the murder you have not understood?

What part of Soleimani and Al Muhandis being the main strategic heads of real anti-IS front have you not understood?

[Jan 19, 2020] They are trying to couch their violent threatening behavior aimed at Iraqi leaders to keep them out of the China-Iran orbit, as part of "The Patriotic Duty of Team America World Police". It is like a mafioso saying to the police about their protection racket: "I'm doing you'se a favor by keeping everyone in the neighborhood safe from criminals."

Jan 19, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Joshua , Jan 18 2020 20:22 utc | 14

What manner of nation does these things? What manner of man? Why are these criminals not facing arrest and trial at this very moment? Is it because they all had their magical 'I'm a special guy' hats on? Justice will come to us all.

Kali , Jan 18 2020 20:22 utc | 15

I don't think what Pompeo was saying is vague, it is really just a way to con the US media into believing that what they did was anything other than what it really was. They are trying to couch their violent threatening behavior aimed at Iraqi leaders to keep them out of the China-Iran orbit, as part of "The Patriotic Duty of Team America World Police". It is like a mafioso saying to the police about their protection racket: "I'm doing you'se a favor by keeping everyone in the neighborhood safe from criminals."

"It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name."

Jay , Jan 18 2020 20:28 utc | 18
It's odd to see Reuters get the name of the Hoover Institution wrong, and also be wrong about the Institution's association with Stanford University. The Institution is on the Stanford campus but has a separate board of directors.

Okay, Reuters is making typically sloppy errors about the name and the amount of control Stanford has over the rightwing "Institute" on its campus. Stanford, the university, has plenty of US military intelligence (and actual black world) ties, but almost no one working at Stanford would think killing Soleimani a good idea. Though plenty of the "thinkers" at The Hoover Institution would.


Right, Pompeo is delusional. Murdering Soleimani will deter no one. Nor of course do the Iranian missile strikes on US bases in Iraq mean the end of Iran's response to the act of war.

Trailer Trash , Jan 18 2020 20:37 utc | 20
I am surprised at how many establishment media have actually labelled this murder as "assassination" instead of the usual euphemisms. I think nearly everyone in the world understands that bragging about international murder completely changes international relations. Except for Pompous and Trumpet, of course.

Everyone will be filing their hair-triggers. There seems to be a general world-wide mobilization but no one is calling it that. It is all "war games" and such. At some point before the 2003 Iraq invasion it was clear to me that the decision for open war had been made. It is now clear to me that there will be an invasion of Iran, starting with Iraq. I think the B-52s sent to the area are for killing Iraqis, since they have no air defense.

At the same time, the US asset bubbles are nearly "priced to perfection". That means they have no where to go except down. Debts that can't be paid won't be paid. All it takes is a break in the chain of payments and the next financial panic is ON! Can Uncle Sam greatly expand his War on the World in the middle of financial chaos? I think he will probably try.

I speculate that Uncle Sam believes Iran and Iraq will simply cower and wait for the next blow. I predict they will not. Soleimani's assassination and the subsequent Iranian attack have not substantially changed the strategic situation, except to tie down the boiler relief valve and turn up the heat. God, if there is one, help us all. We're sure gonna need it.

Ian2 , Jan 18 2020 20:46 utc | 21
Does this idiot Pompeo not realize the door swing both ways? Unless he plans to live his remaining days bunkered in NORAD, he's just as vulnerable as the rest.
psychohistorian , Jan 18 2020 21:22 utc | 25
Pompeo is the spokesman for the rules based Western empire mafia don, Trump.

The event is now being turned into a US media event (real time movie making here) by Trump letting out text versions of the backroom chatter around the murder. This will not sit well with the ME, IMO.

What late empire keeps pushing for is some event that can be blown into global support for war escalation....but it hasn't happened, yet

And all this over public/private global control of value sharing in the social human contract....what a way to run a railroad/species......

ptb , Jan 18 2020 21:58 utc | 33
Not only will it not deter anyone, it is loudly signaling that third rate neocons are the only decision makers left in the room.

You're likely to see more provocations, since it's now such an easy button to push. i.e. for any regional or global powers who need US forces to be diverted for a while. Any bullshit they manage to sell to the young Bolton's in the bureaucracy will do.

While not exactly unprecedented, the change is how much the mask is off now.

Robert Snefjella , Jan 18 2020 22:00 utc | 34
The part of Pompeo's speech quoted by b above is American to the core: every sentence or short paragraph contains at minimum one outright lie; the entire quote selected is also both palpably delusional and stupid.

But having said that, there is something uniquely refreshing about the Trump/Pompeo tag team's capacity for blurting out lies and inanities, and furthermore, they do it with gusto. Guile is not Pompeo's strong suit.

One might say that the criminality of the 'new deterrence' is as American as apple pie, except that apple pie in my experience is innocent of all that, unless I suppose it contains a deadly poison, and is fed to a political or ideological foe.

What is new about the 'new deterrence' that will surely make life far more dangerous for Americans, is that it publicly declares itself as a policy with no bounds, no ethical, or logical, or legal constraints. So what the Americans have been doing for generations, often but not by any means always with 'plausible denial', and sometimes quite brazenly, is now explicitly underlined policy.

Previously, the fight was 'against communism', or 'for democracy', or for 'national security'.

So for example, when Nicaragua during the "Reagan Revolution' was sanctioned, attacked, vilified, subjected to uncounted atrocities, because those dastardly Nicaraguans had replaced their loathsome monster dictator with a government trying to do the right thing for the people, the war against that country was under the rubric of protecting American 'national security', with bits of domino theory and communist hordes concerns thrown in.

So what is the difference between deploying tens of thousands of maniacal murderous 'contras' as 'deterrence' against a small country's attempts at making a decent life for its people, and a drone attack on Soleimani and his companions?

I think one main difference is that the 'world has changed' around the perpetrators, but they are still living the delusions of brainwashed childhood, the wild west, white hat un-self conscious monstrosities riding into town, gonna clean the place up. Pathetic and extremely dangerous.

vk , Jan 18 2020 22:01 utc | 37
There's another logical flaw in Pompeo's argument.

The USA is a nuclear power. If you claim to assassinate other countries' generals as a deterrent, then that signals America's true enemies - Russia and China - that it will vacilate in using its own nuclear deterrent if an American target is to be neutralized. That would bring more, not less, instability to the world order.

But maybe that's the American aim with this: to shake the already existing international order with the objective to try to destroy Eurasia with its massive war machine and, therefore, initiate another cycle of accumulation of American capitalism.

Another potential unintended blowback of Soleimani's assassination lies in the fact that the USA is not officially at war with Iran. Iran was being sanctioned by the UN. That poses a threat in the corners of the American Empire, since it sends a message that the USA doesn't need to be at war with a nation in order to gratuitously attack it; it also sends the message that it is not enough to play by the rules and accept the UN's sanctions - you could still do all of that and submit yourself and still be attacked by the Americans.

The endgame of this is that there's a clear message to the American "allies" (i.e. vassals, provinces): stay in line and obey without questioning, even if that goes directly against your national interests. This will leave the Empire even more unstable at its frontier because, inevitably, there'll come a time where the USA will directly command its vassals/provinces to literally hurt their own economies just to keep the American one afloat (or not sinking too fast). Gramsci's "Law of Hegemony" states that, the more coercion and the less consensus, the more unstable is one's hegemony.

Trailer Trash , Jan 18 2020 22:03 utc | 38
>Tottering as it appears to be, the U.S. looks to be
> ready to burn the world; its "adversaries" aren't yet
> strong enough to avoid the flamethrower.
> Posted by: Zee | Jan 18 2020 21:30 utc | 27

Indeed. But the longer Iran can delay the inevitable, the stronger and better prepared it becomes, while Uncle Sam is busy burning the furniture and getting financially more precarious. US planners seem to think that one can build an economy around poor people giving each other haircuts while rich people keep trading the exact same assets back and forth while steady driving asset prices higher.

Somewhere in the economic cycle someone has to actually make stuff and grow food. But planners have allowed the manufacturing (and associated engineering, etc.) to leave while driving farmers into bankruptcy. They are mortgaged to the hilt. When land prices quit rising, there is no additional collateral and no new credit. With no additional credit, no one will sell them seeds and equipment. So they are out of business. It's scary to think how few people actually grow all the food to feed millions and millions.

Asset bubbles have real consequences, such as millions can not afford rent anymore while millions of housing units remain empty because their value still goes up even without rental income. Scenes from Soylent Green come to mind, thinking about how more and more people are crammed into fewer living quarters.

Our brain-dead leaders have created a situation where they must continue to inflate bubbles to keep increasing collateral to back more debt. But the bubbles impoverish the rest of us. And bubbles always pop. Always.

I'm not sure how much the next financial crisis will affect the US killing machine, but I doubt it would make the war machine stronger.

Trailer Trash , Jan 18 2020 22:08 utc | 39
>The GOP criticized Obama for Libya but only because they
> wanted to be able to say they were the tough guys. The
> media was oh-so-happy to harp on the Iraq after Bush's
> destruction of Iraq but very quiet on the aftermath of Libya.
> Posted by: Curtis | Jan 18 2020 21:37 utc | 29

Yes to this. There is no disagreement in DC on the goals, just fussing over the tactics and who takes credit. Two right wings on the war bird. Maybe that is why it is on a downward spiral.

~~~ , Jan 18 2020 22:08 utc | 40
Via ZH :

Describing that the drone strike took out "two for the price of one" -- in reference to slain Iraqi Shia paramilitary commander Abu Mahdi al-Mohandes, who had been at the airport to greet Soleimani, Trump gave a more detailed accounting than ever before of proceedings in the 'situation room' (which had been set up at Mar-a-Lago) that night.

He went on to recount listening to military officials as they watched the strike from "cameras that are miles in the sky."

"They're together sir," Trump recalled the military officials saying. "Sir, they have two minutes and 11 seconds. No emotion. '2 minutes and 11 seconds to live, sir. They're in the car, they're in an armored vehicle. Sir, they have approximately one minute to live, sir. 30 seconds. 10, 9, 8 ...' "

"Then all of a sudden, boom," he went on. "'They're gone, sir. Cutting off.' "

"I said, where is this guy?" Trump continued. "That was the last I heard from him."

E Mo Scel , Jan 18 2020 22:19 utc | 42
"We put together a campaign of diplomatic isolation, economic pressure, and military deterrence."

"diplomatic isolation" - when I read this I thought of the Ukrainian plane and the demand for an "investigation according to international guidelines" (well, Syria got that investigation according to international guidelines with the OPCW and we know how that went) - it may lead to diplomatic isolation. Watch it. As such, Pompeo might have laid out a motive for a potential US involvement.

"economic pressure" - while the E3 did not sanction Iran, with their lack of action in regards to find working mechanisms and their depending on the US, that goal has been achieved.

"military deterrence" - Pompeo thinks in CIA terms which can be seen as a covert weapons trafficking organization (Timber Sycamore) and something like a secret military organization. The murder of Suleimani is a war crime and as such a criminal act; it can hardly be considered a military deterrence - although the murder was carried out by the US military (maybe by CIA embedded in base?).

I don't know. It's a lot of speculation. Iran may have a reason to not state their systems got hacked. But in the current context it may be advisable to do so, turn a potential cyberattack back to its place of origin.

dorje , Jan 18 2020 23:18 utc | 43
Pompeo and Trump have no concept of personal honour as they come from a sub-culture that has none.

In the rest of the world, honour-integrity is very important. Throughout MENA to Pakistan, the US was viewed as treacherous for using Sadaam to fight Iran then turning on him in service of Israel's goals. Bush 2 contributed, through his blatant financial criminality (much of this remains unknown to average Americans), to the perception that the US is incapable of honouring ANY agreement (re:oil and other sub-rosa deals the US made).
The decimation of Syria, Iraq and Libya was not enough; criminal elites in the US have now completely exposed themselves to the Muslim world. I am firmly convinced that the Arab 'street' has concluded the US and Israel are inseparable in their policy of murder and mayhem. I am betting the elites view reconciliation within the Arab and Islamic world as the way forward with input from Russia, China when and if needed. Turning away from US-Israeli meddling and treachery will be a primary concern for the 20's.
I don't believe Pompeo or Trump have the foresight to understand killing Soleimani has sealed how the US is perceived: Indonesia, Malaysia, Muslim India (all 250+million), Afghanistan and Pakistan will accelarate the turning away.
This 'decision' to murder Soleimani will be cited by future non_court historians as seminal. The US murdered the 2nd most important person in Iranian politics. This has to be one of THE STUPIDEST DECISIONS I have seen come out of the Washington, D.C--Tel Aviv--London axis. I really cannot think of any other official action by the US that compares in stupidity. Unofficially, 911 was the stupidest act of the last 2 decades but as for official I believe this takes the cakes.
In essence, screaming to the world that you are a gangster is not a very graceful way to wind down an Empire. Pompeo-Trump-BoBo should have looked at a map. I see a hemisphere that is geographically isolated that has to make a case for why anyone should interact with it. Currently, all they have is the petrodollar system that supports 1, 000 military bases. Problem: they have just given many of the (often unwilling) participants in that system a big reason to leave it. I believe this is referred to as 'suicide'?
Correct me if I'm wrong. I would be happy to be.

Dick , Jan 18 2020 23:25 utc | 44
Anyone who has studied the history of the Third Reich would note a curious similarity between Germany's behaviour under Hitler and the current behaviour of the US both internally and externally. Is it just me, or have other's noted the similarity of Pompeo to Herman Goering in looks and behaviour?

[Jan 19, 2020] The leadership in the US need to stop thinking that they are impervious to revenge

Jan 19, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Old Microbiologist , Jan 18 2020 11:21 utc | 120

The leadership in the US need to stop thinking that they are impervious to revenge. Very small drones can fly autonomously and each can carry 2 Kg of cargo which can be explosives, chemical or bioweapons or a combination. They are cheap, easy to build and can operate autonomously. With only using relatively simple algorithms they can be made to fly in groups and track using already extant facial recognition software. I can envision a scenario where drones are flown to the top of a semi-trailer somewhere south to hitch a ride north on I-95 until they get into DC near Fort Belvoir or Andrews AFB. They could then lift off and loiter perched on transmission lines where they can easily recharge using rf energy and wait. Once a target arrives, say a President on the golf course or perhaps Air Force 1 taxiing on the runway or even perhaps perch outside a window, they can then lift off and conduct an attack either directly or as limpet mines. With swarming you can send a mass of drones all flying autonomously with varied patterns. It would be impossible to stop them. Because they are autonomous jamming won't work. They would be impossible to trace back to their origin and most could be 3D printed and use off the shelf parts. If I can think this way, I am certain others are as well. Snake drones would be particularly difficult to stop.

Old Microbiologist , Jan 18 2020 18:23 utc | 155

Old hippe @128.yes, but these were being guided remotely from a US Navy aircraft and somewhat controllable from remote which is what happened. I think inside the US they don't think that far ahead and jamming would interfere with wifi etc. so not palatable. I Ave in mind they would be sitting in the grass or on a nearby telephone pole waiting for the target and travel less than 100 meters to hit. Autonomous means flying without any external controls and would be committed once set out. One perched on a window with 2kg of C4 waiting for whatever executive to sit down next to it would be another scenario. A snake drone could navigate in the sewers up to an executive toilet. The possibilities are endless. It is just a matter of time.

[Jan 19, 2020] The Murder Of Qassem Soleimani Will Deter No One

Jan 19, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

The Murder Of Qassem Soleimani Will Deter No One

The Trump administration sees the U.S. assassination of Qassem Soleimani as a form of deterrence not only with regards to Iran but also towards Russia, China and others. That view is wrong.

The claim that the murder of Soleimani was necessary because of an 'imminent threat' has been debunked by Trump himself when he tweeted that 'it doesn't really matter' if there was such a threat or not.

In a speech at the Hoover Institute Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that the assassination was part of a new deterrence strategy. As Reuters reported:

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Monday said Qassem Soleimani was killed as part of a broader strategy of deterring challenges by U.S. foes that also applies to China and Russia, further diluting the assertion that the top Iranian general was struck because he was plotting imminent attacks on U.S. targets.

In his speech at Stanford University's Hoover Institute, Pompeo made no mention of the threat of imminent attacks planned by Soleimani.

The speech itself, headlined The Restoration of Deterrence: The Iranian Example , makes that less explicit as Reuters lets it appear:

On the 3rd of this month, we took one of the world's deadliest terrorists off the battlefield for good.
...
But I want to lay this out in context of what we've been trying to do. There is a bigger strategy to this.

President Trump and those of us in his national security team are re-establishing deterrence – real deterrence ‒ against the Islamic Republic. In strategic terms, deterrence simply means persuading the other party that the costs of a specific behavior exceed its benefits. It requires credibility; indeed, it depends on it. Your adversary must understand not only do you have the capacity to impose costs but that you are, in fact, willing to do so.
...
And let's be honest. For decades, U.S. administrations of both political parties never did enough against Iran to get the deterrence that is necessary to keep us all safe.
...
So what did we do? We put together a campaign of diplomatic isolation, economic pressure, and military deterrence.
...
Qasem Soleimani discovered our resolve to defend American lives.
...
We have re-established deterrence, but we know it's not everlasting, that risk remains. We are determined not to lose that deterrence. In all cases, we have to do this.
...
We saw, not just in Iran, but in other places, too, where American deterrence was weak. We watched Russia's 2014 occupation of the Crimea and support for aggression against Ukraine because deterrence had been undermined. We have resumed lethal support to the Ukrainian military.

China's island building, too, in the South China Sea, and its brazen attempts to coerce American allies undermined deterrence. The Trump administration has ramped up naval exercises in the South China Sea, alongside our allies and friends and partners throughout the region.

You saw, too, Russia ignored a treaty. We withdrew from the INF with the unanimous support of our NATO allies because there was only one party complying with a two-party agreement. We think this, again, restores credibility and deterrence to protect America.

This understanding of 'deterrence' seems to be vague and incomplete. A longer piece I am working on will further delve deeper into that issue. But an important point is that deterrence works in both directions.

Iran responded with a missile strike on U.S. bases in Iraq. The missiles hit the targets they were aimed at . This was a warning that any further U.S. action would cause serious U.S. casualties. That strike, which was only the first part of Iran's response to the murdering of Soleimani, deterred the U.S. from further action. Iran also declared that it will expel the U.S. from the Middle East. How is Iran deterred when it openly declares that it will take on such a project?

Reuters makes it seem that the U.S. would not even shy away from killing a Russian or Chinese high officer on a visit in a third country. That is, for now, still out of bounds as China and Russia deter the U.S. from such acts with their own might.

Russia and China already had no doubts that the U.S. is immoral and willing to commit war crimes. And while 'western' media avoid that characterization for the assassination of Soleimani there is no doubt that it was one.

In a letter to the New York Times the now 100 years old chief prosecutor of the Nuremberg trials, Benjamin B. Ferencz, warned of the larger effects of such deeds when he writes :

The administration recently announced that, on orders of the president, the United States had "taken out" (which really means "murdered") an important military leader of a country with which we were not at war. As a Harvard Law School graduate who has written extensively on the subject, I view such immoral action as a clear violation of national and international law.

The public is entitled to know the truth. The United Nations Charter, the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice in The Hague are all being bypassed. In this cyberspace world, young people everywhere are in mortal danger unless we change the hearts and minds of those who seem to prefer war to law.

The killing of a Soleimani will also only have a short term effect when it comes to general deterrence. It was a onetime shot to which others will react. Groups and people who work against 'U.S. interests' will now do so less publicly. Countries will seek asymmetric advantages to prevent such U.S. action against themselves. By committing the crime the U.S. and Trump made the global situation for themselves more complicated.

Posted by b on January 18, 2020 at 19:28 UTC | Permalink

james , Jan 18 2020 19:52 utc | 1

next page " "And let's be honest." anyone who starts off with those words - run the other way when they say that.. pomparse is a real embarrassment to the usa on the world stage at this point... there is no international law that the usa will not completely bypass / lie / or obfuscate to push its uni-polar exceptional agenda at this point.. anyone paying any attention can see this clearly.
Soleimani's Ghost , Jan 18 2020 19:53 utc | 2
In terms of deterrence re Iran, these people don't seem to know much about the role of martyrdom in Shi'ism
lysias , Jan 18 2020 19:59 utc | 3
Pompeo speaks as though he wants to provoke an assassination attempt on himself.
chet380 , Jan 18 2020 19:59 utc | 4
If push comes to shove, the Iranians are well aware that the US would, by its bombing and missiles that the Iranians cannot completely withstand, cause many deaths and massive destruction to its cities and infrastructure ... BUT the Americans are very much aware that the Iranian response would be devastating -- all US ME military assets would come under massive fire resulting in many deaths; all Gulf State oil infrastructure would be destroyed; Tel Aviv and Riyadh would be attacked; the Strait of Hormuz would be blocked, and on and on.

It seems highly unlikely that the US would take such a risk -- let us call it Mutual Assured Destructiveness

exiled off mainstree , Jan 18 2020 20:00 utc | 5
It is interesting that the commentary closes with a letter by Benjamin Ferencz, perhaps the last surviving Nuremberg prosecutor. As he indicates, the assassination is a war crime, and, in my view, even the threat of such an assassination is a serious breach of international law. Regimes following such a policy have gone rogue, and cabinet ministers making such a pronouncement that the assassination was carried out as a deterrent are, in effect, confessing to war crimes. In future the reach of the offending regime may be much less than it is now, and, if that occurs, the rogue minister better be careful if he travels outside of his home country.
1 , Jan 18 2020 20:02 utc | 6
Thanks B, for your continued articles that are never mentioned elsewhere. I completely agree with your assessment. War used to have rules. Any american army brass or higher ups in USA, Britain, Israel and allies will have to keep looking over their shoulder when they leave their own country. Israel already cancelled trips to Saudi Arabia over security concerns. The gloves are off and targeted assignation will hit allies of USA. The president family are fair game, People who sponsor the the orange prophet of misery, Pompous Pompeoo, Esper or any general will have a very paranoid time knowing that the rules of war that once protected them from targeted assignation no longer apply. After all if america can do this, what's stopping their adversaries from doing the same.
ChasMark , Jan 18 2020 20:05 utc | 7
Benjamin B. Ferencz, his touted Harvard Law School pedigree Nuremberg Trial experience have precisely ZERO persuasive value.

Ferencz was one of the most vicious and manipulative of the Nuremberg prosecutors. In a BBC interview he stated boldly that he threatened to kill detainees or their families unless they confessed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=48&v=jmFg_ZkKo8M

Interviewer: "In previous interviews you've described how in gathering testimonies you did resort to duress, for instance, lining up villagers and threatening to shoot them if they lied. Such methods now would amount to witness harassment of the most extreme order.

Ferencz: Perhaps it would. but it's only because the people who make allegations don't understand what war is about -- bring a room of 20 people together -- this is an actual case -- and say I want you all to write out what happened, what your role was, what others did. Anybody who lies will be shot.
"Oh, how can you do a thing like that!" You're threatening them, it's torture! What am I going to tell 'em? That you won't get your patty-cake tonight? ' Please be honest, please confess that you're a murderer. Please do that, I don't want to have to ____ you of anything.'
What are you talking about? There's a war going on! They will kill you if they could. They were killing some of their buddies before. So what am I going to do? I didn't shoot them. But I threatened to , and that's the only weapon I had. And if that be torture, then call me a torturer."

Moreover, Rabbi Stephen Wise, one of the key instigators of World War II and US involvement in it, recorded a Personal Letter he sent to his wife / daughter (probably) shortly after Germany's surrender. The Rabbi wrote that he and Nahum Goldmann had lunch with Justice Robert Jackson, and that

"Justice [Robert] Jackson. . . .has grand and spacious ideas on the Nuremberg trials in mid-October, with Weizmann, Goldmann or S.S.W. [Stephen S. Wise] as Jewish witnesses to present the Jewish Case –not permitted as Amicus Curiae!

In itself it becomes the greatest trial in history, with what Jackson calls its broad departure from Anglo-Saxon legal tradition.
Retroactively "aggressive war-making" becomes criminally punishable–with membership in the Gestapo prima facie proof of criminal participation."

If Ferencz has an ounce of integrity, he will condemn as "aggressive war-making" every person who voted for an illegal war against Iraq, and every person involved in imposing sanctions on Iran -- themselves acts of "aggressive war."

But he won't because he doesn't.

Piotr Berman , Jan 18 2020 20:06 utc | 8
"By committing the crime the U.S. and Trump made the global situation for themselves more complicate."

USA is not exactly the sole economic superpower, but as long as the allies, EU, NATO, major allies in Asia and Latin America, behave like poodles, USA pretty much controls what is "normal". After Obama campaigns of murder by drone, now Trump raises it to a higher level, and Europe, the most critical link in the web of alliances, applauds (UK) or accepts and cooperates. That can be a useful clarification for US establishment.

So the bottom line is that while it is hard to show constructive goals achieved by raising murder policies to a more brazen level, nothing changes for the worse. Allies tolerate irrationality, cruelty etc. and to some extend, join the fun.

William Gruff , Jan 18 2020 20:07 utc | 9
Pompeo: "In all cases, we have to do this."

In all cases they have to murder? That is psycho killer talk. Notice how comfortable the American public is with that.

America disconnected from reality years ago. I rather doubt they could even find their way back if they were to somehow return to their senses.

Kooshy , Jan 18 2020 20:13 utc | 10
IMO, from what I understand of Shia mentality, after immoral assassination of general Soleimani the only thing can prevent a violent revenge against US military or political staff would be a Fatwa by a grand ayatollah to nullify a fatwa by any junior Ayatollah authorizing (sanctioning) specific action. It was an incalculably caster F* mistake that can last for a generation at least.
John Dowser , Jan 18 2020 20:16 utc | 11
"t̶h̶e̶ U̶.̶S̶.̶ Israel and Trump made the global situation for themselves more complicate"

Not if the purpose was more pressure by complication. The goal then to create a pretext: a pressure cooker which will cause military exchange or, especially after some limited violent exchange, increasing internal strife inside Iran which can't afford more war.

The conditions for this tactic would be clear: containing all the likely fall-out of the above unraveling, namely:

- contain China with the trade war no one can win but will make it near impossible for China to deal with Iran, Iraq and Syria.
- increased containment Palestine and Lebanon by Israel. Make very move there seem way too expensive for especially Hezbollah.
- prevent any kind of weapon transport or technology transfer to Lebanon which could break above containment.
- vastly improved border security and travel limitations
- increasing War on T̶e̶r̶r̶o̶r̶ Blow Back related powers for Homeland Security, NSA etc.

Russia is seen as less of a problem as any potential military support would be simply too costly and too little gain for Putin.

And make no mistake, Trump is fully ready to display nuclear might the moment Iran would demonstrate their own remarkable advances. And he would make it very clear that the US is willing. The new policy of deterrence is very simple and yet horrible: examples have to be made to demonstrate that "all options are still on the table". If he wants to keep declining America great but not have expensive wars and yet force others to still follow American lead: there's only one cold logical solution to that.

Joshua , Jan 18 2020 20:19 utc | 12
The glaring fact of the matter is that the us president and his accomplices useld false allegations as an excuse to murder these men. They also did so in a cowardly manner, under a false invitation to negotiate (and, Yes I do believe that).
In my country, when a person orders someone to murder someone else in exchange for compensation (in this case salaries), the police call it murder for hire.
Paul Damascene , Jan 18 2020 20:20 utc | 13
Deterrence and decapitation strikes ...

Idle speculation on my part, but I am not alone in wondering if the Soleimani assassination accelerated Putin's restructuring agenda. (I'm not suggesting it was generated or even influenced in substance by the strike, just that the timing may have been.) Given the power of the President in Russia, as the CIA itself very well understands, there is perhaps no more tempting target for an overt military assassination strike than President Putin.

Of course, deterrence of rational actors is precisely what would prevent this, but I imagine Russian strategic thinkers have wondered whether or for how long the US remains a rational actor. Moreover, this would be the sort of thing that a fanatical faction could pull off. In some Strangelovean bunker somewhere, there may be those who would actually welcome a last gasp of large-scale warfare before the Eurasian Heartland is lost and the Petrodollar-fueled global finance empire, nominally sheltered in the US, dies away.

Creative destruction ... a last chance to shuffle the cards, and perhaps reset a losing game to zero.

Joshua , Jan 18 2020 20:22 utc | 14
What manner of nation does these things? What manner of man? Why are these criminals not facing arrest and trial at this very moment? Is it because they all had their magical 'I'm a special guy' hats on? Justice will come to us all.
Kali , Jan 18 2020 20:22 utc | 15
I don't think what Pompeo was saying is vague, it is really just a way to con the US media into believing that what they did was anything other than what it really was. They are trying to couch their violent threatening behavior aimed at Iraqi leaders to keep them out of the China-Iran orbit, as part of "The Patriotic Duty of Team America World Police". It is like a mafioso saying to the police about their protection racket: "I'm doing you'se a favor by keeping everyone in the neighborhood safe from criminals."

"It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name."

Kali , Jan 18 2020 20:25 utc | 16
"This second Beast worked magical signs, dazzling people by making fire come down from Heaven. It used the magic it got from the Beast to dupe earth dwellers, getting them to make an image of the Beast that received the deathblow and lived. It was able to animate the image of the Beast so that it talked, and then arrange that anyone not worshiping the Beast would be killed. It forced all people, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to have a mark on the right hand or forehead. Without the mark of the name of the Beast or the number of its name, it was impossible to buy or sell anything."
james , Jan 18 2020 20:28 utc | 17
yeah - mafia tactics as offered by trump /pompeo and etc is exactly what it is... and when Benjamin B. Ferencz calls it what it is, apologists show up to can ferencz @ 7.. so what will persuade you chasmark?? do i need to send a hit man over to your place?
Jay , Jan 18 2020 20:28 utc | 18
It's odd to see Reuters get the name of the Hoover Institution wrong, and also be wrong about the Institution's association with Stanford University. The Institution is on the Stanford campus but has a separate board of directors.

Okay, Reuters is making typically sloppy errors about the name and the amount of control Stanford has over the rightwing "Institute" on its campus. Stanford, the university, has plenty of US military intelligence (and actual black world) ties, but almost no one working at Stanford would think killing Soleimani a good idea. Though plenty of the "thinkers" at The Hoover Institution would.


Right, Pompeo is delusional. Murdering Soleimani will deter no one. Nor of course do the Iranian missile strikes on US bases in Iraq mean the end of Iran's response to the act of war.

nietzsche1510 , Jan 18 2020 20:29 utc | 19
all this rhetoric says the obvious: the USA wants to destroy physically the Near East (Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, etc). either he destroys the whole region or he cannot be reelected or better he gets impeached in the Senate.
Trailer Trash , Jan 18 2020 20:37 utc | 20
I am surprised at how many establishment media have actually labelled this murder as "assassination" instead of the usual euphemisms. I think nearly everyone in the world understands that bragging about international murder completely changes international relations. Except for Pompous and Trumpet, of course.

Everyone will be filing their hair-triggers. There seems to be a general world-wide mobilization but no one is calling it that. It is all "war games" and such. At some point before the 2003 Iraq invasion it was clear to me that the decision for open war had been made. It is now clear to me that there will be an invasion of Iran, starting with Iraq. I think the B-52s sent to the area are for killing Iraqis, since they have no air defense.

At the same time, the US asset bubbles are nearly "priced to perfection". That means they have no where to go except down. Debts that can't be paid won't be paid. All it takes is a break in the chain of payments and the next financial panic is ON! Can Uncle Sam greatly expand his War on the World in the middle of financial chaos? I think he will probably try.

I speculate that Uncle Sam believes Iran and Iraq will simply cower and wait for the next blow. I predict they will not. Soleimani's assassination and the subsequent Iranian attack have not substantially changed the strategic situation, except to tie down the boiler relief valve and turn up the heat. God, if there is one, help us all. We're sure gonna need it.

Ian2 , Jan 18 2020 20:46 utc | 21
Does this idiot Pompeo not realize the door swing both ways? Unless he plans to live his remaining days bunkered in NORAD, he's just as vulnerable as the rest.
Kooshy , Jan 18 2020 20:49 utc | 22

Should have add to my earlier comment (10) , the missile attack on American bases on Iraq was Iran's military/ government response for killing General Soleimani, by no means was the Shia' response since that would need a Fatwa and not necessary by an Iranian cleric or even by Iranian Shia. Is now a religious matter for all believers.
El Cid , Jan 18 2020 20:51 utc | 23
Sooner or later, Saudi Arabia will make peace with Iran. It will improve relations with Russia and China, and will reduce ties with Israel. Soon, Turkey will be completely out of Syria, and Idlib will be entirely liberated. The US, in Iraq, will slowly be drained of vitality with a death of a thousand cuts. Medium range missile production in conjunction with Russian S-300 air defense will will spread throughout the Middle East, and Israel's air force will be neutralized. Then the pipeline from Iran to Syria will be completed.
Willy2 , Jan 18 2020 21:17 utc | 24
- I think that EVERYONE who is involved in the Middle East will think twice before one makes a (provocative) move. Tensions will remain high. But some people may (and will) do (deliberately) something (provocative) that will ratchet up tensions even more. With the intent of ratcheting tensions higher.
- There was someone who said that in 2020 World War III would start. For a long time I thought this person was nuts. But now I am not so sure anymore that this person was nuts.
- There were also people who said that we were "sleepwalking" into WW III, something along the lines of what happened before WW I. These persons were talking about a war between the US (+ NATO) and Russia. But now I think that if a war would break out that then not only Russia but also China and Iran are going to be part of that war. No, I am not sure anymore that this going to end well.

- I also think that everyone haas become (more) cautious. And that an act of A-symmetric warfare has become (more) unlikely.

psychohistorian , Jan 18 2020 21:22 utc | 25
Pompeo is the spokesman for the rules based Western empire mafia don, Trump.

The event is now being turned into a US media event (real time movie making here) by Trump letting out text versions of the backroom chatter around the murder. This will not sit well with the ME, IMO.

What late empire keeps pushing for is some event that can be blown into global support for war escalation....but it hasn't happened, yet

And all this over public/private global control of value sharing in the social human contract....what a way to run a railroad/species......

cirsium , Jan 18 2020 21:26 utc | 26
@William Gruff, 9
"In all cases they have to murder? That is psycho killer talk. Notice how comfortable the American public is with that."

Maybe that's because
"The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer." D H Lawrence

Zee , Jan 18 2020 21:30 utc | 27
The most depressing thing about the assassination's aftermath is that Western Europe's leaders are as bad as America's - "It's the economy, stupid!" So, a threat to their auto manufacturers is a threat to jobs, and one has to consider the next election. They were already controlled thanks to the NSA's eavesdropping on their cell phones, a threat to individual politicians - no need for them to worry about physical elimination, then; Trump threatened via economics their parties' chances of reelection, meaning they have support for knuckling under. China, Russia and Iran are on their own - China was still working on its economic might, Russia was still working on building a strong political foundation, and Iran already has its hands full with internal and external threats. The fence-sitters (India, smaller Asian and African countries) will sit on the sidelines, working to improve their own economies and waiting to see who looks more powerful before joining one side or the other to break down or uphold the international norms and laws it took centuries to build. Tottering as it appears to be, the U.S. looks to be ready to burn the world; its "adversaries" aren't yet strong enough to avoid the flamethrower.
cdvision , Jan 18 2020 21:33 utc | 28
Be careful what you wish for Mr Pompeo, the sword has 2 edges. I don't think turning the other cheek is in the Shia lexicon.
Curtis , Jan 18 2020 21:37 utc | 29
Trailer Trash 20
The only reason I wouldn't be surprised at big media calling Soleimani's murder an "assassination" is how the media politics is played by party. Since the media tends to lean left, they want to be thorns in Trump's side. Neither party is against war; they want to be the instigators to get the glory (while shifting/limiting blame). Amid the media's stories on this were the talking points of Trump going too far by DEMs in congress.
Recall Libya. The GOP criticized Obama for Libya but only because they wanted to be able to say they were the tough guys. The media was oh-so-happy to harp on the Iraq after Bush's destruction of Iraq but very quiet on the aftermath of Libya.
blues , Jan 18 2020 21:39 utc | 30
Maybe I stupidly posted this in the wrong thread?

Trump is simply a third-rate Godfather type gangster, with a touch of the charm and a lot of the baggage. I think his murder of General Qassem Soleimani was not something he would have done if he had any choice. It was a very stupid move, and Trump is just not that stupid. I really think this was demanded by the 'churnitalists'. These churnitalists are probably the psychos of the predatory arm of the CIA, and their billionaire allies.

See, it all works like this:

These churnitalists (who supposedly provide us with 'protection', or 'security') are the real rulers (because everybody who defies them ends up dead). Now just ask your self: How does rulership actually really work? It's really kind of simple. The only actual way to establish rulership over other people is to prove, again and again, that you can force them to do stupid things, for absolutely no reason. This is called 'people-churning', and all you have to do is just keep churning out low-class 'history' by constantly forcing the weaker ones to do stupid things. Again and again. This happens constantly in a churnitalist gangster society. Even in schools and legislatures, and so on. Haven't you noticed it yet?

Ron , Jan 18 2020 21:41 utc | 31
Kali 15

Ten reasons why the US is the Beast of Revelation

james , Jan 18 2020 21:44 utc | 32
@ 24 willy2... i have been talking about war in 2020 for some time based off the astrology..i have mentioned it in passing here at moa a few times in the past couple of years.. see my comments in this skyscript link from june 2015..
ptb , Jan 18 2020 21:58 utc | 33
Not only will it not deter anyone, it is loudly signaling that third rate neocons are the only decision makers left in the room.

You're likely to see more provocations, since it's now such an easy button to push. i.e. for any regional or global powers who need US forces to be diverted for a while. Any bullshit they manage to sell to the young Bolton's in the bureaucracy will do.

While not exactly unprecedented, the change is how much the mask is off now.

Robert Snefjella , Jan 18 2020 22:00 utc | 34
The part of Pompeo's speech quoted by b above is American to the core: every sentence or short paragraph contains at minimum one outright lie; the entire quote selected is also both palpably delusional and stupid.

But having said that, there is something uniquely refreshing about the Trump/Pompeo tag team's capacity for blurting out lies and inanities, and furthermore, they do it with gusto. Guile is not Pompeo's strong suit.

One might say that the criminality of the 'new deterrence' is as American as apple pie, except that apple pie in my experience is innocent of all that, unless I suppose it contains a deadly poison, and is fed to a political or ideological foe.

What is new about the 'new deterrence' that will surely make life far more dangerous for Americans, is that it publicly declares itself as a policy with no bounds, no ethical, or logical, or legal constraints. So what the Americans have been doing for generations, often but not by any means always with 'plausible denial', and sometimes quite brazenly, is now explicitly underlined policy.

Previously, the fight was 'against communism', or 'for democracy', or for 'national security'.

So for example, when Nicaragua during the "Reagan Revolution' was sanctioned, attacked, vilified, subjected to uncounted atrocities, because those dastardly Nicaraguans had replaced their loathsome monster dictator with a government trying to do the right thing for the people, the war against that country was under the rubric of protecting American 'national security', with bits of domino theory and communist hordes concerns thrown in.

So what is the difference between deploying tens of thousands of maniacal murderous 'contras' as 'deterrence' against a small country's attempts at making a decent life for its people, and a drone attack on Soleimani and his companions?

I think one main difference is that the 'world has changed' around the perpetrators, but they are still living the delusions of brainwashed childhood, the wild west, white hat un-self conscious monstrosities riding into town, gonna clean the place up. Pathetic and extremely dangerous.

Kali , Jan 18 2020 22:00 utc | 35
@31 Ron

There are 2 beasts, the first is either America or NATO, or basically "The Empire" or The Neocon Oligarchy--all work well but America is a bit too broad since there are many good people in America. The second beast whose number is 666, is Trump. Search: Trump 666 and be amazed.

And of course The Pièce de résistance

les7 , Jan 18 2020 22:01 utc | 36
Gruff @ 9

So sadly but profoundly true

vk , Jan 18 2020 22:01 utc | 37
There's another logical flaw in Pompeo's argument.

The USA is a nuclear power. If you claim to assassinate other countries' generals as a deterrent, then that signals America's true enemies - Russia and China - that it will vacilate in using its own nuclear deterrent if an American target is to be neutralized. That would bring more, not less, instability to the world order.

But maybe that's the American aim with this: to shake the already existing international order with the objective to try to destroy Eurasia with its massive war machine and, therefore, initiate another cycle of accumulation of American capitalism.

Another potential unintended blowback of Soleimani's assassination lies in the fact that the USA is not officially at war with Iran. Iran was being sanctioned by the UN. That poses a threat in the corners of the American Empire, since it sends a message that the USA doesn't need to be at war with a nation in order to gratuitously attack it; it also sends the message that it is not enough to play by the rules and accept the UN's sanctions - you could still do all of that and submit yourself and still be attacked by the Americans.

The endgame of this is that there's a clear message to the American "allies" (i.e. vassals, provinces): stay in line and obey without questioning, even if that goes directly against your national interests. This will leave the Empire even more unstable at its frontier because, inevitably, there'll come a time where the USA will directly command its vassals/provinces to literally hurt their own economies just to keep the American one afloat (or not sinking too fast). Gramsci's "Law of Hegemony" states that, the more coercion and the less consensus, the more unstable is one's hegemony.

Trailer Trash , Jan 18 2020 22:03 utc | 38
>Tottering as it appears to be, the U.S. looks to be
> ready to burn the world; its "adversaries" aren't yet
> strong enough to avoid the flamethrower.
> Posted by: Zee | Jan 18 2020 21:30 utc | 27

Indeed. But the longer Iran can delay the inevitable, the stronger and better prepared it becomes, while Uncle Sam is busy burning the furniture and getting financially more precarious. US planners seem to think that one can build an economy around poor people giving each other haircuts while rich people keep trading the exact same assets back and forth while steady driving asset prices higher.

Somewhere in the economic cycle someone has to actually make stuff and grow food. But planners have allowed the manufacturing (and associated engineering, etc.) to leave while driving farmers into bankruptcy. They are mortgaged to the hilt. When land prices quit rising, there is no additional collateral and no new credit. With no additional credit, no one will sell them seeds and equipment. So they are out of business. It's scary to think how few people actually grow all the food to feed millions and millions.

Asset bubbles have real consequences, such as millions can not afford rent anymore while millions of housing units remain empty because their value still goes up even without rental income. Scenes from Soylent Green come to mind, thinking about how more and more people are crammed into fewer living quarters.

Our brain-dead leaders have created a situation where they must continue to inflate bubbles to keep increasing collateral to back more debt. But the bubbles impoverish the rest of us. And bubbles always pop. Always.

I'm not sure how much the next financial crisis will affect the US killing machine, but I doubt it would make the war machine stronger.

Trailer Trash , Jan 18 2020 22:08 utc | 39
>The GOP criticized Obama for Libya but only because they
> wanted to be able to say they were the tough guys. The
> media was oh-so-happy to harp on the Iraq after Bush's
> destruction of Iraq but very quiet on the aftermath of Libya.
> Posted by: Curtis | Jan 18 2020 21:37 utc | 29

Yes to this. There is no disagreement in DC on the goals, just fussing over the tactics and who takes credit. Two right wings on the war bird. Maybe that is why it is on a downward spiral.

~~~ , Jan 18 2020 22:08 utc | 40
Via ZH :

Describing that the drone strike took out "two for the price of one" -- in reference to slain Iraqi Shia paramilitary commander Abu Mahdi al-Mohandes, who had been at the airport to greet Soleimani, Trump gave a more detailed accounting than ever before of proceedings in the 'situation room' (which had been set up at Mar-a-Lago) that night.

He went on to recount listening to military officials as they watched the strike from "cameras that are miles in the sky."

"They're together sir," Trump recalled the military officials saying. "Sir, they have two minutes and 11 seconds. No emotion. '2 minutes and 11 seconds to live, sir. They're in the car, they're in an armored vehicle. Sir, they have approximately one minute to live, sir. 30 seconds. 10, 9, 8 ...' "

"Then all of a sudden, boom," he went on. "'They're gone, sir. Cutting off.' "

"I said, where is this guy?" Trump continued. "That was the last I heard from him."

Lurker in the Dark , Jan 18 2020 22:09 utc | 41
b: Usage or typo alert - about 2/3 of the way through your piece.
Reuters makes it seem that the U.S. would not even shy away from killing a Russian or Chinese high officer on a visit in a third country. That is, for now, still out of bounce as China and Russia deter the U.S. from such acts with their own might...

The English language expression is "out of bounds" as in, of course, outside the bounding lines defining a field of play.

E Mo Scel , Jan 18 2020 22:19 utc | 42
"We put together a campaign of diplomatic isolation, economic pressure, and military deterrence."

"diplomatic isolation" - when I read this I thought of the Ukrainian plane and the demand for an "investigation according to international guidelines" (well, Syria got that investigation according to international guidelines with the OPCW and we know how that went) - it may lead to diplomatic isolation. Watch it. As such, Pompeo might have laid out a motive for a potential US involvement.

"economic pressure" - while the E3 did not sanction Iran, with their lack of action in regards to find working mechanisms and their depending on the US, that goal has been achieved.

"military deterrence" - Pompeo thinks in CIA terms which can be seen as a covert weapons trafficking organization (Timber Sycamore) and something like a secret military organization. The murder of Suleimani is a war crime and as such a criminal act; it can hardly be considered a military deterrence - although the murder was carried out by the US military (maybe by CIA embedded in base?).

I don't know. It's a lot of speculation. Iran may have a reason to not state their systems got hacked. But in the current context it may be advisable to do so, turn a potential cyberattack back to its place of origin.

dorje , Jan 18 2020 23:18 utc | 43
Pompeo and Trump have no concept of personal honour as they come from a sub-culture that has none.

In the rest of the world, honour-integrity is very important. Throughout MENA to Pakistan, the US was viewed as treacherous for using Sadaam to fight Iran then turning on him in service of Israel's goals. Bush 2 contributed, through his blatant financial criminality (much of this remains unknown to average Americans), to the perception that the US is incapable of honouring ANY agreement (re:oil and other sub-rosa deals the US made).
The decimation of Syria, Iraq and Libya was not enough; criminal elites in the US have now completely exposed themselves to the Muslim world. I am firmly convinced that the Arab 'street' has concluded the US and Israel are inseparable in their policy of murder and mayhem. I am betting the elites view reconciliation within the Arab and Islamic world as the way forward with input from Russia, China when and if needed. Turning away from US-Israeli meddling and treachery will be a primary concern for the 20's.
I don't believe Pompeo or Trump have the foresight to understand killing Soleimani has sealed how the US is perceived: Indonesia, Malaysia, Muslim India (all 250+million), Afghanistan and Pakistan will accelarate the turning away.
This 'decision' to murder Soleimani will be cited by future non_court historians as seminal. The US murdered the 2nd most important person in Iranian politics. This has to be one of THE STUPIDEST DECISIONS I have seen come out of the Washington, D.C--Tel Aviv--London axis. I really cannot think of any other official action by the US that compares in stupidity. Unofficially, 911 was the stupidest act of the last 2 decades but as for official I believe this takes the cakes.
In essence, screaming to the world that you are a gangster is not a very graceful way to wind down an Empire. Pompeo-Trump-BoBo should have looked at a map. I see a hemisphere that is geographically isolated that has to make a case for why anyone should interact with it. Currently, all they have is the petrodollar system that supports 1, 000 military bases. Problem: they have just given many of the (often unwilling) participants in that system a big reason to leave it. I believe this is referred to as 'suicide'?
Correct me if I'm wrong. I would be happy to be.

Dick , Jan 18 2020 23:25 utc | 44
Anyone who has studied the history of the Third Reich would note a curious similarity between Germany's behaviour under Hitler and the current behaviour of the US both internally and externally. Is it just me, or have other's noted the similarity of Pompeo to Herman Goering in looks and behaviour?
Clueless Joe , Jan 18 2020 23:28 utc | 45
That's one of the good aspect of Trump administration, in the long run. With these psychos openly plagiarizing Grand Moff Tarkin ("Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this battle station."), it will be pretty had for any sane and sensible observer not to come to the conclusion that, deep down, the USA *is* an Evil Empire that has to be fought and brought down - and thankfully, this time, one saner Obama-like presidency, if it ever happens after Trump, won't be enough to change that perception.
Sunny Runny Burger , Jan 18 2020 23:47 utc | 46
I can only guess what Toynbee would think of the US now, it certainly looks like suicide to me and if the US actually had any friends left they would be busy trying to talk the US out of it. From this point of view the relative silence speaks loudly and says something quite different than at least some people think.

US NATO "allies" haven't exactly been enthusiastic. Maybe I'm wrong in thinking the UK came closest with Johnson's "not crying" remark, everything else seems to be tortured statements walking on eggshells. 2nd biggest NATO member Turkey cooperates with Iran and plenty of others in NATO have wanted and worked towards normal relations despite differences, some more publicly than others. It might not have amounted to anything but that's my impression at least.

Any support for war against Iran is microscopic. Against Russia? Except for the rarest of the worst of fools not a chance. Against China? People would have trouble comprehending the question itself due to how absurd the notion is.

ChasMark , Jan 18 2020 23:56 utc | 47
Dick | Jan 18 2020 23:25 utc | 44

"Is it just me" who makes the argument reductio ad Hitlerum?

No, it's you and every other moron who gets his history from teevee and Hollywood.

If the compulsion to resort to WWII analogies is too compelling to overcome, flip the script:

US and Britain 'won' the war in Germany by deliberately firebombing civilian targets, over and over and over and over again.
United States Dept. of Interior records in detail how Standard Oil engineers, USAF, Jewish architects, and Jewish Hollywood studio set designers constructed and practiced creating firestorms with the stated goal of killing working class German civilians, including "infants in cribs."

In a discussion of his book, The Fire, Jörg Friedrich emphasized that Allied bombers dropped leaflets telling the Germans they were about to kill that their only recourse was to overthrow their government -- to topple or kill Hitler: the "greatest generation" killed civilians as "deterrents" to Wehrmacht's defensive actions against Allied invasion.

Since at least 1995 US tactics against Iran have been similar: Ed Royce spelled them out: US will sanction Iranian citizens in an effort to make life so miserable for them that they will riot and overthrow their government.

So yes, it IS "just like the Nazis" -- US-zionists are running a similar playbook as that used to prostrate Germany.
And Iraq.
And Libya.
And Syria.

Notice that wrt Syria, having reduced that ancient place to rubble, much like Allies reduced Germany's cultural heritage to rubble, US 'diplomats' are steadfastly refusing to allow Syria access to resources with which to finance its reconstruction, and are also blocking any other country's attempt to aid Syria in reconstruction: Destroying Syria was 'hi-tech eminent domain,' and now USA intends to be the only entity to finance and rebuild Syria -- or else US will continue the destruction of Syria.

Most Americans think Marshall plan was an act more generous than Jesus Christ on the cross, but in fact it was a cynical strategy to completely dominate Germany in saecula saeculorum. (US LOANED the money, and far more-- about 2.5 X more-- was committed to England -- relatively undamaged -- than to Germany, where 70% of infrastructure was rubble.)
You won't learn that from the Hollywood version of WWII.

Roberto , Jan 18 2020 23:58 utc | 48
the Nuremberg trials:

Was Nuremebrg trial a fair trial? Not, it was not. It was very unfair.

Likklemore , Jan 19 2020 0:10 utc | 49
I recall RT reported on December 31. 19 Trump warned

LINK

"This is not a Warning, it is a Threat," Trump declared in a tweet on Tuesday afternoon, adding that Iran will "pay a very BIG PRICE" for the embassy siege earlier in the day."

They sure did. So who is next?

Yesterday Trump warned the supreme leader of Iran Ayatollah Ali Khameni:

'Be very careful with your words': Trump warns Iran's Khamenei after ayatollah delivers fiery sermon slamming 'American clowns'

US President Donald Trump has warned the supreme leader of Iran to watch his language, following a heated sermon in which Ayatollah Ali Khamenei slammed American leaders as "clowns."
Leading a prayer in Tehran on Friday, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei boasted that Iran had the "spirit to slap an arrogant, aggressive global power" in its retaliation to the assassination of Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani, which he said struck a "serious blow" to Washington's "dignity" – triggering a response from the US president.

"The so-called 'Supreme Leader' of Iran, who has not been so Supreme lately, had some nasty things to say about the United States and Europe," Trump tweeted. "Their economy is crashing, and their people are suffering. He should be very careful with his words!"

In his sermon, Khamenei blasted "American clowns," who he said "lie in utter viciousness that they stand with the Iranian people," referring to recent comments by Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo

How dare he?


Pft , Jan 19 2020 0:28 utc | 50
Lets face it, assassinations are not a new thing. It became more organized with Lord Palmerstons gangs of thugs in the mid 19th century (one of which took out Lincoln) . Since the end of WWII the global mafia jumped across the pond and assassinations have been covert actions arranged by the CIA , with operations having a high degree of plausible deniability. But most higher ups had a pretty good idea who was behind it . Trumps just continued this but like Bush and Obama have made clear its their right to do so against terrorists . Of course the definition of terrorist has become rather broad. Trump recently said he authorized the hit because he said bad things about America. Maybe saying bad things about Trump can get you labelled the same. Watch out for those drones barflies.

So basically the main change is they no longer care about plausible deniability . They are proud to admit it. And nobody seems to care enough to express any outrage. Name any countries leader who has except in muted terms. Europe, Russia, China, etc everyone quiet as a mouse. China so outraged they signed a trade deal giving them nothing. UN? Might as well move it to Cuba , Iran or Venezuela for all the clout it has.

So you know, maybe the deterrence is working. Terrorism works both ways. The world seems terrorized and hardly anyone in the US dares criticize Trumps action without saying the general was evil and deserved it. Its not just drones they fear as financial terrorism (sanctions, denied access to USD) works quite well also (except in Irans case).

ChasMark , Jan 19 2020 0:30 utc | 51
james | Jan 18 2020 20:28 utc | 17

The argument is correct.
(Although the mafia label bespeaks a limited frame of reference and it's inappropriate in any event -- crime families do not have the reach or power of state assassination squads.)

Ferencz does not have the moral standing to make the argument.
It's like granting Ted Bundy credibility for criticizing police brutality.

mcohen , Jan 19 2020 0:30 utc | 52
What a story.
Per/Norway , Jan 19 2020 0:32 utc | 53
Posted by: Kali | Jan 18 2020 22:00 utc | 35

The beast rises from the bottomless pit, it is written in the book you quoted!
How do you suggest a mere mortal and retard like trump does that?
The murcanized xtianity eschatology you have been reading is stupid and in NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM Orthodox(Orthodox=Christian)

"ORTHODOXESCHATOLOGYdotBLOGSPOTdotCOM"
"orthodoxinfoDOTcom"
"preteristarchiveDOTcom"
You will find info that is not xtian but Christian @ those blogs..
The last one is a library with ancient and old texts about Christianity!
If you search "THEOSIS THE TRUE PURPOSE OF HUMAN LIFE" on orthodoxinfo you will also find a book WELL worth reading if you are/want to be Christian.

Per
Russian Orthodox
Norway

"And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them."

Per/Norway , Jan 19 2020 0:36 utc | 54
Kali @35
i messed up and hit post b4 i pasted this..
"'The beast that thou didst see: it was, and it is not; and it is about to come up out of the abyss, and to go away to destruction, and wonder shall those dwelling upon the earth, whose names have not been written upon the scroll of the life from the foundation of the world, beholding the beast that was, and is not, although it is."
Per
Russian Orthodox
Norway
BLP , Jan 19 2020 0:40 utc | 55

several additions if i may:

first speculation. however it happened, "deep state" power or factions now have a jacket
on Trump. he can't disown what happened. Brennan and Stephen Schwarzman are safe.
the Money and the MIC get what they want. Trump's agenda of converting the common good
to corporate profit is acceptable. they can use Trump to defeat Sanders.

it's quite possible American power is unimpressed by the Russia-China alliance which has
just revealed it's limitations. i think this link has already run on this site:
https://ejmagnier.com/2020/01/05/fragmentation-in-the-axis-of-resistance-led-to-soleimanis-death/.

here's a welcome dose of realism from the Holy Russia Neverland to substantiate this view:
https://thesaker.is/battle-of-the-ages-to-stop-eurasian-integration/
3 comments from India by Anaam esp this one: Anaam on January 17, 2020 · at 10:32 am EST/EDT

and lastly this outlier from ibm.com. a new, more powerful battery made from sea water.
charges in 5 min. in California this means electricity off your roof for everything including
your car plus a surplus for export. how soon? doesn't say. oil dependent economies
want to know. and we won't need the "petro" for the petrodollar.
https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2019/12/heavy-metal-free-battery/

Likklemore , Jan 19 2020 0:44 utc | 56
The truth of it is Trump murdered General Soleimani because the general was very effective in defeating ISIS - the U.S. created and funded - terrorists in Syria and Iraq. The neocons were none too pleased.

Release Jan.18 2020 21st centurywire audio Interview with Dr. Mohammad Marandi, Tehran University

America's Miscalculation with Iran

LINK

@ ChasMark 7 - not an ounce of integrity! Trump or Ferencz?

How is it I posted days ago that link to Ferencz's letter to New York Times and not a pips. Are you defending Trump's war crimes as against bringing the Nazis to justice?

How about the U.S. waterboarding and torturing Muslims at Gitmo? 19 years on with NO TRIALS!!! That's OK, right?

karlof1 , Jan 19 2020 0:58 utc | 57
As far as b's premise goes, he's proven it IMO. Looks like the CIA made the next move in Lebanon. IMO, Asia plus Russia & Belarus hold the geoeconomic and geopolitical deterrence cards. The Financial Parasite continues hollowing out what remains of US industry and retail helped along by Trump's Trade War. I presented the fundamental economic info and arguments on the prior threads, so I don't have anything to add.
pretzelattack , Jan 19 2020 1:08 utc | 58
the price of fake freedom is remaining ever vigilant to prevent peace breaking out. trump's as much a warmonger as any of them (which is to say impeachment won't make a bit of difference).
Likklemore , Jan 19 2020 1:27 utc | 59
F. William Engdahl asks,

Unintended Consequences: Did Trump just give the Middle East to China and Russia?

[Before] the US assassination of Soleimani, there were numerous back-channel efforts for détente in the costly wars that have raged across the region since the US-instigated Arab Spring between Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Iran and Iraq. Russia and China have both in different ways been playing a key role in changing the geopolitical tensions. At this juncture the credibility of Washington as any honest partner is effectively zero if not minus.

[.] The US president just tweeted his support for renewed anti-government Iran protests, in Farsi. We are clearly in for some very nasty trouble in the Middle East as Washington tries to deal with the unintended consequences of its recent Middle East actions.[.]

Run home as fast as you can. In this election year, an observation; 10% of companies are losing money but thanks to the Feds, the Markets are making ATH ...all time highs. On main street Joe and Jane are in a well of hurt "it's the economy, stupid."

Copeland , Jan 19 2020 1:28 utc | 60
There is nothing ambiguous about Pompeo's statement. It is evidence of a profound psychotic break. It is a megalomaniac delusion of godlike power, a deterance not attainable on a human scale. "In all cases, we have to do this."

The masters of the universe will kill those who do not comply. The projection of their psychic power to intimidate the world goes well beyond Iraq and Iran, brushing aside all the little insubstantial nations that are constantly underfoot. Russia and China are to take heed now, it is they too who must sleep with one eye open. The deterrence necessary to keep us all safe means to go ahead and challenge those islands China built in the South China Sea.

The smiling villains do not accept that Crimea is part of Russia. Pompeo compares Soleimani to bin Laden. There are so many departures from reality in the speech amidst all the levity that it seems like someone has opened the doors of the Asylum.

ChasMark , Jan 19 2020 1:50 utc | 61
Likklemore | Jan 19 2020 0:44 utc | 56

Your retorts don't make sense relative to anything I've posted.

"not an ounce of integrity! Trump or Ferencz?"
Neither.

"How is it I posted days ago that link to Ferencz's letter to New York Times and not a pips."

U can't fool all of the people all of the time. I wasn't fooled by Ferencz's claim to righteousness based on Harvard when his Nuremberg activities were outrageous and the Nuremberg set-up itself was that of a kangaroo court.

"Are you defending Trump's war crimes as against bringing the Nazis to justice?"

Trump's war crimes are indefensible; the Nuremberg trials were not about "bringing Nazis to justice," they involved, as Rabbi Wise said, a largely Jewish exercise in revenge. If Nuremberg were about "justice," Wise himself would have been in the dock along with FDR (post mortem), Churchill, Stalin, and Truman + + +
If Congress were just, it would be impeaching Trump, Pompeo, Pence etc. for war crimes.

But that does not make the Nuremberg trials the model of justice: they were not: as Rabbi Stephen Wise wrote to his family, months before the trials began, they were set up by FDR's man Robert Jackson as a

" broad departure from Anglo-Saxon legal tradition. [in which]
Retroactively "aggressive war-making" becomes criminally punishable–with membership in the Gestapo prima facie proof of criminal participation."

Ferencz's co-ethnics participated in the creation of the kangaroo court that Ferencz himself utilized more to vent his spleen than to establish international models of justice.

That is why the so-called Nuremberg principles have not and cannot be properly applied to the war crimes committed by Bush (I and II), by Clinton (Bill & Hill), Obama, Trump -- not to mention FDR, Truman & Churchill.

Further, as Ferencz surely realizes, "The United Nations Charter, the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice in The Hague" are toothless: if they were effective bodies for meting justice, even the sanctions on Iran would be subject to judgment under United Nations Charter, along with Victoria Kagan Nuland's subversion of Ukraine and every other 'color revolution' US has engaged in: the UN Charter proscribes interference in the internal affairs of member states.

ak74 , Jan 19 2020 2:13 utc | 62
In the Orwellian value system of America, Mike Pompeo's idea of "deterrence" is really NewSpeak for America's brazen war crimes, wars of aggression, and shredding of international law.

America is a mafia nation masquerading as a democracy.

And Donald Trump is a two-bit New York mafioso don in charge of this America Mafia state.

JC , Jan 19 2020 2:29 utc | 63
@El Cid 23

Hey you missed out Israel - "will be completely out of Palestine and return Golan Height to Syria"

Wishfool thinking !

james , Jan 19 2020 2:31 utc | 64
@51 chasmark.... thanks.. got it.. i don't much much of anything about the man..
Dr. George W Oprisko , Jan 19 2020 2:46 utc | 65
To ChasMark........

You are a CIA/NSA TROLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You condone pre-meditated MURDER!!!

So.........

You won't mind............ will you.............

IF someone chooses to put a hellfire missile up your ASS!!

INDY

Idland , Jan 19 2020 3:01 utc | 66
Just monitor any of Pompeo's HD presentations. Look for blink rate and eye micro movements, (saccades).Real evidence of lizard brain psycopathy.
Circe , Jan 19 2020 3:03 utc | 67
Trump recounts minute by minute details of Soleimani assassination at a fundraiser held at his Florida resort. Cause that's what normal people do; brag about murdering someone. I'll bet his fat cat Zionist friends emptied their coffers. SICK.

trump-brags-killed-2-for-price-of-1

Jackrabbit , Jan 19 2020 3:09 utc | 68
ak74 @62: Mike Pompeo's idea of "deterrence" is really NewSpeak ...

Exactly. And we might add:

"America First" means America is the Empire's Fist;

"Stand with the people of " is 'New World Order' psyop;

"Economic sanctions" is the economic part of hybrid warfare;

"War on terror" is the war on ALL enemies of the empire via terrorist destabilization;

"Russiagate" is McCarthyist war on dissent;

"Trump" is the latest dear leader whose flaws are blessings and whose 'gut instinct' is God's will. We know this because his fake enemies (like the Democrats, "fake news", and ISIS) always fail when they confront him.


!!
V , Jan 19 2020 3:12 utc | 69 Dr. George W Oprisko | Jan 19 2020 2:46 utc | 65
You are a CIA/NSA TROLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You condone pre-meditated MURDER!!!

Are you sure you actually read Chasmark @ 61?
Nowhere does he; You condone pre-meditated MURDER!!!
What Chasmark did, was to post the truth of the Nuremberg Trials.
They were an out and out sham...
You definitely need to up your reading comprehension and or, your knowledge of history...

ben , Jan 19 2020 3:22 utc | 70
And the other countries of the world whine, but do nothing. I'm afraid they've become as shallow and self-absorbed as most Americans, afraid to confront the world's bully.

Torches and pitchforks are needed, and we get marches. I'm afraid the depravity has to get worse before direct action is taken.

I only hope to live long enough to see the debacle that is inevitable, even if takes me with it.

Justice and truth demand a reckoning..

Sounds dark, I know, but these are very dark days.

Likklemore , Jan 19 2020 3:26 utc | 71
@ ChasMark 61 in reply to mine @ 56

Among some of very good points you made, I take issue:

"Your retorts don't make sense relative to anything I've posted."

Perhaps you should re-read my comment vs what you posited. Look to Gitmo; is it any different to your critique of Nuremberg where there was a trial, albeit with deficiencies, vs holding and torturing prisoners over 18 years without a trial? that was my point.

You continue to offer up Rabbi Wise who proffered the Nuremberg trials were [.] "a largely Jewish exercise in revenge"

I may add, they are also continuing to take out their revenge on Palestinians who had nothing to do with events in Germany. The once oppressed have become oppressors.

If Congress were just, it would be impeaching Trump, Pompeo, Pence etc. for war crimes.

Don't expect justice from Congress they are all too busy at the money trough to recognize war crimes.
War crimes are prosecuted by the ICC which the US and Israel do not recognize. US is not a state party; have threatened, denied visas and barred entry to ICC investigators of war crimes

Further, as Ferencz surely realizes, "The United Nations Charter, the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice in The Hague" are toothless:

Toothless! Perhaps but
Don't tell that to Africans or Slobodan Milosevic while ELITES residing on that sliver of the "occupied lands of Palestine" continue to roam free. Oh wait, they are the chosen ones who rule the world!

ben , Jan 19 2020 3:31 utc | 72
@71 said in part; "The once oppressed have become oppressors."

A succinct description of the Israelis..

fundas , Jan 19 2020 3:39 utc | 73
Pompeo's speech may just be an attempt to reduce the cost of a future false flag assassination that could be blamed on one of the enemies. If the enemy does what we do, no need for an all out war. There will be a range of response options including just firing a few missiles. Cost of war with the chosen enemy may be too high or the timing just not right.
snake , Jan 19 2020 3:41 utc | 74
William Gruff @ 9 Expressions of <=reality-disconnected human behavior=> describes victim response to rules, enforcement behaviors and media products that bathe the differentiation space that allows to produce human automatons. An examination of the forces at work inside of the nation state container (differentiation space) will likely reveal private and external forces that produce in these public containers, reality-disconnected human responders (human behavior is a function of its environment; all learning is a result of personal experience). No one can learn from another, but everyone can learn from the behaviors of that other.

The physical environment is nature's doing, but the non physical environment is man's doing. We can organize content as a product of the physical environment ( we build a home) or as a product of the virtual environment (we produce a movie).

Conscious physical man is a highly differentiated product of both environments. A person growing up in the jungles of Belize, will not learn to operate a sled designed to operate in snow, and a person in the cold north will not learn to survive in the topical jungles of the Amazon. Experience is the only teacher, human expression is the experience modified product of sets of expressed genes. Experience in both the physical environment and the virtual environment contribute to the human response to the challenges of life. The virtual environment is about knowledge, habit, privilege, opportunity and a host of other non physical components. see Law, Moral attitudes, and behavioral change, p. 243 ref and to be clear behavior has three components. ref 7

What is this virtual space (environment) that allows differentiated humans to be manufactured from genetic material in to adult automatons. How are these automatons programmed? Since is it rarely possible to modify the physical space; most human differentiation occurs in virtual space. How many such digital spaces are there? virtual content means<= the verbal and non verbal (ref.12) discourse that engages interactively with the mind (conscious and unconsciousness). Environments can be natural or manufactured. Environment then is the container space. The contents of the manufactured environment are psycho-econo-socio-metically designed, media engineered, sets of media products. Each nation state supports a different set of contents within its container space. The order, arrangement and time of environments presented controls the mental behaviors of the media connected humans who reside within the container space environment.

The content of each nation state in the system is a set of environment variables operative in each human container. Two hundred and six different container spaces (the global nation state system=NSS) divides and separates the 8 billion humans in the world. Human differentiation is a product of the 206 different container environments. Your observation that "Pompeo is a psycho"; expresses the real problem for humanity; its leaders are the products of the physical and virtual content of the host nation state within the system of nation states. Each nation state is led by a few. I say to solve this always war condition it is necessary to control the humans that occupy the positions in the nation states or to eliminate the nation state system, and find some better way to address human need for governance.


1. VR empathy
2. self regulation in response to?
3. developing ideas into simulated experiences
4. regulated behavior
5. modify behavior
6. understanding conditions where regulation succeeds or fails to change underlying attitudes.
7. behavior has three components
8. drivers of behavior
9. basic-behavior-components/
10. learning to respond appropriately
11. genetic variables impacting responsive behavior
12. Communication is actually a constant flow of nonverbal and verbal details

The container space supports 24/7 digital presentations. humans animate the human containers, and the human containers constitution the nation states.

Pompeo is a victim of nation state programming, the question is, which nation state programmed him?

Jackrabbit , Jan 19 2020 3:45 utc | 75
That strike, which was only the first part of Iran's response to the murdering of Soleimani, deterred the U.S. from further action.

Is USA really 'deterred' or just didn't want war at this time? USA is 'deterred' if the Iranian response actually stopped them in some way.

But they took Iran's 'slap' and RESPONDED (though not militarily) with more sanctions and even tried to turn the attack to their advantage by saying (initially) that Iran missed on purpose ( as I explained here ) and conducting Electronic Warfare/Info War that may have contributed to Iran's mistaken downing of a commercial airliner.

And, as bar patrons know only too well, Pompeo has refused to negotiate a USA exit from Iraq, saying that "USA is a force for good in the Middle East".

IMO USA wants to put on UN sanctions (now in progress) and, when war comes, USA will portray it as entirely Iran's fault. The claim will be that Iran is "lashing out" due to "sanctions imposed by the world community" .

!!

tjfxh , Jan 19 2020 3:54 utc | 76
Why does anyone gives either the president or US officials credence regarding what they say, especially Secretary Pompeo, not to mention POTUS? Taking Pompeo at this word and responding to it strikes me as a waste of time. These people are never going to say publicly what they are up to, which is world domination. Nor is it their own ideal. This has been the policy of the US elite at least since WWII, which was simply a transfer of the seat of power from London to Washington as the British Empire morphed into the Anglo-American Empire. Global domination through sea power was British policy for centuries and the US just recently joining the game, especially when the game expanded to air power as well. Arguably, this goes back to the end of WWI, if not the Spanish-American war that embarked the US on empire.
Idland , Jan 19 2020 4:00 utc | 77
Anybody know what's up with Andrew Peek getting sacked from the NSC Russia desk tonight?
Peter AU1 , Jan 19 2020 4:39 utc | 78
Deterrence, I guess is the politically correct term for what Trump is doing.
He sees that the Dollar hegemonic empire was crumbling same as most who don't rely on MSM for their news.
Trump believes US can hold its position in the world through pure military power, or the threat of military power.
He wants to regain what he calls importance from early 90s when US was sole undisputed superpower.
Iran though, he believes is a blot on USA's past that needs erasing.
Throughout the election campaign, Trump's big thing was rebuilding US military. He believes this will restore US power in the world. Ruling through the world fear rather than soft power and blackmail.
juliania , Jan 19 2020 4:54 utc | 79
Well said, dorje @ 43. That is how it is.

Today is Theophany in the Orthodox Christian Church, the baptism of Christ in the River Jordan:

Today Thou hast appeared to the universe
and Thy light, O Lord, hast shone on us,
who with understanding praise Thee:
Thou hast come and revealed Thyself
O Light Unapproachable!

Biloximarxkelly , Jan 19 2020 5:03 utc | 80
The 2000 page report about Afganistan sums up USA's criminal insanity. Further, Trump says the response attack from Iran did not harm troops nor do anything of significant damage. Indeed Iran's missiles are far superior than the USA's and the counter attack for the General's assassination. I have mused, that, perhaps the USA was/is set up in this scenario via Iran, Et Al.
ak74 , Jan 19 2020 5:09 utc | 81
The basis of the American Empire and its parasitic economy and Way of Life(TM) itself are premised on what should be called America's Dollar Dictatorship.

Because of the US Dollar, America is able to wage economic siege warfare (aka economic sanctions) on multiple nations around the planet--all in order to impose the Land of the Free's imperial dictates on them.

This is American global gangsterism in everything but name--and disguised behind the founding American deceptions of "Freedom and Democracy."

The vast majority Americans--including some fake "alternative media" shills--will attempt to spindoctor this issue by avoiding such blunt description of this system.

Instead, they prefer to employ Orwellian euphemisms about the "US PetroDollar" or the "US Dollar Reserve Currency" or how America's superpower status is dependent on this dollar syistem.

But former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accurately calls out this system for what it is: America's global dictatorship of the Dollar.

This is another reason why America has such hatred for Iran:

Dollar dictatorship the foundation of American empire - Iran's Ahmadinejad
https://www.rt.com/business/435310-dollar-us-empire-reorder-ahmadinejad/

America Escalates its "Democratic" Oil War in the Near East
https://michael-hudson.com/2020/01/america-escalates-its-democratic-oil-war-in-the-near-east/

Mike Javaras , Jan 19 2020 5:13 utc | 82
Best explanation I've seen yet of the 752 jet takedown. It was a false flag attack by the US or its allies intended to frame Iran. The Iranian missile hit second after the plane had already been hit by the Stinger and was several seconds from crashing anyway. The rich kids of Tehran were in the housing complex at 6 AM to film the Stinger shootdown by their terrorist buddies. They have properly been arrested. There have been other arrests too. I wonder what they will come up with.

This makes more sense than any other theory I have seen.

https://beyondhighbrow.com/2020/01/18/false-flag-flight-752-in-iran-was-shot-down-by-us-allies-with-a-stinger-missile-not-by-an-iranian-missile/

Likklemore , Jan 19 2020 5:20 utc | 83
@ Peter AU1 78

Tom Luongo, who frequently cites b, has coined a new word for Trump's and his minions tactics. Tom asks:

Does Gangsternomics Meet its End in the Iraqi Desert?

In the aftermath of the killing of Iranian IRGC General Qassem Soleimani a lot of questions hung in the air. The big one was, in my mind, "Why now?"

There are a lot of angles to answer that question. Many of them were supplied by caretaker Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi who tried to let the world know through official (and unofficial) channels of the extent of the pressure he was under by the U.S.

In short, President Trump was engaged in months of what can best be described as gangsternomics in directing the course of Iraq's future economic and political development.[/]

Iraq's importance goes much farther than just protecting the petrodollar to the U.S. It is the fulcrum now on which the entire U.S. defense against Eurasian integration rests. The entire region is slipping out of the grasp of the U.S.


And this started with Russia moving into Syria in 2015 successfully. We are downstream of this as it has blown open the playbook and revealed it for how ugly it is.

Trump's crude gangster tactics in Iraq, Venezuela, Bolivia and to a lesser extent in Syria cannot be hidden behind the false veil of moral preening and virtue signaling about bringing democracy to these benighted places.[/]

What began in Syria with Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and China standing up together and saying, "No," continues today in Iraq. To this point Iran has been the major actor. Tomorrow it will be Russia, China and India.

And that is what is ultimately at stake here, the ability of the U.S. to employ gangsternomics in the Middle East and make it stick.[.]

By the time Trump is done threatening people over S-400's and pipelines the entire world will be happy to trade in yuan and/or rubles rather than dollars.[.]


full article here

Patroklos , Jan 19 2020 5:40 utc | 84
"...deterrence to protect America."

Pompeo omitted a crucial part of this sentence: "deterrence to protect [the financial and energy hegemony of] America".

While this might be obvious to us, the narrative that US foreign policy is about protecting citizens, values and apple pie from 'bad guys' -- and indeed that the militaries of all Western countries are benign police forces preventing ISIS from burning your old Eagles albums and other violations of 'freedom' -- is such a regular part of the MSM/cinema diet masticated by the general public that we have completely forgotten that the basic function of the armed forces is the pursuit of vested interests through superior violence. It always seemed strange to me that the post-ww2 cinematic template for war-movies, and by extension the basic plot of all reporting of western military activity in the media, always represented the enemy as evil precisely because they use militaries in an instrumental way (i.e for the purpose they were designed). The Germans, or for that matter the Persians in 300 , or any baddies in war films, seek to extend and protect their interests (real or imagined) by deploying armed forces. The good guys are always identifiable through this idea of 'deterrence': "hey man, all we want is just to live and let live, but you pushed us so we pushed back." Then one stirs in a little 'preemptive deterrence': you looked like you were going to push so we acted. If we 'accidentally' go too far, it's because there is a deranged C-in-C: Hitler, or Xerxes, or some other naughty boy who can be the fall-guy, scapegoat, etc. To get serious we need to go back a very long way, to, say, the Iliad , which, like all Greek (and Roman) literature, assumes as a premise (and it's tragedy) that the warrior's basic function is to kill, pillage, rape and occasionally protect others from the same. But mostly take by force . No qualms or BS 'deterrence', armies are for taking other people's stuff by force (land-grabs, etc). I would respect Pompeo a whole lot more (but not much more...) if he just once came out and said: "Iran is run by people who don't want us to take their stuff; we want to undermine them and replace them with paid yes-men who will let us take Iran's stuff. We will use violence and armed force to make this happen. But we have no intention of distributing this loot evenly among our citizens. Instead it will be paid as dividends to select shareholders and spent retooling the military for next poor bastards who stand up to us."

Just once.

hopehely , Jan 19 2020 6:00 utc | 85
Patroklos 84
Xerxes wanted water from Spartans, Hitler wanted land from "subhumans", but I don't see what kind of stuff Americans want from Iranians. When they had Iran under control during Pahlavi rule, what stuff did they take from Iran? They were giving Iran lots of money - didn't give them USD printing press machine too?
Jackrabbit , Jan 19 2020 6:00 utc | 86
Mike Javaras @82: The Iranian missile hit second after the plane had already been hit by the Stinger ...

MANPADs like Stingers are heat-seeking. They go after ENGINES. On a big plane like PS732, a MANPADs is unlikely to have stopped the transponder and communications.

Philip Giraldi points a finger at US/Israeli Electronic Warfare:

Who Targeted Ukraine Airlines Flight 752?
Iran Shot It Down But There May Be More to the Story

Giraldi thinks the transponder was hacked. But the article he cites also talks about a device on board that would've allowed for EW. And he notes that Israel probably ALSO has the capability to have been responsible for the EW and/or device on board.

!!

Biloximarxkelly , Jan 19 2020 6:01 utc | 87
All sentinent beings are working on the evolution of our planet & humanity. Problem is the very worst of our species are incurably criminally insane.

Love your blog MOA

Peter AU1 , Jan 19 2020 6:05 utc | 88
Likklemore 83

Thanks. Gangsternomics seems a good term for Trump's vision of US world power. Trump is pragmatic or realist in that he knows there is no court or authority to hold the US to account.
As to US holding power purely through military power, that can only happen long term if he gets hold of a good chunk of the worlds energy reserves (as in Persian gulf and Venezuela oil). If he doesn't achieve that, then the US goes down. Iran needs to ensure it stays under Russia's nuclear umbrella as there are no rules.

V , Jan 19 2020 6:21 utc | 89
MOSCOW – Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated there is unverified information that at least six American F-35 jets were in the Iranian border area at the time when Tehran accidentally downed Ukraine International Airlines flight PS752 last week.

www.fortruss.com

krollchem , Jan 19 2020 6:27 utc | 90
Sickening series of Trump interviews and speeches demanding that Iraq pay America and its allies over a trillion dollars for liberating Iraq (time stamp 8:20 to 12:00).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWZfDJerI0o

This demonstrates that US attacks in Iraq over the last 30-40 years was mostly about the control (including transportation routes) and than profiting from its oil and gas reserves.

A secondary reason is to put troop on the border with Iran to further destabilize it via state terrorism to overthrow the government and then take its oil and gas too.

It will get interesting when a pro Iranian new Prime minister takes office and China offers Iraq a line of credit equivalent to the funds that would be frozen in Western bank accounts if Iraq actually demands the troops to leave.

"The Iran-linked Binaa parliamentary voting bloc has nominated Asaad al-Edani, a former minister and governor of oil-rich Basra province. Binaa's bloc is mostly made up of the Fatah party led by militia leader turned politician Hadi al-Ameri, who is close to Tehran."

The Kurdish President of Iraq has stated that "Out of an eagerness to spare blood and preserve civil peace, I apologize for not naming Edani prime minister," the letter continued. "I am ready to submit my resignation to parliament."
https://time.com/5755588/iraq-president-resignation/

Currently, the rival Sairoon bloc, headed by populist Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, said it would not participate in the process of nominating a new premier."
https://www.ft.com/content/50f09fe4-27f4-11ea-9a4f-963f0ec7e134

However, "Iraqi Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr demanded that Iraqis stage a "million-man march" against the continued US military presence in the country"
https://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13981025000319

I close with a visionary French rock opera Starmania "story of an alternate reality where a fascist millionaire (read Trump) famous for building skyscrapers is running for president on an anti-immigration policy, and where the poor are getting more and more desperate for their voices to be heard."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78LytR-6Xmk


Patroklos , Jan 19 2020 6:39 utc | 91
@hopehely | Jan 19 2020 6:00 utc | 85

Xerxes wanted water from Spartans, Hitler wanted land from "subhumans", but I don't see what kind of stuff Americans want from Iranians. When they had Iran under control during Pahlavi rule, what stuff did they take from Iran? They were giving Iran lots of money - didn't give them USD printing press machine too?

Assuming that your post was serious...

1. Water from the Spartans? That makes absolutely no sense as a glance at any historical map of the Achaemenid Empire will show;
2. Lebensraum was indeed a specific war aim of Hitler;
3. Under the Shah Anglo-American (not mention Dutch, French and other) interests skimmed all Iranian energy resources, kept the USSR under pressure on the southern coast of the Caspian Sea and provided a key friendly power in the most important region of central Asia. Petro-dollar supremacy could not have been established without control of the Persian Gulf. The Persian elite were given wonderful opportunities while the rest... well we know what the rest get.

psychohistorian , Jan 19 2020 6:47 utc | 92
@ krollchem #90 with the Starmania link that is not working

I get the following error from Oregon, USA
"
Video unavailable
This video contains content from WMG, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.
"

Thanks for the rest of the comment and agree with the sickness of demanding Iraq pay for being invaded.

When will all this idiocy end? Soon I hope.

hopehely , Jan 19 2020 7:08 utc | 93
Posted by: Patroklos | Jan 19 2020 6:39 utc | 91

1. Water from the Spartans? That makes absolutely no sense as a glance at any historical map of the Achaemenid Empire will show;

That was in the movie 300. I guess you did not watch it. :-)

The Persian elite were given wonderful opportunities while the rest... well we know what the rest get.

Not just the elite. Persian middle class was pretty well off too. Spending vacation in Europe was easy, quite affordable. Not any more. I know I know, those dang sanctions... well that is what you get when you piss off the big dawg.

uncle tungsten , Jan 19 2020 7:20 utc | 94
Idland #77
Anybody know what's up with Andrew Peek getting sacked from the NSC Russia desk tonight?

Odd that, and he seemed like such a trustworthy chap as indicated in his twitter feed.
Perhaps he has some Ciaramella connections that would make Trump uncomfortable. Or Trump is taking absolutely no more chances with any insider he has no control over when attending high level meetings.

Patroklos , Jan 19 2020 7:34 utc | 95
@ hopehely 93

Are you talking about 'earth and water' ? The symbolic gesture of submission to the Great King? That's a very different thing altogether. You make it sound like 'water rights'... I did indeed watch the film I'm sad to say, but Xerxes was not after water.

I'd like to know what proportion of the pre-1979 population of Iran qualified as 'middle-class' and what that meant in real terms. Outside of Tehran, Shiraz, etc there probably weren't a lot of Iranians skiing in St Moritz.

Richard , Jan 19 2020 7:35 utc | 96
There are certain signs that nations exhibit when they slide into becoming 'regimes'...targeted, illegal assassinations of opponents is one of these; America's recent political trajectory has been from oligarchy to kakistocracy and now, it seems, to regime - banana republic next, perhaps?...

https://richardhennerley.com/2020/01/14/welcome-to-the-american-regime/

arata , Jan 19 2020 8:22 utc | 97
Soleimani had delivered an speech on 2 August 2018 in Hamadan, in his speech he read 5 verses poems from Rumi the famous Persian poet lived on 13 century. You can watch and listen minute 35:45 of the film , if you know Farsi. He said let enemy pay attention to these poems.

He has selected 5 verses from two locations from Book3 of Masnavi.

How the lover, impelled by love, said "I don't care" to the person who counseled and scolded him.

Verse 3833 : Do not thou threaten me with being killed // For I thirst lamentably for mine own blood.

V-3838 : If that One of friendly countenance shed my blood, // dancing (in triumph) I will strew (lavish) my soul (life) upon Him.

Story of those who ate the young elephant from greed and because they neglected the advice of the sincere counselor.

V-96 : Men dance and whirl on the battle-field // They dance in their own blood.

V-97 : They clap a hand when they are freed from the hand of ego // They make a dance when they jump out from their own imperfection,

V-98: The inner musicians strike the tambourine // The Oceans burst into foam from their ecstasy

I think Soleimani selected last 3 verses from this story of baby elephant killer, and revenge of the mother elephant, without intending the content of story. But the coincidence is striking.

psychedelicatessen , Jan 19 2020 9:14 utc | 98
Peter AU1 @78

No fault in your reasoning, particularly when expressing this from Trump's point of view. I'd go a bit further and suggest he understands Iran, North Korea and Cuba are the only remaining nations without a Rothschild central bank. Thinking he's successfully rebuilt the U.S. military could be the single most critical failure of his presidency. Upgrading hardware with a tactical nuclear weapon preference, isn't synonymous with rebuilding. What's neglected are the people operating any apparatus. As an example, there is no timely military action to counter mining of the Strait of Hormuz as illustrated by Death and Neglect in the 7th Fleet . A firsthand account from a U.S. Naval officer is eye opening (emphasis mine).

He'd seen his ship, one of the Navy's fleet of 11 minesweepers, sidelined by repairs and maintenance for more than 20 months. Once the ship, based in Japan, returned to action, its crew was only able to conduct its most essential training -- how to identify and defuse underwater mines -- for fewer than 10 days the entire next year . During those training missions, the officer said, the crew found it hard to trust the ship's faulty navigation system: It ran on Windows 2000.

Sonar which identifies dishwashers, crab traps and cars as possible mines, can hardly be considered a rebuilt military. The Navy's eleven minesweepers built more than 25 years ago, have had their decommissioning continually delayed because no replacement plan was implemented. I'll await the deeper understanding of 'deterrence' from b, even as I consider willingness to commit and brag about war crimes as beyond the point of no return.
Peter AU1 , Jan 19 2020 9:32 utc | 99
psychedelicatessen "Thinking he's successfully rebuilt the U.S. military could be the single most critical failure of his presidency."

I would be in agreement on the overall gist of your reply, but on Trump thinking he's successfully rebuilt the US military, I'm not so sure. He is a pragmatic gangster when it comes to world affairs which is why his Nuclear Posture Review lowered the threshold of first use of nukes. b's previous post on 'How Trump rebelled against the generals' also fits in with this line of thought.
I believe Trump needs to be thought of as a CEO brought in to pull a company back from the edge of bankruptcy. I think that is the way he sees himself, and as I have put in previous comments, there are no rules. I had thought Trump may be adverse to pure terrorism but depending on what comes of the Ukie airliner shootdown in Iran, there may be absolutely no rules as far as Trump is concerned.

ADKC , Jan 19 2020 9:33 utc | 100
Jackrabbit @86

The article linked by Mike Jarvis @86 makes observational comments about the behavior of the first missile strike in PS752 and that it must have been a stinger/manpad (and not a Tor). The same article also concludes that EW must also have been involved. Everything I have read indicates that the first missile strike behaved like a stinger/manpad - until this can be disproved it must remain a valid theory.

[Jan 19, 2020] Pompeo idea of deterence means "deterrence to protect [the financial and energy hegemony of] America".

Notable quotes:
"... Pompeo omitted a crucial part of this sentence: "deterrence to protect [the financial and energy hegemony of] America". ..."
"... a regular part of the MSM/cinema diet masticated by the general public that we have completely forgotten that the basic function of the armed forces is the pursuit of vested interests through superior violence. ..."
"... No qualms or BS 'deterrence', armies are for taking other people's stuff by force (land-grabs, etc). I would respect Pompeo a whole lot more (but not much more...) if he just once came out and said: "Iran is run by people who don't want us to take their stuff; we want to undermine them and replace them with paid yes-men who will let us take Iran's stuff. We will use violence and armed force to make this happen. ..."
"... But we have no intention of distributing this loot evenly among our citizens. Instead it will be paid as dividends to select shareholders and spent retooling the military for next poor bastards who stand up to us." ..."
Jan 19, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Patroklos , Jan 19 2020 5:40 utc | 84

"...deterrence to protect America."

Pompeo omitted a crucial part of this sentence: "deterrence to protect [the financial and energy hegemony of] America".

While this might be obvious to us, the narrative that US foreign policy is about protecting citizens, values and apple pie from 'bad guys' -- and indeed that the militaries of all Western countries are benign police forces preventing ISIS from burning your old Eagles albums and other violations of 'freedom' -- is such a regular part of the MSM/cinema diet masticated by the general public that we have completely forgotten that the basic function of the armed forces is the pursuit of vested interests through superior violence.

It always seemed strange to me that the post-ww2 cinematic template for war-movies, and by extension the basic plot of all reporting of western military activity in the media, always represented the enemy as evil precisely because they use militaries in an instrumental way (i.e for the purpose they were designed). The Germans, or for that matter the Persians in 300 , or any baddies in war films, seek to extend and protect their interests (real or imagined) by deploying armed forces.

The good guys are always identifiable through this idea of 'deterrence': "hey man, all we want is just to live and let live, but you pushed us so we pushed back." Then one stirs in a little 'preemptive deterrence': you looked like you were going to push so we acted. If we 'accidentally' go too far, it's because there is a deranged C-in-C: Hitler, or Xerxes, or some other naughty boy who can be the fall-guy, scapegoat, etc.

To get serious we need to go back a very long way, to, say, the Iliad , which, like all Greek (and Roman) literature, assumes as a premise (and it's tragedy) that the warrior's basic function is to kill, pillage, rape and occasionally protect others from the same. But mostly take by force .

No qualms or BS 'deterrence', armies are for taking other people's stuff by force (land-grabs, etc). I would respect Pompeo a whole lot more (but not much more...) if he just once came out and said: "Iran is run by people who don't want us to take their stuff; we want to undermine them and replace them with paid yes-men who will let us take Iran's stuff. We will use violence and armed force to make this happen.

But we have no intention of distributing this loot evenly among our citizens. Instead it will be paid as dividends to select shareholders and spent retooling the military for next poor bastards who stand up to us."

Just once.

[Jan 19, 2020] The USA is in the middle east and is fighting a war with Iran due to three factors: Full Spectrum Dominance, oil, and Isreal

Jan 19, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

TheSnark • a day ago

The general gist of this article is on target, but I feel some of the details are off.

First off, Iran does want to be a region hegemon, they have wanted that for 5,000 years. But they only succeeded, and then only temporarily, when the opposition was weak. Today they are opposed by Israel, which is far stronger them Iran militarily, and by the Saudis, who are far richer. Those two can contain Iran by themselves with little US support.

Secondly, Iran getting nuclear weapons is a problem. If they do, next will be the Turks and Saudis, then the Egyptians and then who know who else. Having several nuclear powers in an unstable part of the world is a bad thing in general, and when (not if, but when) one of those state collapses like Iran did in 1979 or the USSR did in 1989, the risk of loose nukes floating around is far too real. Better nobody has them (I am not a particular friend or foe of Israel, but I trust them more than the Arab states on this score).

But our aggressive policy and troop deployments give the Iranians every incentive to build nukes. Their previous incentive was to counter Saddam Hussien's Iraq, but we graciously eliminated threat. But then we provided them with our own incentive to nuclearize. Very dumb.

Clyde Schechter TheSnark • a day ago
I don't fully agree that Iran having nuclear weapons would be a problem for us. To the extent that any country's having them is a problem, sure. But Iran lacks the means to deliver such a weapon to US territory, and their regime, which has, for better or for worse, been rather stable over 40 years, has, notwithstanding aggressive rhetoric, been pragmatic: they know the awful consequences that would come from unleashing a nuclear attack on us. They wouldn't even think of it. Even attacking Israel, something within their capabilities, would certainly unleash nuclear retaliation and mutually assured destruction. The mullahs are not into that.

I think that nuclear non-proliferation became a dead letter when Pakistan and India acquired nuclear weapons and the world shrugged. Pakistan has one of the least stable governments around, having frequent coups, an intelligence service brimming with religious and ideological fanatics, and a history of repeated wars with neighboring India. If ever a red line should have been drawn, that was it. But nothing was done, barely anything was even said. From that point on, nobody really has any basis to complain if Iran (or any of the other countries you mention) goes nuclear.

Worse, US foreign policy is almost perfectly designed to maximize nuclear proliferation around the world. We have clearly and repeatedly sent the message to all nations that nuclear weapons are the only deterrent to US aggression, and that giving up your nuclear weapons (or agreeing not to make them, as Iran did) is suicidal. The world already knows that the US is a lawless, rogue nation, and that its treaty promises are not worth the paper they are written on. You really have to question the sanity of any government that has the resources to develop nukes and isn't doing that.

Tom Riddle Clyde Schechter • 16 hours ago

to the extent that any country's having them is a problem, sure.

This is a pretty big "but", though? Nuclear proliferation is a huge danger and it's why a country like Germany without a huge middle east presence or danger of getting attacked with Iranian nuclear weapons would so forcefully back the JCPOA.

The existence and success of the JCPOA should be indictivative of the correct method to fight proliferation and the importance of doing so. To the degree that the US should be involved with the affairs of the Middle East, it should be done through the State Department (or what's left of it when the Republicans are finished with it).

As for Pakistan's nukes means "nobody really has any basis to complain if Iran (or any of the other countries you mention) goes nuclear." IR doesn't run on moral consitency. We should complain about countries that start up nuclear programs, but we should also complain about how the US's action have made nuclear proliferation more likely and not less. I'd rather not the US give up on non-proliferation just because Pakistan has the bomb. We just need to pretending our military can find solutions to political problems.

AlexanderHistory X Clyde Schechter • 8 hours ago
It's not relevant that they can't strike America. They have the means to deliver a nuclear warhead to Israel, which is all that matters to the people in charge of this country.
Steve Naidamast AlexanderHistory X • 7 hours ago
And Iran does not even need nuclear weapons to completely destroy the Israeli state. They have more than enough conventional missiles to do the job. And such anti-missile defense systems such as the Patriot and Iron Dome implementations have both been shown to be completely

inadequate against the type of missile onslaught Iran could deliver against Israel...

Clyde Schechter AlexanderHistory X • 4 hours ago
Yes, Iran could strike Israel with a nuke. Or, as Steve Naidamast has pointed out in his response to you, they could obliterate Israel with conventional ballistics as well. In 40 years, they haven't done that. And they know that Israel would respond in kind, or with nuclear weapons, and they would be destroyed. So they will not do that.

In any case, while it is true that the people running the country view the defense of Israel as our responsibility, even as a top priority. In my opinion, and I think many readers here agree, that is precisely the problem. There is no reason we should commit to the defense of Israel: its existence and well being is not relevant to the defense of the United States. In fact, our unconditional support of everything Israel does, no matter how blatantly wrong it may be, is one of the things that fuels anti-American hatred around the world and motivates terrorists. Pulling away from our connection to Israel would be one of the best things we could do to enhance our national security.

Steve Naidamast • a day ago
The US is in the Mid East for Israel's interests and Israel's interests only. This article completely ignores this reality and tries to obfuscate it with a lot of air over how another analyst views the situation there.

Had the US not recognized partition in 1947/1948 and then the subsequent state of Israel, much of the violence in the Mid East would have never occurred in the first place. This combined with assassination of the Iranian head of state in 1953 (over the move to nationalize Iranian oil and thus pushing out the British and Dutch oil industry) by Eisenhower only served to seriously complicate the matters in this region.

Iran would have most likely never had felt the need to develop nuclear weapons if the United States had simply just left well enough alone.

Unfortunately, the United States with few exception has never had anything but dim light bulbs in the presidency. Even Truman's senior military leaders, Mid East Foreign Service policy experts, and Secretary of State Marshall all warned him of the consequences of recognizing an Israel state and they were all correct...

AlexanderHistory X Steve Naidamast • 8 hours ago
You are correct. All of this nonsense makes me question how much of a conspiracy theory ZOG is.
kouroi • 16 hours ago
Mr Larison,

You know it, I know it, and pretty much everyone lurking around knows it: The US is in the ME for very basic things that insure its primacy:
- the control of the oil flow;
- the control of the way that oil is being transaction-ed, must be US dollars. The flow of dollars, especially the excess dollars needs to be controlled and be returned back to fund US deficit - which of course US has no intention of repaying (external creditors only), and the Feds, which are private bodies of financiers which benefit tremendously from controlling the world's reserve currency, understand this;
- Oiled ME countries must be run by autocracies in fear of revolutions so they need US support;
- Nationalist movements and republicanism are to be killed and persecuted;
- While a nuclear Iran might pose a threat to Israel, like India/Pakistan, US/Russia, it would be all MAD, so not much to worry about.

US will stay in the ME as long as it will take to insure its primacy. And they will kill any external or internal threats to this primacy.

Furthermore, there is a stirred appetite in the US and what its elites stand for. Look at TPP, at the proposed treaty on services, etc. The intention is to privatize everything in the world and have it in the hands of some, few. Thus State Owned Enterprises are to be shunned and ultimately appropriated. This is all what TPP was about, this is all what the trade war with China is about, and this is all the upset with Russia and Putin is about.

It is a very simple equation, that had the US population (military/intelligence) harnessed to be the slave drivers of the rest of the world, while they themselves think they are free, and liberators. This is the content of the red pill.

Not much different than the story told in the "Against the Grain A Deep History of Earlier States" by James C. Scott
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lse...

Alex (the one that likes Ike) • 9 hours ago • edited
And how can it be the other way if there are only two parties making decisions, and both of them are committed as hell to staying bogged down in the Middle East whatever the cost even to American troops and America's own economy , not to even mention the poor peoples of that region? Just the latest example: Democrats received a totally free and unprovoked electoral gift from Trump in the form of his administration committing an unmitigated idiocy regarding Iran (which, probably, resulted in dead American soldiers, not only wounded ones, given that even those wounded were concealed in the beginning). A real, not clownish cause for an impeachment investigation, against which Republican senators would have a very hard time looking honest and non-partisan in defending the president. A dream for any half-literate opposition political strategist in an election year. Their actions? They didn't think even for a minute that maybe - just maybe - they should not squander that gift. Instead they threw it - a real (and their last) opportunity to look solid in trying to impeach Trump - down the drain, industriously flushed the closet and kept on digging some clownish personalities from Ukraine, who are not even Ukrainian residents due to living in the US for years. You know how it looks like? The Democratic Party's neolib bosses (also known as the Republican Party's neocon bosses) called the DNC and said: keep on playing in your political sandbox, babies, but don't even dare to pester the POTUS on those issues that further our policies.

To say that I'm eager to read a reply from that miserable partisan hack which shall have a cheek to claim that either of the American institutional parties is not controlled by neocons/neolibs after all this is to say nothing.

AlexanderHistory X • 8 hours ago
There are too many Jews and Christian Zionists involved with America's foreign policy, who are happy to sacrifice America's well being for the sake of israel.
Until that changes, which I can't see how it will while America exists in its current form, we are doomed to continue wasting blood and treasure in the region. It's tragic really, that this nations elite doesn't care much for America, but only what America can do to further their interests abroad.
ZOG is considered to be a conspiracy theory. These days, I'm not so sure it is.
Disqus10021 AlexanderHistory X • 6 hours ago
At least part of the blame should go to the religious conservatives on the US Supreme Court which, with its Citizens United decision in 2010, opened the floodgates for large scale campaign contributions in Federal elections. The five Catholic conservatives voted in favor of Citizens United. The three Jewish members of the court along with the sole liberal Catholic (a woman) voted against it.

If you happened to watch candidate Trump's address to the 2016 AIPAC convention on TV (which I did), you might recall that he promised to be the best president that Israel ever had. It reminds me of that old Chinese proverb "Be careful what you wish for." Trump appears to be more popular in Israel than in the US.

Being on the Supreme Court means that you never have to say that you are sorry.

Osse • 4 hours ago
I couldn't read the article because I don't subscribe to the WSJ, but I was wondering what he meant by solving the Israel- Palestine conflict. I don't think we should " solve" it by supplying the Israelis with weapons and almost unlimited support. We have been pretending to be an honest broker for decades and we aren't. I doubt we could be. A President Sanders might try, but I doubt he would succeed. He would have enough battles to fight on both domestic policy and ( hopefully) pulling back from our endless interventions to put too much effort into the I- P conflict. Most of the other possible Presidents would probably just be Israel's lapdog, as usual.

I think the US government should pull back from Israel. Have relations, but don't treat them like they are the 51st state. In theory I wish we could be an honest broker, but it hasn't happened so far.

Steve Naidamast • 3 hours ago
I have to say that the style of comments being posted as they regard Israel demonstrate that a tide may be changing. I have noticed a slow but increasing negative response by serious commenters on several sites not only toward the US commitment to Israel also to Israeli policies and military capabilities as not being what everyone has promoted them to being.

This could be indicative of a sea change in US opinion, isolating most US politicians...

[Jan 19, 2020] Back in the day when Iran was a pariah state in 1988 (under full embargo from USA and the USSR), they almost sunk the frigate Samuel B Roberts with a very old WWI mine

Jan 19, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

DFC , Jan 19 2020 11:40 utc | 110

@ Posted by: psychedelicatessen | Jan 19 2020 9:14 utc | 98

You are right one of the pillars of the Iranian asymmetric strategy to counter the USN is using thousands of mines in the Strait of Hormuz and beyond, and probably also around the US bases inside the Persian Gulf.

Back in the day when Iran was a pariah state in 1988 (under full embargo from USA and the USSR), they almost sunk the frigate Samuel B Roberts with a very old WWI mine:

https://news.usni.org/2015/05/22/the-day-frigate-samuel-b-roberts-was-mined

But forget it, they have now thousands of modern mines of Russian, Chinese, north Koreans origin and inverse engineered Iranian mines, even better than those.

To try to clear the mines with wooden minesweepers in the Strait of Hormuz is a joke; to clear the mines they have to move sloooowly and they will be sitting ducks to the Iranian coastal defenses in this narrow pass; good luck using slow moving helicopters also, and using hi-tech subs drones taking one by one will take months or years to clear them, if not detected and destroyed before.

As in the case of the missiles threat, USN has no good solutions to the massive minelaying in the Strait of Hormuz, and without massive resupply of the troops inside the Persian Gulf by sea (of weapons, men, spare parts, evacuate wounded, etc...) they do not have a good prospect to continue the war after few weeks; remember that the Iranians missiles have the capacity to destroy all the airstrips of the US air bases in ME and cut dry the use of them for bombing Iran and re-supply (trying to re-suppy a complete army only with helicopters is not an option)

The iranians even do not need high-tech supersonic anti-ship missiles to close the Strait of Hormuz, but they need them to maintain the US air carriers far enough from the iranians eastern shores that their air wings will sit iddle inside the carriers (the operational range of the F15, F16, F18 is around 700-800 Km), so they cannot support the troops in the opposite side of the Persian Gulf, and even the SCG cannot use their cruise missiles (range 1700 Km) against the western part of Iran where their missile force is allocated pounding the US bases all around the Gulf

For US the only remained option would be to use long range bombers and cruise missiles from subs, but they do not have enough of them to stop the rain of missiles and really destroy the command and control centers, especially if they have not destroyed the huge multilayered aerial defense Iran has (that seems to be much better than the american one)

The US then could think to use nukes, and then call a draft, but I do not recommend it, it is better to ask for a truce

[Jan 19, 2020] Ukrainian Boeing takedown might well be a false flag attack by the US or its allies intended to frame Iran

Jan 19, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Mike Javaras , Jan 19 2020 5:13 utc | 82

Best explanation I've seen yet of the 752 jet takedown. It was a false flag attack by the US or its allies intended to frame Iran. The Iranian missile hit second after the plane had already been hit by the Stinger and was several seconds from crashing anyway. The rich kids of Tehran were in the housing complex at 6 AM to film the Stinger shootdown by their terrorist buddies. They have properly been arrested. There have been other arrests too. I wonder what they will come up with.

This makes more sense than any other theory I have seen.

https://beyondhighbrow.com/2020/01/18/false-flag-flight-752-in-iran-was-shot-down-by-us-allies-with-a-stinger-missile-not-by-an-iranian-missile/

Jackrabbit , Jan 19 2020 6:00 utc | 86

Mike Javaras @82: The Iranian missile hit second after the plane had already been hit by the Stinger ...

MANPADs like Stingers are heat-seeking. They go after ENGINES. On a big plane like PS732, a MANPADs is unlikely to have stopped the transponder and communications.

Philip Giraldi points a finger at US/Israeli Electronic Warfare:

Who Targeted Ukraine Airlines Flight 752?
Iran Shot It Down But There May Be More to the Story

Giraldi thinks the transponder was hacked. But the article he cites also talks about a device on board that would've allowed for EW. And he notes that Israel probably ALSO has the capability to have been responsible for the EW and/or device on board.

!!

V , Jan 19 2020 6:21 utc | 89
MOSCOW – Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated there is unverified information that at least six American F-35 jets were in the Iranian border area at the time when Tehran accidentally downed Ukraine International Airlines flight PS752 last week.

www.fortruss.com

[Jan 19, 2020] Now BoneSpurs Opened the Pandora's Box of Open State Level Assassinations Not Ethical - Inhumane and Imbecilic, really. That's why I am voting for Gabbard this Time. A 2nd Gen Navy Vet. Been to War Zones in the Gulf.

Jan 19, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

IronForge , Jan 18 2020 3:03 utc | 93

The MIC were running about without leashes.

Once they delved into "Conquest and Exploitation", the Military were OverScoped and Few People thought of rebuilding/modernizing Civil Infrastructure and Economy of the Conquered.

Also, IMHO, every Govt-Job that affect the Military and Veterans' Lives should be held by Veterans. Need them to be where the Rubber Meets the Road before sending others into harm's way. I'd go as far to require WH, Congress, Supremes to be Previously Assigned to Combat Units/Hot Zones (FatBoy Pompeo Fails here) - and have Combat Eligible Family be in Active Duty or Drilling Reserves - ready to be sent to the Front Lines should they call for War while running the Republic-turned-Hegemon.

That would include BoneShards' Adult Children and Spouses.

WH have been on a PetroUSD/MIC/PNAC7/AIPAC Bandwagon - which drive down Non-Yielding Nation-States with Sanctions.

Now BoneShards Opened the Pandora's Box of Open State Level Assassinations using Diplomatic Peace Missions as Venues. Worse? Against a Nation-State which can Respond in Kind - AND Develop+Deploy Nuclear WMDs. Not Ethical - Inhumane and Imbecilic, really. That's why I am voting for Gabbard this Time. A 2nd Gen Navy Vet. Been to War Zones in the Gulf.

lysias , Jan 18 2020 3:24 utc | 97

This retired Lieutenant Commander of the U.S. Navy has also been donating to Gabbard.

[Jan 19, 2020] Iran has long been viewed as central for securing US hegemony over Eurasia

Jan 19, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Paul , Jan 18 2020 0:29 utc | 74

Iran has long been viewed as central for securing US hegemony over Eurasia and the US/UK have not recovered from the 1979 Islamic revolution. Iran has: 1) large reserves of oil and natural gas, 2) key Geo-strategic position- near the convergence of three continents, straddling the Middle East and Central Asia, and abutting the Strait of Hormuz and Gulf of Oman, a strategic "choke point" through which circa 25% of the world's energy transits. As summarized by Dan Glazebrook- "The reason for this obsession with destroying Iran – shared by all factions of the Western ruling class, despite their differences over means – is obvious: Iran's very existence as an independent state threatens imperial control of the region – which in turn underpins both US military power and the global role of the dollar."
During the 2016 campaign, then candidate Trump constantly railed against the JCPOA ('Iran nuclear deal'), as the 'worst' treaty the US ever signed. After becoming President, Trump withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018 and immediately imposed crippling economic sanctions on Iran, vowing to reduce energy exports to zero, effectively declaring economic war on Iran. I suspect Trump represents a faction in the US ruling establishment committed to regime change in Iran. Trump may have believed that Iran would buckle under the weight of US economic sanctions and capitulate to US demands. These include instillation of a US- friendly government that will: 1) stop supporting Hezbollah, Bashar Assad in Syria and the Houthi-Ansarullah movement in Yemen, and 2) allow US energy firms to loot Iran's energy reserves. As this approach has not worked, Trump is now aggressively pursuing the military arm of this policy.
The New Year started with a proverbial 'bang' with Trump giving the go ahead for the targeted assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani and Iraqi General Abu Madhi al-Muhandis, which had been long in planning. As pointed out by Pepe Escobar- 'It does not matter where the green light for the assassination.... came from....This is an act of war. Unilateral, unprovoked and illegal.' Not surprisingly, Trump's actions have been generally well received by Congress and corporate media. We are now seeing US vassals- UK, France and Germany line up behind Trump to enact the dispute resolution mechanism (DRM) and sanctions snapback provision, resulting in the re-imposition of UN sanctions on the Islamic Republic. Apparently, this action was prodded by Trump's threats to apply 25% tariffs to EU auto exports to the US.
It appears Pentagon war plans for Iran are being put in place. As per a recent piece by William Arkin in Newsweek- prior to Trump's inauguration, the US military carried out an exercise "Global Thunder 17", simulating a nuclear response against Iran in retaliation for the sinking of an American aircraft carrier and use of chemical weapons against US troops. This war scenario was chosen because it "allowed the greatest integration of nuclear weapons, conventional military, missile defense, cyber, and space into what nuclear strategists call '21st Century deterrence.'" The Pentagon now has a 'low yield' nuclear warhead- W76–2, apparently developed for an Iran-type of scenario. These weapons are deliverable by submarine-launched Trident II missiles.
So where do we stand?
It is doubtful that Trump will be convicted by the Republican- controlled Senate. This will only embolden him more. US vassals- UK, France and Germany are lining up behind Trump to enact the dispute resolution mechanism (DRM) and sanctions snapback provision, resulting in the re-imposition of UN sanctions on the Islamic Republic. Apparently, this action was prodded by Trump's threats to apply 25% tariffs to EU auto exports to the US. Canada, Australia and New Zealand have also expressed support for Trump's position. France is deploying her only aircraft carrier to the ME to 'fight ISIS'.
Corporate media is largely on board with Trump's plan.
Over the last two decades, the US has expended (squandered) astronomical sums of taxpayer money (>$6 Trillion) and lives of thousands of troops on ME wars. After committing such large amounts of financial and human capital, the Pentagon has no intention of admitting their mistakes or changing their behavior. Doing so is an acknowledgement of failure and by extension military weakness. Further, the strength and stability of the dollar and more broadly US global power, is contingent on maintaining control of ME energy reserves. The financial elite/directors of US foreign policy are well aware of continuing US economic decline and looming strategic debacles confronting the Pentagon in Afghanistan (longest war in US history), Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen. Logic dictates that the US cannot 'win' a war with Iran, but this assumes one is dealing with rational thinking. By exiting the JCPOA, Trump put the US on a collision course with Iran. Alea iacta est (l. 'The die is cast'). Links of potential interest follow.
Notes
1. With a New Weapon in Donald Trump's Hands, the Iran Crisis Risks Going NuclearBy William Arkin Jan 13, 2020; Link: www.newsweek.com/trump-iran-new-nuclear-weapon-increases-risk-crisis-nuclear-1481752
2. Washington continues war buildup against Iran By Bill Van Auken Jan 17, 2020; Link: www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/01/17/iran-j17.html

[Jan 19, 2020] Jim Webb The Iran crisis isn't a failure of the executive branch alone

Jan 19, 2020 | www.washingtonpost.com

Jim Webb: The Iran crisis isn't a failure of the executive branch alone - When did it become acceptable to kill a top leader of a country we aren't even at war with?

Visitors walk around the stairs inside of the Rotunda to the top of the Capitol dome last month in Washington. (Samuel Corum/AFP/Getty Images) By Jim Webb January 9

Jim Webb, a Democrat from Virginia, served in the U.S. Senate from 2007 to 2013 and was secretary of the Navy under President Ronald Reagan from 1987 to 1988.

Strongly held views are unlikely to change regarding the morality and tactical wisdom of President Trump's decision to kill Iranian Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani as he traveled on a road outside the Baghdad airport after having arrived on a commercial flight . But the debate regarding the long-term impact of this act on America's place in the world, and the potential vulnerability of U.S. government officials to similar reprisals, has just begun.

How did it become acceptable to assassinate one of the top military officers of a country with whom we are not formally at war during a public visit to a third country that had no opposition to his presence? And what precedent has this assassination established on the acceptable conduct of nation-states toward military leaders of countries with which we might have strong disagreement short of actual war -- or for their future actions toward our own people?

With respect to Iran, unfortunately, this is hardly a new issue.

In 2007, the Senate passed a non-binding resolution calling on the George W. Bush administration to categorize Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as an international terrorist organization. I opposed this proposal based on the irrefutable fact that the organization was an inseparable arm of the Iranian government. The Revolutionary Guards are not independent actors like al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. They are part of the Iranian government's formal military structure, with an estimated strength of more than 150,000 members . It is legally and logically impossible to define one part of a national government as an international terrorist organization without applying the term to that entire government.

Definitions define conduct. If terrorist organizations are actively involved against us, we attack them. But a terrorist organization is by definition a nongovernmental entity that operates along the creases of national sovereignties and international law. The Revolutionary Guards are a part of the Iranian government. If they are attacking us, they are not a terrorist organization. They're an attacking army.

The 2007 proposal did not succeed. But last April the State Department unilaterally designated the Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist entity. Although more than 60 organizations are listed in this category, this is the only time our government has ever identified an element of a nation-state as a terrorist organization. And the designation was by many accounts made despite the opposition of the CIA and the Defense Department.

Which leads us to Soleimani.

The assassination of the most well-known military commander of a country with which we are not formally at war during his visit to a third country that had not opposed his presence invites a lax moral justification for a plethora of retaliatory measures -- and not only from Iran. It also holds the possibility of more deeply entrenching the U.S. military in a region that most Americans would very much prefer to deal with from a more maneuverable distance.

No thinking American would support Soleimani's conduct. But it is also indisputable that his activities were carried out as part of his military duties. His harm to American military units was through his role as an enabler and adviser to third-country forces. This, frankly, is a reality of war.

I fought as a Marine in Vietnam. We had similar problems throughout the Vietnam War because of Vietnam's propinquity to China, which along with the Soviet Union provided continuous support to the North Vietnamese, including most of the weapons used against us on the battlefield. China was then a rogue state with nuclear weapons. Its leaders continually spouted anti-U.S. rhetoric. Yet we did not assassinate its military leaders for rendering tactical advice or logistical assistance. We fought the war that was in front of us, and we created the conditions in which we engaged China aggressively through diplomatic, economic and other means.

Now, despite Trump's previous assertions that he wants to dramatically reduce the United States' footprint in the Middle East, it seems clear that he has been seduced into making unwise announcements similar to the rhetoric used by his immediate predecessors of both parties. Their blunders -- in Iraq, Libya and Syria -- destabilized the region and distracted the United States from its greatest long-term challenge: China's military and economic expansion throughout the world.

At a time when our political debates have come to resemble Kardashian-like ego squabbles, the United States desperately needs common-sense leadership in its foreign policy. This is not a failure of the executive branch alone; it is the result of a breakdown in our entire foreign policy establishment, from the executive branch to the legislative branch and even to many of our once-revered think tanks. If partisanship in foreign policy should end at the water's edge, then such policies should be forged through respectful, bipartisan debate.

The first such debate should focus on the administration's unilateral decision to label an entire element of a foreign government an international terrorist organization. If Congress wishes to hold Iran to such a standard, it should then formally authorize the use of force against Iran's government. The failure of congressional leadership to make these kinds of decisions is an example of why our foreign policy has become so militarized, and of how weak and even irrelevant Congress has allowed itself to become in the eyes of our citizens.

Read more:

[Jan 19, 2020] The Suleimani assassination, imperialist strategy and the crisis of the Iranian regime by Keith Jones

16 January 2020
Notable quotes:
"... In diplomatic terms, the US drive to force Iran into neo-colonial subjugation is expressed in Trump and Pompeo's demand that Tehran negotiate a replacement to the "flawed" Iran nuclear deal -- a "Trump deal" that would severely limit Iran's military, "roll back" its influence across the Middle East, and permanently bar it from a civil nuclear program. ..."
"... it is animated by the calculation that a "grand bargain" more favorable to US imperialism can be extorted from the crisis-ridden and deeply divided Iranian bourgeoisie, under conditions where it is facing not only ever-escalating external pressure, but also massive social opposition, above all from the working class. ..."
"... The Iranian regime was shaken by an explosion of popular anger against austerity and social inequality at the beginning of 2018. Last November, when massive gas price hikes sparked demonstrations in more than 100 cities, some of them violent, the Iranian government again responded with brutal repression, reportedly killing scores of protesters ..."
"... The assassination of Suleimani was itself clearly targeted at more than "just" threatening and destabilizing the Islamic Republic. It was aimed at shifting the internal dynamics of the Iranian regime. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
Jan 19, 2020 | www.wsws.org

As with any sudden turn in world geopolitics, the true purpose and full implications of Washington's criminal assassination of Iranian Revolutionary Guard General Qassem Suleimani are emerging only with the passage of time.

The Trump administration's claims that the assassination was in response to an imminent threat to American lives have been exposed as blatant lies. Suleimani's murder was months in the planning and long advocated by key figures in the US military-foreign policy establishment, including CIA head Gina Haspel, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and former Trump National Security Adviser John Bolton.

The killing of the military leader, who was widely viewed as second only to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei in Iran's power structure, constitutes a dramatic escalation of the Trump administration's campaign of "maximum pressure" on Iran. This campaign combines unrelenting diplomatic and military pressure with devastating economic sanctions -- that are themselves tantamount to an act of war -- cyber-warfare and other "special ops."

It is aimed at "turning" Iran and bringing to power -- whether through the reconfiguration or outright overthrow of Iran's Shia clergy-led bourgeois nationalist regime -- a government in Tehran, akin to the Shah's bloody quarter-century-long dictatorship, that will be at American imperialism's beck and call.

Iran has long been viewed by US imperialist strategists as central to its drive to secure hegemony over all Eurasia. This is because of its vast oil wealth and its geo-strategic position, near the convergence of three continents and straddling the Middle East and Central Asia, the world's two most important oil exporting regions.

In diplomatic terms, the US drive to force Iran into neo-colonial subjugation is expressed in Trump and Pompeo's demand that Tehran negotiate a replacement to the "flawed" Iran nuclear deal -- a "Trump deal" that would severely limit Iran's military, "roll back" its influence across the Middle East, and permanently bar it from a civil nuclear program.

Washington's maximum pressure campaign against Iran is predicated on the "credible" threat of all-out war, and is intimately bound up with its preparations for "strategic conflict" with Russia and China. It could rapidly cascade into a catastrophic war with Iran that would engulf the entire Mideast and draw in the other great powers.

But it is animated by the calculation that a "grand bargain" more favorable to US imperialism can be extorted from the crisis-ridden and deeply divided Iranian bourgeoisie, under conditions where it is facing not only ever-escalating external pressure, but also massive social opposition, above all from the working class.

The Iranian regime was shaken by an explosion of popular anger against austerity and social inequality at the beginning of 2018. Last November, when massive gas price hikes sparked demonstrations in more than 100 cities, some of them violent, the Iranian government again responded with brutal repression, reportedly killing scores of protesters .

The assassination of Suleimani was itself clearly targeted at more than "just" threatening and destabilizing the Islamic Republic. It was aimed at shifting the internal dynamics of the Iranian regime. It removed the military leader responsible for overseeing Iran's attempts to counteract US pressure through a network of foreign militia groups, most of them based on Shia populism. Suleimani, moreover, was a leader, as the subsequent mass demonstrations protesting his murder and the US war threats attested, who had a broad base of popular support.

Given the manner in which Suleimani died, including his evident lack of security, it is legitimate to ask whether factional opponents within the Iranian state facilitated his murder.

What is incontrovertible is that in the wake of his assassination and the tumultuous events it precipitated, the factional warfare has intensified, culminating in last week's inadvertent downing of a Ukrainian International Airlines plane by an Iranian Revolutionary Guard missile, its cover-up, and the outbreak of student demonstrations denouncing government negligence and repression.

Yesterday, President Hassan Rouhani, who spearheaded the push for the rapprochement with the European imperialist powers and Washington that resulted in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear deal, denounced the military for failing to "apologize" for the downing of the passenger jet. He also criticized the recent decision of the Guardian Council to exclude many sitting parliamentarians from standing in the coming elections. He called for "national reconciliation" -- a slogan long raised by supporters of the Greens, a movement based in dissident sections of the bourgeoisie and upper-middle class, which, with imperialist backing, disputed the outcome of the 2009 presidential election.

Meanwhile, on a visit to New Delhi in which he met with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Iranian Foreign Minister Javed Zarif declared that the Indian government, a key US ally, could play an important "role in de-escalating tensions in the Gulf."

A major element in the Trump administration's drive to leverage the crisis of the Iranian regime and the longstanding cleavages within it has been the effort to cajole the European imperialist powers -- Germany, France and Britain -- into joining Washington in repudiating the Iran nuclear accord.

On Tuesday, the so-called E-3 took a giant step in this direction by initiating the accord's disputes resolution mechanism, thereby placing themselves on a fast track to join Washington in imposing and policing the sanctions that are strangling Iran's economy.

It is Washington that trashed the nuclear accord and is pursuing "maximum aggression" against Iran. Through its dominance of the world financial system, it has successfully shut down the world's trade with Iran, thereby making the quid pro quo underlying the nuclear accord -- the removal of sanctions in exchange for the dismantling of much of Iran's civil nuclear program -- null and void.

Yet, in what could only be music to Trump and Pompeo's ears, France, Germany and Britain are blaming Iran for violating the agreement, cynically citing Tehran's attempts to gain leverage by exceeding various JCPOA stipulations and accusing it of seeking nuclear weapons.

The European imperialist powers have been rattled by provocative and unilateral US actions that cut across their interests. Suleimani's assassination was just the latest rude shock.

Britain and the EU powers fear Washington's ever-escalating aggression against Iran will spark an all-out war that will redound against their own imperialist interests, even if it doesn't immediately draw in Russia and China. A war would send oil prices soaring, roil the European economy, spark another massive refugee crisis and further radicalize a growing working class counter-offensive.

No doubt Pompeo and others have told the Europeans that if they want to restrain Trump, avert a major conflagration and retain influence in the Middle East, they must rally behind Washington and its maximum pressure campaign.

To these dubious incentives, the Trump administration added a trade war threat, according to a report published yesterday by the Washington Post under the title, "Days before Europeans warned Iran of nuclear deal violations, Trump secretly threatened to impose 25 percent tariff on European autos if they didn't."

That said, as in the case of Washington, a key factor in the Europeans' calculations is the character of Iran's bourgeois regime and its manifest crisis.

The European imperialist powers have clearly been emboldened by the Iranian regime's response to Suleimani's assassination, which was limited to missile strikes of which the Pentagon was given advance warning and which resulted in no casualties, and by its ham-fisted attempt to cover up its responsibility for the downing of Ukraine Air Flight 752.

For all its anti-American bluster, the Iranian regime is a bourgeois national regime. In so far as it has come into conflict with Washington, it has always been from the standpoint of increasing its own possibilities for exploiting the working class and boosting its regional influence.

The growing opposition from the working class impels Iran to intensify what has been a decades-long attempt to effect a rapprochement with every US administration, dating back at least to that of George H.W. Bush.

If it can, the Islamic Republic's elite, or sections of it, will strike a deal with imperialism at the expense of the masses. Even before Rouhani came to power in 2014 on a program that coupled overtures toward Washington and Europe with further privatizations, subsidy cuts and other anti-working class measures, the Iranian regime was involved in behind-the-scenes talks with the Obama administration on removing the sanctions.

Similar talks could happen in the future or even be underway though back channels now. Trump has shown in his dealings with North Korea that he is capable of pursuing such a two-track policy.

As for the so-called Iranian "hardliners," they are no less hostile to the working class than their factional opponents, as evidenced by the implementation of neo-liberal "reform" measures by every Iranian government since the late 1980s, and their readiness to unite with their factional opponents to suppress any challenge from below.

Ultimately, the "hardliners" supported the nuclear deal and the pursuit of closer relations with the US and the EU. Even more importantly, their strategy for opposing Washington--based on seeking close military-strategic ties with Russia and China and the use of Shia populism and religious sectarianism to rally support across the Middle East--is a blind alley that risks plunging the region and the world into a conflagration.

... ... ...

Keith Jones

[Jan 19, 2020] False Flag Fmr CIA Officer Suggests US Hacked Ukrainian Plane Transponder To Provoke Iran Shootdown

Jan 18, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Philip Giraldi, a former counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer of the CIA, penned a piece in the American Herald Tribune speculating that the U.S. launched several cyber-attacks, one on an Iranian missile defense system, and another on the transponder of the doomed Ukrainian plane.

Giraldi explains the Iranian missile operator experienced extreme "jamming" and Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752's transponder was switched off several minutes before the two Russian made Tor missiles were launched.

"The shutdown of the transponder, which would have automatically signaled to the operator and Tor electronics that the plane was civilian, instead automatically indicated that it was hostile. The operator, having been particularly briefed on the possibility of incoming American cruise missiles, then fired," he said.

Giraldi said the Tor missile system used by Iran is vulnerable to being hacked or "spoofed," and at the same moment, Flight 752's transponder was taken offline "to create an aviation accident that would be attributed to the Iranian government."

The Pentagon has reportedly developed technologies that can trick enemy radars with false and deceptively moving targets, he said.

"The same technology can, of course, be used to alter or even mask the transponder on a civilian airliner in such a fashion as to send false information about identity and location. The United States has the cyber and electronic warfare capability to both jam and alter signals relating to both airliner transponders and to the Iranian air defenses. Israel presumably has the same ability," Giraldi said.

Iran made the claim Wednesday that "enemy sabotage" cannot be ruled out in the downing of the plane.

Iranian Brigadier General Ali Abdollahi suggested the U.S. hacked missile defense systems to make it appear Flight 752 was an incoming missile.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani also accused the U.S. of being responsible for the downing of the plane, saying that:

"The root of all sorrows goes back to America... this cannot be a reason for us not to look into all the root causes."

He added that:

"One cannot believe that a passenger plane is struck near an international airport while flying in a [commercial] flight channel," after previously saying that IRGC commanders were not the only ones involved in the plane downing, noting that "There were others, too."

The Iranian parliament also stated that "we are in powerful confrontation with the criminal U.S. and do not allow a mistake to pave the ground for misusing the issue by the enemies."

Giraldi concludes by saying electronic warfare by the U.S. to bring down a civilian jet and blame it on Iran "suggests a premeditated and carefully planned event" to create a false flag for the next world war.

Pernicious Gold Phallusy , 2 minutes ago link

I would think armed forces near an international airport would be extra careful before flipping some switches.

Dachaguy , 8 minutes ago link

Of course, Iran and the pilot of the plane had nothing to gain and everything to lose by turning off the transponders, which makes it more than likely a third party was involved in the downing of the plane. You don't need to be a genius to figure out who stood to gain by killing all those civilians. Giving the black box to Ukraine, America's puppet state, was probably a mistake.

Minamoto , 13 minutes ago link

Golf of Tonkin incident...

Operation Gladio...

WMD in Iraq...

7 World Trade...

The Pentagon and CIA involvements in the funding, training and arming of Sunni groups in Syria was documented in congressional committees...

The list of false flag operations perpetrated by the US is a long one... and in the past decades Mossad is also involved.

Schacht Mat , 21 minutes ago link

Interesting - I have harbored the same opinion after seeing the nationalities of the passengers and reviewing the 2 missile video. In fact, I believe that the plane was rigged with a unit to turn off both the transponder and the communication system, and then to trigger an explosive in the wing tank after missile launch (triggering mechanisms likely externally enabled). Let's look at this:

1. Nationalities - could not find references to too many American citizens, but lot's of Canadians; ie: no real exposure at home and this gives Trudeau (Trudope..) a headache to deal with that brings him closer to the Neocon camp - a little payback for the hot mike moment at the G7.

2. Iranians may be poorly trained and, at that moment, itchy fingered, but planes were coming and going from that airport all day. What made this one special - no transponder signal. Jamming is too easy to spot; it is much easier to install a remote kill switch on the plane in Ukraine (you know, where the US has lot's of ground assets with access to sensitive facilities like airports) and then turn off the transponder after leaving the Tehran airport.

3. Black box shows that there were no communications from the plane to the airport controllers or anyone else; yet, the crew was over staffed with competent flight crew. Note the time between when the first missile detonates and when the fire is seen on the wing of the plane; there is plenty of time for a competent aircrew to call off the attack, yet there was only radio silence. Somebody also killed the radios, which means this was planned.

3. The Tor system is not that great. Note that they fired one missile, it detonated, and there was no obvious visible effect on the plane. It was at that point that a second missile was fired; again it detonated and again there was no obvious visible effect on the plane. From the video, it appears that while the missiles may have caused damage, they do not appear to have been catastrophic.

4. Because of point 3 above, it appears that the planners had a fail safe; that being an explosive in the right wing (likely in the fuel tank as that is reasonably easy to insert), and that was detonated several seconds after the second missile did not drop the plane, and there was no third missile being launched at the airplane (perhaps the missile ground crew figured out something was wrong because the target was not going evasive, or maybe they had nothing else launch ready - unknown at this time). This would have had to have been detonated remotely (any stealthy drones hiding in that night sky??).

5. Wing burn - This sequence of events would explain the videos of the attack; I have not seen any other explanation for why the wing waited so long to suddenly erupt in flames (the plane just took off - lots of fuel, yet the flight was not that long, so there were plenty of fumes as well for hot shrapnel to ignite) after the second missile detonation. This just does not make sense on a paper thin civilian target. Also, it does not appear (from the flame morphology) that hot jet exhaust subsequently ignited leaking fuel (which could possibly explain the delay between the second missile detonation and the appearance of the fireball).

Finally, why did they do this? I doubt that it was to provoke war; likely it was to keep the Iranians from hitting any further US targets by embarrassing the them internationally, and at the same time setting Ukraine, their regional (and after the last election less than completely compliant) client state against Iran while at the same time getting Canada in line with US policy and giving its "true bearded dope" of a Prime Minister a black eye.

Another interesting note; the US has in depth penetration of both Canadian and Ukrainian institutions, which is important as these two countries have the greatest claim to being an integral part of the investigation, which means that by proxy the US has a ringside seat to manage the obscuring of any unhelpful facts that may be uncovered. This is the mistake they made with MH17, in that many of the passengers were Dutch, and thus the Dutch took the investigative lead. Getting that report properly obscured cost them a lot of gold, and they were not going to make the same mistake twice.

Any of these issues, taken individually, can be dismissed; however, taken together, the package is just too sweet - that many things coming together "coincidentally" is beyond any laws of probability that I have come across.

Pernicious Gold Phallusy , 43 seconds ago link

I suspect every member of the armed forces in Iran has been drilled with the knowledge the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian passenger jet that supposedly had its transponder turned off.

madashellron , 41 minutes ago link

From MOA.

"It is sad that this incident happened and that 176 lost their life. But if one wants to find a person guilty for it one must look for the person who caused the whole situation. That person is not the lowly sergeant who pressed the button. That person is U.S. President Donald Trump."

Max Hunter , 39 minutes ago link

They admitted to shooting it down, the reasons are still unclear and the fact that this plane was shot down while the country itself was expecting an attack from the US or Israel only lends to speculation that there was more involved with this accident. Of course, your mind is made up that the evil Iranians killed a bunch of people because they are moral degenerates as the US and Israhell are forever seated on moral high ground.

MadelynMarie , 52 minutes ago link

https://www.sott.net/article/427443-Iran-Jet-Disaster-Setup-Was-Electronic-Warfare-in-Play

https://www.sott.net/article/427303-Was-Iranian-Missile-Operator-Tricked-Into-Shooting-Down-The-Ukrainian-Airlines-Plane-Over-Tehran

[Jan 19, 2020] Unexplained flight discrepancies by Joseph Nathan

Notable quotes:
"... When framed across the other unknown technologies that are powering the complex avionics on the Boeing 737-800, the US-China trade war and why so many economies are investing big monies in building their own GNSS, there is just a remote possibility that something sinister may be at play. ..."
"... When we examine the final seconds of the Ukrainian PS752 based on known data at this stage of the investigation, it resembles the final seconds of MH370, just before it disappeared from the radar and remains unaccounted for to this day. Could it be just another aviation coincidence? ..."
Jan 19, 2020 | www.asiatimes.com

Originally from: Asia Times Has US overplayed its tech advantage

... ... ...

As more data are being released, there are already some glaring discrepancies that baffle even aviation experts. When the doomed Ukrainian airliner, Flight PS752, switched from Tehran Iman Khomeini International Airport to Mehrabad air traffic control at 2,400 meters, at a position about 20 kilometers from the airport, it lost contact, just minutes before it was shot down. Flight-path records show that the aircraft was making a turn back in the direction of the airport.

Concurrently as this was taking place, the Iranians were firing missiles at Iraqi bases that house US forces in retaliation for the killing of their general.

If the US has the intelligence to pinpoint with such accuracy what was happening to PS752 while its troops were being fired upon, it raises the question as to whether the US has managed to circumvent the Iranians' GPS used for the rocket attacks on their troops and inadvertently set the missiles on a wrong course.

While the Iranians may have the capability to jam or spoof territorial intrusions like in 2011, when they managed to override an American RQ-170 stealth drone and landed it on their territory, it does not have the capability to shield its GPS fully from the US.

Even the Israelis, known for their military strength, do not have the capability to shield their GPS fully from foreign interference. Last June, the Israel Defense Forces suffered such a disruption. They attributed it to the Russians using a combination of jamming and spoofing signal. Known as "smart jamming," this is used to deter drones and incursion risks over very specific airspace. This disruption was detected by the GRID (GNSS Radio Frequency Interference Detection) receiver on the International Space Station owned by the Naval Research Lab, Cornell University, the University of Texas and Aerospace Corp.

Such jamming and spoofing can create hazards for civilian and commercial navigation. It can also block military-grade equipment, as shown by the Russians in 2018 when they disrupted US drones operating in Syria to gather intelligence.

Should the Iranians' GPS be compromised by the US, all its rocket launches will be misguided by false data. Whether the US could deploy such a ruthless tactic against the Iranians begs greater scrutiny by the international community, as this unfortunate incident has just too many coincidences.

When framed across the other unknown technologies that are powering the complex avionics on the Boeing 737-800, the US-China trade war and why so many economies are investing big monies in building their own GNSS, there is just a remote possibility that something sinister may be at play.

When we examine the final seconds of the Ukrainian PS752 based on known data at this stage of the investigation, it resembles the final seconds of MH370, just before it disappeared from the radar and remains unaccounted for to this day. Could it be just another aviation coincidence?

... ... ...

Joseph Nathan has been the principal consultant with several consultancy agencies for 28 years in Singapore. For Malaysia and Indonesia, he undertakes projects via JN Advisory (M) Sdn Bhd, covering real estate and infrastructure, aviation, project and debt financing, and general business review (non-manufacturing). He holds an MBA from Macquarie Graduate School of Management, Australia.

[Jan 19, 2020] Did Washington played on oil price hike threat to achive Genramny, France and GB compliance

Jan 19, 2020 | www.wsws.org

Britain and the EU powers fear Washington's ever-escalating aggression against Iran will spark an all-out war that will redound against their own imperialist interests, even if it doesn't immediately draw in Russia and China. A war would send oil prices soaring, roil the European economy, spark another massive refugee crisis and further radicalize a growing working class counter-offensive.

No doubt Pompeo and others have told the Europeans that if they want to restrain Trump, avert a major conflagration and retain influence in the Middle East, they must rally behind Washington and its maximum pressure campaign.

To these dubious incentives, the Trump administration added a trade war threat, according to a report published yesterday by the Washington Post under the title, "Days before Europeans warned Iran of nuclear deal violations, Trump secretly threatened to impose 25 percent tariff on European autos if they didn't."

[Jan 18, 2020] While the US assassination of Qassem Soleimani was an act of international barbarity, emblematic of the thuggish nature of US foreign policy, it was neither the only de facto act of war the United States has undertaken against Iran, nor the most harmful

Yankistan most potent weapon isn't military, it's economic, and through it the US government controls the world. That weapon is the US Dollar and ever since Nixon took it off the gold standard it has been used to further the Empire's imperial hold on the global economy.
Jan 18, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
arby , Jan 16 2020 19:16 utc | 19
Stephen Gowans' latest'

https://gowans.blog/


"While the US assassination of Qassem Soleimani was an act of international barbarity, emblematic of the thuggish nature of US foreign policy, it was neither the only de facto act of war the United States has undertaken against Iran, nor the most harmful. Indeed, against the total embargo Washington has imposed on Iran with the intention of starving Iranians into submission or inducing them to overthrow their government, the killing of Soleimani is a act of little consequence, even if its significance in provoking widespread outrage and galvanizing opposition to US aggression is undoubted."

[Jan 18, 2020] events appear to have escalated from the 25 December killing of five PMF guys on the Syria-Iraq border by an unattributed drone or missile strike. Neoliberal MSM try to hide or obscure this fact.

Jan 18, 2020 | www.unz.com

Swedish Family , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 8:28 pm GMT

@Oscar Peterson

Significantly, events appear to have escalated from the 25 December killing of five PMF guys on the Syria-Iraq border by an unattributed drone or missile strike. Our media is doing its best to obscure this event as the probable starting point. Two days later on 27 December, the rocket fire near Kirkuk killed the US contractor. Then came the strike on KH troops back out in the West and now the assassination of Soleimani et al.

[ ]

So the trigger was the 25 December attack, and all the timing flows from that, not from any great real estate developer savvy. Frankly, in my view, you give Trump way to much credit for systematic thought. I don't think he really does that at all.

This is also the view of the Middle-East veterans over at Patrick Lang's blog:

Last weekend, in response to a rocket attack on a base outside Kirkuk that left one US contractor dead and four US servicemen wounded, we launched drone strikes on five Iraqi PMU outposts in Iraq and Syria near Abukamal killing 25 members and wounding scores more of the Kata'ib Hezbollah brigades of the PMU.

We blamed Iran and the Kata'ib Hezbollah for the rocket attack near Kirkuk. That may be true, but the Kata'ib Hezbollah is not some rogue militia controlled out of Teheran. It is an integral part of the PMU, its 46th and 47th brigades and has been for years. The PMU is an integral part of the Iraqi military and has been for years. The PMU played a major role in defeating IS in both Iraq and Syria. Our attack on the Kata'ib Hezbollah outposts was an attack on the Iraqi military and government. We informed PM Abdul-Mahdi of our intended attacks. Abdul-Mahadi warned us not to do it, but, of course, we conducted the attacks despite his warning. We were proud of the attacks. The Pentagon even released footage of the attacks. It was supposed to be a clear message to Teheran.

Unfortunately for us, the message was also heard by Iraqis. After the funerals of many of the victims of our attacks on the PMU outposts, a large crowd of protestors headed for the US Embassy in the Green Zone. For weeks prior to this, Iraqi security forces kept protestors from entering the Green Zone and approaching the US Embassy. Not this time. The crowds, including mourners fresh from the funerals of their family members and many PMU soldiers, unarmed but in uniform, poured into the Green Zone right to the gates of the Embassy itself. A reception area was entered and burned. Iraqi security forces of the PrimeMinister's Counter Terrorism Command were among the protestors. I surmise that PM Abdul-Mahdi was sending his own message back to the US.

https://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2020/01/our-embassy-in-baghdad-ttg.html

The protests at the American embassy, then, were over Iraqi servicemen murdered in American drone strikes

Qasem Soleimani was an Iranian soldier. He lived by the sword and died by the sword. He met a soldier's destiny. It is being said that he was a BAD MAN. Absurd! To say that he was a BAD MAN because he fought us as well as the Sunni jihadis is simply infantile. Were all those who fought the US BAD MEN? How about Gentleman Johhny Burgoyne? Was he a BAD MAN? How about Sitting Bull? Was he a BAD MAN? How about Aguinaldo? Another BAD MAN? Let us not be juvenile.

The Iraqi PMU commander who died with Soleimani was Abu Mahdi al Muhandis. He was a member of a Shia militia that had been integrated into the Iraqi armed forces. IOW, we killed an Iraqi general. We killed him without the authorization of the supposedly sovereign state of Iraq.

We created the present government of Iraq through the farcical "purple thumb" elections. That government holds a seat in the UN General Assembly and is a sovereign entity in international law in spite of Trump's tweet today that said among other things that we have "paid" Iraq billions of US dollars. To the Arabs, this statement that brands them as hirelings of the US is close to the ultimate in insult.

https://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2020/01/will-trump-welcome-the-ejection-of-the-us-from-iraq-he-should.html

and now the Americans went one better and murdered an Iraqi general.

[Jan 18, 2020] The US is already and has been for the longest time at war with Iran

Jan 18, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Seer , Jan 18 2020 14:13 utc | 137

Lysander @ 30

Got it right, IMO.

Trump doesn't give a crap about wars killing people. He's about the bottom line. The business of the US is business. Further consider the Belt And Road Initiative (karlof1 briefly mentioned this). There's an underlying strategy of the empire. Only thing is a difference in how to make sure that it achieves it's goal: domination of world currency and business. The strategy is how to break the Russia-China coalition. Some believe that making friends with Russia could have caused them to detach from China (with the target being to tamp down China [again, think Belt and Road Initiative]). I cannot say for sure, but I do kind of think that this was the position that Trump had/has. This suspicion has legs if you consider the Russia-gate crap. And, the wars in the ME that Trump has vocalized against don't necessarily line up with being on the strategy path of using Russia to smack down China. Others believe it's better to go directly against China (and allow Russia to just kind of be isolated). The ME wars are, essentially, taking out the Road in Belt and Road. Having the area in a perpetual war makes business really difficult. This go-after-China-directly approach is seen in the Uyghur and Hong Kong battle fronts. Iran is made common to both strategy paths because, well, because of Israel (its overarching influence over US policies).

It's a left wing or a right wing of the same bird. The mechanism (bird) isn't the issue, it's the strategy (which wing). Chomsky really spells this out:

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/noam-chomsky-america-has-built-a-global-dystopia

Perhaps the US doesn't want China to perfect the same authoritarian system the US is looking to achieve? The attempt to block Huawei from international markets is about who controls information (information flow).

Dave , Jan 18 2020 14:19 utc | 138

"I want to win," he said. "We don't win any wars anymore . . . We spend $7 trillion, everybody else got the oil and we're not winning anymore."

These wars where never intended to be won. If you win a war you have to go home. It's pretty difficult to exploit natural resources and threaten other countries geopolitically without military and covert agency bases all over the region.

I'm not sure Trump even understands this strategy. As disgusting as it may be, the thought of someone actually believing we entered these wars for any other reason than to cripple and control them for the interest of our (not so)leader elite class is astonishing.

But, at the same time we are left with few alternatives due to the coup de 'etat perpetrated by the elite who stack the slate we vote from and use the legacy media to propagandize as many as possible into supporting this sociopathic/psychopathic foreign policy agenda.

All we are ever offered is slight changes in tactics while maintaining the original goal of world domination and total control of everyone in order to keep those on top, on top.

Nothing will change until the enforcers begin to fight back against the people showering them with unlimited budgets and propagandize adoration to the point of military/police worship.

Walter , Jan 18 2020 14:50 utc | 139
Sabine | Jan 18 2020 5:03 utc | 101

"the US is already and has been for the longest time at war with Iran. "

Add to that the fact that in 1946 (or maybe '47?) Truman specifically threatened the Red Army in Northern Iran with the atom bomb. They withdrew. But the point is that Iran was the first defined target after Japan nuked in a display of "Overwhelming Power" (Stimson) deliberately to bring USSR to obey the US, or at least to intimidate Stalin.

Threatening Russians is just plain stupid. Threats are almost always stupid, unless you're trying to force an opponent into an attack-trap. Which "attack-trap" is what the Imperial Wizards are doing. The assumption, a chauvinist and incorrect assumption, is that the opponent is stupider than the attacker. Don't bet on that...it's a sucker bet.

[Jan 18, 2020] Who Targeted Ukraine Airlines Flight 752 Iran Shot It Down But There May Be More to the Story by Philip Giraldi

Jan 18, 2020 | www.unz.com

What seems to have been a case of bad judgments and human error does, however, include some elements that have yet to be explained. The Iranian missile operator reportedly experienced considerable "jamming" and the planes transponder switched off and stopped transmitting several minutes before the missiles were launched . There were also problems with the communication network of the air defense command, which may have been related.

The electronic jamming coming from an unknown source meant that the air defense system was placed on manual operation, relying on human intervention to launch. The human role meant that an operator had to make a quick judgment in a pressure situation in which he had only moments to react. The shutdown of the transponder, which would have automatically signaled to the operator and Tor electronics that the plane was civilian, instead automatically indicated that it was hostile. The operator, having been particularly briefed on the possibility of incoming American cruise missiles, then fired.

The two missiles that brought the plane down came from a Russian-made system designated SA-15 by NATO and called Tor by the Russians. Its eight missiles are normally mounted on a tracked vehicle. The system includes both radar to detect and track targets as well as an independent launch system, which includes an Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) system functionality capable of reading call signs and transponder signals to prevent accidents. Given what happened on that morning in Tehran, it is plausible to assume that something or someone deliberately interfered with both the Iranian air defenses and with the transponder on the airplane, possibly as part of an attempt to create an aviation accident that would be attributed to the Iranian government.

The SA-15 Tor defense system used by Iran has one major vulnerability. It can be hacked or "spoofed," permitting an intruder to impersonate a legitimate user and take control. The United States Navy and Air Force reportedly have developed technologies "that can fool enemy radar systems with false and deceptively moving targets." Fooling the system also means fooling the operator. The Guardian has also reported independently how the United States military has long been developing systems that can from a distance alter the electronics and targeting of Iran's available missiles.

The same technology can, of course, be used to alter or even mask the transponder on a civilian airliner in such a fashion as to send false information about identity and location. The United States has the cyber and electronic warfare capability to both jam and alter signals relating to both airliner transponders and to the Iranian air defenses. Israel presumably has the same ability. Joe Quinn at Sott.net also notes an interested back story to those photos and video footage that have appeared in the New York Times and elsewhere showing the Iranian missile launch, the impact with the plane and the remains after the crash, to include the missile remains. They appeared on January 9 th , in an Instagram account called ' Rich Kids of Tehran '. Quinn asks how the Rich Kids happened to be in "a low-income housing estate on the city's outskirts [near the airport] at 6 a.m. on the morning of January 8 th with cameras pointed at the right part of the sky in time to capture a missile hitting a Ukrainian passenger plane ?"

Put together the Rich Kids and the possibility of electronic warfare and it all suggests a premeditated and carefully planned event of which the Soleimani assassination was only a part. There have been riots in Iran subsequent to the shooting down of the plane, blaming the government for its ineptitude. Some of the people in the street are clearly calling for the goal long sought by the United States and Israel, i.e. "regime change." If nothing else, Iran, which was widely seen as the victim in the killing of Soleimani, is being depicted in much of the international media as little more than another unprincipled actor with blood on its hands. There is much still to explain about the downing of Ukrainian International Airlines Flight 752.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.

AnonStarter , says: Show Comment January 15, 2020 at 10:45 pm GMT

Given this news, any impartial observer would at least entertain the possibility of its truth, particularly given the lengthy track record of the United States/Israel in perpetrating such crimes.

It's a good litmus test for determining where one's sentiment lies. Even "alternative media" aren't likely to touch this story.

Bravo to Mr. Giraldi and Mr. Unz.

Sean , says: Show Comment January 15, 2020 at 11:10 pm GMT
The Iranian Ambassador to Britain, Hamid Baeidinejad said in an interview on the UK Channel 4 news hours ago that although Iran had needed time to determine what had happened, it had now accepted responsibility, would pay compensation, and the people who fired on the jet will be put on trial.

If nothing else, Iran, which was widely seen as the victim in the killing of Soleimani, is being depicted in much of the international media as little more than another unprincipled actor with blood on its hands.

Both Trump and the Iranian regime have good domestic disquiet reason to rethink the confrontational policy each are pursuing. Iran and the US could get closer over this. I think the predictable unpredictability of assassination and catastrophic loss of life events makes false flagging them of dubious value.

Why did I rob banks? Because I enjoyed it. I loved it. I was more alive when I was inside a bank, robbing it, than at any other time in my life. I enjoyed everything about it so much that one or two weeks later I'd be out looking for the next job. But to me the money was the chips, that's all.

(Sutton W, Linn E: Where the Money Was: The Memoirs of a Bank Robber. Viking Press (1976), p. 160)

I suppose it is possible there are people who get addicted to false flagging others' deaths. If half of what is said in this site is true, Mossad really needs to set up a 12 step program.

onebornfree , says: Website Show Comment January 15, 2020 at 11:49 pm GMT
" .the big question which many people on social media are asking is: why was this "videographer" standing in a derelict industrial area outside Tehran at around six o'clock in the morning with a mobile phone camera training on a fixed angle to the darkened sky? The airliner is barely visible, yet the sky-watching person has the camera pointed and ready to film a most dramatic event, seconds before it happened. That strongly suggests, foreknowledge."

"Iran Jet Disaster Setup – Who Is the Mysterious Videographer?:"
https://ahtribune.com/world/north-africa-south-west-asia/iran/3809-jet-disaster-setup.html

And I would add: how do we know the video[s] are even genuine? [Answer: we don't, it is only an unproven assumption at this time].

Regards, onebornfree

anonymous [150] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 12:36 am GMT
Hmmm, cameras waiting beforehand, transponders not working. Sort of sounds like 9-11, doesn't it?
The Alarmist , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 3:01 am GMT

The Iranian missile operator reportedly experienced considerable "jamming" and the planes transponder switched off and stopped transmitting several minutes before the missiles were launched.

I vaguely recall reports of transponder issues arising during the shootdown of MH-17.

anonymous [405] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 3:49 am GMT

Civilian passenger flights were still departing and arriving in Tehran, almost certainly an error in judgment on the part of the airport authorities. Inexplicably, civilian aircraft continued to take off and land even after Flight 752 was shot down.

The Iranian government is blameworthy for keeping planes in the air either because of diabolical reasons (delays a counter attack) or economic (nearly $1 billion a year in overflight fees).

However, the pilots of the airliners that took over during the morning between the first missile hitting Iraq and the downing of the Ukrainian airliner were dumb and irresponsible.

Anon [230] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 4:10 am GMT

The system includes both radar to detect and track targets as well as an independent launch system, which includes an Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) system functionality capable of reading call signs and transponder signals to prevent accidents.

Clearly you have no clue how an IFF operates and that no commercial airliner even has an IFF on board. Every commercial aircraft looks like the enemy to this SAM operator.

Also, you need to explain how spoofing a RADAR which creates a false track would cause the shoot down. The missile would simply target the false track instead of the real aircraft.

You also need to explain how an old SAM missile site can be hacked or spoofed to shoot down a civilian airliner. Especially this old one which has no Mode-S or ADS-B capability and only radio communication capability.

As Mark Twain said, it's better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you are an idiot rather than open it and remove all doubt.

Anon [200] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 5:20 am GMT
Even if this was a clear mistake on Iran's part, the US and Israel still have blood on their hands for the downing of this plane. The missiles were launched in response to a targeted killing of an Iranian general. If that didn't happen, these missiles never would've been launched.

Trump-Pence-Pompeo-Kushner-Netanyahu are ultimately responsible for these 176 lives lost. I suspect MBS is also part of the scheme. It was his fake peace offering that lured Soleimani to Iraq in the first place. I'm with Trudeau on this.

Onlooker , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 5:22 am GMT
@Anon Before calling someone an idiot it is better to follow Mark Twain's advice yourself. A more careful reading reveals no claim that IFF was onstalled on the airliner. The commenter does speculate that possible spoofing involved a false attribution of a real airliner not the creation of a false airliner and radar track. Perhaps you are familiar with "old" electronic countermeasures and not with the "new", "top secret" and spiffy versions hinted at by the U.S. military?
AnonStarter , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 6:30 am GMT
@Quartermaster /An Airliner can not legally launch with deadlined transponder, so the claim that it quit transmitting "several" minutes earlier would have placed it on the ground when it quit./

From the SoTT link :

As it climbed and reached 4,600ft above ground level, the plane's transponder suddenly stopped working at about 6.14am, 2 minutes or so after take off . [emphasis added]

The plane was already airborne when the transponder stopped working.

AnonStarter , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 6:45 am GMT
@Onlooker Less than twenty replies into the thread and we've already got two individuals attempting to distort the facts. Here's the key link that readers should visit:

https://www.sott.net/article/427303-Was-Iranian-Missile-Operator-Tricked-Into-Shooting-Down-The-Ukrainian-Airlines-Plane-Over-Tehran

Compare the information there against what the detractors say here.

Daniel Rich , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 7:16 am GMT
@Quartermaster

The airliner had not been in the air long at all when it was shot down. An Airliner can not legally launch with deadlined transponder, so the claim that it quit transmitting "several" minutes earlier would have placed it on the ground when it quit.

The flight departed Tehran Imam Khomeini International Airport at 02:42 UTC ( 06:12 local time ) and the last ADS-B signal was received by the Flightradar24 network at 02:44 UTC( 06:14 local time) . According to the report the aircraft climbed to 8000 feet and turned right back toward the airport and crashed at 02:48 UTC ( 06:18 local time ) -- four minutes after the last ADS-B signal was received by the Flightradar24 network. – Source Flight Radar 24

Mr. Giraldi's original claim:

The Iranian missile operator reportedly experienced considerable "jamming" and the planes transponder switched off and stopped transmitting several minutes before the missiles were launched. There were also problems with the communication network of the air defense command, which may have been related.

4 minutes after the transponders were switches off, the plane crashed .

Without [proper] access to the FDR and CVR, it's impossible to determine when the plane was hit and how long it took to crash, exactly.

The plane was only flying at 8,000 feet [its normal {flight} ceiling is 30,000 feet and above], so it's speed relatively low [cruise speed is between about 400 and 500 knots (460 – 575 mph / 740 – 930 kph), but the Ukrainian plane was still climbing] and the fall back to Earth relatively quick.

On the clip where the plane is on fire and finally crashes, the downward angle looked to be about 25 to 30 %, which is relatively steep. Time of downfall can be calculated when the relative data is available.

Therefore, Mr Giraldi's claim " several minutes before the missiles were launched " is technically correct , until proven wrong by data from the FDR and CVR,

utu , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 7:31 am GMT
The Tor system is too primitive to be hacked. It is a stand alone, autonomous and mostly analog system. The radar signals it generates are shown on analog tube-screens.
Ghali , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 8:07 am GMT
Interesting theory by P. Giraldi. However, I am very surprised that Israel/Mossad role in these acts of terrorism never mentioned. We know that Trump is a Zionist servant and acts on instructions from his jewish fananciers. We know, Trump is incapable of serious thinking.

Here is a good article with some interesting observations:
https://sputniknews.com/columnists/202001131078026961-iran-jet-disaster-setup/

GMC , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 8:10 am GMT
The Iranians took the hit because their missiles took out the airliner. And then, they could stop the Western media crying for the next 6 mos. and this gave them time to bring in other neutral investigators to look at the evidence and come up with logical scenarios. There is a reason the black boxes weren't given to any one else to own – because they still remember the scam investigation of MH 17. I f lew planes for over 20 yrs – Every controlled/radared airport would ask me to turn on my transponder if it wasn't on – Everyone of them. This plane not only came from Ukraine but was an easy target for a hack from any of the big Intel countries. The BIG STORY here is that most every plane flying today – can have the same type consequences!!! because of the Western War Machine.
AZ , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 10:08 am GMT
Ask the Israelis. They are experts in these operations. The blood of the innocent on their heads

R D Steele has some interesting thoughts as well:

https://phibetaiota.net/2020/01/robert-steele-world-war-iii-was-ukrainian-flight-ps752-a-western-false-flag-combining-remote-hijacking-and-transponder-disabling-to-trigger-two-tor-m1-missiles/

lavoisier , says: Website Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 12:01 pm GMT
@Anon

Trump-Pence-Pompeo-Kushner-Netanyahu are ultimately responsible for these 176 lives lost. I suspect MBS is also part of the scheme. It was his fake peace offering that lured Soleimani to Iraq in the first place. I'm with Trudeau on this.

Trudeau showed some real courage criticizing Trump and his terrible decisions.

More Western allies have to stand up to the Zionist stooge and call him out on his treachery and stupidity.

UncommonGround , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 12:23 pm GMT
@bobhammer

The Democrats have gone too far.

I believe that P.G. has supported Trump until recently.

Besides, you could get some general information about such themes if you read articles like the following:

There's No Evidence Iran Is Responsible for the Deaths of Hundreds of Americans
by Stephen Zunes

https://progressive.org/dispatches/-no-evidence-iran-is-responsible-for-the-deaths-of-hundreds-of-americans-zunes-200107/

How the President Became a Drone Operator
by Allegra Harpootlian

https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/01/16/how-the-president-became-a-drone-operator/

lavoisier , says: Website Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 12:32 pm GMT
@bobhammer Stop drinking the Kool-Aid. Turn off Fox News now.

We are not always the good guys and we are up to our necks in deceit, plunder, and evil. Our actions have harmed millions of people around the world and it has to stop.

It is time for more self-reflection as individuals and as a nation; and it is long past time for us to be comfortable with lies.

Anonymous [401] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 2:22 pm GMT
@bobhammer The "uninterruptible" autopilot can be activated – either by pilots or by on-board sensors, or by radio or satellite link<= connected to controls at the remote end. Government agencies, quasi government agencies, military brats and probably the entire group of privately operated NGOs and private party mobsters (bankers, corporations and private military armies and privateers) at the remote end, can take over control of in-flight Aircraft, and fly it, land it, take it off, whatever, even if the pilot sitting in the cockpit objects. and does all he can to retrieve control from the remote operator.

Several comments report says interrupt able remote control, allows, persons on the ground, to take from the pilot in a flying airplane, control of the airplane the pilot is suppose to be flying, in situations for example when terrorist are in the cockpit. I have not read the manufacture's literature nor do I have personal knowledge abut the equipment list of any of these aircraft, the list suggest they are all aircraft, not only equipped with the UAP but that they were all aircraft made by the same manufacturer. I am merely repeating what was on stated as fact on a website I visited.

Many are looking for proof that remotely equipped uninterruptible autopilots are being used as Remote Control weaponized drones . Imagine an pilot, located on the ground in London or somewhere parks his /her remote ground to air control vehicle and takes over flight control including turns on/off the transponder [<=which tells everyone where the plane is during its flight] on a plane that is flying, landing or taking off from say the Tehran airport in Iran?

My personal experience is that it generally takes less than 2 minutes after a transponder is turned off during a planes flight, before fighter jets arrive to escort the transponder disabled plane; so the whole system that protects civilian aircraft, and allows the military to know the aircraft is civilian, is dependent on the Transponder, installed in the airplane, to continuously squawk during flight, its exact position so that everyone can identify the flight, and track the aircraft during its flight. Every land based control tower, ATC control system center and military installation depends on that airborne squawking transponder to track the en-route progress of commercial and private aircraft flights from take off to landing.

Another comment made on that list referred to above claimed Uninterruptible Auto Pilot [UAP] equipped aircraft have been involved in unexplained flight accident/disappearance events (I have no personal knowledge about the equipment in these aircraft, I just repeated here what someone else said elsewhere, please verify these claims yourself or provide verification ) .

(4 @911) <=UAP allows pilot-less flights, no pilot need board the plane for its flight.
(PS752) (transponder turned off, destroyed by confused ground defense crews)
MH370 (vanished into thin air)
MH17 (had its flight path altered.)
Eyes focus on Uninterruptible Auto Pilot (UAP) .. to explain recent Tehran 160 person disaster?

This is really something to think about? Always the question has been how did four military officers from Iran, trained a few weeks in Florida to fly jets, manage to get through four differently located pilot screening TSA gates to fly the aircraft and passenger into the 9/11 events. Conspiracy theories suggest since no pilot is needed, there were no pilots for TSA to screening. Remote control on the ground flew the aircraft to their destinations.

Trinity , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 2:51 pm GMT
"By way of deception thou shalt do war."

Just about says it all doesn't it? What kind of people are we dealing with here? Of course only the morons out there are still being fooled by these kind of false flags. Even in the year 2020 these same morons still believe ZOG's 9-11 fairy tale and label any other theory as a "conspiracy." Speaking of conspiracies the biggest idiots out there, even bigger than the ones who believe ZOG's narrative or those type who believe the total wacktard stuff put out by ZIO controlled disinfo puppets like Alex Jones.

Ukrainian commercial airline? What other nation besides Iran does ZOG have it in for? Is it Russia?

War by deception? HARDLY to anyone with two brain cells left. These fools have been caught before, they aren't that clever. What they are is protected by a syndicate of bought and paid for politicians. They were caught attacking the USS Liberty, they were caught bombing American and British installations in Egypt, the Rosenbergs and Pollard were nailed, but of course despite all of this, America and her leaders continued the value Israel as a friend and an ally. With a friend like Israel, who needs enemies. Then of course we have the story of our 5 little dancing Israelis apprehended in NYC after being observed dancing and celebrating the WTC towers collapsing. So you mean a group of Israelis from Israel, nation that is ALLEGEDLY "friends" with America and America think it is hilarious and worth celebrating when America is attacked and thousands are burned alive or jump to their death from hundreds of feet above the street?? Of course "our" media quickly exonerated the celebrating Israelis and buried that story faster than your average house cat buries his own turds.

ZOG really thinks the average American has the IQ of a monkey. Even after the WMD caca they still think you people will believe anything they tell you to believe. The sad part is they are right about that with the majority of the population.

Pindos , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 4:01 pm GMT
@Anon Wrong anon

Identification, friend or foe (IFF) is a radar-based identification system designed for command and control. It uses a transponder that listens for an interrogation signal and then sends a response that identifies the broadcaster. It enables military and civilian air traffic control interrogation systems to identify aircraft, vehicles or forces as friendly and to determine their bearing and range from the interrogator. IFF may be used by both military and civilian aircraft.

unit472 , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 4:37 pm GMT
If such a capability exists would the US reveal and use it in such a minor circumstance. Occam's razor suggests this was just another case of 'better safe than sorry' during a time of military tensions. Not a whole lot different than the Vincennes shootdown of an Iranian airliner that came too close during a military confrontation in the Gulf.

I would hate to know how many 'friendly' aircraft were shot down by over zealous AAA gunners in WW2 but it wasn't just a handful.

scrub , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 5:24 pm GMT
Anybody who thinks that US-Israel wouldn't have been capable of staging such a horrific event as the shooting down of the airliner by Iran hasn't been following Whitney Webb's continuing articles which are available right here on UNZ. Israel seems to have insinuated itself into about every computer security program worldwide.

Webb's article mentions large scale defense contractor Dell Computer's close connection to the Israeli government. Dell computer head Michael Dell has personally made large contributions to that curious "charity" called The Friends of The Israeli Defense Forces as has Larry Ellison, head or Oracle Software. Interestingly enough, neither of them have made correspondingly large contributions to American veterans however.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_the_Israel_Defense_Forces

Michael Dell is probably one of the biggest (or the biggest) single contributors to the Republicans from Texas, home of Dell computer. Larry Ellison (also a large government computer contractor) is also one of the Republican Party's biggest contributors.

Ellison's $5.5 million dollar contribution to the Republican is dwarfed however, by his recent contributions to The Friends of the Israeli Defense Forces which seem to total (as of today) $31 million (or more).

https://www.timesofisrael.com/record-53-8-million-raised-for-idf-soldiers-at-beverly-hills-gala/

Are both men and their companies security risks? Is there any doubt of this or are contribution to charity connected to a foreign army now simply to be considered as being benign and innocent.

anon [230] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 5:35 pm GMT
@Pindos Wrong anon

Identification, friend or foe (IFF) is a radar-based identification system designed for command and control. It uses a transponder that listens for an interrogation signal and then sends a response that identifies the broadcaster. It enables military and civilian air traffic control interrogation systems to identify aircraft, vehicles or forces as friendly and to determine their bearing and range from the interrogator. IFF may be used by both military and civilian aircraft.

Your Wikipedia snippet is absolutely incorrect . IFF is only used for Military Aircraft. If you want to prove me wrong:

Provide a link to any civilian transponder with IFF capability
Provide a link to any civilian aircraft Minimum Equipment List that requires an IFF

Rurik , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 5:38 pm GMT
@unit472

Vincennes shootdown of an Iranian airliner that came too close during a military confrontation in the Gulf.

Doesn't it rile you, as a U.S. veteran, that American soldiers are dying in treasonous service to an enemy nation?

Doesn't it bother you in the least, that Americans are on the hook for untold trillions of dollars, so they can slaughter innocent people, thousands of miles away, whose only "crime" is that a certain shitty little country, wants to see them all sent reeling into the stone age, (which is exactly what they want for you too).

Have y0u ever bothered to notice just exactly whom it is that is driving all the liberal-progressive shit we all see daily, with the ubiquitous homomania and Hollywood sewage force-injected into America's culture?

I see you occasionally speak against that stuff, but then when it comes to American soldiers dying on behalf of those rats, there you are, defending the narrative of Iran as bad guys.

How many Iranians do you see pumping Hollywood sewage into America's veins?

How many Iranians do you see on Capital Hill, demanding Trump and all his Deplorables are irredeemably racists? And need to have their guns taken away?

How many Iranians do you see at Goldman Sachs, (and the other 'Too big to fail Banksters) looting the country dry?

How many Iranians do you see in our universities, force-feeding America's youth the progressive-liberal monkey shit, they're paying to consume daily?

You'd have to be very myopic not to notice who it is behind America's depraved descent into cultural and spiritual guano. (not to mention the Eternal Wars, that only an imbecile could pretend not to notice ((who)) are behind them).

And I have a clue for you, it isn't the Iranians. In fact, they had a nice good taste of ((Western)) culture under the Shah, and they decided they'd rather not see their women whored out, and their children spiritually dead husks.

It'd be good if people could lift the veils they willfully allow to cover their own eyes, in some kind of misguided machismo about how tough "our" military are, as they're killing and dying on behalf of their worst enemy.

barr , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 5:48 pm GMT
@JimDandy Hpw did the instruction to "Fly direct" prove fatal to MH 17

MUMBAI: The ministry of civil aviation's claim that there was no Air India flight near the ill-fated Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 when it was shot down over Ukraine on Thursday appears misleading.
An Air India Dreamliner flight going from Delhi to Birmingham was in fact less than 25km away from the Malaysian aircraft,

Minutes before the crash caused by a missile strike, the AI pilots had also heard the controller give the Malaysian aircraft MH17 what is called "a direct routing". This permits an aircraft to fly straight, instead of tracking the regular route which is generally a zig-zag track that goes from one ground-based navigation aid or way point to another. "Direct routing saves fuel and time and is preferred by pilots. In this case, it proved fatal," said an airline source.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Air-India-flight-was-90-seconds-away-when-missile-struck-Malaysia-Airlines-Flight-MH17/articleshowprint/38702536.cms

1 Was India pressurized to deny the close proximity and 2 was it under pressure to deny that it heard the controller giving the instruction to MH 17????

Saggy , says: Website Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 6:09 pm GMT
@Anon http://www.dean-boys.com/extras/iff/iffqa.html

FAA regulations require that all aircraft, military or civilian, flying at an altitude of 10,000 feet or higher in U.S. controlled airspace, must be equipped with an operating IFF transponder system capable of automatic altitude reporting (this is the reason that two of the modes are used by both military and civilian aircraft).

So, did the Ukrainian plane have an IFF transponder or not? Ref?

Marvin Sandnes , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 6:52 pm GMT
The guy with the camera aimed up into a dark sky on that morning worked for a Saudi Arabia news service. From the "grayzone" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBGw5GMXb4c&feature=em-uploademail
wdg , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 6:58 pm GMT
Cui bono? Israel and its NeoCon fifth column operating in the US and throughout the western world.
Iris , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 7:01 pm GMT
@Quartermaster

what Giraldi has published doesn't even rise to the level of the most idiotic conspiracy theory one can concoct.

It happened only a few months ago that an Israeli jet violated Syria's airspace and deliberately sheltered behind a Russian Iliouchine IL-20 to get it shot down by Syrian air defence.

It was so very clearly and simply explained by the Russian Chief of Staff than any imbecile could understand it; the idiot is definitely you.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45556290

A123 , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 7:02 pm GMT
@Saggy I believe you are correct.

https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/iff

My understanding is:

A civilian transponder will respond to almost any inquiry (or even a non-coded radar pulse):
-- Standard civilian transponder code = USA military Mode 3.
-- Standard civilian transponder altitude reporting = USA military Mode C.

To reduce detectability in combat, the pilot can change the setting on a Military IFF system to only squawk when a correctly coded interrogation signal is recieved.

Saggy , says: Website Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 7:28 pm GMT
@Saggy Moon Of Alabama has the story –

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2020/01/was-the-shootdown-of-the-ukrainian-airplane-near-tehran-really-a-mistake.html

The Boeing jet broadcast the usual civil ADS-B signal but one has to expect that a U.S. cruise missile can and would do the same.

although 'one can expect ' seems like one hell of an assumption.

Frederick V. Reed , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 7:30 pm GMT
Transponders are turned on and off with switches in the cockpit. Is Giraldi suggesting that this transponder was equipped to be controlled from outside? Source of assertion that transponder was turned off? Can he name any commercial transponder with this feature? Does he know anythng about elctroic warfare? This sounds like the birthing of a conspiracy theory.
Just passing through , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 8:07 pm GMT
@DaveE The hilarious thing in Britain is that many people on the comments sections of MSM will talk about 'Asian' or more specifically 'Muslim' child rape gangs, because these gangs were heavily Muslim they can be referred to using the adjective 'Muslim'.

But when you point out that the ones beating the drums for war in Iran and who successfully plunged America and UK into a long a protracted war in the Middle East are mostly Jewish, as evidenced by this article in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz

they start getting all pissy, because of the Holocaust legend, Jews are now above scrutiny and Jewish power cannot be talked about. It is the slipperly slope fallacy, what is merely being advocated for here is not to trust a single thing that comes out of the mouth of a Jew regarding the Middle East as there is a clear conflict of interest, not genocide.

I also suspect that peoples understandable antagonism towards Muslims has somehow made them more sympathetic to Israel. Tommy Robinson is for example funded by rich Jews like Ezra Levant of Rebel Media and Robert J. Shillman – who sits on the board of Friends of Israel Defence Forces – shills for Israel. Now the Western goyim start frothing at the mouth when they hear Muslim and so think countries like Iran are evil and out to destory the West, a laughable claim.

Iris , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 8:11 pm GMT
@Z-man

stupid Christian Zionist dogma

You don't have to apologise. Christian Zionists are no Christians; they are uncultured, criminal country-bumpkins utilised by their Zionist handlers to justify the destruction of the twice-millenary Christian Arab community.

Here is what real Christians think:
Mor Maurice Amsih, Syrian Orthodox Bishop of Euphrates, demonstrating against the murder of General Soleimani, calling Soleimani and his companions " martyrs " who are now " Saints in the Heavenly Kingdom" for their blood shed freeing the Syrian people from Zio-sponsored terrorists. [@ 0:25]

https://www.youtube.com/embed/1eH4djCP2mI?feature=oembed

Anonymous [230] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 8:18 pm GMT
@Saggy

Moon Of Alabama has the story –

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2020/01/was-the-shootdown-of-the-ukrainian-airplane-near-tehran-really-a-mistake.html

The Boeing jet broadcast the usual civil ADS-B signal but one has to expect that a U.S. cruise missile can and would do the same.

although 'one can expect ' seems like one hell of an assumption.

This is absolutely irrelevant since the Iranian SAM missile launcher is so old it can not even detect and decode ADS-B signals. Note that the requirement for ADS-B transponders only came into effect this year .

AnonStarter , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 8:22 pm GMT
Some additional information to consider:

IRGC Releases Details of Accidental Downing of Ukrainian Plane

https://ifpnews.com/irgc-releases-details-of-accidental-downing-of-ukrainian-plane

By the account of Brigadier General Amir-Ali Hajizadeh:

1. Prior to the downing of the aircraft, Americans had threatened to hit 52 sites in Iran.
2. These threats placed Iran's air defense systems on the highest alert level.
3. There were reports that cruise missles had been fired at Iran.
4. In spite of IRGC requests that airspace be cleared of commercial flights, those requests were not met.
5. The air defense unit recognized Flight 752 as a cruise missle from a distance of 19 kilometers, but is still required to get approval to fire upon it.
6. When the operator attempts to get approval, he can not do so due to "disruption" of his communication system.
7. The operator is forced to make an independent decision in a 10 second window of time and fires upon the plane.

Russell Bentley , however, states that

1. the SA-15 system has an IFF interrogator built into its radar system,
2. Boeing 737 aircraft are equipped with two IFF transponders, which are set and activated prior to take off, and
3. it is possible for a plane to take off without an IFF transponder operating.
4. In spite of all this, the flight's recording on FLIGHTRADAR24.COM , proves that the transponder was on and working.
5. Even if there was no IFF signal, a SA-15/TOR M-1 operator could still determine the location, bearing, speed and size of the potential target.
6. The SA-15 also has an automatic all weather day/night NV/IR Electro Optical Targeting System (EOTS) used for target engagement and fire control by which the plane would have been easily identified.
7. Flight 752 should have been identifiable as a commercial airliner by its external lights alone.

From this information, he concludes that either there are traitors within Iran seeking to facilitate regime change or that the downing of Flight 752 was a false flag operation perpetrated by the usual suspects.

I'd like to see more information about this topic from those qualified to speak about it.

A123 , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 9:29 pm GMT
@AnonStarter

2. These threats placed Iran's air defense systems on the highest alert level
7. The operator is forced to make an independent decision in a 10 second window of time and fires upon the plane.

How long were the operators on alert? Tension and sleep deprivation are a bad mix. This looks like the crew on the ground had seconds to make a decision, and in the rush got it wrong.

I'm not sure how anyone on the outside could tell if the operator made the launch by mistake or from ill intent. No doubt the crew will be given the Richard Jewell treatment in an attempt to deflect blame from the religious hierarchy.

anonymous [393] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 9:40 pm GMT
@AnonStarter

1. the SA-15 system has an IFF interrogator built into its radar system,

Correct

2. Boeing 737 aircraft are equipped with two IFF transponders, which are set and activated prior to take off, and

Incorrect The Boeing 737 aircrfat has two ATC Transponders only one of which is activated prior to takeoff. The second ATC transponder is only activated if the first one fails. An ATC Transponder is NOT an IFF transponder.

3. it is possible for a plane to take off without an IFF transponder operating.

Incorrect . A functioning ATC transponder is part the Boeing 737 Minimum Equipment List which is available here . The only way the Ukraine Air crew could have gotten around this requirement was to get prior permission from the Iranian Civil Aviation Authority and EVERY other country's Cicil Aviation Authority in its flight path which I can guarantee you would not be forthcoming.

5. Even if there was no IFF signal, a SA-15/TOR M-1 operator could still determine the location, bearing, speed and size of the potential target.

Incorrect The operator could determine range, range rate. and bearing if the transponder was not function.

6. The SA-15 also has an automatic all weather day/night NV/IR Electro Optical Targeting System (EOTS) used for target engagement and fire control by which the plane would have been easily identified.

The plane was at least 1.5 miles away (8000 ft altitude). You go get yourself a pair of Night Vision/Infra Red scopes and see how well you do identifying different aircraft from that distance

Just passing through , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 10:12 pm GMT
@Ron Unz One good article to show people in relation to the Israel Lobby's influence on America's decision to go to war in Iraq is an article in Israeli newspaper Haaretz titled White Man's Burden which carries the following subheading;

The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them, journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it's possible. But another journalist, Thomas Friedman (not part of the group), is skeptical.

This comes from a reputable newspaper from Israel so cannot be dismissed as the ravings of some neo-Nazis. I have found this to have the most success in getting people online to think about the Iraq War more, it is impossible for detractors to label a link to an Israeli newspaper article as "anti-Semitic" without looking absurd.

I would find the UN's review kind of hard to recommend to people in real life simple because of the provocative nature of the stories it runs. The American Pravda series is of course very informative but the articles require quite a bit of time to read through and check the hyperlinks within the article itself. Without sounding like someone with a superiority complex, most people cannot read this much information and grasp it. Many will not touch articles relating to Holocaust Denial or race.

But anyway, you sir are doing great work with the maintenance and story selection on this website and I wish you the best of luck in the future. It certainly has armed me with lots of information that I can use to counter mainstream narratives in a whole host of issues. Although my efforts in real life have not been very successful, I do seem to be getting some success in my cyber-activism on mainstream news websites, where I am able to provide a clear and cogent narrative with links to reputable websites and not come across as a nutjob who raves about da jooz .

Curmudgeon , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 10:19 pm GMT
@Anon Sharpen your reading skills. Civilian aircraft have different frequency transponders than military aircraft. Flight plans are filed, and the transponder signals correspond to filed flight plans. When attacking, military craft turn off their transponders. No transponder signal = no corresponding flight plan = unfriendly aircraft.
There is no need to "spoof" anything, once the transponder stops signalling. That aside, I found it curious that this particular airplane was on its first flight after major maintenance. Who knows what was done in servicing. If the computer in the car you drive can be hijacked to cause sudden acceleration or brake failurs, an airplane's certainly can.
Curmudgeon , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 10:22 pm GMT
@lavoisier Unfortunately, Trudeau is just a different sort of Zionist stooge. His mentor, Irwin Cotler, is popular enough in Israel to be President.

[Jan 18, 2020] Actually Boeing has an uninterruptable autopilot system that can result in remote control of the plane.

Jan 18, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

lgfocus , Jan 16 2020 20:10 utc | 25

A P @5

Actually Boeing has an uninterruptable autopilot system that can result in remote control of the plane.
FLIGHT CONTROL: Boeing's 'Uninterruptible Autopilot System', Drones & Remote Hijacking
https://21stcenturywire.com/2014/08/07/flight-control-boeings-uninterruptible-autopilot-system-drones-remote-hijacking/
This article is about the lost MH370.

Abel Danger went into quite a discussion of this during the 9/11 event that had 2 planes crashing into the towers. I can't find it on youtube any longer. A lot of their YTubes have been deleted.


[Jan 18, 2020] Open Thread 2020-04

Jan 18, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

zarathustra , Jan 16 2020 17:23 utc | 2

I saw in the Jan. 15 @2130 Teheran Times that, "TEHRAN – A possible disruption in Iran's radar network by the U.S. may have caused the operator mistake the Ukrainian passenger plan for an incoming American cruise missile, at top Iranian military official said late on Tuesday."

Read article at https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/444219/Iran-probing-possible-U-S-disruption-in-radar-system-that-caused

It wouldn't be at all surprising.

psychohistorian , Jan 16 2020 17:46 utc | 4

@ zarathustra and james about the Ukrainian plane downing

Here is another link saying similar things

Iranian Military Now Claims US 'Cyberattack' Brought Down Passenger Plane

A P , Jan 16 2020 18:09 utc | 5
A Canadian here... The yappy-lapdog Canadian gov't is "demanding" a whole lot of control over the investigation, yet in the same breath demands "impartial" analysis and prosecution of the perps... by definition, the Cdn gov't is not impartial, it is a vassal administration of the US/ZATO/5Eyes MIC.

More importantly, will the black box show what happened regarding reports that the plane's transponder had been shut off shortly after take-off and before the missiles were launched. It is known from the MH370 investigation that Boeing planes automatically report back to Boeing head office with various bits of telemetry. Is it such a stretch that Boeing has various "backdoors" in the 737 flight computers which could allow the transponders to be shut off remotely? The CIA/Mossad surely would know about such backdoors, being Boeing is part and parcel of the US MIC.

The Canadian rabid response smacks of trying to hide or get ahead of any proof of the above.

John Merryman. , Jan 16 2020 18:13 utc | 6
Looking at all the stories coming out, the deep state is getting pretty serious about getting rid of Trump.
What if they get Biden as the democratic nominee too and we have a Pence/Biden matchup?
Top that with everything the Fed is doing to keep the market bubble from bursting and it raises interesting possibilities.
Trump laughing it up from the sidelines, for one thing.
Hausmeister , Jan 16 2020 18:14 utc | 7
psychohistorian | Jan 16 2020 17:46 utc | 4

This Nariman Gharib or his commanders are straightout stupid. With this behaviour they confirm the suspicion that the incident was staged. While proof of electronic warfare to create the havoc may never come or is impossible to obtain the main weakness of the effort is the fact that filming the event in the middle of the night from a rooftop is explainable only if the camera guy has known what would happen where. - Staged to overshadow the impressive triumph the Iranians had with the attack on the Iraqi US base.

[Jan 16, 2020] "Ruptured" Pompeo delivers: we just entered a new and far more dangerous era

Jan 16, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

V , Jan 15 2020 1:32 utc | 104

Some rather alarming news this morning (here); Pompeo now says the assassination of Soleimani was deterrence.

Not stopping there, he went on to say that U.S. deterrence also applies to Russia and China!

I'd say the gauntlet has been thrown down; just how far behind can war be now?

The U.S. has been pushing the limits of international crime for decades; and I think they're so used to being not challenged, that they forget (or stupidly think they're invincible) Russia and China will fight rather than cow tow to any U.S. coercion...

IMO, we just entered a new and far more dangerous era...

[Jan 16, 2020] https://iadllaw.org/2020/01/iadl-condemns-us-assassination-of-gen-qassem-soleimani-as-an-illegal-act-of-aggression/

Jan 16, 2020 | iadllaw.org

In this sense Soleimani assassination opened such a huge can of worms that the results can be judged only in several years.

It exposes Trump and his cronies as one trick ponies who does not think strategically or are manipulated (for all practical purposes the hypothesis that Trump is a puppet is stronger that then the hypothesis that he is an independent player)

In some way It might well be that Trump put the final nail into the global, led by the USA,neoliberal empire and legitimized the existence of two competing economic blocks. That's a huge change, if true (the fact that China folded contracts that)

He also implicitly acknowledged that the USA no longer can attack on Iran military without the danger of suffering large losses and profound negative consequences itself. Including Russia and China support for Iran in such a war, which would make it the second Vietnam. That's another huge change -- the end of "Full Spectrum Dominance" doctrine as we know it. .

Now we known that Trump bullied EU threating auto-tariff to support him. That a clear return to the Wild West in international relations and it another nail into the empire coffin. Esper recently blabbed that the US has the right under Article II of its Constitution to attack Iranian territory in response to offensive action by Iranian-backed militia in Iraq. So UN does not matter, right ? The UN Charter was created to stop WWIII. Under Trump, it again became a real possibility with the USA taking the central the role in creating the conditions for unleashing it.

Here is an interesting quote from yesterday (Jan 15, 2020) article by Pepe Escobar in Asia Times (

https://www.asiatimes.com/2020/01/article/battle-of-the-ages-to-stop-eurasian-integration/

Retired US Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's chief of staff from 2001 to 2005, cuts to the chase: "America exists today to make war. How else do we interpret 19 straight years of war and no end in sight? It's part of who we are. It's part of what the American Empire is. We are going to lie, cheat and steal, as Pompeo is doing right now, as Trump is doing right now, as Esper is doing right now and a host of other members of my political party, the Republicans, are doing right now. We are going to lie, cheat and steal to do whatever it is we have to do to continue this war complex. That's the truth of it. And that's the agony of it."

Moscow, Beijing and Tehran are fully aware of the stakes. Diplomats and analysts are working on the trend, for the trio, to evolve a concerted effort to protect one another from all forms of hybrid war – sanctions included – launched against each of them.

For the US, this is indeed an existential battle – against the whole Eurasia integration process, the New Silk Roads, the Russia-China strategic partnership, those Russian hypersonic weapons mixed with supple diplomacy, the profound disgust and revolt against US policies all across the Global South, the nearly inevitable collapse of the US dollar. What's certain is that the Empire won't go quietly into the night. We should all be ready for the battle of the ages.

.P.S. To me it looks that Trump lost all antiwar republicans and independents , as well as a part of military who voted for him in 2016 (and who now are Tulsi supporters)

The Senate trial, if it materializes, now can become the leverage point to drive a wedge between moderate Republicans and Trump via his Iran policies.

[Jan 16, 2020] Impeachment, Soleimani and the Pull of the Swamp

Jan 16, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Likklemore , Jan 15 2020 17:53 utc | 172

@ Carciofi 158

Observe how the West dances with Kim?

Pakistan should slip one across the border in a rail car of elephants.

We now shift the focus unto the Impeachment Trial. Shifty Schiff leads the prosecution. Should be interesting spectator sport. Never be too certain of the outcome. Some are positing Trump could be removed. Many Republicans are uneasy. The guy is unfit to have the nuclear codes, displays impaired emotion - schizophrenia. Others, Independent and Republican turncoats consider Trump embarrassing. Over the last days Trump's Sec. of Defense, Esper threw him under the bus.


This opinion piece should not be dismissed.

Impeachment, Soleimani and the Pull of the Swamp

[Because] Trump is going to be taken out.

The events of the past twelve days since Trump murdered IRGC General Qassem Soleimani prove this beyond any doubt. Impeachment was the leverage point to drive open a wedge between Republicans and Trump through Iran.

Pelosi slow-walking the articles of impeachment to the Senate was all part of the pantomime, folks. She gets what she wants: Congress asserting more power and the Democrats shoring up their base by taking out an eyesore in Trump.

She waits just long enough for Trump to do something questionable and for it to be made known publicly.[.]

The Swamp Strikes Back and puts Trump in a no-win situation.

The Wall St. Journal article from this weekend which intimated that Trump made the decision to kill Soleimani was motivated by shoring up his support in the Israeli Occupied Senate is further proof.

"Mr. Trump, after the strike, told associates he was under pressure to deal with Gen. Soleimani from GOP senators he views as important supporters in his coming impeachment trial in the Senate, associates said," the newspaper reported.[.]

kooshy , Jan 15 2020 18:22 utc | 173

@Lysander | Jan 15 2020 2:04 utc | 111

"That is why Trump's presidency is a blessing for Iran. "
It's real blessing to the entire world, otherwise how else the world would have come to see the real ugly face of Americans

@Rd | Jan 15 2020 1:01 utc | 98
This is now beyond government and oligarchy , and laws, this is now about a national/religious demand for revenge, on killing a true national shia muslim hero away from any political or difference in opinion.
IMO, the demand for revenge can not be even controlled by military and it's leaders, the order for revenge can even be sanctioned by a relative unknown cleric in a shia village.

@moon | Jan 15 2020 7:52 utc | 136
Thanks, PL banned me over a year ago , for calling US military (yeman) a mercenary force, Now Trump is proud he sold 3000 US trops to Bone saw for 1 billion.
I also believe that Iranian military has understood for some time now, that US (Military) is not willing to enter a war with Iran at this time, which makes me believe that a low intensity, long, covert attritional war across the western Asia will finally make US to leave. IMO pre announced without casualty attack on AalA US base by Iran Military was to allow any future covert low intensity attack by Iranian regional allies on US forces as non-sanctioned or related by Iranian government or military.
Which makes it hard to fight directly.

[Jan 16, 2020] Angry Bear " Further Followup On The Soleimani Assassination

Jan 16, 2020 | angrybearblog.com

Further Followup On The Soleimani Assassination

Barkley Rosser | January 15, 2020 6:13 am

Journalism Politics Further Followup On The Soleimani Assassination I wish to point out some matters not getting a lot of attention in the US media.

An important one of those was reported two days ago by Juan Cole . It is that apparently it has not been determined for certain that the initial attack that set off this current round of deaths when a militia in Iraq attacked an Iraqi military base in Kirkuk in which an American contractor was killed, almost certainly a matter of collateral damage although not recognized as such, was actually done by Kata'b Hezbollah, the group reported to have done it. That group was commanded by al-Mushani, who was also assassinated with Soleimani, with whom he was allied. But it is not certain that they did it. As it is, the Kirkuk base is dominated by Kurdish Pesh Merga, with whom it is not at all obvious the pro-Iranian militias like the Kat'b Hezbollah have hostile differences. This may have been cooked up to create an excuse for assassinating Soleimani.

Indeed, it has now been reported that seven months ago Trump had approved killing Soleimani essentially at the first instance there would be a good excuse for doing so. In fact it is now reported that although Trump had not heard of Soleimani during th 2016 election, within five minutes of his inauguration he suggested killing Soleimani. SecState Pompeo been encouraging and pushing this action, but it has been something Trump has been hot to do for some time. Going up for an impeachment trial looks like a really good time.

We have now seen quite a dance around reasons to justify this. We must keep clear that it is a matter of both US and international law that this sort of killing of a foreign national official such as General Soleimani is that there be an "imminent threat." I shall not drag through the various versions of what was supposedly the imminent threat was here, but it has finally become clear that there was none. And as of today both Pompeo and AG Barr have now pivoted to saying that it was done for "deterrence," but that leaves this assassination as illegal, with US troops in Iraq now declared to be"terrorists."

Now indeed the further followup has become quite a mess, although hopefully the escalation has stopped and war will not happen, despite getting very close to the brink. So Iran made its strike on two bases with US troops in Iraq. While it initially looked like the Iranians were going out of their way to avoid killing any Americans, local US commanders now say that it appears that the strikes were in fact aimed at killing some Americans, and some were in fact injured. I do not know if this is true or not, but it is disturbing and shows how close we have gotten to heightened war.

Then we had this disaster of the Iranians themselves shooting down a commercial Ukrainian airplane (oh, the irony), killing 176 civilians, mostly Iranians, Canadians, and Ukrainians, plus some others. With the admission by the regime, anti-government demonstrations have broken out at universities especially in Tehran where many of the Iranians on the plane were from, and many of the university students heading to Canada. Those demos have gone on for three days bringing forth a harsh put down from the government, but with news people quitting their jobs out of disgust. The government has now arrested some supposedly responsible for the erroneous shootdown under heightened alert status, which would not have come to pass without the illegal assassination. It is unclear if these arrests will bring an end to the demonstrations, but it should be kept in mind that these involve much smaller numbers of people than turned out in the aftermath of Soleimani's assassination.

Underlying this most recent uprising is the fact that Iran is suffering serious econoimic problems. Much of this is due to the Trump sanctions, but they also reflect entrenched corruption and spending on foreign adventures, such as support for foreign militias. These are difficult times, and let us hope that all sides step back and reduce the heightened tensions.

Barkley

  1. run75441 , January 15, 2020 12:23 pm

    Barkley:

    Good post and thanks for the follow-up.

    Normally when something happens in the Middle East, I head over to Informed Comment to see what Juan is saying about the situation. You have added information I was not aware of as I had not been over to Juan Cole's Informed Comment in several days. Also from a January 11th column of his:

    "Lest the Trumpies imply that only Obama de facto allied with Soleimani and his Iraqi Shiite militias, it should be pointed out that they played an important role in the defeat of ISIL at Mosul during Trump's presidency. Although they did not fight their way into the city, they fanned out to the west and north to prevent ISIL terrorists from escaping to Raqqa in Syria. That was why Kata'ib Hizbullah had a base at Qa'im, a checkpoint between Iraq and Syria, where they were preventing ISIL agents from going back and forth. Trump kicked off the current crisis by bombing his allies at Qa'im, killing some 26 militiamen. And then he droned his sometime ally Soleimani to death at Baghdad airport as Soleimani was about to begin covert peace talks with Saudi Arabia."

    All the Times the US allied with Gen. Soleimani against Common Enemies, giving him Air Support at Tikrit

Barkley Rosser , January 15, 2020 8:12 pm

I must walk back one speculation I made in this post. It is not the case that the base attacked near Kirkuk held Kurdish Pesh Merga. It indeed houses US and Iraqi national troops dedicated to fighting ISIS/ISIL/Daesh. Four US service people were injured along with two national Iraqi troops. The US citizwn killed was naturalized and born in Iraq.

It remains possible that it was IAIA/ISIL/Daesh carried out the attack as they are active in that area. However, most think it was Kata'b Hezbollah, enocuraged and suppliled by Soleimani.

run75441 , January 15, 2020 8:21 pm

Barkley:

Ok, so you missed some detail. The drone attack on Soleimani and others did not have to occur. Furthermore, it appears this was planned months earlier and just never carried through. To me, it is just another Trump distraction away from his impeachment.

[Jan 16, 2020] The problem is that Trump appears to be morphing from the mad negotiator into someone who really is mad. I think he knows he screwed up with Soleimani and there's no taking it back, only doubling down

Jan 16, 2020 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Carolinian , , January 14, 2020 at 10:08 am

Thanks for the shrewd analysis. The problem is that Trump appears to be morphing from the mad negotiator into someone who really is mad. I think he knows he screwed up with Soleimani and there's no taking it back, only doubling down . You can't talk your way out of some mistakes. Trump is shrewd, but not very smart and like most bullies he's also weak. He gets by being such an obvious bluffer and blowhard but when you start assassinating people and expect to be praised for it it's no longer a game.

Carolinian , , January 14, 2020 at 4:59 pm

I'd say the solution is to give Trump the heave ho this November and not play his game of me me me. Indeed the Iranians seem to be biding their time to see what happens.

Trump was always only tolerable as long as he spent his time shooting off his mouth rather than playing the imperial chess master. This reality show has gone on long enough.

MyLessThanPrimeBeef , , January 14, 2020 at 5:10 pm

And to give Trump the heave-ho, we have to know how to play the man. (Then, Iran doesn't have to.)

But if we don't fully know -- if he is unpredictable in how he starts out at the beginning -- it makes the venture harder (but not impossible).

OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , , January 14, 2020 at 7:39 pm

Not sure he "screwed up" with Suleimani. He now has something to point to when Adelson and the Israel Firsters ring up. He has red meat for his base ("look what a tough guy I am"). He can tell the Saudis they now owe him one.

He added slightly to the fund of hatred for America in the hearts of Sunnis but that fund is already pretty full. If they respond with a terror attack Trump wins because people will rally around the national leader and partisan differences will be put aside. Notice how fast de-escalation happened, certainly feels alot like pre-orchestrated kayfabe.

[Jan 16, 2020] Who Targeted Ukraine Airlines Flight 752 Iran Shot It Down But There May Be More to the Story by Philip Giraldi

Jan 16, 2020 | www.unz.com

What seems to have been a case of bad judgments and human error does, however, include some elements that have yet to be explained. The Iranian missile operator reportedly experienced considerable "jamming" and the planes transponder switched off and stopped transmitting several minutes before the missiles were launched . There were also problems with the communication network of the air defense command, which may have been related.

The electronic jamming coming from an unknown source meant that the air defense system was placed on manual operation, relying on human intervention to launch. The human role meant that an operator had to make a quick judgment in a pressure situation in which he had only moments to react. The shutdown of the transponder, which would have automatically signaled to the operator and Tor electronics that the plane was civilian, instead automatically indicated that it was hostile. The operator, having been particularly briefed on the possibility of incoming American cruise missiles, then fired.

The two missiles that brought the plane down came from a Russian-made system designated SA-15 by NATO and called Tor by the Russians. Its eight missiles are normally mounted on a tracked vehicle. The system includes both radar to detect and track targets as well as an independent launch system, which includes an Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) system functionality capable of reading call signs and transponder signals to prevent accidents. Given what happened on that morning in Tehran, it is plausible to assume that something or someone deliberately interfered with both the Iranian air defenses and with the transponder on the airplane, possibly as part of an attempt to create an aviation accident that would be attributed to the Iranian government.

The SA-15 Tor defense system used by Iran has one major vulnerability. It can be hacked or "spoofed," permitting an intruder to impersonate a legitimate user and take control. The United States Navy and Air Force reportedly have developed technologies "that can fool enemy radar systems with false and deceptively moving targets." Fooling the system also means fooling the operator. The Guardian has also reported independently how the United States military has long been developing systems that can from a distance alter the electronics and targeting of Iran's available missiles.

The same technology can, of course, be used to alter or even mask the transponder on a civilian airliner in such a fashion as to send false information about identity and location. The United States has the cyber and electronic warfare capability to both jam and alter signals relating to both airliner transponders and to the Iranian air defenses. Israel presumably has the same ability. Joe Quinn at Sott.net also notes an interested back story to those photos and video footage that have appeared in the New York Times and elsewhere showing the Iranian missile launch, the impact with the plane and the remains after the crash, to include the missile remains. They appeared on January 9 th , in an Instagram account called ' Rich Kids of Tehran '. Quinn asks how the Rich Kids happened to be in "a low-income housing estate on the city's outskirts [near the airport] at 6 a.m. on the morning of January 8 th with cameras pointed at the right part of the sky in time to capture a missile hitting a Ukrainian passenger plane ?"

Put together the Rich Kids and the possibility of electronic warfare and it all suggests a premeditated and carefully planned event of which the Soleimani assassination was only a part. There have been riots in Iran subsequent to the shooting down of the plane, blaming the government for its ineptitude. Some of the people in the street are clearly calling for the goal long sought by the United States and Israel, i.e. "regime change." If nothing else, Iran, which was widely seen as the victim in the killing of Soleimani, is being depicted in much of the international media as little more than another unprincipled actor with blood on its hands. There is much still to explain about the downing of Ukrainian International Airlines Flight 752.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.

AnonStarter , says: Show Comment January 15, 2020 at 10:45 pm GMT

Given this news, any impartial observer would at least entertain the possibility of its truth, particularly given the lengthy track record of the United States/Israel in perpetrating such crimes.

It's a good litmus test for determining where one's sentiment lies. Even "alternative media" aren't likely to touch this story.

Bravo to Mr. Giraldi and Mr. Unz.

Sean , says: Show Comment January 15, 2020 at 11:10 pm GMT
The Iranian Ambassador to Britain, Hamid Baeidinejad said in an interview on the UK Channel 4 news hours ago that although Iran had needed time to determine what had happened, it had now accepted responsibility, would pay compensation, and the people who fired on the jet will be put on trial.

If nothing else, Iran, which was widely seen as the victim in the killing of Soleimani, is being depicted in much of the international media as little more than another unprincipled actor with blood on its hands.

Both Trump and the Iranian regime have good domestic disquiet reason to rethink the confrontational policy each are pursuing. Iran and the US could get closer over this. I think the predictable unpredictability of assassination and catastrophic loss of life events makes false flagging them of dubious value.

Why did I rob banks? Because I enjoyed it. I loved it. I was more alive when I was inside a bank, robbing it, than at any other time in my life. I enjoyed everything about it so much that one or two weeks later I'd be out looking for the next job. But to me the money was the chips, that's all.

(Sutton W, Linn E: Where the Money Was: The Memoirs of a Bank Robber. Viking Press (1976), p. 160)

I suppose it is possible there are people who get addicted to false flagging others' deaths. If half of what is said in this site is true, Mossad really needs to set up a 12 step program.

onebornfree , says: Website Show Comment January 15, 2020 at 11:49 pm GMT
" .the big question which many people on social media are asking is: why was this "videographer" standing in a derelict industrial area outside Tehran at around six o'clock in the morning with a mobile phone camera training on a fixed angle to the darkened sky? The airliner is barely visible, yet the sky-watching person has the camera pointed and ready to film a most dramatic event, seconds before it happened. That strongly suggests, foreknowledge."

"Iran Jet Disaster Setup – Who Is the Mysterious Videographer?:"
https://ahtribune.com/world/north-africa-south-west-asia/iran/3809-jet-disaster-setup.html

And I would add: how do we know the video[s] are even genuine? [Answer: we don't, it is only an unproven assumption at this time].

Regards, onebornfree

anonymous [150] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 12:36 am GMT
Hmmm, cameras waiting beforehand, transponders not working. Sort of sounds like 9-11, doesn't it?
The Alarmist , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 3:01 am GMT

The Iranian missile operator reportedly experienced considerable "jamming" and the planes transponder switched off and stopped transmitting several minutes before the missiles were launched.

I vaguely recall reports of transponder issues arising during the shootdown of MH-17.

anonymous [405] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 3:49 am GMT

Civilian passenger flights were still departing and arriving in Tehran, almost certainly an error in judgment on the part of the airport authorities. Inexplicably, civilian aircraft continued to take off and land even after Flight 752 was shot down.

The Iranian government is blameworthy for keeping planes in the air either because of diabolical reasons (delays a counter attack) or economic (nearly $1 billion a year in overflight fees).

However, the pilots of the airliners that took over during the morning between the first missile hitting Iraq and the downing of the Ukrainian airliner were dumb and irresponsible.

Anon [230] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 4:10 am GMT

The system includes both radar to detect and track targets as well as an independent launch system, which includes an Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) system functionality capable of reading call signs and transponder signals to prevent accidents.

Clearly you have no clue how an IFF operates and that no commercial airliner even has an IFF on board. Every commercial aircraft looks like the enemy to this SAM operator.

Also, you need to explain how spoofing a RADAR which creates a false track would cause the shoot down. The missile would simply target the false track instead of the real aircraft.

You also need to explain how an old SAM missile site can be hacked or spoofed to shoot down a civilian airliner. Especially this old one which has no Mode-S or ADS-B capability and only radio communication capability.

As Mark Twain said, it's better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you are an idiot rather than open it and remove all doubt.

Anon [200] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 5:20 am GMT
Even if this was a clear mistake on Iran's part, the US and Israel still have blood on their hands for the downing of this plane. The missiles were launched in response to a targeted killing of an Iranian general. If that didn't happen, these missiles never would've been launched.

Trump-Pence-Pompeo-Kushner-Netanyahu are ultimately responsible for these 176 lives lost. I suspect MBS is also part of the scheme. It was his fake peace offering that lured Soleimani to Iraq in the first place. I'm with Trudeau on this.

Onlooker , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 5:22 am GMT
@Anon Before calling someone an idiot it is better to follow Mark Twain's advice yourself. A more careful reading reveals no claim that IFF was onstalled on the airliner. The commenter does speculate that possible spoofing involved a false attribution of a real airliner not the creation of a false airliner and radar track. Perhaps you are familiar with "old" electronic countermeasures and not with the "new", "top secret" and spiffy versions hinted at by the U.S. military?
AnonStarter , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 6:30 am GMT
@Quartermaster /An Airliner can not legally launch with deadlined transponder, so the claim that it quit transmitting "several" minutes earlier would have placed it on the ground when it quit./

From the SoTT link :

As it climbed and reached 4,600ft above ground level, the plane's transponder suddenly stopped working at about 6.14am, 2 minutes or so after take off . [emphasis added]

The plane was already airborne when the transponder stopped working.

AnonStarter , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 6:45 am GMT
@Onlooker Less than twenty replies into the thread and we've already got two individuals attempting to distort the facts. Here's the key link that readers should visit:

https://www.sott.net/article/427303-Was-Iranian-Missile-Operator-Tricked-Into-Shooting-Down-The-Ukrainian-Airlines-Plane-Over-Tehran

Compare the information there against what the detractors say here.

Daniel Rich , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 7:16 am GMT
@Quartermaster

The airliner had not been in the air long at all when it was shot down. An Airliner can not legally launch with deadlined transponder, so the claim that it quit transmitting "several" minutes earlier would have placed it on the ground when it quit.

The flight departed Tehran Imam Khomeini International Airport at 02:42 UTC ( 06:12 local time ) and the last ADS-B signal was received by the Flightradar24 network at 02:44 UTC( 06:14 local time) . According to the report the aircraft climbed to 8000 feet and turned right back toward the airport and crashed at 02:48 UTC ( 06:18 local time ) -- four minutes after the last ADS-B signal was received by the Flightradar24 network. – Source Flight Radar 24

Mr. Giraldi's original claim:

The Iranian missile operator reportedly experienced considerable "jamming" and the planes transponder switched off and stopped transmitting several minutes before the missiles were launched. There were also problems with the communication network of the air defense command, which may have been related.

4 minutes after the transponders were switches off, the plane crashed .

Without [proper] access to the FDR and CVR, it's impossible to determine when the plane was hit and how long it took to crash, exactly.

The plane was only flying at 8,000 feet [its normal {flight} ceiling is 30,000 feet and above], so it's speed relatively low [cruise speed is between about 400 and 500 knots (460 – 575 mph / 740 – 930 kph), but the Ukrainian plane was still climbing] and the fall back to Earth relatively quick.

On the clip where the plane is on fire and finally crashes, the downward angle looked to be about 25 to 30 %, which is relatively steep. Time of downfall can be calculated when the relative data is available.

Therefore, Mr Giraldi's claim " several minutes before the missiles were launched " is technically correct , until proven wrong by data from the FDR and CVR,

utu , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 7:31 am GMT
The Tor system is too primitive to be hacked. It is a stand alone, autonomous and mostly analog system. The radar signals it generates are shown on analog tube-screens.
Ghali , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 8:07 am GMT
Interesting theory by P. Giraldi. However, I am very surprised that Israel/Mossad role in these acts of terrorism never mentioned. We know that Trump is a Zionist servant and acts on instructions from his jewish fananciers. We know, Trump is incapable of serious thinking.

Here is a good article with some interesting observations:
https://sputniknews.com/columnists/202001131078026961-iran-jet-disaster-setup/

GMC , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 8:10 am GMT
The Iranians took the hit because their missiles took out the airliner. And then, they could stop the Western media crying for the next 6 mos. and this gave them time to bring in other neutral investigators to look at the evidence and come up with logical scenarios. There is a reason the black boxes weren't given to any one else to own – because they still remember the scam investigation of MH 17. I f lew planes for over 20 yrs – Every controlled/radared airport would ask me to turn on my transponder if it wasn't on – Everyone of them. This plane not only came from Ukraine but was an easy target for a hack from any of the big Intel countries. The BIG STORY here is that most every plane flying today – can have the same type consequences!!! because of the Western War Machine.
AZ , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 10:08 am GMT
Ask the Israelis. They are experts in these operations. The blood of the innocent on their heads

R D Steele has some interesting thoughts as well:

https://phibetaiota.net/2020/01/robert-steele-world-war-iii-was-ukrainian-flight-ps752-a-western-false-flag-combining-remote-hijacking-and-transponder-disabling-to-trigger-two-tor-m1-missiles/

lavoisier , says: Website Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 12:01 pm GMT
@Anon

Trump-Pence-Pompeo-Kushner-Netanyahu are ultimately responsible for these 176 lives lost. I suspect MBS is also part of the scheme. It was his fake peace offering that lured Soleimani to Iraq in the first place. I'm with Trudeau on this.

Trudeau showed some real courage criticizing Trump and his terrible decisions.

More Western allies have to stand up to the Zionist stooge and call him out on his treachery and stupidity.

UncommonGround , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 12:23 pm GMT
@bobhammer

The Democrats have gone too far.

I believe that P.G. has supported Trump until recently.

Besides, you could get some general information about such themes if you read articles like the following:

There's No Evidence Iran Is Responsible for the Deaths of Hundreds of Americans
by Stephen Zunes

https://progressive.org/dispatches/-no-evidence-iran-is-responsible-for-the-deaths-of-hundreds-of-americans-zunes-200107/

How the President Became a Drone Operator
by Allegra Harpootlian

https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/01/16/how-the-president-became-a-drone-operator/

lavoisier , says: Website Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 12:32 pm GMT
@bobhammer Stop drinking the Kool-Aid. Turn off Fox News now.

We are not always the good guys and we are up to our necks in deceit, plunder, and evil. Our actions have harmed millions of people around the world and it has to stop.

It is time for more self-reflection as individuals and as a nation; and it is long past time for us to be comfortable with lies.

Anonymous [401] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 2:22 pm GMT
@bobhammer The "uninterruptible" autopilot can be activated – either by pilots or by on-board sensors, or by radio or satellite link<= connected to controls at the remote end. Government agencies, quasi government agencies, military brats and probably the entire group of privately operated NGOs and private party mobsters (bankers, corporations and private military armies and privateers) at the remote end, can take over control of in-flight Aircraft, and fly it, land it, take it off, whatever, even if the pilot sitting in the cockpit objects. and does all he can to retrieve control from the remote operator.

Several comments report says interrupt able remote control, allows, persons on the ground, to take from the pilot in a flying airplane, control of the airplane the pilot is suppose to be flying, in situations for example when terrorist are in the cockpit. I have not read the manufacture's literature nor do I have personal knowledge abut the equipment list of any of these aircraft, the list suggest they are all aircraft, not only equipped with the UAP but that they were all aircraft made by the same manufacturer. I am merely repeating what was on stated as fact on a website I visited.

Many are looking for proof that remotely equipped uninterruptible autopilots are being used as Remote Control weaponized drones . Imagine an pilot, located on the ground in London or somewhere parks his /her remote ground to air control vehicle and takes over flight control including turns on/off the transponder [<=which tells everyone where the plane is during its flight] on a plane that is flying, landing or taking off from say the Tehran airport in Iran?

My personal experience is that it generally takes less than 2 minutes after a transponder is turned off during a planes flight, before fighter jets arrive to escort the transponder disabled plane; so the whole system that protects civilian aircraft, and allows the military to know the aircraft is civilian, is dependent on the Transponder, installed in the airplane, to continuously squawk during flight, its exact position so that everyone can identify the flight, and track the aircraft during its flight. Every land based control tower, ATC control system center and military installation depends on that airborne squawking transponder to track the en-route progress of commercial and private aircraft flights from take off to landing.

Another comment made on that list referred to above claimed Uninterruptible Auto Pilot [UAP] equipped aircraft have been involved in unexplained flight accident/disappearance events (I have no personal knowledge about the equipment in these aircraft, I just repeated here what someone else said elsewhere, please verify these claims yourself or provide verification ) .

(4 @911) <=UAP allows pilot-less flights, no pilot need board the plane for its flight.
(PS752) (transponder turned off, destroyed by confused ground defense crews)
MH370 (vanished into thin air)
MH17 (had its flight path altered.)
Eyes focus on Uninterruptible Auto Pilot (UAP) .. to explain recent Tehran 160 person disaster?

This is really something to think about? Always the question has been how did four military officers from Iran, trained a few weeks in Florida to fly jets, manage to get through four differently located pilot screening TSA gates to fly the aircraft and passenger into the 9/11 events. Conspiracy theories suggest since no pilot is needed, there were no pilots for TSA to screening. Remote control on the ground flew the aircraft to their destinations.

Trinity , says: Show Comment January 16, 2020 at 2:51 pm GMT
"By way of deception thou shalt do war."

Just about says it all doesn't it? What kind of people are we dealing with here? Of course only the morons out there are still being fooled by these kind of false flags. Even in the year 2020 these same morons still believe ZOG's 9-11 fairy tale and label any other theory as a "conspiracy." Speaking of conspiracies the biggest idiots out there, even bigger than the ones who believe ZOG's narrative or those type who believe the total wacktard stuff put out by ZIO controlled disinfo puppets like Alex Jones.

Ukrainian commercial airline? What other nation besides Iran does ZOG have it in for? Is it Russia?

War by deception? HARDLY to anyone with two brain cells left. These fools have been caught before, they aren't that clever. What they are is protected by a syndicate of bought and paid for politicians. They were caught attacking the USS Liberty, they were caught bombing American and British installations in Egypt, the Rosenbergs and Pollard were nailed, but of course despite all of this, America and her leaders continued the value Israel as a friend and an ally. With a friend like Israel, who needs enemies. Then of course we have the story of our 5 little dancing Israelis apprehended in NYC after being observed dancing and celebrating the WTC towers collapsing. So you mean a group of Israelis from Israel, nation that is ALLEGEDLY "friends" with America and America think it is hilarious and worth celebrating when America is attacked and thousands are burned alive or jump to their death from hundreds of feet above the street?? Of course "our" media quickly exonerated the celebrating Israelis and buried that story faster than your average house cat buries his own turds.

ZOG really thinks the average American has the IQ of a monkey. Even after the WMD caca they still think you people will believe anything they tell you to believe. The sad part is they are right about that with the majority of the population.

[Jan 16, 2020] Trump's fits the pattern the Russians have used to depict the USA: "not agreement capable".

One of the strongest predictive sign that you have a sociopathic boss is that he/she is not agreement capable.
The maintenance of fear, chaos and blowback are exACTLY the desired result. Deliberately and on purpose.
Notable quotes:
"... I would put it a bit differently. Trump's erraticness is a strong signal he fits to a pattern the Russians have used to depict the US: "not agreement capable". ..."
Jan 16, 2020 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Yves Smith Post author , , January 14, 2020 at 12:31 pm

I would put it a bit differently. Trump's erraticness is a strong signal he fits to a pattern the Russians have used to depict the US: "not agreement capable". That's what I meant by he selects for weak partners. His negotiating style signals that he is a bad faith actor. Who would put up with that unless you had to, or you could somehow build that into your price?

barnaby33 , , January 14, 2020 at 11:53 pm

Considering I doubt the Russians have ever honored a single deal they made, that's maybe not a good example!

Yves Smith Post author , , January 15, 2020 at 12:16 am

I have no idea who your mythical Russians are. I know two people who did business in Russia before things got stupid and they never had problems with getting paid. Did you also miss that "Russians" have bought so much real estate in London that they mainly don't live in that you could drop a neutron bomb in the better parts of Chelsea and South Kensington and not kill anyone?

Pray tell, how could they acquire high end property if they are such cheats?

Boomka , , January 15, 2020 at 6:38 am

somebody was eating too much US propaganda? how about this for starters:
https://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/26-years-on-russia-set-to-repay-all-soviet-unions-foreign-debt

"It is politically important: Russia has paid off the USSR's debt to a country that no longer exists," said Mr Yuri Yudenkov, a professor at the Russian University of Economics and Public Administration. "This is very important in terms of reputation: the ability to repay on time, the responsibility," he told AFP.

It would have been very easy for Russia to say it cannot be held responsible for USSR's debts, especially in this case where debt is to a non-existent entity.

[Jan 16, 2020] US Attack on Soleimani is a Signal to Russia-Iran-China Triumvirate to Cease Cooperation by Ekaterina Blinova

Jan 07, 2020 | sputniknews.com

The US is trying to stop Eurasia's economic and political integration in order to delay its own demise, say international observers, explaining what message the US sent to the Russia-China-Iran "triumvirate" by killing Quds Commander Qasem Soleimani. The assassination of Qasem Soleimani, an Iranian major general in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and commander of the Quds Force, in a targeted US air strike on 3 January came on the heels of joint naval exercise launched by Russia, Iran and China in the Indian Ocean and Gulf of Oman.

The "growing Russia-China-Iran trilateral convergence", as The Diplomat dubbed it in late December, is seemingly hitting a raw nerve in Washington : speaking to Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) on 2 January, Rear Admiral Khanzadi, the Iranian navy commander, said that Washington and its allies had held an emergency meeting aimed at disrupting the drills.

US Opposes Rapprochement of Russia, China and Iran Amid Policy of 'Maximum Pressure'
"Recent violent US attacks against Iranian allies in Iraq and Syria, culminating in the killing of Iran's Major General Qasem Soleimani, are, in the wider geopolitical sense, meant to send signals to the building Eurasian triumvirate to cease their collaborative activities, let alone longer-term strategic and Belt and Road Initiative-linked designs," says Pye Ian, an American economic analyst and private equity executive.

According to Ian, the US decision to step up pressure on Tehran might be stemming from Washington's apparent belief that Iran is "the 'weakest link' in the strengthening Eurasian alliance".

However, "Russia, China and Iran cannot be attacked overtly, let alone invaded, occupied or 'regime changed'," the economic analyst highlights.

Christopher C. Black, a Toronto-based international criminal lawyer with 20 years of experience in war crimes and international relations, echoes the American economist.

"It is in response to the close relationship between Russia, Iran and China and it is no coincidence that this murder took place just as the joint naval exercises in the Persian Gulf came to an end," he said. "Further, it is a threat to Russian strategic interests in Syria and to Syria itself."

Apart from this, the move indicates that "one of the reasons for US pressure on Iran is to control the oil supply to China in order to cripple China's development," Black suggests.

Russia and its military successes in the region have become yet another irritant for Washington, according to Max Parry, an independent American journalist and geopolitical analyst.

"The US likely feels the need to re-assert itself as a hegemonic power in the region, considering it is Moscow that emerged as the new honest peace broker in the Middle East with the Syrian conflict," Parry notes. "Russia completely outmanoeuvred Washington and by the end of the war, Turkey was practically in Moscow's camp. Trump has reset US foreign policy with the withdrawal from Syria and the targeting of Iran."

By killing Soleimani, the US "has completely overplayed its hand and this could be the beginning of the end for Washington because a war with Iran would be no cakewalk", he emphasises.

© AFP 2019 / ALY SONG / POOL Russian President Vladimir Putin (L), Chinese President Xi Jinping (C) and Iran's President Hassan Rouhani attend the Expo Center before the opening ceremony at the Expo Center at the fourth Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia (CICA) summit in Shanghai on May 21, 2014 Eurasian 'Triumvirate' is Moving Away From the US Dollar

According to Ian, in addition to being a thorn in Washington's flesh, Moscow, Beijing and Tehran have something else in common: the three nations have increasingly been drifting away from the US dollar.

The trend followed the Trump administration's:

· unilateral withdrawal from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Actions (JCPOA) in May 2018;

· trade war waged against the People's Republic of China by Washington since March 2018;

· series of anti-Russian sanctions imposed against Moscow under the pretext of the latter's interference in the US 2016 presidential elections, something that Russia resolutely denies.

The economic analyst explains that "the dollar's universal confidence trick requires uniform adherence, by natural adoption or by force". While the US allies remain obedient to the dollar- dominated system, those who resisted it such as Iraq under Saddam, Libya under Gaddafi and Venezuela under Chavez "triggered some Atlanticist force, either overtly or clandestinely, in order to try and put those nations back on a compliant page."

However, "the current state of dollar printing by the US Fed ad infinitum cannot last forever," Ian stresses.

"The global East and South are already ahead of Transatlantic banking, in a sense, by shifting further out of the dollar and Treasury securities into their own, or bilateral, currency exchanges, gold, and/or domestic or collaborative cryptocurrency endeavours," he says.

Russia, China, Iran, as well as India and some other Eurasian nations are switching to trading in local currencies and continuing to amass gold at a steady pace . Thus, for instance, Russia produced over 185.1 tonnes of gold in the first six months of 2019; the country's bullion reserves reached 72.7 million troy ounces (2,261 tonnes) as of 1 December 2019. For its part, the People's Bank of China (PBoC) has accumulated 1,948.3 tonnes of the precious metal as of December 2019, according to World Gold Council.

Ian foresees that if the world's nations continue to shift out of US Treasury obligations and choose alternative currencies for energy pricing, trading and reserves recycling, it may "cause US interest rates to fly higher, cratering consumer, institutional and public debt obligations and re-importing an obscene level of inflation back into the US".

The views and opinions expressed in the article do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.

[Jan 15, 2020] Just Trust Us, Says the Most Dishonest Administration Ever

Notable quotes:
"... On Sunday, the Washington Post, citing a senior U.S official, reported that "Pompeo first spoke with Trump about killing Suleimani months ago but neither the president nor Pentagon officials were willing to countenance such an operation." On Thursday, CNN's Nicole Gaouette and Jamie Gangel reported that "Pompeo was a driving force behind President Donald Trump's decision to kill" the Iranian general. The CNN story said that Pompeo, who was the director of the Central Intelligence Agency under Trump before he moved to the State Department, viewed Suleimani as the mastermind of myriad operations targeting Americans and U.S interests. It also quoted an unnamed source close to Pompeo, who recalled the Secretary of State telling friends, "I will not retire from public service until Suleimani is off the battlefield." ..."
theamericanconservative.com
One of the new bogus explanations that the administration has been offering up is that there was a threat to one or more U.S. embassies that led to the assassination. Rep. Justin Amash notes this morning that they have presented no evidence to Congress to back up any of this or their original claim of an "imminent" attack:
The administration didn't present evidence to Congress regarding even one embassy. The four embassies claim seems to be totally made up. And they have never presented evidence of imminence -- a necessary condition to act without congressional approval -- with respect to any of this. The administration didn't present evidence to Congress regarding even one embassy. The four embassies claim seems to be totally made up. And they have never presented evidence of imminence -- a necessary condition to act without congressional approval -- with respect to any of this. https://t.co/Eg0vaCnqFd -- Justin Amash (@justinamash) -- Justin Amash (@justinamash) -- Justin Amash (@justinamash) January 12, 2020
The administration's story keeps changing, because they are just making up unconvincing justifications for what they did. The president invents new excuses for the illegal assassination, and his subordinates feel obliged to follow his lead because they are implicated in his decision. The strange thing is that this administration still expects to be believed on something as important as this despite their constant lying to Congress and the public about everything else. The president and Secretary of State have trashed their credibility long ago, so there is no chance that we would give them the benefit of the doubt now. As a result, there is much more healthy and appropriate skepticism about the administration's claims since January 2nd than there usually is. We are still piecing together what happened at the start of this year in the days leading up to the assassination, but the picture we are getting is one of a push by determined hard-line ideologues to take military action against a government they hate. Pompeo was the leading advocate for doing this. John Cassidy The administration's story keeps changing, because they are just making up unconvincing justifications for what they did. The president invents new excuses for the illegal assassination, and his subordinates feel obliged to follow his lead because they are implicated in his decision. The strange thing is that this administration still expects to be believed on something as important as this despite their constant lying to Congress and the public about everything else. The president and Secretary of State have trashed their credibility long ago, so there is no chance that we would give them the benefit of the doubt now. As a result, there is much more healthy and appropriate skepticism about the administration's claims since January 2nd than there usually is. We are still piecing together what happened at the start of this year in the days leading up to the assassination, but the picture we are getting is one of a push by determined hard-line ideologues to take military action against a government they hate. Pompeo was the leading advocate for doing this. John Cassidy We are still piecing together what happened at the start of this year in the days leading up to the assassination, but the picture we are getting is one of a push by determined hard-line ideologues to take military action against a government they hate. Pompeo was the leading advocate for doing this. John Cassidy We are still piecing together what happened at the start of this year in the days leading up to the assassination, but the picture we are getting is one of a push by determined hard-line ideologues to take military action against a government they hate. Pompeo was the leading advocate for doing this. John Cassidy reports :
On Sunday, the Washington Post, citing a senior U.S official, reported that "Pompeo first spoke with Trump about killing Suleimani months ago but neither the president nor Pentagon officials were willing to countenance such an operation." On Thursday, CNN's Nicole Gaouette and Jamie Gangel reported that "Pompeo was a driving force behind President Donald Trump's decision to kill" the Iranian general. The CNN story said that Pompeo, who was the director of the Central Intelligence Agency under Trump before he moved to the State Department, viewed Suleimani as the mastermind of myriad operations targeting Americans and U.S interests. It also quoted an unnamed source close to Pompeo, who recalled the Secretary of State telling friends, "I will not retire from public service until Suleimani is off the battlefield."
Pompeo has Pompeo has lied constantly about Iran and the nuclear deal before and after he became Secretary of State, so it is not surprising that he has been the administration's public face as they lie to Congress and the public about this illegal assassination. No wonder he doesn't want to appear before Congress to testify.

kouroi • 32 minutes ago

Add to this the concomitant attempt made in Yemen, where there is no American presence other than the bombs dropping from the sky, against an Iranian operative, and it shows the push of the administration to go for the kill as the main factor. The US is becoming more and more like Israel: kill first, no excuses, we are the chosen ones - The "revenge" of Dinah's brothers, Genesis 34:25. This is The US of A's diplomacy nowadays. The world has really been put on notice. And the world will be reacting, see the visit of Chancellor Merkel to Moscow immediately after that.

The question is what the American citizens are going to do? What are they going to vote for?

JSC2397 • 18 minutes ago • edited
Why shouldn't Trump and his Administration's creatures "expect to be believed"? He and his toadies have misstated, misled, BS-ed and outright lied to the public for three years now; and - despite a "credibility gap" of Vallis Marineris proportions - have gotten no appreciable pushback from the media.
The right-wing media simply cheerlead him, as usual: and everybody else just sort of nods, grunts, and moves on.

[Jan 15, 2020] Is the US Now at War Against Iraq AND Iran – OffGuardian

Jan 15, 2020 | off-guardian.org

Search Jan 12, 2020 40 Is the US Now at War Against Iraq AND Iran? Editor Eric Zuesse

Iraqi Parliament – recently voted unanimously to expel US troops from their country.

On January 9th, Iraq's Prime Minister and Parliament again ordered all American troops out , but on January 10th the AP headlined "US dismisses Iraq request to work on a troop withdrawal plan" and reported that the U.S. State Department "bluntly rejected the request, saying the two sides should instead talk about how to 'recommit' to their partnership."

It was not a "request" from Iraq; it was a command from them; and the U.S. and Iraq relate as conqueror and conquered, not as "partners." Consequently: the U.S. Government, now that it has been so unequivocally ordered to leave, is back again, unequivocally, to its invader-occupier role in Iraq.

The AP report went on to say that, "The request from Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi pointed to his determination to push ahead with demands for U.S. troops to leave Iraq."

Again there was that false word "request."

The AP report said that U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo asserted, in reply:

"Our mission set there is very clear. We've been there to perform a training mission to help the Iraqi security forces be successful and to continue the campaign against ISIS, to continue the counter-Daesh campaign."

Though that's the invader-occupier's excuse, the reality is that the US needs Iraq in order to invade Iran, which is the US Government's objective, though not overtly stated.

Already, America's assassination in Iraq of Iran's top general Qasem Soleimani on January 3rd is an enormous act of war against Iran.

It is intended to obliterate Iran's main strategist, and this successful attack against Iran inside Iraq is a devastating first strike, by the U.S. Government against Iran.

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

Facebook Twitter Reddit Pinterest WhatsApp vKontakte Email Filed under: conflict zones , Iran , Iraq , latest Tagged with: Eric Zuesse , Iran , Iraq , Middle East , Qassem Soleimani , united states can you spare $1.00 a month to support independent media

OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial backers. We are not funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only means of income. Even the smallest amount of support is hugely appreciated.

Connect with Connect with Subscribe newest oldest most voted Notify of

Harry Stotle ,

I see Tony is inconsolable after the death of a dictator who failed to hold an election for 50 years?

Britains foremost war criminal said, "I heard the news about His Majesty Sultan Qaboos bin Said of Oman with great sadness. He was a leader of vision and purpose who took over the leadership of his country at a difficult time and raised it to an entirely new level of development and prosperity. He was a man of culture, humanity and deep conviction who strove to make his nation and the world better and more peaceful. He was kind, thoughtful and with a big heart. He had great wisdom and insight from which I benefited often as did so many others. My deepest sympathy, prayers and condolences are with the people of Oman. He will be sorely missed. – Tony Blair.
https://twitter.com/InstituteGC/status/1215920898966020096

Yes, I'm sure you did 'benefit', Tony – blood money I think they call it, you amoral scumbag.

Frank Speaker ,

I'm really disappointed to read yet another article on OffG about Iran. It's getting really boring and those backward desert dwellers deserve all they get anyway. Let's get it over and done with and takeover their oilfields and make lots of money. What I really want to see here instead are lots of articles about Meghan and Harry.

(note to non-British readers, it's called irony)

MASTER OF UNIVE ,

The ever cowardly United States of America is officially at war with everyone in the world except the uneducated dolts & imbeciles that support the Imbecile-in-Chief narcissist whackjob nutbar effin' retard run amok.

Fuck America & the Republican Party that lives on forever war with everyone in the world including American taxpayers.

Screw the imbecile-in-Chief to a wall of his making.

Death to America!

MOU

Harry Stotle ,

Oh, you are a wag, Eric – is the US killing machine that just incinerated the Quds foremost military strategist 'now at War Against Iraq AND Iran' – well its hardly an act of peace, is it?

By the way, has anyone been listening to Raab pontificate about 'international law' – apparently the minister for Tory lies appears to be oblivious to the fact that Soleimani's execution was almost certainly illegal, and was only possible because Britain and American actions are always placed above the law.

Lets just remind Raab, and murder apologists like him that, "Outside of an on-going armed conflict, the first use of military force is regulated under the jus ad bellum. The first principle of the jus ad bellum is the prohibition on the use of force, a peremptory norm codified in United Nations Charter Article 2(4). The only possible exception to the prohibition applicable in this case is self-defense. The exception is narrow. Some restrictions are provided in UN Charter Article 51; others in the general principles of international law. Article 51 permits the use of military force in such as the Hellfire missiles carried by Reaper drones, if "an armed attack occurs". The International Court of Justice has emphasized that the attack must be "grave".
https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-killing-of-soleimani-and-international-law/

Neocons want to start killing Iranians (which they already are doing via economic sanctions) – time for the west to grasp this inescapable reality.

nottheonly1 ,

What do these countries have in common?

U.S. IR UK FR AUS DE CAN NZ PL UK ES BR COL SA UAR NL SW NOR ET AL?

They are all

M O ☐ H ☐ R ☐ A R ☐ H ☐ ☐ C K ☐ R ☐

Yes, you may buy an 'F'.

That includes its populations, that do it by default. They are programmed and conditioned from early on to be in harmony with the Pompeos, the Busches, Obamas, Trumps and whatever their names are that have this planet in stranglehold.

U.S. MUST PAY for all damages it inflicted over the last ~213 years. The ticket is endless – and with the indiscrininate use of weapons of mass destruction, very expensive.

In a world of justice, the rich people would be given the shittiest places in these countries and the rest be divided among the victim Nations of these pathetically religiously fascist psychopaths.

Is the use of the term 'religiously fascist psychopath' now reason for a drone strike?

Well, what are you waiting for? You are okay with the above fascist nations to do pre-emptive murders, but hesitate to do the same?

What an epic Upfuckery.

Because – in other words – nobody capable to do the one act that is excempt from Karmic retribution? Rather than doing that, saner beings are actually leaning back in the most fatalistic way. What is it good for, if the sane let the insane do whatever they please – or their mental illness dictates them to do?

Hitler was a good example. He was not mandated to undergo a psychological evaluation. And I don't care where you set the red line. Being part of genocide is plenty enough at any given day. And there can be no more limitations of terms.

Maybe the prevailing opinion about all this is for it to be a joke. But that only appears to be so, because the populations of the above listed nations et al, are murdering innocent women and children (future population reduction) in the Nations on the receiving fascist shit end of the stick.

On a side note and only marginally related:

Listening to the early Beatles and their 'depressing' songs, the mind drifted to 'The Man in Black' (that I adore) and his song about why he is wearing black and likely to do so into his grave, which he did. The song I have on mind changes the lyrics a bit, but stays true, or emphasizes the new expression.

Well, you wonder why I'm always using 'fuck'.
Why you'll never hear me leaving out the muck.
And why my words have such a somber tone.
Well, there's a reason for the things I'm bringing on.

Oh, and yes, for what its worth: invest yourself in aeroponics. Learn everything about it and start your own food production – using very little, very clean water and clean air, delivering healthy greens. It will work in an apartment as well as in a large greenhouse. The REAL Foodevolution.

Dungroanin ,

Yes the US has been at war in the ME for a very very long time Eric.

Their advance was halted and is now in retreat, bar a few 'battles of Bulges' false hopes – they are heading back to their bunkers and throwing the kiddy corps into the front lines to take on hardened campaigners. They have even resorted to assassination of the Generals and leaders – opening the way and hoping for equal retaliation, to sway the public perception.

The Iraqis want the US out – and are threatened with economic sanctions and freezing of their US$ accounts!

Just like Venezuela and Iran and Libya and Yemen ..,

The Iraqis are proceeding with their closer ties with the winners – the Eurasian conglomerate, the Belt & Road investments; the superior Russian weapons systems and no doubt the disengagement from the petrodollar, ball and chain of a slave.

Like an abused woman who wants to remove the 'ex boyfriend' who moved in a decade ago – has never paid any bills, doesn't do housework or maintenance and brings round his mates to wreck the place

Iraq has served a legal order to remove the abusive bastard !

Get the fuck out – or the bailiffs will be called to do it – and that will mean MORE cost you bully!

If that is MORE war then retreating Empire will see a REAL war on all fronts including for the first time ever in their own country – the bodybags will be required domestically – just like the poor civilians have been dying in theit tens of thousands at the proxy US forces hands for decades.

The people of the US need to get past their daily diet of super sugared Hollywood superiority and understand THEY are the EVIL EMPIRE and THEY are LOSING as the downtrodden ewoks of the many countried are fighting back!

GEOFF ,

After the USS Vincennes in 1988 had shot down Iran Air Flight 655 and killed 290 people, including many children, the U.S. government denied any culpability. George H. W. Bush, the vice president of the United States at the time, commented: "I will never apologize for the United States – I don't care what the facts are I'm not an apologize-for-America kind of guy." Despite its "error" the crew was given medals and the captain was even awarded a Legion of Merit "for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service as commanding officer

GEOFF ,

The above is from moon of Alabama I forgot to mention

Yarkob ,

Have a listen to Whitney Webb on QTR podcast giving her take: https://youtu.be/dmaypBvuNzs?t=376

George Mc ,

Example an American "request":

https://www.youtube.com/embed/SeldwfOwuL8?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

Antonym ,

That's the CIA today; not the USA.

George Mc ,

Granted that it's not the whole of the USA – but it's not just the CIA and it's certainly not merely "today". Incidentally, Brando said his attraction towards playing the Godfather is that he thought it was a prefect demonstration of how the American political system really works.

Protect ,

From Zero Hedge / The Strategic Culture Foundation:
"Abdul-Mehdi [The Iraqi prime minister] spoke angrily about how the Americans had ruined the country and now refused to complete infrastructure and electricity grid projects unless they were promised 50% of oil revenues, which Abdul-Mehdi refused.
The complete (translated) words of Abdul-Mahdi's speech to parliament:
"This is why I visited China and signed an important agreement with them to undertake the construction instead. Upon my return, Trump called me to ask me to reject this agreement. When I refused, he threatened to unleash huge demonstrations against me that would end my premiership.
"Huge demonstrations against me duly materialized and Trump called again to threaten that if I did not comply with his demands, then he would have Marine snipers on tall buildings target protesters and security personnel alike in order to pressure me.
"I refused again and handed in my resignation. To this day the Americans insist on us rescinding our deal with the Chinese.
"After this, when our Minister of Defense publicly stated that a third party was targeting both protestors and security personnel alike (just as Trump had threatened he would do), I received a new call from Trump threatening to kill both me and the Minister of Defense if we kept on talking about this "third party"."
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/deeper-story-behind-assassination-soleimani
and there is this:
"I was supposed to meet him [Soleimani] later in the morning when he was killed. He came to deliver a message from Iran in response to the message we had delivered to the Iranians from the Saudis."

lundiel ,

Here's your answer from the state department, it appears to be both yes and no (depending on financial incentives).

America is a force for good in the Middle East. Our military presence in Iraq is to continue the fight against ISIS and as the Secretary has said, we are committed to protecting Americans, Iraqis, and our coalition partners. We have been unambiguous regarding how crucial our D-ISIS mission is in Iraq. At this time, any delegation sent to Iraq would be dedicated to discussing how to best recommit to our strategic partnership -- not to discuss troop withdrawal, but our right, appropriate force posture in the Middle East. Today, a NATO delegation is at the State Department to discuss increasing NATO's role in Iraq, in line with the President's desire for burden sharing in all of our collective defense efforts. There
does, however, need to be a conversation between the U.S. and Iraqi governments not just regarding security, but about our financial, economic, and diplomatic partnership. We want to be a friend and partner to a sovereign, prosperous, and stable Iraq.

Gall ,

Typical imperialistic boiler plate. America being a "force for good in the Middle East" or anywhere else is a lie. Remember Vietnam? As for "continu(ing) the fight against ISIS" the SOS really means to continue to finance and supply ISIS while pretending to "fight against" them. There whole statement is a Stygian Stable full of total BS.

The Iraqis should tell them again to get the f-k outta Dodge or they'll go Wyatt Earp on their sorry lying asses.

Frances ,

Pardonnez-moi, but why do Canada and Australia also UK (Boris) take their 'cue' on foreign policy from the USA? Sending defence forces to fight Washington's wars and banker's wars for resources?

austrian peter ,

I answer to your question, Frances, take out an hour of your day to find out:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/np_ylvc8Zj8?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

Andy ,

This edition of Crosstalk seems to encapsulate perfectly US arrogance and stupidity/disingenuity.

https://youtu.be/Rlkeyl4adJ0

Brian Harry ,

That assertion by Mike("We lied we cheated we stole" ..)Pompeo is a total lie. The USA invaded Iraq under a complete pack of lies, about Saddam Hussein's "Weapons of Mass Destruction" back in 2003 and are still there after having murdered Hussein and now occupy Iraq.
The Elected Leader of Syria has also told the USA to "Get out of Syria", but the USA has not done so.
The USA(and it's 'owners" Israel, are the problem in the Middle East, NOT IRAN or Iraq.
Israel's anaesthetised donkey, The USA, is completely controlled by Israel .It's pathetic. but it's true.

austrian peter ,

In the sixties we all knew that "NO" meant "YES" and these guys are from that era.

Brian Harry ,

I think that the World has grown sick and tired of the LIES, spewing out of the Military Industrial Complex ..In the highest levels of the USA Government, "if their lips are moving, they're LYING .

austrian peter ,

Yep, with you 100% and the bulk of the 99% are getting the message too.

Yarkob ,

"the bulk of the 99% are getting the message too."

Don't kid yourself, Peter. I'd love to agree with you, but there is little evidence of that on those sites that allow comment on this. the masses have drunk the kool aid long and deep. Yes, there's some pearl-clutching going on but he was "still a trrst" so it's all ok. Back to sleep.

Look! Harry and Meghan!!

austrian peter ,

Take your point Yarkob, thank you. I was trying to be optimistic – in my world my network is gradually becoming more aware – I hope that my book, due to publish this quarter, will ride the wave; fingers crossed!
:-))))

Admin ,

Where are you seeing this BTL? Bear in mind that comments in most corporate media sites are heavily censored these days, and replete with sock puppets manipulating debate & seeding talking points.

George Mc ,

As I have often said, the MSM not only lies but gives a false image of public opinion. Granted that it is not easy – or even possible – to really know what the population is tending towards in their opinion, I think we can safely say that the MSM always bullshits about it. I love it especially when they not only bullshit about what "everyone thinks" abut also about what everyone "WILL" think e.g. the blathering about what party is "electable".

I am not, by any stretch, a subscriber to David Icke but he did come up with one wonderful expression when he described what the MSM pump out as "the movie". That is exactly what it is. And I'd like to believe that less and less people believe it. Of course the big problem is that even if you reject it, you have to put up with the fact that, obviously as far as the "mainstream" goes, it's the only show in town. And a lot of people still regurgitate what they hear. So e.g. a lot of people go along with the manufactured outrage over Corbyn "refusing to apologise" while these same people have no idea what he is apologising for – other than a vague notion that he must be some kind of Hitler guy. It all comes down to vibrations set up in the MSM. If you shit enough and often enough then eventually many will swallow it.

falcemartello ,

Since when has pax-americana not been at war. The only administration since ww2 that has not been at war was the Peanut farmer from Georgia The Carter administration and it was his secretary of state Brezinski that created the Takfiri army to disrupt Afghanistan in 1979.
Post Scriptum: The Iranian missile strike in western Iraq and Erbil was a historical event.
It is the second time in Us military history that pax-americana had not responded to a direct attack on a military barracks , the first time was in 1982 in Beirut where a suicide bomber killed over 200 people.
Docius in Fondem:Wesley Clarke statement from when he was alluded to the Likudniks plan & countries in 5 years Iran was last on the list.
US have declared war on both Iraq and Iran with the assassination of the IRGC General and the PMU General. Simple facts tend to allude we the exceptional civilized west

austrian peter ,

love the Latin:
Caesar ad sum iam forte
Pompei ad erat
Caesar sic in omnibus
Pompei sic in hat

Brian Harry ,

"Don't talk to me about the bloody Romans, what have they ever done for us"?
Try as I may, I cant get Google to translate that .what does it mean, please?

Brian Harry ,

.although, when I read it 'phonetically', it sounds like a "big night out, and lots of vomit sprayed around but, I'm Australian, and we don't do things like that .much

austrian peter ,

:-)))))
Use DuckDuckGo:
Non me loqui Romani sanguinis quid unquam fecit u

Brian Harry ,

I'll take your word for it Thanks for the laugh ..!

austrian peter ,

:-))))) "Laughing is the best policy and is generally better than getting hit by a taxi!" – Spike Milligan – another comic messiah.

austrian peter ,

No worries, cobber, have a smiley day and always remember: " If you see a man without a smile, give him one of yours".

https://www.youtube.com/embed/SJUhlRoBL8M?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

austrian peter ,

This should help, Brian:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/Y7tvauOJMHo?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

Brian Harry ,

Monty Python the Greatest .There weren't many Romans in Australia 2000 years ago. Too busy invading and really irritating Europeans and British people, but, somehow, it all worked out ok Always look on the bright side of life, huh ?

austrian peter ,

Yep, and you Brian are in the right place to see the sunny side. We here in old Blighty are suffering the gloom, doom and damp. I lived in Cape Town for ten years (same latitude as Sydney and similar climate) and miss it dreadfully – the climate that is – the rest is isht; power cuts (load shedding they call it), water shortage (drought they call it), pollution and infrastructure failure all round, Nuff said! Go well cobber.

Mike Ellwood ,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_Latin

Not quite the same thing but interesting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer_is_icumen_in

Especially the parodies towards the end.

There are some good pastiche French rhymes / songs around as well. Don't have any links to hand ..aha, found what I was thinking of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mots_d%27Heures

Gall ,

Actually Jimbo the Peanut Farmer was involved in a covert war in Angola and also covertly arming the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. Not to mention operation Eagle Claw that failed against the Iranians.

GEOFF ,

In 240 years since its inception warmongering yanky land has been at war in the last 224 years with someone, 50 in the last 10 years, not a bad record.

[Jan 14, 2020] Patrick Henningsen on Twitter I see we have reached peak hypocrisy now. Resign Mike. You are an embarrassment to the people

Jan 14, 2020 | twitter.com

Patrick Henningsen ‏ 1:47 AM - 13 Jan 2020

I see we have reached peak hypocrisy now. Resign Mike. You are an embarrassment to the people of the United States who you claim to be serving. Every day you read the same script, and it's a bevy of lies, every time.

btowngoatsnbirds ‏ 1:57 AM - 13 Jan 2020

Shhh....the grownups have a country to run

Patrick Henningsen ‏ 2:46 AM - 13 Jan 2020

Yes, I heard that one too.

Cheryl Sanchez ‏ 1:50 PM - 13 Jan 2020

Indeed.

[Jan 14, 2020] The EU is a hopeless vassal of the US. It doesn't matter if the EU is agreement capable or not. They have no sovereignty to begin with.

Notable quotes:
"... Deal finishes October 2020 if I remember correctly. All sanctions will be lifted so long as Iran is in compliance at that time. This is a move to prevent this. ..."
"... Obviously, Merkel doesn't have the political strength to nix Nordstream 2. Until she's replaced by someone with greater vision, EU and German policy won't change toward Iran. IMO, the trio don't amount to the level of poodles as they're known to have courage. The Trio proudly display the fact that they're 100% Cowards. ..."
"... The EU cannot lead in anything - it is a completely owned and operated US tool. It is a big zero in providing humanity any help with the big problem of our time: the 'indispensable and exceptional' supremacist US. ..."
Jan 14, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Nemo , Jan 14 2020 19:35 utc | 1

Be fair. It doesn't matter if the EU is agreement capable or not. They have no sovereignty to begin with. It is known.

powerandpeople , Jan 14 2020 19:37 utc | 2

Deal finishes October 2020 if I remember correctly. All sanctions will be lifted so long as Iran is in compliance at that time. This is a move to prevent this.
BraveNewWorld , Jan 14 2020 19:41 utc | 3
I always learn some thing here. For example imagine my surprise to learn the EU had a reputation worth protecting. All you need to know about the EU is bitches will do what bitches are told. This is just one more step on the road to war with China, is that really what the citizens of the EU want? Are the people of the EU ready to die for the Trump and the Republican party?
Ghost Ship , Jan 14 2020 19:42 utc | 4
Nemo @ 1

You forget that on the day the UK leaves the EU it recovers full sovereignty. Well at least Boris Johnson claimed it would.

Realist , Jan 14 2020 19:49 utc | 6
Think tanks, think tanks, think tanks. In 2009, the Brookings Institute's paper Which Path to Persia, proposed offering Iran a very good deal and then sabotaging it. Good cop, Obama, bad cop, Trump. Mission accomplished.
winston2 , Jan 14 2020 19:50 utc | 7
Only a matter of when and how. The warmongers have Trumps balls in a vice, he can't even resign without making it worse by letting Pence take over. The art of the squeal, very high pitched is whats happening in DC.
Heath , Jan 14 2020 19:51 utc | 8
1st of all The UK was always going to side with DC over Iran. 2ndly for France and Germany they probably aren't ready to put themselves plus their EU partners in the US doghouse for Iran. When they break it will be a time of their own choosing.
Likklemore , Jan 14 2020 19:52 utc | 9
Thanks b, for this detailed coverage of the 3 wimps' efforts to kill JCPOA. You did not disappoint. Love the image showing mother residing in "occupied Palestine" .. (term coined by MoA barfly)

I commented in the previous post, Russia warned of unintended consequences LINK

Moscow is calling on the European parties to the Iran nuclear deal not to escalate tensions and to abandon their decision to trigger the treaty's Dispute Resolution Mechanism, the Russian Foreign Ministry said Tuesday.

"We strongly urge the Eurotroika [of parties to the JCPOA] not to inflame tensions and to abandon any steps which call the prospects of the nuclear deal's future into question. Despite all the challenges it has faced, the JCPOA has not lost its relevance," the ministry said in a statement.

OTH
Trumps impeachment trial begins next Tuesday

so the focus shifts BUT

what do we make of this?

Court in Ukraine orders investigation of Poroshenko, Obama administration members

Ex-US vice-president, Joseph Biden is also suspected of corruption, according to a member of the Ukrainian parliament

KIEV, January 14. /TASS/. Ukraine's Supreme Anti-Corruption Court has obliged the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) to launch a probe into seizure of government power and corruption suspicions. The cases mention the names of the United States' 44th president, Barack Obama, former Ukrainian president, Pyotr Poroshenko and ex-US vice-president, Joseph Biden, a member of the Ukrainian parliament from the Opposition Platform - For Life party, Renat Kuzmin, said[.]

"investigate the suspicions over the seizure of government power in Ukraine and of the embezzlement of state budget money and international financial assistance by members of the Obama administration"

that's what the man said.

Russ , Jan 14 2020 19:53 utc | 10
If it ever was possible to sign a treaty with the US and expect them to abide by it, it hasn't been possible for a long time. Here as everywhere else, Trump merely openly proclaims the systemic lawlessness he shares with the rest of the US political class. (His contemptuous withdrawal from the JCPOA never has been one of the things the establishment and media criticize him for.)

For as long as US imperial power lasts, anyone who doesn't want to be a poodle (or to get regime-changed because they foolishly attempt to sit the fence) has to accept that there can be no legitimate agreements with the US or its poodles. If you sign a treaty with them, you have to view it exactly the same way you know they do, as nothing but propaganda, otherwise not worth the paper it's written on. No doubt North Korea, if they were in any doubt before, registered how Trump and the US media immediately proceeded to systematically lie about the agreement they'd supposedly just concluded, before the ink was even dry.

Here's hoping that if Iran was in any doubt before, they too are getting the message: As far as the US and Europe are concerned, the only purpose of the JCPOA is to serve as a weapon against them.

Pnyx , Jan 14 2020 19:53 utc | 11
Face it B, there will be blood. It's a matter of time. It's unavoidable. The empire will force its own destruction - and perhaps the rest of humanity's. The demons of nihilism will prevail. (Sounds like I have been hearing death metal. I swear I did not. And I not under the influence either.)
les7 , Jan 14 2020 19:53 utc | 12
The Oct 2020 deadline is important for more than one reason- Irans application to the SCO is being held up because of it. The SCO membership would obligate support from countries like India in response to politically motivated sanctions.
karlof1 , Jan 14 2020 19:54 utc | 13
Surprised at Germany since Merkel just met with Putin. When I read of this earlier this morning, that it's based on lies was 100% clear, that the trio are feckless and deserve all the social instability that will soon come their way. Why did I mention social instability:

Breaking :

"US, Japan, EU seek new global rules limiting subsidies."

Thus begging this question : "Does that include all the free money printing from central banks and repo market interventions?"

And why would the Fed need to do this at a time of the greatest Bull Market of all time:

"The Fed is considering a plan to allow them to lend cash DIRECTLY TO HEDGE FUNDS in order to ease the REPO Crisis. [Emphasis original]

"Where is 'bailing out private investment funds' in their alleged 'dual mandate'?"

Which gets us back to the reason Iran's targeted: Because it lies outside the dollar economy, refuses to engage in petrodollar recycling, and has a quasi-socialist economy with no private banking. Plus, we now see that Iraq will pursue evicting NATO and Outlaw US Empire forces and likely join the Arc of Resistance's/Iran's policies which are what the Outlaw US Empire went to war over to begin with.

Obviously, Merkel doesn't have the political strength to nix Nordstream 2. Until she's replaced by someone with greater vision, EU and German policy won't change toward Iran. IMO, the trio don't amount to the level of poodles as they're known to have courage. The Trio proudly display the fact that they're 100% Cowards.

Heath , Jan 14 2020 19:57 utc | 14
@ realist 6. basically it boils down to giving Barry a foreign policy award like getting the Nobel gong.

AriusArmenian , Jan 14 2020 19:58 utc | 15

The EU is a hopeless craven vassal of the US. The US dropping out of the JCPOA was the acid test which the EU has spectacularly failed. We are in a historical pivot with the rise of the coalescing multifarious East which is forcing the EU to make a decision: stay under the US wing, go it alone, or ally with the East. The EU seems to know it at least should get more distance between itself and the US but every time there is a major geopolitical event it starts to talk like it is going independent but then always drops back into the US hand. How many times does this have to happen for us to admit what the EU is about?

The EU cannot lead in anything - it is a completely owned and operated US tool. It is a big zero in providing humanity any help with the big problem of our time: the 'indispensable and exceptional' supremacist US.

Posted by: AriusArmenian | Jan 14 2020 19:58 utc | 15

Brad , Jan 14 2020 20:00 utc | 16
If we accept that EU nations lack sovereignty and go further to suggest that such nations are more simulations than real, what would an analysis of such events as the fallout from the demise of the JCPOA look like? How should one talk about international events when corporate sovereignty and oligarchical decision making are the real? How would we describe this exact context based not on the simulation but on the real workings of power?
Nemo , Jan 14 2020 20:04 utc | 17
Yes indeed! At least blighty knows the score! The leash is no place for the British bulldog. When brexit is complete they will be free to crawl straight up muricas bum! Lol!
alaff , Jan 14 2020 20:07 utc | 18
Haha, great drawing. This pile on the left is incomparable. But the picture is incomplete - there is not enough proudly walking in front of the masters of a small Polish poodle with a bone in his teeth.

Agree with Nemo, #1. This is a matter of sovereignty. At the moment, European countries are not sovereign, and, btw, this is a kind of double non-sovereignty: the submission of a separate European country to the Americans, plus the submission of the same country to a Brussels bureaucracy called the EU leadership. What independent, bold decisions can we talk about? None.

The once great Europe...

[Jan 14, 2020] The Long Planned U.S. Assassinations In Iraq Will Increase Its Political Chaos

Jan 14, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Moon of Alabama Brecht quote " The MoA Week In Review - Open Thread 2020-03 | Main January 13, 2020 The Long Planned U.S. Assassinations In Iraq Will Increase Its Political Chaos

The Trump administration has given various justification for its assassination of Major General Qassem Soleimani and commander Abu Mahdi al Muhandis. It claimed that there was an 'imminent threat' of an incident, even while not knowing what, where or when it would happen, that made the assassination necessary. Trump later said the thread was a planned bombing of four U.S. embassies. His defense secretary denied that.

Soleimani and Muhandis during a battle against ISIS

That has raised the suspicion that the decision to kill Soleimani had little to do with current events but was a long planned operation. NBC News now reports that this is exactly the case:

President Donald Trump authorized the killing of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani seven months ago if Iran's increased aggression resulted in the death of an American, according to five current and former senior administration officials.

The presidential directive in June came with the condition that Trump would have final signoff on any specific operation to kill Soleimani, officials said.

The idea to kill Soleimani, a regular General in an army with which the U.S. is not war, came like many other bad ideas from John Bolton.

After Iran shot down a U.S. drone in June, John Bolton, Trump's national security adviser at the time, urged Trump to retaliate by signing off on an operation to kill Soleimani, officials said. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also wanted Trump to authorize the assassination, officials said.

But Trump rejected the idea, saying he'd take that step only if Iran crossed his red line: killing an American. The president's message was "that's only on the table if they hit Americans," according to a person briefed on the discussion.

Then unknown forces fired 30 short range missiles into a U.S. base near Kirkuk. The salvo was not intended to kill or wound anyone:

The rockets landed in a place and at a time when American and Iraqi personnel normally were not there and it was only by unlucky chance that Mr. Hamid was killed, American officials said.

Without presenting any evidence the U.S. accused Katib Hizbullah, an Iraqi Popular Militia Unit, of having launched the missiles. It launched airstrikes against a number of Katib Hizbullah positions near the Syrian border, hundreds of miles away from Kirkuk, and killed over 30 Iraqi security forces.

This led to demonstrations in Baghdad during which a crowd breached the outer wall of the U.S. embassy but soon retreated. Trump, who had attacked Hillary Clinton over the raid on the consulate/CIA station in Benghazi, did not want to get embarrassed with a full embassy breach.

The media claim that it was the embassy breach that the led to the activation of an operation that had already been planned for a year before Trump signed off on it seven month ago. As the New York Times describes it :

For the past 18 months, officials said, there had been discussions about whether to target General Suleimani. Figuring that it would be too difficult to hit him in Iran, officials contemplated going after him during one of his frequent visits to Syria or Iraq and focused on developing agents in seven different entities to report on his movements -- the Syrian Army, the Quds Force in Damascus, Hezbollah in Damascus, the Damascus and Baghdad airports and the Kataib Hezbollah and Popular Mobilization forces in Iraq.

It was the embassy breach and a war-industry lobbyist who convinced Trump to finally pull the symbolical trigger :

Defense Secretary Mark Esper presented a series of response options to the president two weeks ago, including killing Soleimani. Esper presented the pros and cons of such an operation but made it clear that he was in favor of taking out Soleimani, officials said.

Trump signed off and it further developed from there.

There was no intelligence of any 'imminent threat' or anything like that.

This was an operation that had been worked on for 18 month. Trump signed off on it more than half a year ago. Those who had planned it just waited for a chance to execute it.

We can not even be sure that the embassy bombing had caused Trump to give the final go. It might have been that the CIA and Pentagon were just waiting for a chance to kill Soleimani and Muhandis, the leader of Katib Hizbullah, at the same time. Their meeting at Baghdad airport was not secret and provided the convenient opportunity they had been waiting for.

Together Soleimani and Muhandis were the glue that kept the many Shia factions in Iraq together. The armed ones as well as the political ones. Soleimani's replacement as Quds brigade leader, Brigadier General Ismail Qaani, is certainly a capable man. But his previous field of work was mainly east of Iran in Afghanistan and Pakistan and it will be difficult for him to fill Soleimani's role in Iraq :

After Soleimani's death, Ayatollah Khamenei appointed Soleimani's deputy Ismail Qaani to succeed him. Qaani does not speak Arabic, does not have an in-depth knowledge of Iraq, nor the insight of Soleimani and his ability to balance the different positions of Iraq's factions with the opinions of Ayatollah Khamenei and the religious authorities in Najaf.

The question is how the successor of Soleimani will manage his new responsibility including the thorny issues in Iraq. The escalation of the Iranian-American conflict is, according to many, an escalation towards war and the destabilization of the region in which the rules of engagement have changed. The question remains how, and not whether all of this will impact the situation in Iraq.

Today the Iraqi cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who has his on militia, and Iraqi PMU leaders met in Qom , Iran, to discuss how the foreign troops can be expelled from Iraq. Gen. Qaani will likely be there to give them advice.

Yesterday Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of the Lebanese Hizbullah, gave another speech . In it he called on the Kurds in Iraq to pay back their debt to Soleimani and Hizbullah, which is owned for their fight against ISIS, and to help to evict the foreign soldiers from Iraq:

85-Nasrallah: Now, the rest of the path. 1) Iraq: Iraq is the first country concerned w/responding to this crime, because it happened in Iraq, and because it targeted Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, a great Iraqi commander, and because Soleimani defended Iraq.

86-Nasrallah: I ask Masoud Barazani to thank Soleimani for his efforts in defending Erbil and Kurdistan Region, because Soleimani was the only one to respond to your call. Soleimani and with him men from Hezbollah went to Erbil.

87-Nasrallah: Barazani was shaking from fear, but Soleimani and the brothers from Hezbollah helped you repulse this unprecedented threat; and now you must repay this good by being part of the effort to expel the Americans from Iraq and the region.

The Barzani family, which governs the Kurdish part of Iraq, has since long sold out to the Zionists and the United States. It will certainly not support the resistance effort. But Nasrallah's request is highly embarrassing to the clan and to Masoud Barzani personally.

So far I only found this rather confusing response from him:

Nihad N. Arafat @NihadArafat - 7:44 UTC · Jan 13, 2020

The Kurdistan Regional Government's response to the immoral speech uttered by Hassan Nasrallah through the anti-terror apparatus is a clear message from the regional government to those terrorists that the response to the terrorists must be through the anti-terror apparatus.

As military leader both Soleimani and Muhandis are certainly replaceable. The militia groups they created and led will continue to function.

But both men also played important political roles in Iraq and it will take some time to find adequate people to replace them in that. That makes it likely that the already simmering political situation in Iraq will soon boil over as the Shia factions will start to fight each other over the selection of a new Prime Minister and government.

The U.S. will welcome that as it will try do install a candidate that will reject the Iraqi parliament decision to remove the foreign forces from Iraqi grounds.

Posted by b on January 13, 2020 at 17:32 UTC | Permalink

Zanon , Jan 13 2020 17:43 utc | 1

next page " As expected, war against Iran is the focus for west.

Ukraine, Canada, Germany, Sweden seeks to punish Iran, call iranian claims of what happend "nonsense"
https://sputniknews.com/world/202001131078024553-london-talks-on-plane-downing-to-include-possible-action-against-iran---ukraine-foreign-minister/

Maracatu , Jan 13 2020 17:48 utc | 2
The United States has truly become a rogue state. John Helmer pointed out that when Putin visited Damascus recently to meet with Assad, he did so at a Russian military facility as a safety precaution because you can no longer put it by the USA that it won't target people of such hierarchy.
juliania , Jan 13 2020 17:57 utc | 3
Was there not anyone in all of those previous discussions and planning sessions objecting and explaining the importance of Qassem Suleiman in the Iran hierachy of government????

Was there not anyone in all of those previous discussions and planning sessions objecting and explaining the illegality of assassinating such a leader when he was traveling openly to discuss matters of defense on a mission of diplomacy???????????

Was there not anyone in all of those previous discussions and planning sessions objecting and resigning or going public to attempt to stop this infamy????????????

A P , Jan 13 2020 18:00 utc | 4
So were the Saudis genuine in their "peace attempt" or were they simply working with CIA/Mossad to lure Soleimani and Muhandis into a situation where they could be droned?

If the Saudis were genuine, they would be much more vocal in their opposition to these murders, which completely derail any potential Iraq-brokered peace process.

Norumbega , Jan 13 2020 18:01 utc | 5
To the best of my recollection, Elijah Magnier, on a recent appearance with Joanne Leon on the Around the Empire Podcast, says it is erroneous to identify Muhandis as the leader of Katib Hizbullah. Actually, he was the highest military official of the PMU (excepting only its nominal head, a civilian), the umbrella organization of the (mainly) Shia militia which are part of the Iraqi military.
Noirette , Jan 13 2020 18:01 utc | 6
US biz persons in NY RE, in Florida, (etc.) as well as tv 'moguls' - do transactional power-play interactions, not Int'l diplomacy. (Whatever that is, pretty worthless actually, but = other topic.)

Obviously, Trump's order to murder Soleimani was partly due to impeachment pressure, as he has said himself.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/01/report-trump-cited-impeachment-pressure-to-kill-soleimani.html

Plus, Soleimani insulted him gravely. From tabloids and women's mags, which I read on occasion.

NK (Kim + spokespersons) called Trump a heedless and erratic old man. Also a dotard iirc, but all this was in an exchange of insults which could be taken as mimicking that between equals, Trump calling Kim Rocket Man, etc. (Everyone knew nothing would happen.) There was also that kerfuffle when Trudeau (sleazy hypocrite) and others were caught open-mick gossiping about Trump taking too long for his pressers or whatever. No doubt others and Dem public insults are politically calibrated in a known landscape and Trump of course initiates and has no problem with riposte.

2018. Soleimani speech. The Sun: vid. eng subs.

Very demeaning: gambler - bartender - casino manager that hits hard.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10668165/donald-trump-iran-general-death-warrant/

When much is hung on 'identity politics' and 'personalia' - ppls identity, character, beliefs, personal interaction with others, etc. take up too much air (like in Hollywood movies), institutional or other long-worked out arrangements (like Int'l law based on upholding the existence of Wilsonian Nation-States..) are simply scuttered.

psychohistorian , Jan 13 2020 18:05 utc | 7
Thanks for the reporting b and I am not surprised about the background behind the assassination of Soleimani and Muhandis

I would also not be surprised to read that my country was complicit to some degree in the Ukraine plane shoot down by Iran.

The West is a very sick world run by the dictators that own global private finance. Those dictators have managed to even brainwash the public into not understanding their illness and believing it is a good force in our world.

I am glad to read less of the belief that Trump is being played by the system and not an active actor within it. I continue to hope that other groups of our species continue to stand up to the anti-humanistic social contract of the West and end its centuries old reign of terror.

Igor Bundy , Jan 13 2020 18:08 utc | 8
Before Putin left for Damascus he already mentioned something about he wont be so easily removed without any consequence.. most likely meaning Russia would probably neutralize all US bases in close proximity and get on the stick to fire strategic nukes for any US response.. But we know the US has hit a lot of Russian assets without seeing any Russian response. So who knows..
Pandora , Jan 13 2020 18:10 utc | 9
The idea to kill Soleimani, a regular General in an army with which the U.S. is not war ...

The US has been at war with Iran for 40 yrs ...(hybrid war)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8NHawXaOPc (Christopher Black)

War without limits: using all domains (pol, fin, econ, media, com, legal inst) to subvert and destroy an enemy, where the objective is to obliterate the state itself as a political entity
Aside from genocide, what greater crime can there be than the complete annihilation of the state itself, as we saw happening in the NATO-attack on Libya and the state's total destruction and re-invention in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the NATO-attack against Yugoslavia and now Ukraine and Syria.

.. a complete negation of the concept of state sovereignty and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the UN-Charta. It is a form of aggression of the worst kind and the type of total war that the Nazis waged against the SU. (obliterate state, people, social & econ system and culture).

...So the term HW first appears in American military literature and as practised by NATO means the commission of multiple war-crimes against the people of the targeted state. In Libya we saw conventional military style ops by NATO (massive bombing over many months) simultaneous with unconventional operations (local and imported proxy forces, subversion, assassinations, terrorism against civilians, use of social and mass-media to distribute false information about the regime, criminal actions, cyberattacks to shut down communication and the use of quasi legal bodies (ICC) to criminalize the leadersip, to accuse Gadhafi of being a war-criminal; use of mercenaries, destruction of infrastructure to break the will of the people to resist.

The subject is one of immediate concern because the Americans have begun using the term hybrid warfare in their propaganda accusing Russia of engaging in it in Ukraine and now raising the alarm that (they believe) Russia will engage in HW in the Baltic. Therefore the Americans argue, they have to react to prepare for this eventuality which they claim to be inevitable. And that indicates to me where we can expect the next operations against Russia to take place (and it may explain the exercises NATO has been running all summer, landing of airborne troops, combined sea-operations, etc.)

But the American claim of Russia using HW is in fact a mirror of their own image as we see these methods being used by them as a matter of routine.

(... used in the Indian wars, in 19th century, starvation, prop and other techniques to destroy their cultures, in Mexico, Philipines, Korea and Vietnam, in Central America (i.e. Nicaragua) and in Ruanda....

All the accusations against Iran ("greatest sponsor of terrorism", aligning Iran with AQ, etc.) are a projection of their own crimes ..


Piotr Berman , Jan 13 2020 18:27 utc | 10
It was explained by Craig Murray in his blog (replicated in a few websites) that the usage of "imminent" adjective is created by a certain lawyer who first worked for Netanyahu, then for Blair etc. The usage does not convey ANY information about the nature of a "danger", but the attitude, judgement if you will, of the institution that commissioned the opinion.

And "immanent" or "eminent" (Trumpian tweet) would fit equally well, but legalistically, the confusion raised by "imminent" is more useful.

juliania , Jan 13 2020 18:29 utc | 11
Noirette @ 6, it is my belief that an irrational US president, under the constant pressure of attack from the Russiagate and Ukraingate instigators (you know who you are) from the instant he became president and took on those responsibilities, volatile and insecure as he was from the getgo, has finally cracked and is now very much in need of retirement from the highpressure stage of politics in a time of potential war. It would be in the interests of everyone in the world for his family to ask him, for his doctors to require of him, that he resign. Certainly the alternatives to his remaining in office are grim, but not as grim as having a president who is mentally incapacitated.

It would seem that an entire warmaking apparatus of government is similarly dysfunctional. I don't know how that can be remedied, but it must.

Piotr Berman , Jan 13 2020 18:34 utc | 12
Muqtada al-Sadr, who has his on militia

whose militia is "on", active, rather than "off"? In any case, separating this guy from microphones would require an Amored Personal Carrier or something heavier.

bevin , Jan 13 2020 18:35 utc | 13
juliania@3
The answer to your questions lies in the reality that for years a sure means of not being promoted or even being fired from a government job in the US is to know anything about the Arab or Islamic world. Or to act as if knowing anything about such inferior beings is necessary for making judgements.
This idea, that ignorance is bliss, has spread from Israel, not because the Israelis practise it-they don't- but because they want DC to be entirely reliant on them for intelligence and direction in the Middle East.
pretzelattack , Jan 13 2020 18:42 utc | 14
consistent from trump, he appointed bolton, this is all very characteristic.
Peter AU1 , Jan 13 2020 18:46 utc | 15
Although only one battle in what will be a longer war, Trump has won that round. More confusion and disarray in Iraq, bad PR for Iran after the Uki plane shootdown. Bad PR allows western vassals to move closer to the US side of the fence, and also provides fuel for US regime change operations within Iran.
The two generals that were assassinated - there will be others that can plan military strategy, but a big part, perhaps more important than strategy, is the personality to be able to hold disparate groups together so they act as one and all tactics by separate groups fit into a larger strategy.
juliania , Jan 13 2020 18:47 utc | 16
Thank you, bevin. That is a sad explanation, though to me it doesn't obviate what should be inherent in any normal human person, as I myself know very little about the Middle East, relying indeed upon b's excellent and nearly objective (as objective as any human can be) reporting on the facts and his interpretation of them. That which ought to be inherent is the human desire not to inflict pain on another human if that can be avoided. Those who are in government service ought to have that moral incentive front and center. We see it in the great leaders, and surely in this country there are some among the elite who haven't lost this natural instinct? It is very problematic if that has been thoroughly weeded out in those now occupying powerful positions.

This country has been fortunate in the past to select persons of high moral compass as our heroes. We the people still want to do that, I am convinced. Perhaps there is still time, and we can re-order our own hierarchy now that what has been done is this terrible, an enormous reductio ad absurdum, front and center.

This is not going away.

wendy davis , Jan 13 2020 18:48 utc | 17
@ Piotr Berman #10

yes, the Bethlehem Doctrine made this reTweet from john steppling even more outrageous a psyop:

'Israelis: Soleimani Intercept Sparked Drone Strike; US Reinforces Region', jan. 3, 2020, breaking defense

"TEL AVIV: Five days ago, an undisclosed intelligence agency intercepted a telephone call made by the head of Iran's Quds Force, Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, in which he was heard ordering his proxies in Iraq to attack the US embassy in Baghdad, as well as other Israeli and American targets, with the aim of taking hostages, Israeli sources say.

It's unclear whether this was a lapse in tradecraft on the part of the usually savvy Soleimani or whether the notorious Iranian military leader's phone calls were being routinely intercepted. Nor is it clear whether it was the US or another foe of Iran that made the intercept. Regardless, the intelligence seems to have led directly to Soleimani's killing yesterday, which has thrown the Mideast into uproar."

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/01/israelis-soleimani-intercept-sparked-drone-strike-us-reinforces-region/?_ga=2.263021516.1146847899.1578081532-904925514.1578081532


karlof1 , Jan 13 2020 18:48 utc | 18
psychohistorian @7--

In the chain of cause & effect, the Outlaw US Empire is definitely responsible for the airliner shootdown; that must be seen as 100% irrefutable. The Outlaw US Empire has executed numerous high ranking political and military people beginning with Yamamoto in 1943, although I'll admit he was a legitimate target; yet, the seed was planted then. I recall Diem being killed with the approval of JFK just weeks prior to his own execution. As I wrote at Escobar's Facebook over the weekend, the Great Evil in the world resides within the Outlaw US Empire and must be expunged even if Nukes must be used. Yes, that conclusion was painful to arrive at and write, but the horrors have lasted for 3,000+ years now. The crop of Current Oligarchs are the most aggressive ever and won't stop their rampage until they Own Everything . In the overall scheme of things, getting Imperial forces ousted from Southwest Asia will be a good thing but only a small portion of what must occur.

Jase , Jan 13 2020 18:53 utc | 19
What does a single word of Nihad N. Arafat's response even mean? How is Nasrallah's speech immoral by any stretch of the imagination? Do the Kurd's have no gratitude for Hezbollah and Qud's laying down their lives to save them from mass rape and genocide? What is the "anti-terror apparatus", does he mean fighting terrorism in Iraq and Syria must be done only by US supported forces like the SDF? The Kurds siding with the US occupiers and Israel is one of the most disgusting developments in recent history, its no wonder these people have been so distrusted and abused for so long, their power hungry leadership betrays their allies like snakes.
juliania , Jan 13 2020 18:57 utc | 20
Apologies, karlof1; you know I value your input. But that is one very crazy post.
Red Ryder , Jan 13 2020 18:58 utc | 21
@8, Igor Bundy

Russia takes its vengeance cold, often with no flair or notoriety. They often take in multiples for their losses.

In Syria, a Russian missile into a mountain cave where US, Israeli, Saudi and AQ Intel leaders were meeting cost over 50 high value lives. It was Russian payback for when some Colonels and a General were hit by Coalition air strikes. Auslander, on the Saker blog, has written about this. 2016, as I recall.

In Donbass, there have been many paybacks by Russia for Ukie and NATO acts. Some even taken inside Russia.
A number of the culprits who killed over a hundred people and set fire to the Trade Union building in Odessa have met Russian justice. Same with some of the criminal SBU who tortured Berkut who came from Crimea. And others have been liquidated for murders done by Ukies in Mariupol.

People who know and need to know are aware that Russia always more than evens the score.

They just recently eliminated the head Turkmen who was responsible for shooting the pilot of the jet the Turks shot down as he parachuted. It wasn't enough that when they rescued the co-pilot navigator of the jet (rescue led by General Soleimani), the Aerospace forces bombed the hell out of the area the Turkmen populated. They got the names and tracked for years the commander.

Never assume because you don't know, it hasn't happened. And if it hasn't yet, it will.

DM , Jan 13 2020 19:06 utc | 22
Dear juliania,
Perhaps there is still time, and we can re-order our own hierarchy

Seems highly unlikely.

Laguerre , Jan 13 2020 19:06 utc | 23
I don't like to say it but b's article doesn't support his headline. And I don't like to repeat myself, but I've already commented this subject earlier today @ open thread 55 , but he doesn't seem to have taken it into account. We should not expect a powerful Iraqi reaction to the events.
Firstly remember that Abd ul-Mahdi is a weak leader, only there because the US agreed to him. The US has made sure that the Iraqi leadership is not strong. Secondly, there was always going to be a time necessary for a new militia leader to emerge. Instant reaction was just about impossible.

However in the long term, the prospects are good. The Shi'a are in power in Iraq without question. The Sunnis are out of it, the Kurds no longer intervene outside KRG. All the cr*p about civil war is nonsense. The Shi'a factions all have basically the same interest, and conflict is only between different leaders of the same grouping. Things could turn around in an instant.

The anti-US movement is popular sentiment, not govt led. The more the US offends that sentiment, as will inevitably happen, the stronger the movement will be. We already have seen the way things will go. US bases are being sprayed with rockets. That will make life difficult for the US. The more they punish the culprits, the more resentment there will be. There's no way things can work out well for the US.

b has been reading the instant reaction, breast-beating, woe-is-me, articles like Salhy in Middle East Eye, without looking further.
Peter AU1 , Jan 13 2020 19:10 utc | 24
juliania 20

US aggression is at the stage of Nazi Germany and imperial Japan around the start of WWII.
Rather than seeing that their unipolar world is ending, the US is prepared to use military power to hold its position in the world.
The exceptionalist mindset is not just one small faction in the US hierarchy, it is the mindset of the hierarchy plus a good proportion of the population.
Throughout history, countries or nations like that always end up destroyed as they fight for their position until the very end rather than step down.

Piotr Berman , Jan 13 2020 19:24 utc | 25
What does a single word of Nihad N. Arafat's response even mean?

Posted by: Jase | Jan 13 2020 18:53 utc | 19

Upon quick inspection, N.N. Arafat is not a real person. For few months he (it?) only retweeted, mostly a pro-Kurdish US senator, and now produced a test of his (its?) own. The text is weird, which may corroborate the purported education -- radiologist who graduated in Dohuk (the capital of one of the three provinces of Kurdistan autonomous area in Iraq). Actual on-line Kurdish publication have a rather sketchy English, although not as bad.

james , Jan 13 2020 19:27 utc | 26
dang, i was too long and my comment is in moderation... oh well..
Passer by , Jan 13 2020 19:30 utc | 27
Posted by: Peter AU1 | Jan 13 2020 18:46 utc | 15

>>Although only one battle in what will be a longer war, Trump has won that round. More confusion and disarray in Iraq, bad PR for Iran after the Uki plane shootdown. Bad PR allows western vassals to move closer to the US side of the fence, and also provides fuel for US regime change operations within Iran.
The two generals that were assassinated - there will be others that can plan military strategy, but a big part, perhaps more important than strategy, is the personality to be able to hold disparate groups together so they act as one and all tactics by separate groups fit into a larger strategy.

Yup. Some people like to underestimate the US Empire, because it is easier to wear rose coloured glasses, rather than face unpleasant reality.

Even b changed from US will leave Iraq to there will be chaos in Iraq and the US will try to stay.

Although personally i think that the US will be kicked out because most of the Shia leaders would like to be killed by a US drone for whatever. Especially Sadr, who has the biggest political block, and whose Mahdi Army killed plenty of americans back then. He knows that he is a potential target too, so he will work to make this expulsion happen.

There was also an assasination attempt against iranian official in Yemen. This is all part of a Cold War, a hybrid war against Iran. To break it. There is no isolationism. No one will leave Iran or Syria unless they are actually kicked out.

And yes, Trump is a willing imperialist. He likes it. He can't do much on the domestic front but he is allowed to show his violent tendencies on the foreign front. As a zionist and a military puppet.

Trump loves the sanction weapons and financial-banking weapons the US possesses. He's all in on using every coercion to strangle, starve and screw everyone, friend, foe, ally, adversary. A power-hungry guy who has all the power to dominate the globe, yet not his own country, break sovereignties, ignore laws and trample opponents to get his way.

And he likes it.

Trump has taken on the personification of the Hegemon. It is a form of Wizard of Oz syndrome. If the Deep State and MIC allows him, he is "powerful". This suits his dysfunctionality as a man. He has big inadequacies. They manifest in his need to be big, wealthy, #1, first, triumphant in all deals.

In the Oval Office, he is powerless to get the wall built, infrastructure legislation passed, health reform, or even announce he will consider pardons for all those entrapped by Comey and the Russiagate hoax. He's being impeached.

But as the Hegemon, when the handlers around him allow it (advise him), he gets to kill people. This is heady stuff that captivates him.

I would predict that Assad is on the top of Trump's hit list too.

snake , Jan 13 2020 19:41 utc | 28
sponsor of terrorism", aligning Iran with AQ, etc.) are a projection of their own crimes ..by: Pandora @9..<=many Domestic Americans may be at risk for elimination ..If I were an aspiring Democrat I would wear my anti-drone outfit ?

Americans used to pride themselves that their government promised those accused of wrongdoing to be treated as "innocent" until guilt was established by a due process procedure known as a fair open trial. These trials were a source of information that allowed the governed to keep somewhat honest those who were running the government. many Americans chose to become American Citizens in order to gain access to the due process procedures. Humanity in the world has a problem it needs to define and solve because death by drone is not an acceptable line item in the statistics.

Red , Jan 13 2020 19:48 utc | 29
I gleaned this off the saker, https://twitter.com/Azof313/status/1216717472780505093?fbclid=IwAR1pJTv4a5BxI9Ov7IQKUYo5FuhkzluCBUCC7ocsduuATQL4UxRQG5JLLAM .I don't read the language but commenter speaks of cyber attack on the uki plane.
Laguerre , Jan 13 2020 19:50 utc | 30
Actually, I don't think the Shi'a militias are that divided at all. Sistani's call was classic and unifying.
I was quite interested by the remarks of Ayatullah Sistani last Friday, I think it was, criticising Iran and the US equally for illegal attacks on Iraqi soil.

The context is of course that Sistani is Iranian, but has never taken a pro-Iranian position. He is aged now, and his view is expressed by his aides, so it can be taken that this is the view of the Sistani organisation, not so necessarily of the man himself. It is quite nationalistic, and not subservient to Iran, as everybody is currently claiming. Iraqi Shi'a independence from Iran has always been the policy, and its being reaffirmed. Iran remains an ally, naturally.

That doesn't mean that the Iraqi state is strong and can dictate to the US. The US ensures that doesn't happen. But the positions of Sistani, Muqtada al-Sadr and the others are all pretty similar, and concentrate on Iraqi nationalism, which equals opposition to the US, and non-dependence on Iran.

Of course Shi'a Iraqi nationalism is a little bit particular, as no concessions are made to the Sunnis. It's as though they don't exist. For the moment that doesn't matter, as the Sunnis are thoroughly defeated, and if they have rebels, they join Da'ish, who are discredited. The Kurds have had their fingers burned, and won't venture outside KRG again. If the US wants to stir them up, it won't work.

Peter AU1 , Jan 13 2020 19:51 utc | 31
Passer by

I agree with all of that, though on Trump as trying to make up for inadequacies I would differ.
More a very aggressive, competitive mindset and very self confidant in his abilities.
He had held no political positions in the past, runs for president of the US and wins.

Peter AU1 , Jan 13 2020 19:55 utc | 32
Laguerre 30

It looks as though much rides on whether the Shia groups can put aside domestic differences for the duration and agree on and stick to a common strategy to oust the US.

powerandpeople , Jan 13 2020 19:58 utc | 33
https://twitter.com/SecPompeo/status/1216466497901596675

This tweet by Mike Pompeo has triggered a large response condemning USA hypocrisy.

But the murder of the Iranian General does highlight the difficulty of the militias throughout the Middle East.

Middle East is tribal, militias, as far as I understand, can be paid by Sheiks, by local religous leaders, by some arm of the relevant government, by foreign governments. And by foreign governments, I mean Turkey, USA, Iran, UK and so on.
Or a mix of all the above.

So Pompeo has a point - the sooner Middle East governments bring militias fully into the armed forces, the clearer the applicable law will be.

What caused this mess?

Lack of a robust governmental process.

Whose problem is it? At base, the national government in question.

If clear lines of control and command and full integration can't happen due to political divisions and corruption, poor popular control of politicians, then the country (and others around the region) are doomed to endless trouble, from home, from abroad.

Sad fact, IMO.

Sovereignty starts with responsive, effective, reliable, accountable, transparent, and widely accepted, clear, principles-based governance.


psychohistorian , Jan 13 2020 20:02 utc | 34
@ Posted by: Passer by | Jan 13 2020 19:30 utc | 27
with the comment about Trump with which I agree...thanks

Trump is a very hurt human being that is not recognized as such because of a skewed view of what mental health is.....aggression, bullying, and murder have all been normalized to be acceptable mental health in top/down world that is never discussed as being the source of the Trump type of mentality.

I agree with your call out:
"
I would predict that Assad is on the top of Trump's hit list too.
"
and want to add that I expect there are active hit list plans for all world leaders that conflict with the dictatorship of global private finance.

juliania , Jan 13 2020 20:02 utc | 35
b's last comment is:


"...The U.S. will welcome that [the Shia factions will start to fight each other over the selection of a new Prime Minister and government] as it will try do install a candidate that will reject the Iraqi parliament decision to remove the foreign forces from Iraqi grounds."

If the US hopes this will happen to deflect Iraqis from their shock at US assassination on their soil of their military leader as well as Iran's, surely they are as mistaken as they were in perpetrating the atrocity. That's not what happens - we saw it first in Russia. There will be unity against a common enemy, would be my take. As has been happening all along with less important 'sanctions' than this. They always backfire.

Passer by , Jan 13 2020 20:06 utc | 36
My view is that the iraqi shia will work towards expulsion of the US and will make it happen. They will also buy capable anti-air defense from Russia, no matter the threats. Because having US drones over your head is simply unacceptable, and many leaders, including Sadr, know that they are a potential target for "misbehaving" or past grievances. This lurking theat is simply too much. That's not to mention the israeli strikes in Iraq. They also do not want Iraq to turn into US-Iran battlefield. Which will inevitably lead to killings of Shia leaders and groups.

But there will be lots of bullying coming from Trump and some US companies could get large deals as a price for the withdrawal, maybe some expensive military equipment will be sold too.

Peter AU1 , Jan 13 2020 20:12 utc | 37
The middle east, particularly the Arab world have always been susceptible to divide and conquer.
Clans, Tribes, Religions, Ethic groups and nations - all fault lines that the imperial countries have and still do, easily drive wedges into and turn one against another.
Mao , Jan 13 2020 20:15 utc | 38
Putin jokes Assad should invite Trump to visit Damascus. The leaders were referring to the Straight Street, which leads to Mariamite Cathedral of Damascus, & to Apostle Paul whose life was transformed after a vision he had as he walked on that road.


https://twitter.com/RT_com/status/1216797057639337984

Tuyzentfloot , Jan 13 2020 20:15 utc | 39
Since the attack on Suleimani, Al Muhandis and that officer in Yemen, Reza Shahlai, were the result of long planning the question is what else is part of the plan, and its possible opportunistic addons. Trump was very fast in following up with new sanctions. The current demonstrations in Iran were probably(my guess) planned. I don't understand how they can get traction so close to the funeral.
Also I wonder to what extent the US/Israel are strenghtening IS near the Syrian border.
lex talionis , Jan 13 2020 20:15 utc | 40
@21 Red Ryder - I am going to put something on the open thread to you. My question doesn't pertain to this ghastly Iraq/Iran business.
Peter AU1 , Jan 13 2020 20:18 utc | 41
Passer by "They also do not want Iraq to turn into US-Iran battlefield."

This is the part that annoys me about the Iraqi's. Trump stated bluntly that US is in Iraq and will be staying in Iraq to watch Iran. That was at the time of the Syrian pullback and oilfield grab.

US is using Iraq to attack Iran. It killed and Iran military officer and diplomat on Iraqi soil. It is constantly striking Iraqi militia groups on Iraqi soil.
By stating Iran violated Iraqi sovereignty with its strike on the US base, Iraq is giving sanctuary to the US.

Passer by , Jan 13 2020 20:21 utc | 42
Posted by: Tuyzentfloot | Jan 13 2020 20:15 utc | 39

>>the question is what else is part of the plan

The plan seems to be israeli one, and it will be about what will benefit Netanyahoo.

This means a continuous near war situation between the US and Iran, but without the actual large scale war. A covert war involving killings, sabotage, everything other than a large scale war. The US will be the meat-shield for Israel. Untill the elections. Then we will see.

Passer by , Jan 13 2020 20:26 utc | 43
Posted by: Peter AU1 | Jan 13 2020 20:18 utc | 41

I think no one believed that the US will start killing senior iraqis and iranians. Soleimani was even seen together with US troops in Iraq, and was visiting often. Iran certainly did not believe that either. But now things changed.

Likklemore , Jan 13 2020 20:26 utc | 44
@ Passer by 24; ph 34

Trump is one sick pup. He now defends that it does not matter if there was an imminent threat [his] .... "killing of Soleimani regardless of 'imminent' threat, says he had a 'horrible past'

Mike Bloomberg Says He's Spending 'All' His Money 'to Get Rid of Trump'

May need to invoke the 25th Amendment. 11 months is a very long time and we may not all be here. In the previous post I linked to a Tass report Iran has declared their revenge is not over. More to come.

Guy THORNTON , Jan 13 2020 20:34 utc | 45
"Several troops CNN spoke to said the event (al-Assad base) had shifted their view of warcraft: the US military is rarely on the receiving end of sophisticated weaponry, despite launching the most advanced attacks in the world.
"You looked around at each other and you think: Where are we going to run? How are you going to get away from that?" said Ferguson.
"I don't wish anyone to have that level of fear," he said. "No one in the world should ever have to feel something like that.""

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/13/middleeast/iran-strike-al-asad-base-iraq-exclusive-intl/index.html

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ....and Iran is even 5th Division compared with Russia.

Laguerre , Jan 13 2020 20:37 utc | 46
Posted by: Peter AU1 | Jan 13 2020 19:55 utc | 32

Yeah, the way I see things going, I wouldn't call it a strategy, is that the Iraqi parliament continues to vote against any proposal the US makes, while at the same time random militias continue to fire off Katyushas against US bases, making life difficult.

US pressure on Abd ul-Mahdi can't disarm the militias, as he doesn't have the power to do so. There's no scenario where the US could agree to the appointment of a strong PM, who might master the militias, and be accepted by the parliament, and yet guarantee to stop militia attacks. The different elements are contradictory.

DontBelieveEitherPr. , Jan 13 2020 20:39 utc | 47
Yeah, Peter AU1 is right. Iran lost that round.
With the plane shot down, they fucked it totally up. Trump can (somewhat with a basis in reality) point to Iran, the "evil Regime" that prefers to shoot down 100+ civilians instead of closing airspace for "a strategic gain" (Bernards words defending this).
A PR nightmare for Iran. And sadly a deserved one in this case of not closing the airspace.

Had this catastrophe not happend, it would have been a brilliant operation, which would have turned the US standing upside down militarily.
But with shooting themselves in the foot, they managed to paint themselves as the paraiah regime that cares not about human life, as Trump and the NeoCons have painted them all along.

Now i understand why Trump did not respond that night and happily went to bed tweeting that all is well. The US knew Iran shot it down in that night, and they knew that Iran would have hurt itself more then they hurt the US from a PR and propaganda standpoint.

And with Soleimani gone, and a replacement that does not even speak Arabic (WTF?!), how can they even dream of rallying all the tribes in Syria and Iraq behind their game plan??
Personality is key in politics. And when such a person can not even speak the language of the people he should unite, then this looks futile IMHO.

All in all, a very telling development. Telling about both the US and Iran, but also about Alt Media and us readers+commenters.

Laguerre , Jan 13 2020 20:51 utc | 48
Posted by: DontBelieveEitherPr. | Jan 13 2020 20:39 utc | 47

What does that have to do with Iraq?

ben , Jan 13 2020 21:01 utc | 49
IMO, the sad truth is, that the new 4th Reich owns the globe, because of their grasp of the reserve currency system, and NO nation, at this point in time, can reverse that fact.

I've been reading people talking about the demise of the empire for years now. Until the reserve currency issue is changed,
NO NATION on earth can challenge the monstrosity of the new 4th Reich.

The empire will continue to control the world with economic and military terrorism.

To coin an old saying, "It's just business, get over it"....

Laguerre , Jan 13 2020 21:11 utc | 50
Suppose that the US wants to stay in Iraq, as they've said. What strategy could they follow to make it possible? I'm at a bit of a loss there. Full military occupation, with 100,000 US troops? Unacceptable in the US. Change the Iraqi PM? Would someone else be better? Another PM would still be subject to parliament votes. Impose a dictator? Dictators aren't in fact absolute rulers, but still depend on public acquiescence.

Anyone else have a better idea?

nemo , Jan 13 2020 21:13 utc | 51
"Now i understand why Trump did not respond that night and happily went to bed tweeting that all is well. The US knew Iran shot it down in that night, and they knew that Iran would have hurt itself more then they hurt the US from a PR and propaganda standpoint."

Except Trump's stupid tweet came 4 hours BEFORE the plane was downed. Seriously delusional stuff you are spouting.

Alpi , Jan 13 2020 21:13 utc | 52
We have been talking for about 7 days venting our anger and frustration with US empire and its puppets. Also, talking about the why's and The Who's and How's.

I think it is time to concentrate on the " now what" question. What can be done to get the US out of West Asia and keep them away?

The key to all of this and the future of West Asia's peace, IMHO, is Saudi Arabia. Iran and its allies have to concentrate and preempt in changing the Saudi regime. Time is ripe for this and they are on the defensive as well. Taking out the Saudis will:

1. Finish the Wahabi- Saud axis and weaken it tremendously (weaken ISIS, AlQueda, etc if not end them)
2. It will cut off the financial source of much of evil going on in West Asia and beyond
3. No oil, no Americans in the region and a gradual end of petrodollar and hopefully the empire(of course, easier said than done but it has to start somewhere)
4. That will also have a chain reaction in the gulf monarchies with the majority non-Sunni population. So it goes for the other West Asian fiefdoms.
5. The end of ERETZ ISRAEL
6. Realignment of North African alliances and shift away from US and the west, especially Egypt.
7. Bring OPEC under a more democratic control
8. Facilitating Belt and Road and possibly more prosperity for the region as a whole although China and Russia should be watched and dealt with very carefully. They are not the angels that they have been made to be in these forums. They are just the lesser evils, comparatively. Much less.
9. A gradual growth away fanaticism and more toward secularism. Maybe even Iran can restart the first true democracy in the region, if such a thing exists outside of books and novels.

I'm sure others can add to this list. It sounds like fantasy but like i said before it has to start somewhere and Iran is in a position to make this happen and it should be sooner than later. Once Saudis have been dealt with, comes next, Israel. 1967 lines or get the hell out of West Asia. No ifs or buts. No negotiations.

It is a nice dream anyway. I truly believe it is the only hope for the region, otherwise we are looking at 50 more years of this shit if a global war hasn't happened in between.

ted01 , Jan 13 2020 21:31 utc | 53
karlof1 @ 18

"...the Great Evil in the world resides within the Outlaw US Empire and must be expunged even if Nukes must be used. Yes, that conclusion was painful to arrive at and write, but the horrors have lasted for 3,000+ years now."

Is this the real karlof1? Or his alter ego Major karlof1 Kong riding the bomb.

When you say "...Nukes must be used." Would it be correct to assume you mean on yourselves? or some innocent third party in the Middle East?


I thought I despised you Americans, but there is a lot of self loathing here.

Guy THORNTON @45 - should be mandatory viewing. The American needs to feel abject fear, helplessness and loss before anything can even begin to change.


karlof1 , Jan 13 2020 21:34 utc | 54
juliania @20--

Sorry to confound you with my 18! Cause & Effect in this case began in 1953. If 1953 hadn't occurred and nothing similar in-between, then the dead would be alive. Peter AU 1's 24 explained the middle portion well enough. The 3,000+ years refers to the amount of time an oligarchy consisting of landed rich, rentiers and such have subjugated humanity in the West as seen by the numerous proofs offered in the numerous publications by the team Hudson assembled at the Peabody Museum at the same time the Berlin Wall was falling, which Hudson's trying to make more accessible via a series beginning with and forgive them their debts... which I very much encourage you--and everyone reading this comment--to read as it really is that important. The bits and pieces provided in the related essays at Hudson's website are not a sufficient substitute for the series of books, although they ought to be enough to motivate.

b4real , Jan 13 2020 21:38 utc | 55
@50 Laguerre

" What strategy could they follow to make it possible?"

The same strategy they use in Korea, Japan, Germany, Afghanistan, ......etc... Bribery, threats and violence.

@52 Alpi

"What can be done to get the US out of West Asia and keep them away? "

Kill a couple of few hundred American troops in a very rapid fashion or close the straits and collapse the economies.


b4real


Really?? , Jan 13 2020 21:41 utc | 56
Juliania 16
"This country has been fortunate in the past to select persons of high moral compass as our heroes."

Really?
Who?
Can you be more specific?
I am sure there are a few genuine heroes, but I am curious as to whom you mean specifically?
Anyone in the Oval Office?

Josh , Jan 13 2020 21:43 utc | 57
Finally a top Canadian businessman who points the finger for this tragedy to Trump: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51095769. Of course there's not a single politician who has the guts to speak this truth out loud. Trump, the narcissist cum laude, demonstrates how the whole world has to count on others having more common sense than the crazy Americans who bully whoever they don't like, damn the consequences. Let's not forget that it is this ongoing verbal adolescent barrage and unnecessary hyping that almost got us into a nuclear holocaust twice (1963 and 1983) - and both times we were saved by the sound and sober Russians. What if the Russian then would have been the Iranian now?
Likklemore , Jan 13 2020 21:54 utc | 58
@ ben 49

I've been reading people talking about the demise of the empire for years now. Until the reserve currency issue is changed,
NO NATION on earth can challenge the monstrosity of the new 4th Reich.


The USD$ will follow all the others that went before.

just a little more faith ben. The collapse is not one event like an explosion, "boom" it's a process over time. U.S'. 'perceived prosperity' is built on debt or by another name, printing fiat which is unsustainable.

Watch the new QE repo fail, also derivatives and prepare.
U.S. Fed is working hard to save the financial system that is leaking like a sieve. One Fed governor said it [the Repo] was a plumbing exercise. How apt. In 2006 global debt was $125 trillion now stands at $260 trillion.

I mentioned watch derivatives. These banks with the biggest derivative positions - DB, JPM, Citigroup and GS - list their official position a tad below $200 trillion. When it blows? could be another 6 years but collapse it will.

Actually, imo we are in the collapse. Why are interest rates in negative territory? It is a theft of pensioners' savings to keep the casino standing. I suspect the warmongering is a distraction.

When all else fails, they take us to war.


Peter AU1 , Jan 13 2020 21:56 utc | 59
DontBelieveEitherPr. 47 "A PR nightmare for Iran. And sadly a deserved one in this case of not closing the airspace."

It is not deserved. Decisions are easy to ridicule in hindsight, very difficult to make make at the time. War is all about deception. Did Iran know US had the ability to spoof what they were seeing on their radar screens. There is a good chance the US have made some deliberately failed attempts in the past to set them up for something like this. Iran is in a fight with an exceptionally dirty fighter that knows all the tricks. They will take more hits before this is over.
not understanding that and disparaging Iran when it does take hits is part of US calculations. That is human character. Everyone likes a winner type mindset. Part of human character.

xLemming , Jan 13 2020 21:58 utc | 60
Posted by: Josh | Jan 13 2020 21:43 utc | 57

Thanks Josh for that
Unfortunately your link doesn't work (due to the period included at the end)

Canada business chief lashes Trump over Iran plane crash

james , Jan 13 2020 22:02 utc | 61
"pr nightmare." the west can win the pr war, but the actual war is different.. the 2 aren't connected as some might like to think..
Canthama , Jan 13 2020 22:03 utc | 62
Thanks b, Elijah's newest article touches on this very subject, the situation will get hot in Iraq should the Us occupiers do not leave the country. The situation will aggravate, maybe slowly, then speed up, the US will most likely retaliate with sanctions and other usual crimes.
I do see China and Russia stepping up in Iraq and Iran, there is a clear alignment forming, backstage talks must be very busy at the moment, many countries aligning such as Qatar and Turkey, while the traditional allies of Israel and US continue to drag on their knees, such as UAE and KSA.
I do expect the war of aggression in Yemen to get hotter, since KSA is kicking the can down the road instead of true commitment to a peace deal, while in eastern Syria we may see US mercenaries being most likely killed by Syrian insurgency, lots of mercenaries there vs US soldiers.
dh , Jan 13 2020 22:06 utc | 63
@61 Here is a good example of the pr war. As you can see the US army is a real nice bunch of guys and gals doing a tough job fighting ISIS.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-51100129/inside-a-us-air-base-attacked-by-iranian-missiles

Peter AU1 , Jan 13 2020 22:10 utc | 64
james

Trump US has had problems getting vassals on board for war against Iran. With the recent incident, more have moved to Trumps side. Winning the PR war means puppet leaders are free to do as US tells them as even puppet leaders are keeping an eye on re-election and public opinion and so forth.
Trumps war on Iran will not be well publicised build up to Iraq shock and awe. It will be Trident missiles with no warning.

foolisholdman , Jan 13 2020 22:11 utc | 65
Piotr Berman | Jan 13 2020 18:34 utc | 12

I thought "his on militia" was a typo for "his own militia".

karlof1 , Jan 13 2020 22:13 utc | 66
Canthama @62--

I just read your comment at SyrPers:

"Something very odd is happening in the past 24 hours and today:

"The Qatari Emir was in Tehran yesterday, long talks with Iranian leadership.

"Also yesterday, basically all top Syrian Gov leaders (except President Assad apparently), went to Iran as well, a very rare and could say rather risky move of a large group from the Syrian leadership."

Do you have anything to add or further speculation about those events? And thanks for all your efforts!!

Peter AU1 , Jan 13 2020 22:18 utc | 67
karlof1

Almasdarnews had a piece on the Syrian delegation vist.

""Today, a high-level government delegation headed by Prime Minister Imad Khamis, began a trip to the Iranian capital, Tehran, during which they will discuss with senior officials there the current bilateral relations between the two countries and work to strengthen them at all levels, as well as accelerating developments in the regional and international arenas," Al-Watan reported, quoting a diplomatic source.

The Al-Watan source said that consultation and coordination between the two countries at this stage is necessary because after the assassination of Qassem Soleimani, the two allies need to strengthen their alliance.

The newspaper added that the delegation will include in the foreign and defense ministers."
https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/high-level-syrian-govt-delegation-heads-to-iran-for-important-meeting/

Alpi , Jan 13 2020 22:22 utc | 68
@ 45

I think this is the first time the American military has tasted a pushback like this. A clear feeling of defeat and demoralization among those interviewed. It is good for them to be at the receiving end and feel helpless and to know what they have been wreaking on the region for the past 16 years. Maybe they will start questioning their role in these atrocities and pass on the word to new recruits: " Don't join in".

Bubbles , Jan 13 2020 22:27 utc | 69
Meanwhile, the US Pivot to Asia grand plan seems to be in a state of hiatus. Skirmishes and a potential uprising in the Provinces have disrupted the once all important thrust to confront China and curb it's expansion on all fronts.

OBOR strategy continues undeterred, drawing more and more interest and solidifying influence as the months pass. China quietly gives support to the Empire's targets on 2 continents and expands largely unopposed in a 3rd. The Empire's debts to finance it's interests and militarism grows at a never b4 seen rate. It's own military industrial complex robbing it's treasury almost at will, while it's foes grow in size and number.

Looking at it all in Grand Chess Board sort of way, it brings to mind Muhammed Ali's 'Rope a dope' strategy. Let the big dope punch himself out before taking him down was the essence of it.

Another of his most memorable quotes, "No Vietcong ever called me n****r".

No Chinese ever called people in the Provinces hadji either. But hey why go to all that bother of wining hearts and minds and investing in local economies when bribery, corruption and killing dissenters has worked so well in achieving your goals?

'We have the right to stay as a force of good.' Buffalo Wings Mike Pompeo

Oui , Jan 13 2020 22:39 utc | 70
Explanation #99 and counting from the US NSC:

Disclosure Mike Pompeo: Bigger Strategy of Real Deterrence

Not an imminent threat

blues , Jan 13 2020 22:51 utc | 71
In my very most humble opinion, I think this whole 'episode' (starting with the USSA droning of the very high profile military officers in Iraq) must be all just theater. A very large crowd of the most knowledgeable experts in (real) economics are quite certain that the USSA is on the brink of total collapse. So the population is in dire need of distractions. I also am pretty sure that if the USSA were to attack Iran the result would be 'instant' collapse, so that won't happen unless 'they' are slightly stupider that I suspect them to be. I think the 'world' is simply death-watching the USSA. All they have to really do is to avoid being crushed when the Big Dummy goes full Humpty Dumpty.
james , Jan 13 2020 23:04 utc | 72
@ 63 dh.. thanks.. i guess that is similar to the link @ 45 guy thornton shared? bbc verses cnn... they are all tied at the hip..

quote from one of the men at the site - ""I don't wish anyone to have that level of fear," he said. "No one in the world should ever have to feel something like that." well holy fuck... welcome to the reality you have been putting on all of the people in middle east in what seems like forever!! maybe you want to think that thru??

@64 peter au... you're right... this war porn for the kiddies back home is all used for the same purpose.. keeping all the folks back home as braindead as possible.. and yes - when the shit hits the fan, it will be without warning.. great place to be in.. thanks trump, usa, neo con warmongering group.. great place to be here in 2020..

Cynica , Jan 13 2020 23:09 utc | 73
@nemo #51

Trump's "stupid tweet" coincided with UIA Flight 752 crashing.

brian , Jan 13 2020 23:18 utc | 74
Tehran Plans to Take Trump to International Court for Soleimani's Assassination – Iran's Top Judge
Qasem Soleimani, commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp's Quds Force, died in Baghdad on January 3 when the vehicle he was traveling in was struck by a missile launched by a US drone. Soleimani's death brought relations between Iran and the US to a new low.

The Iranian government will seek to prosecute US President Donald Trump for the assassination of Maj. Gen. Soleimani, Iranian Chief Justice Ebrahim Raisi has said
etc

https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/202001131078026671-tehran-plans-to-take-trump-to-international-court-for-soleimanis-assassination--irans-top-judge/?fbclid=IwAR3PQWAd9LWPKyULZUP15oo_FlGjBvTYPaXyPTsGXnCJr0ZC9BmN4f-0B_E

ted01 , Jan 13 2020 23:24 utc | 75
karlof1 @ 54

juliania - you poor confused women.
Classic gaslighting.

You should know that there are things you are not allowed say, no matter how polite you are.
Criticism will not be tolerated.

That explanation makes Masoud Barzani sound coherent.

Now we shall never talk of this again.

dh , Jan 13 2020 23:24 utc | 76
@72 To be fair james the average US servicemen/women are probably pretty decent guys. They genuinely don't know why anyone would try to kill them. It never occurs to them that they are being manipulated.
brian , Jan 13 2020 23:25 utc | 77
Assad Awarded Qassem Soleimani, the Highest Medal in Syria (Photo + Video)

5 hours ago News 809 visits

Assad awarded Qassem Soleimani, the highest honor in Syria (photo + video)

Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad granted the highest honor in the Republic to the commander of the "Quds Force" Qassem Soleimani, who was assassinated in an air strike carried out by the American forces, on January 3, 2020, in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad.

On Monday, Syrian Prime Minister, Imad Khamis, said that President al-Assad granted the commander of the "Quds Force" of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Qassem Soleimani, the highest honor in Syria.

He added, during his meeting with the first vice-president of the Iranian President, Ishaq Jahangiri, in Tehran, that "the award of the medal reveals the deep affection of Assad for Soleimani and his brothers in Iran," according to the agency "Tasnim".
https://shaamtimes.net/218591/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%B3%D8%AF-%D9%8A%D9%85%D9%86%D8%AD-%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%85-%D8%B3%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%8A-%D8%A3%D8%B1%D9%81%D8%B9-%D9%88%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%85-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%B3%D9%88/

RT video
https://youtu.be/ZnRo-JkKtRE

Likklemore , Jan 13 2020 23:33 utc | 78
@ Josh 57

Minds are a changing.

Trudeau endorses Maple Leaf Foods CEO who flays the U.S on the Ukraine plane crash.

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said on Monday that the victims of the Ukrainian airliner shot down in Iran would still be alive if the recent escalation of tensions in the region had not happened, according to a transcript of an interview with Global News TV.

"I think if there were no tensions, if there was no escalation recently in the region, those Canadians would be right now home with their families," Trudeau said in the interview.

Trudeau said Canada did not receive a heads up before the United States killed Soleimani, and that he "obviously" would have preferred one.

"The U.S. makes its determinations. We attempt to work as an international community on big issues. But sometimes countries take actions without informing their allies," he said


james , Jan 13 2020 23:36 utc | 79
@76 dh.. i agree with you and i think the same applies to the average westerner, whether american, canuck or etc. etc.. people are manipulated without much awareness of it.. however, thinking something thru would be a good exercise for many, especially those cheering for the west in it's war on iran.. that is the part i have a hard time comprehending, absent the constant pr sell... thus the pr becomes a pivotal piece in the war movement.. they have to sell it to the public.. from reading the cbc comments on the maple leaf foods ceo, it is not apparent to me that the pr act is working fully here.. in fact, some people seem to be waking up to where this is all headed and don't like what it looks like..
dh , Jan 13 2020 23:38 utc | 80
@78 Poor Justin. He has to be so careful what he says. He doesn't want the Canadian economy to get trashed.
james , Jan 13 2020 23:38 utc | 81
@ 78 likklemore.. thanks for that.. the maple leaf ceo is getting a lot of airplay, but that bit from trudeau is a departure from his usual acceptance of the official agenda here. thanks..
imo , Jan 13 2020 23:49 utc | 82
@ blues | Jan 13 2020 22:51 utc | 71

"A very large crowd of the most knowledgeable experts in (real) economics are quite certain that the USSA is on the brink of total collapse. So the population is in dire need of distractions. ..."

This crowd of 'economists' and their like have been sprouting this scenario for decades. Why believe any of these characters? The whole basic premise of std economics is now dated and largely BS. Obviously, they have not updated on "modern monetary theory"?

There is no market economy in 'equilibrium' run on rational basis. That ideology's shell cracked with Nixon and completely broke with blow-job Willy Clinton when he had time not playing with the kids on Epstein's Express (and Island).

It is a political economy now. Hegemony first, second and third. Vassal states (plantations) and Colony-economic all the way with LBJ (& the Fed) etc. The only place 'normal' economics applies is at the margins for the working class -- like your credit card and the local hardware store.

However, your general sentiment is on the mark if you change the key phrase from "brink of total collapse" to " brink of major reset."

Sasha , Jan 13 2020 23:50 utc | 83
It has already started...The Mahdi is coming! En marche!

Soleimani´s Curse....

Floods cause millionaire damage to Israeli fighter jets in their hangars

Sasha , Jan 13 2020 23:59 utc | 84
Damage count...

'Pence secretly visits Ain Al-Asad base, attacked by Iran'

He is probably in the hope that someone would retaliate by killing him so as to he becomes an American hero....but to no avail...in his insignificance...

The current state of affairs in the US and for extension in the resto fo the world is a byprosuct of at least three men in the WH who feel so littel that they think they need to produce so much noise to be noticed...

b4real , Jan 14 2020 0:07 utc | 85
CNN interview American troops who survived attack

b4real

Rd , Jan 14 2020 0:16 utc | 86
Do you have anything to add or further speculation about those events? And thanks for all your efforts!!

Posted by: karlof1 | Jan 13 2020 22:13 utc | 66


RT is now reporting on the reason for the assassination. Iran and KSA were about to settle differences. the empire was not too happy about that. these meeting may well be related to regional settlements among the regional countries.

Dennis , Jan 14 2020 0:17 utc | 87
@ karlof1 (18)

JFK did not order the Diem assassinaton. The "cables" that purport to show that were long ago revealed to have been forged by the infamous EH Hunt. Kennedy's Ambassador Lodge (a Republican) conspired with CIA station chief Lucien Conein and a small group of administation officials in Washington to remove Diem when JFK was away on a weekend. I believe Lodge was on his way back to US where JFK was going to fire him to his face over this when he was himself assassinated.

jayc , Jan 14 2020 0:17 utc | 88
Apparently one of the issues for Iraq is that its oil revenue gets directed to an account at the Federal Reserve Bank in New York, and access to that account would be the first order of any prospective retaliatory sanctions by the U.S., and it was likely that account that Trump referred to when warning of crippling sanctions if Iraq should attempt to remove US / NATO forces.

https://news.yahoo.com/u-could-reportedly-bar-iraq-174900741.html

Carson , Jan 14 2020 0:30 utc | 89
@85, remarkable video. Damage is more extensive than I expected. Grateful none of our troops was killed or physically injured (if that report is correct). However, those soldiers certainly experienced trauma and will likely endure long-lasting mental and emotional effects.

It all makes me angry that our President so cavalierly put our young men and women in harms way. They should be home with family.

Likklemore , Jan 14 2020 0:30 utc | 90
@ james 81

Quite the turn. On Saturday Trudeau wanted "clarity" asked Iran " if it [the downing of the plane] was a mistake?"
I suspect Trudeau received a lot of emails from Quebec..Trudeau's party lost out to BQ; understand a majority of Quebecois are not enamoured or impressed by the brain dead D.C. leadership.

Carson , Jan 14 2020 0:33 utc | 91
I hope that Iran can get the protests under control peacefully. ISTM that the Iranian protesters and the Venezuelan protesters both appear to be upper class. I don't see peasants protesting; I see a privileged class that probably stand to gain in the event there is a regime change.
Theophrastus , Jan 14 2020 0:35 utc | 92
Soraya Sepahpour and Finian Cunningham has a very interesting take on this. Their hypothesis fits remarkably well, in regard to motive, means, and opportunity.

https://sputniknews.com/columnists/202001131078026961-iran-jet-disaster-setup/

Jen , Jan 14 2020 0:40 utc | 93
Really @ 56:

You're not the only one looking for genuine heroes of high moral compass.

Iran Cleric: We Have No Good Revenge Targets, Only US Heroes Are SpongeBob and Spider-Man

The learned mullah laments:

"Are we supposed to take out Spider-Man and SpongeBob? ... All of their heroes are cartoon characters."
b4real , Jan 14 2020 0:41 utc | 94
@89 Carson


Thanks but props go to Canthama, vid purloined from his twitter feed. Recommend bookmarking his twitter, Link to Canthama's twitter feed he is one of those extraordinary persons. No twitter account necessary.

b4real

karlof1 , Jan 14 2020 0:48 utc | 95
Rd @86--

Do you have a link to that info? I found nada on RT or on its Twitter, nor is there anything at Sputnik.

Dennis @87--

Outlaw US Empire assassination policy isn't 100% governed by POTUS as you show.

james , Jan 14 2020 0:49 utc | 96
@90 likklemore... i think its true what you say about quebec.. ask lozion, lol! either way i commend him for putting some space in our position from the usas!
Peter AU1 , Jan 14 2020 1:01 utc | 97
Jen
Not all are cartoon characters. Would be well worth Iran taking a look at who receives medals and awards in the US. Captain of a certain ship comes to mind. But forget the heroes. Pompeo would make a good 'eye for an eye'. Secretary of state and a nasty one at that. His job is somewhat similar to Soleimani's.
Virgile , Jan 14 2020 1:05 utc | 98
If Trump is not reelected, I don't give much of his head. Thousands are ready to make him pay for his crimes. He and his advisors will remain the targets of revenge for years to come
Liklemore , Jan 14 2020 1:40 utc | 99
@ Karlof1 95

I read it as well, ready to make nice - linked in this article sourced to

The Independent.co.uk


Writer Kim Sengupta from The Independent explains this incredible twist in the story:

Iraq's prime minister revealed that he was due to be meeting the Iranian commander to discuss moves being made to ease the confrontation between Shia Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia – the crux of so much of strife in the Middle East and beyond.

Adil Abdul-Mahdi was quite clear: "I was supposed to meet him in the morning the day he was killed, he came to deliver a message from Iran in response to the message we had delivered from the Saudis to Iran."

The prime minister also disclosed that Donald Trump had called him to ask him to mediate following the attack on the US embassy in Baghdad. According to Iraqi officials contact was made with a number of militias as well as figures in Tehran. The siege of the embassy was lifted and the US president personally thanked Abdul-Mahdi for his help.

There was nothing to suggest to the Iraqis that it was unsafe for Soleimani to travel to Baghdad – quite the contrary. This suggests that Trump helped lure the Iranian commander to a place where he could be killed.

Lurker in the Dark , Jan 14 2020 1:44 utc | 100
Red @ 29 -

I posted what I believe might be a translated version of the document you linked to above, but I as well do not speak the language.

This may be a related Twitter stream on the Iranians ruling out human error and pointing the finger at U.S. electronic warfare malfeasance being used to trick the Iranians or their systems into making the shoot down.

https://twitter.com/khoosh_/status/1216782662968455168?s=20

University of Tehran Cyperspace Research Lab:

On the matter of the Ukrainian plane accident in Iran, the role of human error has been ruled out [as it has been discovered that] deception operations were carried out on the air control & command system.

, This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted. Working... Your comment could not be posted. Error type: Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment Name:

Email:

URL:
Allowed HTML Tags:

< B>Text</B> → Text
<I>Text</I> → Text
< U>Text</U> → Text
<BLOCKQUOTE>Text</BLOCKQUOTE>
< A HREF="http://www.aclu.org/">Headline (not the URL)</A> → Headline (not the URL)

Working... " The MoA Week In Review - Open Thread 2020-03 | Main

next page "

Verify your Comment Previewing your Comment

[Jan 14, 2020] Trump's Killing of Soleimani New "Worst Mistake in US History" by Kevin Barrett

Jan 14, 2020 | www.unz.com

Kevin Barrett January 12, 2020 2,000 Words 135 Comments Reply Email This Page to Someone
Remember My Information


=> List of Bookmarks
◄ ► Bookmark ◄ ► ▲ ▼ Toggle All ToC ▲ ▼ Add to Library Remove from Library B Show Comment Next New Comment Next New Reply Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period. Email Comment Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments Search Clear Cancel

Donald Trump occasionally utters unspeakable truths. In March 2018 he called Bush Jr.'s decision to invade Iraq "the worst single mistake in US history." Earlier, Trump had said that Bush should have been impeached for launching that disastrous war.

Yet on January 2 2020 Trump made a much bigger mistake: He launched all-out war with Iran -- a war that will be joined by millions of anti-US non-Iranians, including Iraqis -- by murdering Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the legendary hero who defeated ISIS, alongside the popular Iraqi commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. Gen. Soleimani was by far the most popular figure in Iran, where he polled over 80% popularity, and throughout much of the Middle East. He was also adored by millions even outside that region, non-Muslims as well as Muslims. Many Christians throughout the world loved Gen. Soleimani, whose campaign against ISIS saved the lives of thousands of their co-religionists. Even Sunni Muslims (the people, not the billionaire playboy sheikhs) generally loved and admired the Shia Muslim Gen. Soleimani, a saintly warrior-monk who was uncommonly spiritual, morally impeccable, and the most accomplished military genius of this young century.

The strategic stupidity of Trump's order to murder Soleimani cannot be exaggerated. This shocking, dastardly murder, committed while Soleimani was on an American-encouraged peace mission, has unleashed a "Pearl Harbor effect" that will galvanize not just the nation of Iran, but other forces in the region and around the world. Just as the shock effect of Pearl Harbor helped the American war party overcome domestic political divisions and unite the nation in its resolve for vengeance, so has the Soleimani murder galvanized regional groups, led by Islamic Iran and Iraq, in their dedication to obliterate every last trace of any US-Israeli presence in the region, no matter how long it takes, by any means necessary.

Most Americans still don't understand the towering stature of Soleimani. Perhaps some comparisons will be helpful.

To understand the effect on Iran and the region, imagine that Stalin had succeeded in murdering George Patton, Dwight Eisenhower, and Douglas MacArthur, all on the same day, in 1946. These US generals, like Soleimani, were very popular, in part because they had just won a huge war against an enemy viewed as an embodiment of pure evil. How would Americans have reacted to such a crime? They would have united to destroy Stalin and the Soviet Union, no matter how long it took, no matter what sacrifices were necessary. That is how hundreds of millions of people will react to the martyrdom of Gen. Soleimani.

But even that comparison does not do justice to the situation. Patton, Eisenhower, and MacArthur were secular figures in an increasingly secular culture. Had Stalin murdered them, their deaths would not have risen to the level of religious martyrdom. Americans' motivation to avenge their deaths would not have been as deep and long-lasting, nor as charged with the avid desire to sacrifice everything in pursuit of the goal, in comparison with the millions of future avengers of the death of Gen. Soleimani.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/4nKSlbFCJwo?feature=oembed

The tragedy, from the US point of view, is that this didn't need to happen. Iran, a medium-sized player in a tough neighborhood, is a natural ally of the United States. As Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in The Grand Chessboard , "Iran provides stabilizing support for the new political diversity of Central Asia. Its independence acts as a barrier to any long-term Russian threat to American interests in the Persian Gulf region." (p. 47) Obama, guided by Brzezinski and his acolytes, set the US on a sensible path toward cordial relations with Iran -- only to see his foreign policy triumph sabotaged by the pro-Zionist Deep State and finally shredded by Netanyahu's puppets Trump and Pompeo. Iran, dominated by principled anti-Zionists, is a thorn in the side of Israel, so the unstable Iranophobe Trump was inserted into the presidency to undo Obama's handiwork and reassert total Israeli control over US policy -- the same total control initially cemented by the 9/11 false flag.

If the murder of Soleimani bears comparison to Pearl Harbor, it also echoes the October 1914 killing of Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo, the first domino in a series that ended in a world war. The dominos are lined up the same way today, though it may take longer for all of them to fall. Due to the enormity of its psychological effect, the Soleimani assassination irreversibly sets the US at permanent war with Iran and the rest of the Axis of Resistance. That war can end in only two ways: The destruction of Islamic Iran, or the complete elimination of the US military presence in the region. The first alternative is unacceptable not only to Iran, its regional friends, and the conscience of the world, but also to Russia and China, who would be next in line for destruction if Iran is annihilated. The second alternative is probably unacceptable to the permanent National Security State that governs the US no matter who is in office, and to Israel and its global network (and its agents in the "US" National Security State). So the irresistible force will soon be meeting the immovable object. It is difficult to see how this could possibly end well.

Ironically, given Trump's well-justified scorn for Bush's invasion of Iraq, the first front of the world war unleashed by Soleimani's killing will be in that long-suffering nation, whose government has just ordered US troops to depart posthaste. If Trump wants to keep US forces in Iraq he is going to have to re-invade that nation, attack and destroy its government and military, fight a long-term counterinsurgency (this time against the vast majority of the population) and take far more casualties than Bush Jr. did.

Trump's decision to martyr the great Iranian general and the celebrated Iraqi commander was perfectly timed to unite Iraq against the American occupation. Prior to the murder, Iraq was in the midst of color-revolution chaos, as demonstrators protested against not just the US and Israel, the real culprits in the destruction of their country, but also Iran, Iraqi politicians, and other targets. Those demonstrations, and the murders that marred them, were orchestrated by Gladio style covert US forces. As Iraqi Prime Minster Abdul Mahdi explained :

" I visited China and signed an important agreement with them to undertake the construction instead (of an American company). Upon my return, Trump called me to ask me to reject this agreement. When I refused, he threatened to unleash huge demonstrations against me that would end my premiership.

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

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

"I was supposed to meet him [Soleimani] later in the morning when he was killed. He came to deliver a message from Iran in response to the message we had delivered to the Iranians from the Saudis (as part of a peace initiative)."

So Trump lured Soleimani to Tehran with a peace initiative, then ambushed him. That's why Soleimani was traveling openly on a commercial flight to Baghdad International Airport. He thought he was under US protection.

Abdul Mahdi's explanation rings true. It reflects the views of most Iraqis, who will be galvanized by Trump's atrocious actions to resume their insurgency against US occupation.

As Iraqis continue to attack the hated US presence in their country, Trump will undoubtedly blame Iran, whatever its actual role. So this time the Iranians will have no motivation to avoid helping the Iraqi liberation struggle -- they would be blamed even if they didn't. Though Soleimani was a relatively America-friendly stabilizing force after the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan -- the claim that he was behind IEDs that killed US troops is a ridiculous lie -- in the wake of his death Iran will respond positively to Iraqi requests for help in its national liberation struggle against the hated US occupier.

A rekindled anti-US insurgency in Iraq, and various forms of ambiguous/deniable retaliation for the murder of Gen. Soleimani throughout the region and the world, will force Trump up the escalation ladder. Iran, and the larger eject-the-US-from-the-Mideast project, will not back down, though they may occasionally stage tactical retreats for appearance's sake. The only way Trump could "win" would be by completely destroying Iran. Even if Russia and China allowed that, an unlikely prospect, Trump or any US president who "won" that kind of war would be remembered as the worst war criminal in world history, and the US would lose all its soft power and with it its empire.

Russia now faces the same kind of decision it had to make when the Zionist-dominated US tried to destroy Syria: stand by and let Tehran be annihilated, with Moscow next in line; or use its considerable military power to save its ally. Putin will have no choice but to support Iran, just as he supported Syria. China, too, will need to ensure that the USA loses its Zionist-driven war on Iran. Otherwise Beijing would risk facing the same fate as Tehran.

Even if the only help it gets from Russia and China is covert, Iran is in a strong position to wage asymmetric war against the US presence in the Middle East. Almost two decades ago, the $250 million war game Millennium Challenge 2002 blew up in the neocons' faces, as Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper commanded Iranian forces against the US and steered them to victory. Though some technological developments since then may favor the US, as Dr. Alan Sabrosky recently pointed out on my radio show , others favor Iran, which now has missiles of sufficient quality and quantity to rain down hell on US bases, annihilate much of if not all of Israel, and send every US ship anywhere near the Persian Gulf to the bottom of the ocean. (Anti-ship missiles have far outstripped naval defenses, and Iran has concealed immense reserves of them deep in the Zagros Mountains overlooking the Persian Gulf.)

So Trump or whoever follows him will eventually face a choice: Accept defeat and withdraw all American bases and forces in the region; or continue up an escalation ladder that inexorably leads to World War III. The higher up the ladder he goes, the harder it will be to jump off.

The apocalyptic scenario may not be accidental. Mike Pompeo, who is widely believed to have duped Trump into ordering the killing of Gen. Soleimani, may have done so not only on behalf of the extremist Netanyahu faction in Israel, but also in service to an apocalyptic Christian Zionist program that yearns for planetary nuclear destruction . Pompeo is ardently awaiting "the rapture," the culmination of Christian Zionist history, when a global nuclear war begins at Megiddo Hill in Occupied Palestine and consumes the planet, sending everyone to hell except the Christian Zionists themselves, who are "beamed up" Star Trek fashion by none other than Jesus himself.

Whether it goes down in radioactive flames or in a kinder and gentler way, the US empire, as unstable as its leaders, is nearing the final stages of collapse. "Very stable genius" Trump and Armageddonite Pompeo may have hastened the inevitable when they ordered the fateful killing of Gen. Soleimani.

[Jan 14, 2020] Trump First OK'd Killing Soleimani 7 Months Ago If Americans Killed

Jan 14, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

me name=

Skip to main content

https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=4777 Trump First OK'd Killing Soleimani 7 Months Ago "If Americans Killed" by Tyler Durden Mon, 01/13/2020 - 13:05 0 SHARES

There's been a number of theories to emerge surrounding President Trump's incredibly risky decision to assassinate IRGC Guds Force chief Qasem Soleimani, including that it was all the brainchild of hawkish Secretary of State and former CIA Director Mike Pompeo.

But an emerging reporting consensus does indicate that the public justification for the strike -- that Soleimani posed an "imminent" threat as he was orchestrating an attack against American troops and sites in the region -- was manufactured based on flimsy intelligence. The evolving and contradictory statements within the administration itself demonstrates at least this much.

And now according to the latest NBC bombshell it's becoming clear that the top IRGC general's killing was actually months in the works :

President Donald Trump authorized the killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani seven months ago if Iran's increased aggression resulted in the death of an American, according to five current and former senior administration officials.

2018 file photo, Getty images.

Apparently the "option" to take him out was already on the "menu" of Pentagon contingencies long before Soleimani's fateful Jan.3 early morning passage through Baghdad International Airport.

Reports NBC based on multiple officials , "The presidential directive in June came with the condition that Trump would have final signoff on any specific operation to kill Soleimani, officials said."

The Dec.27 Kataeb Hezbollah rocket attack on a US base in Kirkuk then became a core element of the official rationale, given it killed an American contractor later identified as 33-year old Sacramento resident Nawres Waleed Hamid, who had been assisting the Army as a linguist.

The new report confirms further that it was both National Security Advisor at the time John Bolton as well as Mike Pompeo that had Trump's ear on the subject .

"There have been a number of options presented to the president over the course of time" related to bold steps to curtail Iranian aggression, a senior administration official told NBC, which reports further:

The president's message was "that's only on the table if they hit Americans," according to a person briefed on the discussion.

The origins of the plan to assassinate the top IRGC elite force general and popular "national hero" inside Iran actually evolved initially out of 2017 discussions involving Trump's national security adviser at the time, retired Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster.

Burning convoy near Baghdad International Airport, via Iraq government/EPA.

The report explains :

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

The idea did become more serious after McMaster was replaced in April 2018 by Bolton , a longtime Iran hawk and advocate for regime change in Tehran. Bolton left the White House in September -- he said he resigned, while Trump said he fired him -- following policy disagreements on Iran and other issues.

So there it is: Bolton's ultra-hawkish influence is still in effect at the White House.

Congratulations to all involved in eliminating Qassem Soleimani. Long in the making, this was a decisive blow against Iran's malign Quds Force activities worldwide. Hope this is the first step to regime change in Tehran.

-- John Bolton (@AmbJohnBolton) January 3, 2020

And the torch is being carried further by Mike Pompeo.

But again while none of this should come as a surprise, it's yet further proof on top of a growing body of evidence that Washington is yet again telling bald-faced lies to the public about a major event that could lead America straight back into another disastrous Middle East quagmire. Tags Politics

https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=4879&num_ads=18&cf=1258.5.zerohedge%20190919 Show 281 Comments Login

ZeroHedge Search Today's Top Stories Loading... Contact Information Tips: [email protected]

General: [email protected]

Legal: [email protected]

Advertising: Click here

Abuse/Complaints: [email protected] Suggested Reading Make sure to read our "How To [Read/Tip Off] Zero Hedge Without Attracting The Interest Of [Human Resources/The Treasury/Black Helicopters]" Guide

It would be very wise of you to study our disclaimer , our privacy policy and our (non)policy on conflicts / full disclosure . Here's our Cookie Policy .

How to report offensive comments

Notice on Racial Discrimination .

Copyright ©2009-2020 ZeroHedge.com/ABC Media, LTD Want more of the news you won't get anywhere else? Thank you for subscribing! Something went wrong. Please refresh and try again. Sign up now and get a curated daily recap of the most popular and important stories delivered right to your inbox. Please enter a valid email

[Jan 14, 2020] Craig Murray

Jan 14, 2020 | www.unz.com

January 4, 2020 2,300 Words 73 Comments Reply Email This Page to Someone
Remember My Information


=> List of Bookmarks ◄ ► ◄ ► ▲ ▼ Remove from Library B Show Comment Next New Comment Next New Reply Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period. Email Comment Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Bookmark Toggle All ToC ▲ ▼ Add to Library Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments Search Clear Cancel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The key was that the concept of "imminent" was to change:

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

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

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

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

In the UK recently, the Attorney General gave a speech in defence of the UK's drone policy, the assassination of people – including British nationals – abroad. This execution without a hearing is based on several criteria, he reassured us. His speech was repeated slavishly in the British media. In fact, the Guardian newspaper simply republished the government press release absolutely verbatim, and stuck a reporter's byline at the top.

The media have no interest in a critical appraisal of the process by which the British government regularly executes without trial. Yet in fact it is extremely interesting. The genesis of the policy lay in the appointment of Daniel Bethlehem as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's Chief Legal Adviser. Jack Straw made the appointment, and for the first time ever it was external, and not from the Foreign Office's own large team of world-renowned international lawyers. The reason for that is not in dispute. Every single one of the FCO's legal advisers had advised that the invasion of Iraq was illegal, and Straw wished to find a new head of the department more in tune with the neo-conservative world view. Straw went to extremes. He appointed Daniel Bethlehem, the legal 'expert' who provided the legal advice to Benjamin Netanyahu on the 'legality' of building the great wall hemming in the Palestinians away from their land and water resources. Bethlehem was an enthusiastic proponent of the invasion of Iraq. He was also the most enthusiastic proponent in the world of drone strikes.

Bethlehem provided an opinion on the legality of drone strikes which is, to say the least, controversial. To give one example, Bethlehem accepts that established principles of international law dictate that lethal force may be used only to prevent an attack which is 'imminent'. Bethlehem argues that for an attack to be 'imminent' does not require it to be 'soon'. Indeed you can kill to avert an 'imminent attack' even if you have no information on when and where it will be. You can instead rely on your target's 'pattern of behaviour'; that is, if he has attacked before, it is reasonable to assume he will attack again and that such an attack is 'imminent'.

There is a much deeper problem: that the evidence against the target is often extremely dubious. Yet even allowing the evidence to be perfect, it is beyond me that the state can kill in such circumstances without it being considered a death penalty imposed without trial for past crimes, rather than to frustrate another 'imminent' one. You would think that background would make an interesting story. Yet the entire 'serious' British media published the government line, without a single journalist, not one, writing about the fact that Bethlehem's proposed definition of 'imminent' has been widely rejected by the international law community. The public knows none of this. They just 'know' that drone strikes are keeping us safe from deadly attack by terrorists, because the government says so, and nobody has attempted to give them other information

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and Rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010. (Republished from CraigMurray.org by permission of author or representative)

utu , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 6:16 am GMT

Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel's Targeted Assassinations by Ronen Bergman

The book's title is inspired by a statement in the Talmud: "If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first".

And there is another dictum in Talmud: Tob Shebbe Goyim Harog ("Kill the Best Gentiles").

Igor Bundy , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 7:16 am GMT
We know Israel does this all the time but to non state actors. I dont think in recent history anyone has openly target a state actor in such a criminal fashion because it is an act of war and not only that but considered barbaric. To ask for mediation and then to assassinate the messengers is an act that not even the mongols took part in and they considered it enough to wipe out any such parties..
Parfois1 , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 7:25 am GMT
Good expose about the creative criminal minds twisting language and decency to justify murder and war crimes...

A new legal doctrine to justify crimes in an industrial scale for the good of UK-USrael.

However they might be right in claiming that Gen. Soleimani had killed or was about to kill many "Americans" – not strictly US citizens – but the honorary American terrorist foot soldiers fighting American wars in the Middle East.

Ghali , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 7:56 am GMT
Do terrorists act legally? The U.S. is a terrorist organisation. It is misleading to call the US a nation or a country. Soleimani is widely-acknowledged as the architect of the successful campaign to defeat the U.S.-Israel sponsored terrorists (ISIS and al-Qaeda) in Syria and Iraq. The sad irony is that Iran was a major U.S. "ally" during the U.S. aggression against Afghanistan and more importantly against Iraq. Without Iran (the Eastern front) the U.S. would not have invaded Iraq. Iran played a major military role helping the U.S. against the Iraqi Resistance.
Priss Factor , says: Website Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 8:18 am GMT
Hollywood creatures are the vilest scum.

Hollywood's fake history vs. actual history on Israel's role in the Iraq war.

Hollywood's fake history vs. actual history on Israel's role in the Iraq war. for more https://t.co/lTonBw8VGF pic.twitter.com/1pxVcmIqhq

-- Adam Green (@Know_More_News) January 12, 2020

Dube , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 9:12 am GMT
While Ahmadinejad never actually said that Israel would be driven into the sea, that statement was imminent, therefore it was legitimate to quote it.
Zumbuddi , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 9:41 am GMT
How hideous that this is named Bethlehem, "The place of healing; place of birth of the Prince of Peace.'

More appropriate to call it the ESTHER doctrine, or PURIM doctrine.

The Hebrew text provides no solid evidence that Haman sought to kill Jews: the notion is based on Mordecha the Spy and self-serving Snitch.

Netanyahu has made public statements linking today's Iran to the Purim doctrine that Jews celebrate to this day.

In other words, Jews demonstrate a clear patter of "imminent threat" to kill those who resist Zionist – Anglo dominence.

Under this Purim (Bethlehem) doctrine, therefore, it is not only legitimate, it is necessary -- a Constitutional obligation -- that the American government Kill Jews who pose an Imminent Threat to the American -- and Iranian -- people.

tim hardacre , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 9:47 am GMT
As a retired international lawyer I am of the opinion Mr. Murray sets out fact and law impressively . He says everything that is needed to be said

Good for the FCO legal team in resisting the invasion of Iraq. I do know at least one British regiment sought independent legal advice before accepting orders.

Just passing through , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 9:50 am GMT
Great article Mr. Murray, very needed in these times of almost universal deceit.

Mr. Bethlehem displays the famous Jewish quality of chutzpah – the quality of a bit who has killed his parents in cold blood but begs the judge for mercy because he is an orphan – when he decided to simply change the law.

I wish I had some of that Jewish privilege, that way I too could go around robbing and killing and then simply change the law to get away Scot free.

Gallum , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 9:52 am GMT
Iran's President Hassan Rouhani attended Glasgow Caledonian University in Scotland, graduating in 1995 with an M.Phil. degree in Law. Rouhani is close to Jack Straw and Straw is very close to Lord Levy. And Lord Levy is very close to Lord Rothschild. Jack Straw says "in Hassan Rouhani's Iran, you can feel the winds change." "Winds changing" is an understatement. They are gust winds blowing at high velocity directly from the City of London and from Israel's direction. All very high level British intrigue going on here in Iran. It was Jack Straw who appointed Daniel Bethlehem who developed the "Bethlehem Doctrine" used in justifying the assassination of General Soleinami under false pretenses Pompeo probably knew about when he informed President Trump. From 1979 to 2013, Rouhani held a number of important positions in the Velayat-e Faqih's key institutions, as "the man in power but in the shadows." Hassan Rouhani's job it appears considering his education and position is through Shia law is to continue to perpetuate the spread of the "revolution." The "revolution" is designed to keep confrontation in place. Why not gradually move from "revolutionary Shia" to a more conciliatory peaceful religious position? Iran's Mohammad Javad Zarif who is now an Iranian career diplomat, spent 20 years from the age of 17 studying in the United States. Kind of makes us look harder at John Kerry and whether or not his connections to Mohammad Javad Zarif have anything to do with all that is unfolding here?
Nonny Mouse , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 10:41 am GMT
They all have fake names. Netanyahu is really Mileikowski. Ben Gurion was really Gruen. But for a British Jew to grab the name Bethlehem is a real attack on Christianity.
Parfois1 , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 10:43 am GMT
@Ghali

The sad irony is that Iran was a major U.S. "ally" during the U.S. aggression against Afghanistan and more importantly against Iraq. Without Iran (the Eastern front) the U.S. would not have invaded Iraq. Iran played a major military role helping the U.S. against the Iraqi Resistance.

Well, what can one say? First, there is the official narrative; then there are the alternative narratives in their many fashions and narrations; and then there is the oddball narrative that defies logic and reason. Iran allied with Usrael?

It may look (and is) an exorbitant stretch of imagination to come to such a view. But it is not unique; it is not much different from the often-heard impossible claim here at UR that Nazi Germany was allied with the Soviet Union in 1939!

anonymous [382] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 10:51 am GMT
@RouterAl

Can I be the only person to think that from the moment Hitler transported his first shipment of Haavara Agreement Jews to Palestine there has not been a moments piece in that corner of the globe.

Can you be the only person . . .?

Possibly.

"There has not been a moment's piece [sic] in that corner of the globe" since Herzl began attempting to co-opt the Ottoman Empire in ~1895.

Balfour ramped it up a notch in 1917; at the urging of Louis Brandeis, Woodrow Wilson endorsed Balfour's plan.

NoseytheDuke , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 11:01 am GMT
@Wally Note here that Wally fails to condemn Trump's illegal act of war on a national of a nation which Congress has not declared war upon.

Yes Wally, Obama was a war criminal who deserves to hang for his crimes, but if you are to retain any credibility with which to continue your mission to expose the Holohoax, you should also acknowledge that Trump is a war criminal too who, based on precedent, also deserves to hang. Your loyalty is clearly misplaced.

NoseytheDuke , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 11:09 am GMT
@Dube I believe that what he actually said was that, "Israel would disappear from the pages of history". The usual liars reported this as "Iran would wipe Israel off the map".

If the West is to fight back and survive then the first battle should surely be against the lying media organs that bear so much responsibility for the shit-storm that is on the way.

SolontoCroesus , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 11:29 am GMT
@Parfois1 Hillary Mann Leverett negotiated with Iranian counterparts at United Nations and gained Iranian assistance in finding partners to defeat Taliban
March 31, 2015

~15 min:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?325094-3/washington-journal-hillary-mann-leverett-mark-dubowitz-iran-nuclear-negotiations

Leverett:

"Unlike Mr. Dubowitz and many in Washington, I have actually negotiated with current Iranian officials, and it was an effective negotiation. [it resulted] in a state enormously not only overthrow the Taliban, but set up a proper government in Afghanistan. There is just no evidence whatsoever that continuing to bludgeon them and pressure them is going to do anything to give us concessions."

Leverett participated in a 'round-table discussion' with Mark Dubowitz of Foundation for Defense of Democracy (FDD).

Dubowitz's spiel was boilerplate: "Saddam killed 200,000 of his own people, he is pursuing nuclear weapons," blah blah blah.

On Jan 12 2020 on C Span, https://www.c-span.org/event/?467915/washington-journal-01122020 first Ilan Goldenberg of Center for New American Security (George Soros, major funder), then Michael Rubin of American Enterprise Institute * recited the same talking points: only the names were changed, a tacit acknowledgement that the original, Iraqi-based set of names were dead.

*AEI Board of Trustees:
AEI is governed by a Board of Trustees, composed of leading business and financial executives.
Daniel A. D'Aniello, Chairman
Cofounder and Chairman
The Carlyle Group

Clifford S. Asness
Managing and Founding Principal
AQR Capital Management, LLC

The Honorable Richard B. Cheney

Peter H. Coors
Vice Chairman of the Board
Molson Coors Brewing Company

Harlan Crow
Chairman
Crow Holdings

Ravenel B. Curry III
Chief Investment Officer
Eagle Capital Management, LLC

-- also interesting comments from the audience @ 11 min

Leverett has also repeated, on numerous occasions, that sanctions –" a weapon of war" -- are counterproductive and, in the case of Iraq, "killed a million Iraqis, half of them children."

Biff , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 11:31 am GMT
@NoseytheDuke

I believe that what he actually said was that, "Israel would disappear from the pages of history".

More precisely the quote says "The Israel regime would disappear .." meaning the Israel government – not the country and its' people.

dimples , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 11:34 am GMT
@Dube Indeed, the Jews cunningly arranged for the Arab states to look like they might attack them in 1967. Then they swooped like a prescient eagle and blew up all the Egyptian planes on the ground before this attack, which might not have happened otherwise, actually happened. Its definitely a winning philosophy, but only if you are sure you are going to win in the first place.
Art , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 11:45 am GMT
Leave it to a Jew and his Bethlehem Doctrine, to crush the four centuries old Treaty of Westphalia where the principle of national sovereignty was instituted. Killing the leaders of a sovereign nation breaks the treaty.

Assassination is a Jew tool. Killing is the Jew way.

Stop the Jew – Think Peace

YetAnotherAnon , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 12:02 pm GMT
@RouterAl "Jew Jack Straw was everything you would expect from Jew"

I seem to recall a piece in an Israeli paper saying he wasn't Jewish. It was quite witty, saying IIRC that although he looked like a shul trustee and his career trajectory (student politics then law then media) was classically Jewish, he has (as wiki says) only one Jewish great-grandparent.

From wiki

"In 2013, at a round table event of the Global Diplomatic Forum at the UK's House of Commons, Straw (who has Jewish heritage) was quoted by Israeli politician Einat Wilf, one of the panelists at the forum, as having said that among the main obstacles to peace was the amount of money available to Jewish organizations in the US, which controlled US foreign policy, and also Germany's "obsession" with defending Israel."

YetAnotherAnon , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 12:12 pm GMT
@dimples "Its definitely a winning philosophy, but only if you are sure you are going to win in the first place."

Yes, it didn't do the losers much good at Nuremberg, although Germany had explained the attack of June 22 as a pre-emptive strike – " Therefore Russia has broken its treaties and is about to attack Germany. I have ordered the German armed forces to oppose this threat with all their strength ".

Cowboy , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 12:18 pm GMT

"The Bethlehem Doctrine is that states have a right of "pre-emptive self-defence" against "imminent" attack. That is something most people, and most international law experts and judges, would accept."

So Operation Barbarossa was legal. But we knew that already because not only Germany, but Romania, Finland, Italy, Hungary, Slovakia and Croatia ( wiki doesn't mention the Spanish Azul division) all attacked due to the "imminent threat" of Stalin, who certainly had a long history of war crimes, the most recent being his invasions of Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Romania and even Finland.

Additionally, 400,000 of the Waffen SS were non-Germanic, yet wiki prefaces its description of Barbarossa as "The operation put into action Nazi Germany's ideological goal of conquering the western Soviet Union so as to repopulate it with Germans." .

The more things change, the more the lies stay the same. Like Hitler, Soleimani was a "bad, hateful terrorist" who they smear by claiming "he deserved to die". In the end this is really about the mother of all modern jewish lies, the "holocaust".

John Chuckman , says: Website Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 12:58 pm GMT
"The Bethlehem Doctrine"

Just one additional bit of evidence for the sick, corrupting influence of empire on law and human affairs.

This what what happens when you have an empire instead of a country.

Jake , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 12:59 pm GMT
#1 – "When Pompeo says Soleimani was planning "imminent" attacks, he is using the Bethlehem definition under which "imminent" is a "concept" which means neither "soon" nor "definitely going to happen". To twist a word that far from its normal English usage is to lie. To do so to justify killing people is obscene. That is why, if I finish up in the bottom-most pit of hell, the worst thing about the experience will be the company of Daniel Bethlehem."

#2 – [1] Now the serpent was more subtle than any of the beasts of the earth which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman: Why hath God commanded you, that you should not eat of every tree of paradise? [2] And the woman answered him, saying: Of the fruit of the trees that are in paradise we do eat: [3] But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise, God hath commanded us that we should not eat; and that we should not touch it, lest perhaps we die. [4] And the serpent said to the woman: No, you shall not die the death. [5] For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil.

What do we get when we add #1 and #2?

#3 – The CIA, the Mossad, and the Saudi General Intelligence Presidency are all offshoots from, are all in origin product of, Brit WASP secret service.

When we add the answer to the above question to #3, what then is the sum?

Jake , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 1:06 pm GMT
@Biff It is 100% true.

Offhand, I think 19 of the 21 highjackers were Saudi born and raised. All 21 were Arab Sunnis.

9/11 Inside job , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 1:06 pm GMT
@Biff Agree that 9/11 had " nothing to do with Iran" but to say that "9/11 was Sunni and Saudi led " is disinformation . Is Craig Murray , a former British Diplomat , a 9/11 gatekeeper? Murray has written
"I do not believe that the US government or any of its agencies were responsible for 9/11." Like Noam Chomsky , Murray fails the 9/11 "litmus test ".
Trump is continuing the state terrorism by drone as carried out by Bush and Obama : "Why is Obama still killing children [by drome] ?" cato.org :
.".. thousands of civilians , including hundreds of children , have fallen victim to his preemptive drone strikes over the last seven years 'America's actions are legal ', Obama said ,'we were attacked on 9/11′"
So Obama had the chutzpah to blame his murder of civilians on 9/11. The Democratic and Republican parties are truly wings which belong to the same bird of prey .
Fuerchtegott , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 1:09 pm GMT
A very feministy Doctrine.
peter mcloughlin , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 1:10 pm GMT
Historically, nations act in what serves their interests. Western involvement in the Middle East has been primarily about energy security and commerce. They seek to justify it through different means, including legalistic sophistry. The real danger of the US-Iran confrontation is consequences that lead to no alternative but escalation. One scenario, a Tehran 79 type hostage stand-off in Baghdad where President Trump (in an election year) could find himself with no choice but up the ante. The spector of humiliation and defeat convincing him the only hope is to persevere. But that could be an illusion, moving deeper into a sequence of events leading unstoppably to the real danger in the Middle East – confrontation with Russia. Many say it couldn't happen. History suggests otherwise. Living by the law might be the future: learning from history the way to create that future.
https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
Johnny Walker Read , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 1:15 pm GMT
It's all about interpretation . As Bill Clinton taught us about words and their meaning:
"it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is"

https://www.youtube.com/embed/j4XT-l-_3y0?feature=oembed

anonymous [582] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 1:23 pm GMT
Sunni this, Sunni that !@# You, Craig Murray, you whitrash piece of shit!!

If this scum was a career diplomat of that pissant island, which has never been up to any good, then he must fundamentally be an evil scumbag, working for the pleasure of that old thieving witch.

Just various masks of controlled opposition. Mofers all!!

Been_there_done_that , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 1:40 pm GMT
Yet another mixed bag. Invoking an official government lie, thus poisoning the well.

" Yes, it is true that some of the hijackers at one point transited Iran to Afghanistan. "

" The hijackers "?
I suppose this is an inserted reference to the alleged "hijackers" that were not even on the airline flight manifests yet became central to the phony 9/11 story that no serious person believes.

Desert Fox , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 1:48 pm GMT
Israel and its colony the ZUS are the most dangerous countries in the world because of their total disregard of international law as evidenced by their joint attack on the WTC on 911 and their using this as the excuse to destroy the middle east for Israel, which has killed millions and kept America at war for Israel for decades!

The ZUS and Israel are in the same league as Stalin and Hitler and are a blight on humanity!

SolontoCroesus , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 2:50 pm GMT
@Desert Fox

The ZUS and Israel are in the same league as Stalin and Hitler and are a blight on humanity!

What is your criterion for comparison, Desert Fox?

I don't know much about Stalin, so can't deal with that.

Hitler was defending Germany: he told Herbert Hoover that his three " idees fixes " were:

"to unify Germany from its fragmentation by the Treaty of Versailles;

to expand its physical resources by moving into Russia or the Balkan States . . .[to prevent a recurrence of] the famine;

to destroy the Russian Communist government . . .[consequent to] the brutalities of the Communist uprisings in German cities during the Armistice period." ( Freedom Betrayed, by Herbert Hoover).

ZUS and Israel are aggressing, invading, occupying, displacing and ethnically cleansing forces; they are not acting defensively, as NSDAP was, by any application of logic.

Mulegino1 , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 3:02 pm GMT

This is total bullshit. 9/11 was Sunni and Saudi led, nothing to do with Iran.

The Saudis may have enabled the creation of the legends of the hijackers, but had little or nothing to do with the execution of the operation. 9/11 certainly was carried out preponderantly by Israeli operatives for the economic benefit of Zionist Jews and their criminal co-conspirators in the world of finance and the councils of government.

The sentence ought to be reordered thus:

'9/11 was Sunni and Saudi led. ' That is total bullshit. In any case, it had nothing to do with Iran.

Number 2 , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 3:21 pm GMT
Sean promptly serves up the CIA line, more slogans for people who are not too bright. Today it's a little pun to muddle up the law and give CIA a desperately-sought loophole for the crime of aggression, for which there is no justification. Sean is thinking fast as he can to try and distract you from the necessity and proportionality tests which accompany any use of force and govern the status of the act as countermeasure, internationally wrongful act, or crime. Sean's indoctrination has protected his stationary hamster-wheel mind from the black letter law of Chapter VII, including Articles 47 and 51, which place self-defense forces at the disposal of the UNSC under direction of the Military Staff Committee. Sean also seizes up with Orwellian CIA CRIMESTOP when he hears anything about the case law governing use of force, such as the minimal indicative examples below.

https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-vii/
https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/70/summaries
https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/90/summaries

CIA has been running from the law for 85 years now, but despite their wholesale corruption of the Secretariat, they're losing control of the UN charter bodies and treaty bodies. Some SIS scapegoats are going to be faking palsy in the dock to get a break. Brennan first.

Desert Fox , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 3:22 pm GMT
@SolontoCroesus Recommend you do the research, Hitler was put into power by the zionist banking kabal, the same kabal that rules the ZUS, read the book Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, and they wanted Hitler and Stalin to destroy each other, that was the zionist plan and they used the ZUS and Britain to do it, just as they have destroyed the mideast for Israels greater Israel agenda.

The ZUS is just like Hitler invading and destroying the mideast for Israel using the attack on WTC as an excuse, which was a joint attack on the WTC on 911 by traitors in the ZUS and Israel, the whole deal is a zionist driven holocaust on the people of the middle east.

By the way Israel is perpetrating a holocaust of the people of Palestine and this holocaust is backed by the ZUS, which is Israels military arm ie a subsidiary of the IDF.

Recommend the archives section on henrymakow.com on Hitler and Stalin.

Harry

9/11 Inside job , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 3:29 pm GMT
@Jake There were no hijackers , there were no planes , they were likely CGI's in videos produced in a "Holywood production" prior to 9/11 , see septemberclues. info "The central role of the news media on 9/11" .
Truth3 , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 3:35 pm GMT
@Biff 9/11 was a Jewish operation from Day One.

PNAC, anyone?

Silverstein?

c matt , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 3:46 pm GMT
@Wally I am sure, if asked, he would condemn Obama's war crimes as well (and Bush I, Bush II, Clinton, etc. probably going back to Lincoln at least). But the subject was about Soleimani's assassination, which, as much as I am sure you would like to do, cannot be pinned on Obama.
Wally , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 3:55 pm GMT
@NoseytheDuke LOL

– There hasn't been a US declaration of war since WWII, and there have been countless US military actions.
Your Pelosi talking point refuted.

– Your double standard is on parade. Again, no mention of "war criminal" Obama.

– You clearly prefer to ignore my many posts critical of Trump.

– And of course you cannot refute anything I have posted about the fake & impossible "holocaust".

Ah.

Rev. Spooner , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 3:56 pm GMT
@Igor Bundy Right. The Mongols rolled the murderers of their emissaries or ambassadors in carpets and had them trampled to death by horses. This was followed by razing the city/state. I'm told Nuttyyahoo of Israel provided the info and encouraged it.
Really No Shit , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 3:58 pm GMT
My two cents worth:

1) Elizabeth Warren has lied about her ethnicity and has benefited from it thus lying can be natural for her she would most likely give a lap dance to Bibi if demanded to get elected,

2) Arabs are being absolved of 9/11 by their Ashkenazi cousins who mistakenly believe that they are semites despite having overwhelmingly slavic blood there must be trace amounts of meshuggah genes mixed up with the Indo-European and thus the hatred of Iranians,

3) Jesus came once before, therefore it must reason that he is coming back the second time and now the arrival is imminent so Daniel Bethlehem must become Christian now or go to hell

Rev. Spooner , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 4:05 pm GMT
@Priss Factor Adam Green is a true American patriot.
Buck Ransom , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 4:20 pm GMT
@Biff " every jihadist terrorist attack in the USA itself, including 9/11, has been exclusively Sunni ,"
LOL.
Z-man , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 4:37 pm GMT
@Jake 20 Hijackers. One, a black Moroccan Muslim, chickened out and is in jail somewhere in the USA. The leader, Atta, was from Egypt. The lead guy to the flight that only had four hijackers because of the Moroccan, which crashed in PA, was from Lebanon and could pass for an American/Jew. Two were from the United Arab Emirates and the rest, 15 , were Saudis.
AnonFromTN , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 4:46 pm GMT
Mafia-style assassination of Soleimani was undoubtedly an act of state terrorism. What's more, it was an act of war against Iran. It was a crime committed by the US military on orders of Trump, who publicly confessed that he gave that criminal order.

Limited Iranian response just shows that Iran government is sane, in sharp contrast to the US government.

AnonFromTN , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 4:54 pm GMT
@SolontoCroesus

"to unify Germany from its fragmentation by the Treaty of Versailles;
to expand its physical resources by moving into Russia or the Balkan States . . .[to prevent a recurrence of] the famine;
to destroy the Russian Communist government . . .[consequent to] the brutalities of the Communist uprisings in German cities during the Armistice period." (Freedom Betrayed, by Herbert Hoover).

Your #2 and #3 are naked aggression. Exactly as Soleimani murder.

Agent76 , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 5:13 pm GMT
May 8, 2019 Afghanistan, the Forgotten Proxy War. The Role of Osama bin Laden and Zbigniew Brzezinski

The original "moderate rebel"

One of the key players in the anti-Soviet, U.S.-led regime change project against Afghanistan was Osama bin Laden, a Saudi-born millionaire who came from a wealthy, powerful family that owns a Saudi construction company and has had close ties to the Saudi royal family.

https://llco.org/afghanistan-the-forgotten-proxy-war/

June 6, 2018 Why the US shouldn't build more foreign bases

The United States maintains almost 800 military bases in over 70 countries, which far exceeds our modern day security requirements.

https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2018/06/06/why-the-us-shouldnt-build-more-foreign-bases/

Mar 28, 2014 VICE on HBO Debrief: Children of the Drones

Suroosh Alvi went to Pakistan and found out that American drones there are doing more harm than good.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/wFQwbxFPVfo?feature=oembed

GeeBee , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 5:19 pm GMT
@Been_there_done_that While I am sure that the official story of the September 11th 2001 'attack' is false, I frequently wonder why the 'truthers' seem never to be able to get all their ducks in a row. Many claim that the film footage of the aircraft strikes were pre-manufactured CGIs, issued to the media in order to mask the real culprits which they allege were cruise missiles. But a cruise missile doesn't have a flight manifest. Either those four flights that the official story says were hijacked took off that day, or they did not. The CGI theory rests, of course, on there being no such flights. Yet you claim that 'the hijackers' were not on flight manifests for those flights. This is surely the craziest interpretion: either the flights were fictional (as in the CGI theory) and thus there were no manifests, or they really did take place, and therefore had manifests, and were hijacked. If, as you claim, the flights actually took place, but no hijackers boarded them, how on earth did they fly into the twin towers? It makes no sense at all I fear.
CanSpeccy , says: Website Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 5:27 pm GMT

every jihadist terrorist attack in the USA itself, including 9/11

Generally interesting comment. But why distract from the issue of the Soleimani assassination with such a ridiculous comment ab0ut 9/11?

nsa , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 5:28 pm GMT
Americans are now as gods. asserting their inherent right to kill anyone, anytime, anywhere, for any reason.
"Did we just kill a kid?" In 2012 a USAF drone operator named Bryant reported he was "flying" drones out of New Mexico and painted a 6000 mile away Afghan shack with his laser, and with permission released a Hellfire missile. During the time the missile took to arrive, he saw on his screen a child toddle from behind the shack. Mesmerized, in slow motion, he saw the shack explode and the child disappear. Having killed hundreds remotely, he still wasn't ready for this and asked his copilot: "Did we just kill a kid?". The operator answered: "I guess so". Suddenly on the screen appeared the words of some unknown anonymous supervisor: "No, it was a dog". Bryant responded: "A dog on two legs?"
Even the resident boomer Nam hero, Rich, might have trouble justifying this kind of activity .but then again in a jewed out society ..maybe not.
GeeBee , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 5:28 pm GMT
@Desert Fox 'The ZUS and Israel are in the same league as Stalin and Hitler and are a blight on humanity!'

Ah. I see that you are still drinking the Kool Aid regarding Herr Hitler. I used to believe it all too. You'll learn in time, as will enough people. Only then will the gigantic criminal enterprise fomented by 'the International Race' that we call World War II be seen for the monstrous crime against humanity that it was. Perhaps – just perhaps – that same sick and depraved race will then finally be so deservedly called to account for its foul deeds.

Make no mistake: understanding just who and what Adolf Hitler really was, and especially his role in saving at least part of the West from Communism, is absolutely central to an appreciation of this awful world in which we now live.

Desert Fox , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 5:54 pm GMT
@GeeBee I am under no illusions about Hitler or Stalin as both were funded by the international zionist banking kabal, read the book Hitlers Secret Bankers by Sidney Warburg and Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler and Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution,by Anthony Sutton, zionists were behind the whole deal.

Recommend henrymakow.com and his archive section on Hitler and Stalin.

Paul , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 6:41 pm GMT
Noam Chomsky has pointed out that if the United States is truly against terrorism, it should stop engaging in it.
Art , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 7:09 pm GMT
@AnonFromTN Limited Iranian response just shows that Iran government is sane, in sharp contrast to the US government.

There is great tension in the world, tension toward a breaking point, and men are unhappy and confused. At such a time it seems natural and good to me to ask myself these questions. What do I believe in? What must I fight for and what must I fight against?"
― John Steinbeck, East of Eden

This is one of those times.

Lol , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 7:25 pm GMT
What's ironic is that Pompeo and his fellow Americans would cry like the little girls they are if the rest of the world starting assassinating Americans based on the same grounds. Lol
anonymous [283] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 7:31 pm GMT
There is no such thing as international law or legality. Might makes right as shown by the US doing as it pleases and thumbing it's nose at everyone. Some person with legal credentials gets trotted out to declare whatever has been done is legal, just rubber-stamping it. It's too bad but that's the reality.
2stateshmustate , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 7:42 pm GMT
@Z-man With all due respect which is 0. How pray tell did the those "hijackers" manage to plant the explosives in the 3 World Trade towers buildings with which to imploded them? Of course they didn't. Israel and Jews have their fingerprints all over the 911 attack.

911 was an Israeli/ Jew false flag attack that resulted in the murder of 3000 innocent goyim before noon that day. It's purpose was to create hatred towards Arabs, Muslims and Persians so that stupid Americans would send their children to die for the squatter colony of Israel.

Folks the Jew controlled US government is saying that those 3 sky-scrapers collapsed into their own footprint at free fall speed due to one cause: office furniture fires. Not the impact of the "plane" and not the fuel carried by the "planes". This has never happened before or since in the history of the world. It is complete bullshit. The JewSA's story is totally impossible and defies the laws of physics. Namely the Law of the conservation of energy.

As anyone who observers the fall of all 3 towers can see those building fall at free fall speed. For this to happen it means that the underlying structure is offering NO resistance to the above falling structure. How can this be? The many floors below the impact zone were in no way effected by the fire. Yet we see them vaporized into dust as the buildings collapse into their own footprint.

No folks this is impossible. Therefore the entire government's story is suspect and I would suggest total bullshit.
I'll admit that in the heat of the moment I fell for this lie. But what really got my attention was when I found out about the collapse of Building 7. A 57 story that was not hit by any "plane". And yet it followed the same script as the Twin Towers. Use critical thinking Americans.

I realize for many the truth about 911 is going to blow up their entire world view regarding the exceptionalness of the US and our good buddy Israel. But it is vital for the survival of our nation that the real criminals behind 911 be held accountable.

Israel did 911 and they are our number one enemy.

SolontoCroesus , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 7:42 pm GMT
@AnonFromTN If so, AnonFromTn, while begging pardon for a Whataboutery argument, How does #2 differ from the activities of Israelis, that are supported by American taxpayers; and how does #3 differ from the activities of Americans toward Iran, whose government US / Israel has been seeking to topple and re-form to "western" preferences, since at least 1979? *

Moreover, Desert Fox is partly (but only minimally-partly) correct in that zionist Jews and Allies set-up or duped or manipulated or otherwise used Germany to attempt to destroy Bolshevism in Russia, similar to the way that US used Saddam against Iran, then killed Saddam; used Soleimani against ISIS in Iraq, then killed Soleimani.

So are the actions of USA / ZUSA excusable, unaccountable, but those of Germany were demonstrably not?

Or should the American people remain warily alert for the next shoe to drop, when that "arc of justice" bends inexorably their way?

* I still, perhaps stubbornly, maintain that Germany had far more justification for its actions in seeking to vanquish a political regime that was observably committing mass murder with the "imminent" danger of carrying out the same against the German people -- as, in fact, was done; and that seeking to protect its people from starvation, of which 800,000 people had died within the present memory of surviving Germans, is an obligation of the state, a far more compelling obligation than that of "protecting American interests" 7000 miles from the homeland, when the homeland has more than adequate capacity to provide for its people, and when the interests being protected are those of a very few very rich individuals or corporations.
Competing and trading fairly is far less costly than waging war, and not nearly so ignoble.

AnonFromTN , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 8:18 pm GMT
@SolontoCroesus I am not trying to whitewash the Empire. Many of its actions are clearly criminal, including bombing of Serbia, the invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, assisting murderous Saudis in Yemen, etc. Assassination of Soleimani is yet another similarly criminal action, not the first and likely not the last.

However, the criminality of the Empire does not justify Hitler in any way. His troops behaved in a totally barbaric manner in the former Soviet Union. I know that not from propaganda, but from the accounts of real people who lived through German occupation in 1941-44.

The Empire being a criminal enterprise does not make the Third Reich any less criminal. FYI, bandits often clash with each other, and both sides in those clashes remain bandits.

Agent76 , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 8:20 pm GMT
Jan 13, 2020 Assassination-gate! Trump Officials Say No 'Imminent Threat.' With Guest Phil Giraldi

Trump officials – including Trump himself today – have been steadily pulling back from initial claims after the January 3rd assassination of Iranian top general Soleimani that he was killed because of "imminent threats" of attack led by the Iranian.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/WjtMSaOBaiU?feature=oembed

JamesinNM , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 8:47 pm GMT
Pray for Christ's return and the destruction of all evil.
9/11 Inside job , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 8:47 pm GMT
@Paul "Noam Chomsky and the gatekeepers of the left " is a chapter in Barrie Zwicker's book "Towers of Deception ", this chapter is available in pdf format at 9/11conspiracy.tv .
Zwicker argues that Chomsky " In supporting the official story is at one with the right-wing gatekeepers such as Judith Miller of the New York Times Chomsky's function is identical to Miller's: support the official story Chomsky systematically engages in deceptive discourse on certain key topics such as 9/11 , the Kennedy assassination and with regard to the CIA . ..A study of Chomsky's stands show him to be a de facto defender of the status quo's most egregious outrages and their covert agency engines To the New World Order he is worth 50 armored divisions ."
As filmmaker Roy Harvey has stated " the single greatest obstacle to the spread of 9/11 truth is the Left media ."
JamesinNM , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 8:52 pm GMT
@Sean Make that plea as justification to Christ at the final judgement when your eternal destiny is being determined.
Zumbuddi , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 9:30 pm GMT
@JamesinNM Years ago I was given the book, Prayers, by Michel Quoist.
IIRC, the first page said, "Prayer is political action."
Been_there_done_that , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 9:35 pm GMT
@GeeBee

"If, as you claim, the flights actually took place, but no hijackers boarded them, how on earth did they fly into the twin towers?"

Remote control – a proven and trusted technology.

It could have been possible that some of the airline planes were electronically "switched" in mid-air, remotely flown with their beacons turned off, to simply disappear into the South Atlantic Ocean once their fuel ran out, while replaced by a fuel tanker in one case, to create a bigger fireball upon impact in Manhattan, or a much smaller plane to penetrate into the Pentagon.

The public ought to demand a thorough investigation resulting in concrete answers and prosecutions.

Some of the alleged hijackers were actually alive after the event and outraged to have had their identities stolen and misused.

Herald , says: Show Comment January 13, 2020 at 9:42 pm GMT
@Biff Great article, but Craig is taking the easy way out on 9/11. Of course, the Arabs were Sunnis, but were bit players only, and no way was 9/11 Saudi led.

[Jan 12, 2020] Comment on Sen. Tom Cotton lauding the murder of Suleimani

Jan 12, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Piotr Berman , Jan 12 2020 5:02 utc | 373

NYT posted editorial by Sen. Tom Cotton (nincompoop, Arkansas) lauding the murder of Suleimani. This is one of the readers' comments:

Bill
Nova ScotiaJan. 10
Times Pick
I don't understand how the USA can kill a military leader of a country we are not at war with in a third country no less and claim it was legal. The resulting high-pressure in the aftermath has left 63 Canadian citizens dead. Yes, at the hands of an Iranian missile - but many of those dead were dual Iranian Canadians. The blood is not just on Iran's hands, it is on the USA and on trump.

[Jan 12, 2020] The United States has murdered one of Iran's top personalities who was officially visiting a friendly country on a diplomatic mission

Jan 12, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Sasha , Jan 11 2020 22:39 utc | 298

... ... ...

Killing a General

The United States has murdered one of Iran's top personalities who was officially visiting a friendly country on a diplomatic mission.

The message of the assassination of Gasem Soleimani is the persistence of Washington in the effort to keep the world's first energy region revolt and prevent any distension between Iran and Saudi Arabia...

(...)Soleimani was a great strategist who achieved three notable victories in the last seventeen years: He was one of the organizers of the armed resistance to the American occupier in Iraq after the 2003 invasion, played a great role in the expulsion of the Islamic State from Iraq and defeated then the jihadist conglomerate in Syria (Islamic State, Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, etc.) financed and supported by the CIA and the Gulf oil monarchies. It was Soleimani who in 2015 convinced Vladimir Putin of the advisability of helping the Syrian government militarily, which has ended up restoring its control of the country by thwarting a new regime change operation that has resulted in another huge slaughter.

(...)Since Friday, January 3, all commentators announced an Iranian response to this "declaration of war" by Trump, or his generals, does not matter. It is forgotten that this war has been a fact for many years. Historically it began with the coup d'etat against Mossadeq, the Iranian prime minister who nationalized oil, and continued with the reaction to the Khomeinist Revolution of 1979, which induced the West to provoke the bloody war between Iraq and Iran in the 1980s with hundreds of thousands of dead.

(...)The unilateral withdrawal of the United States, in May 2018, from the nuclear agreement reached with Iran, as well as the sanctions suffered by that country, the murders of Iranian scientists and the attacks, sanctions and the financial and oil blockade that suffocates the Iranian economy, form Part of that war. For 19 months, Iranian oil exports, which in 2017 were 2.5 million barrels per day, have fallen to a few hundred thousand as a result of Trump's sanctions.

(...)And in the meantime in Europe ...

On Sunday, January 5, 48 hours after the murder in Baghdad, the leaders of the three main European powers, Angela Merkel, Emmanuel Macron and Boris Johson, released their joint statement. In it the murder of Soleimani is not even mentioned. "We have denounced the recent attacks on coalition troops in Iraq and are deeply concerned about the negative role played by Iran in the region, especially through the guards of the revolution and of the al-Quds unit under the command of General Soleimani", says the statement. "We especially call on Iran to refrain from more violence", it continues. In other personal statements Johnson told Trump that Soleimani "posed a threat to all our interests" and that "we do not regret his death". Macron expressed concern about the destabilizing role of the forces led by the assassinated general and German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas stated that the General "had left a trail of devastation and blood in the Middle East" and that "the European Union had good reasons to have him on its list of terrorists". This statement prompted Tehran to summon the German ambassador and censor him for his support of the "terrorist attack by the United States". For its part, the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, has held Iran alone responsible for escalating tensions in the Middle East and has justified the murder as a reaction to the provocations suffered by the Americans in Iraq. Once again the "European foreign policy" is portrayed.

It is in Germany, at the base of Ramstein, where the command and control point of drone attacks by US forces is located. An anonymous German citizen has filed a complaint in the town of Zweibrücken to be elucidated if the murder was piloted from Ramstein. Such action being a violation of international law and German law, it has filed a complaint "against all suspects of such crime in Germany and the United States." Those who still believe in the European "rule of law" for international purposes, can hold on to this symbolic gesture without the slightest future.

[Jan 12, 2020] It is worse than a crime, it is a mistake: Soleimani was crucial to the victory over ISIS/ISIL/Daesh in Iraq

Jan 10, 2020 | angrybearblog.com
... He was viewed as crucial to the victory over ISIS/ISIL/Daesh in Iraq, much feared by Iranians. Shia take martyrdom seriously, and he is viewed as a martyr. It appears that even Trump took notice of the massive outpouring of mourning and praise for Soleimani there up to the point of people dying in a stampede in a mourning crowd in his hometown. But, hey, obviously these people simply do not understand that he was The World's Number One Terrorist! Heck, I saw one commenter on Marginal Revolution claiming Soleimani was responsible killing "hundreds of thousands." Yes, this sort of claim is floating around out there.

A basic problem here is that while indeed Soleimani commanded the IGRC al Quds force that supported and supplied various Shia militias in several Middle Eastern nations, these all were (and are) ultimately independent. Soleimani may have advised them, but he was never in a position to order any of them to do anything. Al Quds itself has never carried out any of the various attacks outside of Iran that Soleimani is supposedly personally responsible for.

Let us consider the specific case that gets pushed most emphatically, the 603 Americans dead in Iraq, without doubt a hot button item here in the US. First of all, even if Soleimani really was personally responsible for their deaths, there is the technical matter that their deaths cannot be labeled "terrorism." That is about killing non-combatant civilians, not military personnel involved in combat. I do not support the killing of those American soldiers, most of whom were done in by IEDs, which also horribly injured many more. But indeed this awful stuff happened. But in fact this was all done by Iraqi -based Shia militias. Yes, they were supported by Soleimani, but while some have charged al Quds suppplied the IEDs, this turns out not to be the case. These were apparently made in Iraq by these local militias. Soleimani's al Quds are not totally innocent in all this, reportedly providing some training and some inputs. But the IEDs were made by the militias themselves and planted by them.

It is also the case that when the militias and Americans were working together against ISIS/IISIL/Daesh, none of this happened, and indeed that was still the case up until this most recent set of events, with the death setting off all this an American civilian contractor caught on a base where several Iraqis were killed by a rocket from the Kat'b Hezbollah Iraqi group. Of course with Trump having Soleimani assassinated, this cooperation has ceased, with the US military no longer either fighting ISIS/ISIL/Daesh nor training the Iraqi military. Indeed, the Iraqi parliament has demanded that US troops leave entirely, although Trump threatened Iraq with economic sanctions if that is followed through on.

As it is, the US dating back to the Obama administration has been supplying Saudi Arabia with both arms and intelligence that has been used to kill thousands of Yemeni civilians. Frankly, US leaders look more like terrorists than Soleimani.

I shall close by noting the major changes in opinion in both Iran and Iraq regarding the US as a result of this assassination. In Iran as many have noted there were major demonstrations against the regime going on, protesting bad economic conditions, even as those substantially were the result of the illegal US economic sanctions imposed after the US withdrew from the JCPOA nuclear deal, to which Iran was adhering. Now those demonstrations have stopped and been replaced by the mass demonstrations against the US over Soleimani's assassination. And we also have Iran further withdrawing from that deal and moving to more highly enrich uranium.

In Iraq, there had been major anti-Iran demonstrations going on, with these supported to some degree by the highest religious authority in the nation, Ayatollah Ali Sistani. However, when Soleimani's body was being transferred to Iran, Sistani's son accompanied his body. It really is hard to see anything that justifies this assassination.

Barkley Rosser

  1. JDM , January 10, 2020 12:32 pm

    I think this quote is apropos in this situation: "It was worse than wrong. It was a mistake."

Bert Schlitz , January 10, 2020 3:46 pm

They had a handshake agreement, which was why Solemiani wasn't under protection. The Solemiani killed Americans stuff cracks me up. He was a military advisor for the Shia militia's who were attacked by US forces during a unsanctioned war in 2003 .uh derp derp. There have been many other generals that have committed "death of american" crimes that the Trump Admin seems to love.

As my father used to say "homosexuals make great commie fighters"(homosexuals like Joe McCarthy of Wisconsin agree lol). The zionists so badly want this war in the Trump administration, but Trump doesn't have the guts to just invade like Iraq.

rjs , January 10, 2020 5:26 pm

it appears i had a comment on this same post removed from Naked Capitalism

i asked "was his assassination due to the impeachment proceedings, and should the Democrats in Congress be held responsible for the deaths on Ukrainian flight 752?"

sure, that's off the wall, but i still think it addresses a legitimate question i don't think one can separate the personal situation a megalomaniac president like Trump finds himself in from his behavior .i was a news junky back during the Iraq war era, & what i remember most about the runup was that the big story in all the news mags the week before the war started was that Neil Bush, George's son, had lost millions of depositor's money playing poker in the back offices of Silverado Savings and Loan in Denver, and that you then could't find a word about that story anywhere the next week cause George & Saddam had all the coverage .so i have always felt that Bush might have pushed that war forward to take the media heat off his kid

run75441 , January 10, 2020 5:38 pm

No surprise, when I preempt their article on healthcare with commentary; my comments disappear. Get used to it when you can say more than they can.

rjs , January 11, 2020 11:03 am

well, here you go, Trump actually admitting to what i've been banned for suggesting via Jonathan Chait:

Report: Trump Cited Impeachment Pressure to Kill Soleimani – Deep inside a long, detailed Wall Street Journal report about President Trump's foreign policy advisers is an explosive nugget: "Mr. Trump, after the strike, told associates he was under pressure to deal with Gen. Soleimani from GOP senators he views as important supporters in his coming impeachment trial in the Senate, associates said." This is a slightly stronger iteration of a fact the New York Times reported three days ago, to wit, "pointed out to one person who spoke to him on the phone last week that he had been pressured to take a harder line on Iran by some Republican senators whose support he needs now more than ever amid an impeachment battle."This would not mean Trump ordered the strike entirely, or even primarily, in order to placate Senate Republicans. But it does constitute an admission that domestic political considerations influenced his decision. That would, of course, constitute a grave dereliction of duty. Trump is so cynical he wouldn't even recognize that making foreign policy decisions influenced by impeachment is the kind of thing he shouldn't say out loud. Of course, using his foreign policy authority for domestic political gain is the offense Trump is being impeached for. It would be characteristically Trumpian to compound the offense as part of his efforts to avoid accountability for it. What kind of pressure could Trump have in mind? It seems highly doubtful that he is worried 20 Republican senators would vote to remove him from office. He could be concerned that one or two of them would defect, denying him the chance to present impeachment as totally partisan (as he did following the House vote.) More plausibly, Trump might be worried a handful of Republicans would join Democrats to allow testimony from witnesses, like John Bolton, Trump has managed to block.

likbez , January 11, 2020 10:24 pm

@JDM, January 10, 2020 12:32 pm

I think this quote is apropos in this situation: "It was worse than wrong. It was a mistake."

This is a very deep observation. Thank you. BTW the original quote is attributed to Talleyrand and is more biting:

C'est pire qu'un crime, c'est une faute.

It is worse than a crime, it is a mistake.

Reaction to the 1804 drumhead trial and execution of Louis Antoine de Bourbon, Duke of Enghien, on orders of Napoleon. Actually said by either Antoine Boulay de la Meurthe, legislative deputy from Meurthe (according to the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations) or Joseph Fouché, Napoleon's chief of police (according to John Bartlett, Familiar Quotations, 10th ed. (1919), http://www.bartleby.com/100/758.1.html ).

Rephrasing Kissinger: " Assassination is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one".

[Jan 12, 2020] Box Score on airliner shoot down deaths: Iranians -176, USS Vincennes - 290

Jan 12, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Vincennes

(USS Vincennes)

OK pilgrims, we are told today that there are mobs in the streets of Tehran protesting the shoot down of the Ukrainian airliner. 176 were killed. We are carefully not told (thus far) how many Iranians are mobbed up in the streets but the implication spread by the Foxnews clown car is that the "Maximum Pressure" sanctions and propaganda campaign run by Israel and the US is about to cause the fall of the Islamic Republic of Iran. OK We will see.

Long ago during the Iran-Iraq War an Americans frigate USS Stark was attacked in the Gulf by an Iraqi F-! Mirage. The ship was hit by two French built Exocet missiles. I was a member of the JCS investigating board that traveled to Bahrein and Baghdad for the inquiry. The damage to the ship was frightful and many American sailors had been killed and wounded. The JCS decided that a chain of unfortunate and mistaken events had led to the incident but the US Navy conducted its own investigation and destroyed the careers of the captain of USS Stark and all his officers. The navy is very unforgiving of damage to its boats. Unless you have the vessel shot out from under you by enemy action you might as well go down with the ship

Later in the course of that war the anti-aircraft guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes was in the Gulf and it shot down an Iranian airliner killing 290 people on board. The Iranians were and probably still are convinced that Vincennes shot down the airliner as a result of the inherently evil and malevolent nature of the US.

In fact what happened was that the captain of Vincennes was afraid of suffering the same fate as the captain of the Stark who had been accused of not being quick enough to engage the Iraqi fighter bomber.

Well, folks, STUFF HAPPENS and the human link in a chain of events is always the most important link.

IMO Iranian air defenses accidentally shot down the Ukrainian airliner. Stuff Happens, especially in war. PL

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Vincennes_(CG-49)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Stark_incident

Posted at 10:11 AM in History , Iran | Permalink

Reblog (0)

[Jan 12, 2020] MIC along with Wall Street controls the government and the country

Highly recommended!
Jan 12, 2020 | angrybearblog.com

  1. likbez , January 12, 2020 5:30 pm

    Everyone keeps dancing around it: Iraqi PM Abdul-Mahdi has reported that Soleimani was on the way to see him with a reply to a Saudi peace proposal. Who profits from Peace? Who does not?

    The killing of Soleimani, while a tragic even with far reaching consequences, is just an illustration of the general rule: MIC does not profit from peace. And MIC dominates any national security state, into which the USA was transformed by the technological revolution on computers and communications, as well as the events of 9/11.

    The USA government can be viewed as just a public relations center for MIC. That's why Trump/Pompeo/Esper/Pence gang position themselves as rabid neocons, which means MIC lobbyists in order to hold their respective positions. There is no way out of this situation. This is a classic Catch 22 trap.

    The fact that a couple of them are also "Rapture" obsessed religious bigots means that the principle of separation of church and state does no matter when MIC interests are involved.

    The health of MIC requires maintaining an inflated defense budget at all costs. Which, in turn, drives foreign wars and the drive to capture other nations' resources to compensate for MIC appetite. The drive which is of course closely allied with Wall Street interests (disaster capitalism.)

    In such conditions fake "imminent threat" assassinations necessarily start happening. Although the personality of Pompeo and the fact that he is a big friend of the current head of Mossad probably played some role.

    It's really funny that Trump (probably with the help of his "reference group," which includes Adelson and Kushner), managed to appoint as the top US diplomat a person who was trained as a mechanic engineer and specialized as a tank repair mechanic. And who was a long-time military contractor. So it is quite natural that he represents interests of MIC.

    IMHO under Trump/Pompeo/Esper trio some kind of additional skirmishes with Iran are a real possibility: they are necessary to maintain the current inflated level of defense spending.

    State of the US infrastructure, the actual level of unemployment (U6 is ~7% which some neolibs call full employment ;-), and the level of poverty of the bottom 33% of the USA population be damned. Essentially the bottom 33% is the third world country within the USA.

    "If you make more than $15,000 (roughly the annual salary of a minimum-wage employee working 40 hours per week), you earn more than 32.2% of Americans

    The 894 people that earn more than $20 million make more than 99.99989% of Americans, and are compensated a cumulative $37,009,979,568 per year. "

    ( https://www.huffpost.com/entry/income-inequality-crisis_n_4221012 )

[Jan 12, 2020] When the bullets start flying and the bombs start dropping, terrible things can happen that no one has planned for. This is one of the great tragedies of war. Unintended consequences and so-called "collateral damage."

Jan 12, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Mao , Jan 12 2020 8:46 utc | 389

Tulsi Gabbard:

When the bullets start flying and the bombs start dropping, terrible things can happen that no one has planned for. This is one of the great tragedies of war. Unintended consequences and so-called "collateral damage."

[VIDEO]

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1216173675998633984

[Jan 12, 2020] Iran's accidental downing of a Ukrainian plane is already being used to smear MH-17 skeptics by Max Parry

Notable quotes:
"... What no one is mentioning is: the US airstrikes on Iraqi military bases, and Soleimani's murder contributed greatly to the hair trigger response of Iran's air defense forces. If Washington did not turn the heat up on both Iraq and Iran there would have been no need for Iran's retaliation, and thus the level of Iran's domestic defense forces would not have been so nervous as to pull the trigger downing the airliner. ..."
"... Former CIA high-ranking official accidentally reveals the type of the false flag operation that the US imperialists will orchestrate to start a war with Iran https://failedevolution.blogspot.com/2020/01/former-cia-high-ranking-official.html ..."
"... It reminds me too much of MH-17, which was not hit with a BUK but with bullets. Iran should have closed its airspace because such tricks are to be expected, irrespective of the cause of the current accident. ..."
Jan 11, 2020 | www.unz.com

When the Pentagon confirmed the assassination of Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani, U.S. President Donald Trump took to social media to post a single image of the American flag to the adulation of his followers. Unfortunately, most Americans are ignorant of the other flag synonymous with U.S. foreign policy, that of the 'false flag' utilized to deceive the public and stir up support for endless war abroad. While the chicken hawk defenders of Trump's reckless decision to murder one of the biggest contributors in the defeat of ISIS salivated over possible war with Iran, their appetite was spoiled by Tehran's retaliatory precision strikes of two U.S. bases in Iraq that deliberately avoided casualties while in accordance with the Islamic Republic's right to self defense under Article 51 of the United Nations charter. The reprisal successfully deescalated the crisis but sent a clear message Iran was willing to stand up to the U.S. with the backing of Russia and China, while Washington underestimated Tehran which forewarned the Iraqi government of its impending counterattack so U.S. personnel could evacuate.

In the hours following the ballistic missile strikes, reports came in that a Boeing 737 international passenger flight scheduled from Tehran to Kiev, Ukraine had crashed shortly after takeoff from Imam Khomeini International Airport, killing all 176 passengers and flight crew on board. Initial video of the crash of Ukrainian International Airlines Flight 752 (PS752) showed that the aircraft was already in flames while descending to the ground, leading to speculation it was shot down amid the heightened political crisis between Iran and Washington. In the days following, a second obscure video surfaced which only increased this suspicion. Meanwhile, Western governments quickly concluded that an anti-aircraft surface-to-air missile brought PS752 down and were eager to point the finger at Iran before any formal investigation. Many people, including this author, were admittedly skeptical as to how a plane taking off from Tehran could have been mistaken five hours after the strikes in Iraq.

Nevertheless, those with reservations turned out to be wrong when days later the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) came clean that its aerospace forces made a "human error" and accidentally shot the passenger plane down after mistaking it for a incoming cruise missile when it flew close to a military base during a heightened state of alert in anticipation of U.S. attack. Many have noted that Iran's honorable decision to take responsibility for the catastrophe is in sharp contrast with Washington's response in 1988 when the U.S. Navy shot down Iran Air Flight 655 scheduled from Tehran to Dubai over the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf, killing all 290 occupants, after failing to cover it up. Just a month later, Vice President George H.W. Bush would notoriously state he would " never apologize for the United States of America. Ever. I don't care what the facts are ." Although he was not directly referring to the incident, one can only imagine what the reaction would be if Iranian President Hassan Rouhani were to say the same weeks after shooting down the Ukrainian plane, let alone an American one. Predictably, Tehran's transparency has gone mostly unappreciated while the Trump administration is already trying to use the disaster to further demonize Iran.

Oddly enough, Ukrainian International Airlines is partly owned by the infamous Ukrainian-Israeli oligarch, politician and energy tycoon Igor Kolomoisky, who was notably one of the biggest financiers of the anti-Russian, pro-EU coup d'etat which overthrew the democratically elected government of Viktor Yanukovych in 2014. Kolomoisky is also a principal backer of current Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky whose dubious phone call with Trump resulted in the 45th U.S. president's impeachment last month. In another astounding coincidence, Kolomoisky's Privat Group is believed to control Burisma Holdings, the Cypress-based company whose executive board 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden's son Hunter was appointed to following the Maidan junta. The former Vice President admitted that he bribed Ukraine into firing its top prosecutor who was looking into his son's corruption by threatening to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees.

Kolomoisky, AKA "the Chameleon", is one of the wealthiest people in the ex-Soviet country and was formerly appointed as governor of an administrative region bordering Donbass in eastern Ukraine following the 2014 putsch. He has also funded a battalion of volunteer neo-Nazi mercenaries fighting alongside the Ukrainian army in the War in Donbass against Russian-speaking separatists which the military aid temporarily withheld by the Trump administration that was disputably contingent upon an investigation of Biden and his son goes to. In 2014, another infamous plane shootdown made international headlines when Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 (MH17) scheduled from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur was shot down over the breakaway Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) in eastern Ukraine, killing all 298 passengers and crew.

From the get-go, the Obama administration was adamant that the missile which shot down the Boeing 777 came from separatist rebel territory. However, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir bin Mohamad denounced the charges brought against the Russian and Ukrainian nationals indicted in the NATO-led investigation, dismissing the entire probe as a politically motivated effort predetermined to scapegoat Moscow and exclude Malaysian participation in the inquiry from the very beginning. Mohamad is featured in the excellent documentary MH17: Call for Justice made by a team of independent journalists which contests the NATO-scripted narrative and reveals that the Buk missile was more likely launched from Ukrainian Army-controlled territory than the DPR. One of Kolomoisky's hired guns could also have been responsible.

Shamefully, Iran's admission of guilt in the PS752 downing is already being used by establishment propagandists to discredit skeptics and conflated with similar contested past events like MH17 in order to intimidate dissenting voices from speaking up in the future. The Bellingcat 'investigative journalism' collective which made its name incriminating Moscow for the MH17 tragedy are the principle offenders. Bellingcat bills itself as an 'independent' citizen journalism group even though its founder Eliot Higgins is employed by the Atlantic Council think tank which receives funding from NATO, the U.S. State Department, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), George Soros' Open Society Foundation NGO, and numerous other regime change factories. Despite its enormous conflict of interest, Bellingcat remains highly cited by corporate media as a supposedly reputable source. At the outset, nearly everything about the PS752 tragedy gave one déjà vu of the MH17 disaster, including the rush to judgement by Western governments, so it was only natural for many to distrust the official narrative until more facts came out.

None of this changes that the use of commercial passenger jets as false flag targets for U.S. national security subterfuge is a verifiable historical fact, not a 'conspiracy theory.' In 1997, the U.S. National Archives declassified a 1962 memo proposed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Department of Defense for then-Secretary of State Robert McNamara entitled " Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba ." The document outlined a series of 'false flag' terrorist attacks, codenamed Operation Northwoods, to be carried out on a range of targets and blamed on the Cuban government to give grounds for an invasion of Havana in order to depose Fidel Castro. These scenarios included targets within the U.S., in particular Miami, Florida, which had become a haven of right-wing émigrés and defectors following the Cuban Revolution. In addition to the sinking of a Cuban refugee boat, one Northwoods plan included the staging of attacks on a civilian jet airliner and a U.S. Air Force plane to be pinned on Castro's government:

"8. It is possible to create and incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.

9. It is possible to create an incident which will make it appear that Communist Cuban MIGs have destroyed a USAF aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack."

Although Operation Northwoods was rejected by then-U.S. President John F. Kennedy which many believe was a factor in his subsequent assassination, Cuban exiles with the support of U.S. intelligence would later be implicated in such an attack the following decade with the bombing of Cubana Airlines Flight 455 in 1976 which killed all 73 passengers and crew on board. In 2005, documents released by the National Security Archive showed that the CIA under then-director George H.W. Bush had advanced knowledge of the plans of a Dominican Republic-based Cuban exile terrorist organization, the Coordination of United Revolutionary Organizations (CORU), at the direction of former CIA operative Luis Posada Carriles to blow up the airliner. The U.S. later refused to extradite Carriles to Cuba to face charges and although he never admitted to masterminding the bombing of the jet, he publicly confessed to other attacks on tourist hotels in Cuba during the 1990s and was later arrested in 2000 for attempting to blow up an auditorium in Panama trying to assassinate Castro.

In 1962, the planners of Operation Northwoods concluded that such deceptive operations would shift U.S. public opinion unanimously against Cuba.

"World opinion and the United Nations forum should be favorably affected by developing the international image of Cuban government as rash and irresponsible, and as an alarming and unpredictable threat to the peace of the Western Hemisphere."

The same talking points are used by the U.S. government to demonize Iran today. Initially, some Western intelligence sources also concluded that it was a malfunction or overheated engine that brought PS752 down in corroboration with the Iranian government's original explanation until the narrative abruptly shifted the following day. That they were so quick to hold Iran accountable without any investigation gave the apparent likelihood that PS752 could have fallen prey to a Northwoods-style false flag operation designed to further isolate Iran and defame its leaders after they took precautions to avoid U.S. casualties in their retaliatory strikes for the killing of Soleimani. Maintaining the image of Iran as a nefarious regime is crucial in justifying hawkish U.S. policies toward the country and Iran's noted restraint in its retaliation put a dent in that impression, so many were suspicious and rightly so.

It was also entirely plausible that U.S. special operations planners could have consulted the Northwoods playbook replacing Cuba with Iran and the right-wing gusanos who were to assist the staged attacks in Miami with the Iranian opposition group known as Mujahedin e-Khalq (MEK/People's Mujahedin of Iran) to do the same in Tehran. In July of last year, Trump's personal lawyer and former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani gave a paid speech at the cult-like group's compound in Albania where he not only referred to the group as Iran's "government-in-exile" but stated the U.S's explicit intentions to use them for regime change in Iran. The MEK enjoys high level contacts in the Trump administration and the group was elated at his decision to murder Soleimani in Baghdad.

From 1997 until 2012, the MEK was on the State Department's list of terrorist organizations until it was removed by the Obama administration after its expulsion from Iraq in order to relocate the group to fortified bases in Albania and the NATO protectorate of Kosovo. The latter disputed territory is a perfect fit for the rebranded group having been founded by another deregistered foreign terrorist organization, the al-Qaeda linked Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), whose leader, Hashim Thaçi, presides over the partially-recognized state. The MEK are no longer designated as such despite the State Department's own account of its bloody history:

"During the 1970s, the MEK staged terrorist attacks inside Iran to destabilize and embarrass the Shah's regime; the group killed several US military personnel and civilians working on defense projects in Tehran. The group also supported the takeover in 1979 of the US Embassy in Tehran. In April 1992 the MEK carried out attacks on Iranian embassies in 13 different countries, demonstrating the group's ability to mount large-scale operations overseas."

Declassified documents revealing the sinister plans in Operation Northwoods which shockingly made it all the way to the desk of the president of the United States and the foreknowledge of Cubana Airlines Flight 455 are just two examples of solid proof that false flag attacks against civilian passenger planes are a part of the Pentagon's modus operandi as disclosed in its own archives and there is no reason to believe that such practices have been discontinued. That the U.S. is still cozy with "former" terror groups like MEK seeking to repatriate is good reason to believe its use of militant exiles for covert operations like those from Havana has not been retired. If there were jumps to conclusions that proven serial liars could be looking for an excuse to stage an attack to lay the blame on Iran, it is only because the distinct probability was overwhelming. Even so, a stopped clock strikes the right time twice per day and that is all Iran's acknowledgment of its liability proves -- that even the world's most unreliable and criminal sources in Washington and Langley can be accurate sometimes

the grand wazoo , says: Show Comment January 12, 2020 at 2:34 am GMT

What no one is mentioning is: the US airstrikes on Iraqi military bases, and Soleimani's murder contributed greatly to the hair trigger response of Iran's air defense forces. If Washington did not turn the heat up on both Iraq and Iran there would have been no need for Iran's retaliation, and thus the level of Iran's domestic defense forces would not have been so nervous as to pull the trigger downing the airliner.
But, if's a huge word.
Flint Clint , says: Show Comment January 12, 2020 at 5:41 am GMT
I disagree.

https://m.jpost.com/Defense/WikiLeaks-Russia-gave-Israel-Iranian-codes

Israel has had control of Iran's Russian middle systems for years. Russia gave them the codes.

I think Israel blew up the aircraft. I can't find a link but I heard a huge number of Soleimani loyalists were arrested in Iran. Someone should have a link to that from Twitter or somewhere.

I think that there was some kind of collaboration between Khamenei, Israel and the US to remove Soleimani who had designs on a coup.

I don't know if this is a good or bad thing.

I also don't know who was on that plane. So it's unclear if it was good or bad it was destroyed. Who knows who those 176 dual Iranian Nationals were.

I just know that if Israel had control of those missile units and it would embarrass Iran for that to be revealed it makes sense for Iran to claim the lesser of two deep shames.

Particularly if there has been some kind of tacit acceptance of a status as a vassal state to either the US or Israel behind the scenes to preserve the regime.

Perhaps the MEK or a different vassal ruler who is really crypto Jewish will be appointed in Solemeinis place, and Iran will hence offer a symbolic enemy to justify the continuation of the military industrial complex in both Israel and the US.

Just one feasible theory.

Ilya G Poimandres , says: Show Comment January 12, 2020 at 6:46 am GMT
Even a blind squirrel, even a broken clock twice a day.. The Empire's statements and blind accusations could have been for any tragedy in a country they were psyopsing, only a matter of chance for them to be right at some time. In any case, it wasn't intentional on Iran's part.
nmb , says: Show Comment January 12, 2020 at 7:27 am GMT
Former CIA high-ranking official accidentally reveals the type of the false flag operation that the US imperialists will orchestrate to start a war with Iran
https://failedevolution.blogspot.com/2020/01/former-cia-high-ranking-official.html
Lol just lol , says: Show Comment January 12, 2020 at 8:09 am GMT
"Accidental" lol

Only if accidental means a joint Russian/Iranian hit on a Ukrainian plane carrying fleeing cia/mossad agents.

This whole situation has once again displayed how easy it is for the zio-media to control what we see and hear and believe. Disturbingly, that means that things like metoo and "believe all women" are operations too.

We are f*cked no matter what.

Crazy Horse , says: Website Show Comment January 12, 2020 at 8:56 am GMT
@the grand wazoo I wouldn't be surprised it the FDR shows that the plane strayed off its registered Flightpath and was involved in a covert recon mission that went bad.
Antares , says: Show Comment January 12, 2020 at 9:15 am GMT
It reminds me too much of MH-17, which was not hit with a BUK but with bullets. Iran should have closed its airspace because such tricks are to be expected, irrespective of the cause of the current accident. There is no immediate reason for Iranians to fly to Ukraine, or anywhere else. It may sound silly but flying is still a special and dangerous thing and should not be taken for granted.

For someone who doesn't watch television or read Iranian newspapers it was only reported on Twitter and then repeated by PressTV and others on internet. Which parts of the story are real?

Alfred , says: Show Comment January 12, 2020 at 9:30 am GMT
Of course, it was a huge and most regrettable mistake. Doubtless, the Iranians will compensate the victims for what that is worth. Most of the passengers were Iranians. I suspect that many of the "Canadians" Trudeau is on about are of Iranian descent. They would certainly be considered to be Iranians in Iran.

The series of coincidences highlighted in this article are remarkable. It has synchronicity splashed all over it.

I worked at Tehran airport for some years prior to the Revolution. After the Revolution, I volunteered to return on behalf of Raytheon (of all companies) to get some money owing. No one else was prepared to go there. Iran Air personnel were delighted to meet me again and they promptly paid the bill. I took a holiday to the Caspian with my ex-girlfriend.

A further piece of synchronicity is that I am currently visiting Kiev. The world is a truly incestuous place.

... ... ...

Wizard of Oz , says: Show Comment January 12, 2020 at 10:15 am GMT
@the grand wazoo "What no one is mentioning ."??? Really? That's almost exactly what some Iranian spokesmen have been saying.
Wizard of Oz , says: Show Comment January 12, 2020 at 10:29 am GMT
Set aside the beatup of two operations that neither the CIA or any American agency carried out the author has apparently failed to see the obvious. That is that the Iranians had no possibility of covering up the missile strike. Or did he imagine that everyone who might tell the truth could be kept permanently separated from plane parts and bodies which would have shown unmistakeable and undeniable evidences of the strike.

[Jan 12, 2020] Our Orwellian surveillance state the term imminent has been redefined ala doublespeak to mean at any time possible.

Jan 12, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

UserFriendly , Jan 12 2020 0:53 utc | 338

Can there be any "imminent threat" when one does not know the "who, what, when, where" of the threat?

Ahh you made the common mistake of thinking words have meaning. Just like our Orwellian surveillance state the term imminent has been redefined ala doublespeak to mean at any time possible.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/01/lies-the-bethlehem-doctrine-and-the-illegal-murder-of-soleimani/

[Jan 12, 2020] Iran Has Effective Military Advantage Over US, Allies in Mideast, New Report Claims

Notable quotes:
"... The 16-month study by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) called Iran's Networks of Influence claims that the networks, including Shia militias fighting in what it says is a "grey zone", for instance, are something Iran heavily relies on, even to a greater extent than conventional military forces. ..."
"... Although the report concedes that overall military balance is still in favor of the US and allies, the balance of effective forces has shifted towards Iran and is currently in the Islamic Republic's favour. The study goes on to claim that "Iran is fighting and winning wars 'fought amongst the people', not wars between states". ..."
"... The study has also come up with a number of calculations: the extraterritorial al-Quds force and various militias reportedly amount to 200,000 fighters. Meanwhile, the total cost of Iran's activities in Iraq and Yemen was $16 billion, and Lebanon's Hezbollah reportedly receives $700 million in grants from the Islamic Republic. ..."
Jan 12, 2020 | sputniknews.com

A fresh in-depth study of Iran's military capabilities and balance of power in the embattled Middle East has assumed that regional wars are being waged on two layers - between states and in a so-called "grey zone", where no conventional force can counterbalance Iran's sovereign dominance. As one of the most detailed assessments of Iran's military strategy suggests, the Islamic Republic's "third party capability" has becomes Tehran's most prominent weapon of choice.

The 16-month study by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) called Iran's Networks of Influence claims that the networks, including Shia militias fighting in what it says is a "grey zone", for instance, are something Iran heavily relies on, even to a greater extent than conventional military forces.

The network is said to be operating differently in most countries, having been designed by Tehran as a key means of countering regional instability and international pressure alike, with the policy "having consistently delivered Iran advantage without the cost or risk of direct confrontation with adversaries".

Although the report concedes that overall military balance is still in favor of the US and allies, the balance of effective forces has shifted towards Iran and is currently in the Islamic Republic's favour. The study goes on to claim that "Iran is fighting and winning wars 'fought amongst the people', not wars between states".

The report details at length the balance of power in the region painting it as "complex and congested battle spaces involving no rule of law or accountability, low visibility and multiple players who represent a mosaic of local and regional interests".

The study has also come up with a number of calculations: the extraterritorial al-Quds force and various militias reportedly amount to 200,000 fighters. Meanwhile, the total cost of Iran's activities in Iraq and Yemen was $16 billion, and Lebanon's Hezbollah reportedly receives $700 million in grants from the Islamic Republic.

The report comes as Iran continues to battle US-imposed economic sanctions, which closely followed Washington's unilateral withdrawal from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in May 2018.

On 8 May, the first anniversary of the move, Tehran announced that it would start scrapping its nuclear obligations stipulated by the JCPOA every 60 days unless European signatories did their best to save the agreement, safeguarding Iran's interests amid Washington's re-imposed sanctions.

[Jan 12, 2020] Boeing Uninterruptible Auto Pilot

Jan 12, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Norwegian , Jan 11 2020 19:33 utc | 245

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Jan 11 2020 18:56 utc | 232
Speculation. US cyber or EW warfare cut the coms and Boeing or more likely US operatives cut one engine via the datalink to Boeing.

Following this line of speculation, it is hard to not consider the BUAP - Boeing Uninterruptible Auto Pilot: Boeing wins patent on uninterruptible autopilot system
Boeing's is, of course, not the first autopilot technology in existence, but this one has been designed with counterterrorism first and foremost in mind. Not only is it "uninterruptible" -- so that even a tortured pilot cannot turn it off -- but it can be activated remotely via radio or satellite by government agencies.

[Jan 12, 2020] It's clear that when we ask the question "Who benefits greatly from this event", we are forced to say the US

Jan 12, 2020 | smoothiex12.blogspot.com
  • Patrick Laforet • 19 hours ago This is an interesting article on the possible causes and motivations of the downing of the Boeing in Iran. It's clear that when we ask the question "Who benefits greatly from this event", we are forced to say the US. (Google translation is decent)
    .
    WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE UKRAINIAN BOEING KILLED (show down) IN IRAN
    .
    https://inforuss.info/chto-...

[Jan 12, 2020] Blunders are inherent to military operations in wartime, peacetime often enough too, But why Iran did not close its airspace remains a puzzle. Did Iranians walked into a trap?

Jan 12, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Daniel N. White , Jan 12 2020 3:37 utc | 365

Yeah, an airliner shootdown because the (tired, stressed, undertrained) SAM operators fucked up. Fuckups are inherent to military operations in wartime, peacetime often enough too, and the time of this accident was both combined, and that certainly made it likelier to happen, too, dammit.

I am pleased to see Iran assume responsibility, promptly enough I reckon, for the shootdown. I trust it will be writing suitable sized checks to the heirs, and one to the Ukrainian airline too. About all that can be done; something that needs doing for everyone's sake.

Iran's assuming responsibility for its shootdown of a civilian airliner by accident contrasts to ours'.* The USA still is dodging its responsibility for the 1980 Itavia DC-9 shootdown. Most nobody in the USA knows about that incident, but I am told it remains an ongoing sore/issue in Italy/Italian politics. My piece from years ago is here: https://www.counterpunch.org/2006/12/21/jimmy-carter-in-austin/ . Since writing this, I wrote Mr. Carter via the Carter Library and via his church in Plains, GA, but never heard back. Unpleasant conclusions about Mr. Carter's integrity must be drawn from this. And similar conclusions about the USA's, and its people's.

My condolences to the families.

Daniel N. White

*Yeah, and the French Navy and nation, too. Apparently back in '68 the French Navy inadvertently shot down an Air France Caravelle over the Med. Immediate hiding of information and physical evidence started and continues to this day. [Did you think I'd pass up this opportunity to kick the French?]

Jackrabbit , Jan 12 2020 4:21 utc | 369

IRGC Commander uses a graphic to show where PS732 was struck by a missile.

FlightRadar24.com shows PS732's flight path - presumably using all data to the point where the data was interrupted by some event on board.

When I compare these, it appears that the IRGC estimate of where the missile hit is WELL AFTER transmission of flight data has ended.

Also, logically, a plane climbing a short distance from an airport should not resemble a drone. Might an operator assume a drone if the plane were DESCENDING?

Thus, there's the possibility of a scenario where a bomb under the cockpit causes the plane to start descending and the IRGC fire a missile as a because the plane's descent causes the operator to surmise that it is a drone instead of a plane.

Might there have been a bomb AND missile hit?

Note: This possibility arises only because of what seems to be a mismatch in the data from the airplane and the IRGC's estimate of where the plane was hit. Perhaps IRGC's graphic is incorrect?

<> <> <> <> <> <>

Aside: AFAICT the plane wasn't turning back to the airport ! It was on a normal flight path which turned slightly but that turning was apparently exacerbated after the plane was hit. That increased turning made it SEEM like it was turning back to the airport.

!!

Fog of War , Jan 12 2020 5:08 utc | 375
Many of you still seemed perplexed as to why Iran allowed commercial flights to go on during such a potentially tense time. Let me make it clear for everyone, they were tricked by the ZioAmericans. Basically, the Iranians were allowed to get their " face saving attack " on the Americans while thinking this would be the end of the whole episode. Little did they suspect that the US had prepared the Ukrainian plane scenario followed by instantaneous protests. The Iranians walked into a trap.


- Swiss Back Channel Helped Defuse U.S.-Iran Crisis -
The U.S. sent an encrypted fax via the Swiss Embassy in Tehran urging Iran not to escalate, followed by a flurry of back and forth messages -

https://www.wsj.com/articles/swiss-back-channel-helped-defuse-u-s-iran-crisis-11578702290

CognitiveDissonance , Jan 12 2020 5:13 utc | 377
@Vasco da Gama
Regarding the FAA NOTAMS restricting airspace a list is provided here. It is not accurate to claim only Tehran was restricted:

Exactly. And if the Ukraine Civil Aviation Authority had followed the FAA lead and grounded its aircraft in Iran , the Ukraine Air aircraft would not have gotten shot down .

The Ukraine Civil Aviation Authority didn't exactly perform well either.

Jackrabbit , Jan 12 2020 5:21 utc | 378
Fog of War @374: The Iranians walked into a trap.

That seems very possible. And, if so, the people on PS732 were sacrificed for the ambitions of AZ Empire asshats.

!!

CognitiveDissonance , Jan 12 2020 5:25 utc | 379
@Fog Of War
Many of you still seemed perplexed as to why Iran allowed commercial flights to go on during such a potentially tense time. Let me make it clear for everyone, they were tricked by the ZioAmericans.

A more plausible reason is here . The relevant except follows:

"The first thing a country should do in case of escalation of the military conflict is to close the sky for civilian flights," said retired Ukrainian Gen. Ihor Romanenko, a military analyst. " But this entails serious financial losses , fines and forfeits, therefore a cynical approach prevailed in Iran."

CognitiveDissonance , Jan 12 2020 5:25 utc | 379 Peter AU1 , Jan 12 2020 5:52 utc | 380
Jackrabbit 368 "Aside: AFAICT the plane wasn't turning back to the airport! It was on a normal flight path which turned slightly but that turning was apparently exacerbated after the plane was hit. That increased turning made it SEEM like it was turning back to the airport."

From the Ukraine description of the damage, the pilots would be unlikely to have any control over the plane even if they were not dead or incapacitated. From my understanding the aircraft was on its way back to the airport when it crashed.
Iran government was intitaly very sure the aircraft came down due to a tehnical problem which makes me think the pilots radioed in that they had a problem before they were hit. This is why I think the plane was hit after the turn back to the airport.
if they turn back to the the airport brought the plane to where it was facing the military site during the turn this may have caused the airdefence crew to fire. Already on high alert, their coms down and perhaps the planes transponder stops transmitting whould be more than enough suspition to down the aircraft.
A preplanned operation that cut air defence coms and disabled the aircraft (as in cut one engine plus transponder) at the same time.

Peter AU1 , Jan 12 2020 6:03 utc | 381
In b's previous piece on the aircraft, b had this to say "The airplane climbed out of Tehran airport in a rather straight line. The teams that man the Tor systems around Tehran must be used to the regular radar track of civil planes coming out of Tehran airport. That makes an accidental launch somewhat unlikely."

This is still very relevent. Something about that flight was different causing the Tor crew to fire. A sudden turn back to the airport along with trasponder transmissions stopping and air defence comms down would cause this.

Australian lady , Jan 12 2020 7:23 utc | 382
The Iranian apologia is a masterclass in grace..
Unfortunately the courage to admit responsibility is not understood as a civilised response, but that is what one expects from barbarians.
Iran has admitted that it shot down the plane. Perhaps that was the intention of this tragedy.
Do you remember how it was in Tehran in the election year of 2008?
Luce Ducet of the BBC was on the streets spruiking for the Iranian "colour revolution". But Amadenijad won regardless.
They are trying it again but it won't work. Never does.
However there will be chaos and that has proven to be tremendously profitable.
Krollchem , Jan 12 2020 7:26 utc | 383
DontBelieveEitherPr.@214 ( and other recent trolls)

Please do us a favor by helping with the following issues:

(1) list all countries invaded by the US compared to Iran. Each instance of an invasion of a given country is required as some countries were invaded several times;

(2) In the last 200 years list all countries overthrown by a coup by the US and its proxy's compared to Iran;

After failing in this simple task go back commenting somewhere else...

Steve M , Jan 12 2020 7:47 utc | 384
There are still a couple of things that bother me about this.

1.) is that for those of you who are saying it would be hard to distinguish an incoming enemy plane from a commercial airliner such as Pometheus @ 178 who said:

6) A RADAR signature CANNOT distinguish a commercial airline aircraft from a military aircraft - especially since some military aircraft use 737 airframes.

would that also apply to a cruise missile? That is, would it also be difficult to distinguish between a commercial airliner and a cruise missile? Because, from what I've seen, that's the claim that's being made -- that the SAM operator responsible for launching the missile against the airliner was on high alert due to warnings of possible cruise missile launches against Iran and that he mistook the target for a cruise missile -- or at least suspected that it was -- which, according to the narrative, is why he only had a 10-second window within which to make the decision to launch and why when there were "communication problems" that prevented him from getting a hold of his superiors, he had to basically flip a coin -- and unfortunately made the wrong choice. Now, I don't know if this narrative is still current, because what I read did say this account was an "early assessment", but if it is, if it's still what they're saying -- is it plausible? is what I'm asking. Or would this represent a hole in their narrative? Maybe someone on here could clarify this for me? Possibly Prometheus?

The other thing that bugs me, is who took the footage of the plane actually being hit? How did he know to train his camera in that direction at that particular place and time? Is it somebody who just hangs around and films planes that happen to be passing by? Or is it some camera that is maybe in a fixed position, like a security camera, that just happened to pick this up? (and actually, I have to say, it doesn't look like security camera footage to me) Or what? Because it is conceivable that this could indicate foreknowledge... which, of course, would indicate a planned event as opposed to an accident. Maybe someone could shed light on this for me as well?

But because of my lingering doubts I have also entertained the possibility raised by paul @ 188 that the Iranians may be lying about this in order to prevent (what would be certain) further escalation. What better way to defuse the situation than by claiming it was all just an unfortunate accident? (I guess what I have in mind is that it could have conceivably been an MEK, CIA, Mossad operation timed to eclipse the Soleimani and al-Muhandis murder stories and also further their campaign of escalation against Iran.)

Of course, I'm not maintaining that it's the case, necessarily. But the possibility did cross my mind even before I came across paul @ 188's comment. And there are some obvious problems with this narrative as well... which I probably don't need to go into here. But whatever the case may be, I'd still like an answer to the misgivings I raised above... if someone could shed light on them, I'd appreciate it.

Norwegian , Jan 12 2020 7:51 utc | 385
Speculation: The cases with planes turned into weapons all seem to be Boeings and not Airbuses if I am not mistaken, 4 Boeings @ 911 plus this one (PS752). You could argue that MH370 (vanished) and MH17 (altered flight path) possibly also fall into this category, they were Boeing planes. So a guess is that the Boeing Uninterruptible Auto Pilot (BUAP) plays a role in some or all of these cases, and possibly other ones as well.

If BUAP was used to disable the PS752 pilots + all communication and then switch off one engine during full throttle take-off, what does that do to the flight path? Perhaps an interesting flight simulator exercise, but it would obviously turn. As others have pointed out, a civilian plane does not have IFF and will therefore be identified as hostile when it suddenly appears in front of a Tor-M1 battery because it was made to turn.

A detailed time-line would be useful, i.e. times for take-off, communication loss, when the plane started turning, missile launch, missile hit, final crash. It could possibly narrow the field of possibilities.

Vintage Red , Jan 12 2020 8:08 utc | 386
@somebody, 79

"I don't think it is beyond the US to have used the opportunity to test Iranian radars."

Remember the Soviet downing of Flight KAL 007 back in September '83. The fear of WW3 then was just as real as what we experienced last week. The US purposefully confused KAL 007's identity by flying RC-135 reconnaissance flights near it before its reaching Soviet airspace (both are Boeing, easy to mistake for each other). Some have mentioned that the pilot was Korean CIA. Either way the US got invaluable data on Soviet air defenses by its incursion near Vladivostok, and the USSR was attacked by the capitalist media afterward just as Iran is now.

Whether via hacking or sabotage of the plane, transponder or IFF (e.g., as Peter AU1 outlines @232) or something else entirely, this kind of action or outright weaponization of Ukrainian flight PS 752 is a possibility here as well.

ps -- massive thanks to bevin for very powerful comments @30 and @242.

imo , Jan 12 2020 8:38 utc | 388
@ Norwegian | Jan 12 2020 7:51 utc | 382

Indeed it is speculation but that sometimes has its place to help break up the mass-programming going on.

Remote drone control and flight by instruments are very close in technologies and one could easily imagine
the inbuilt functions and back-doors provided in modern aircraft -- especially Boeing variants for the obvious reasons.
Full-spectrum dominance (control when needed) has a meaning.

The IT technology for running total virtual computing systems were in commercial use in the 1970s.
[e.g. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VM_(operating_system)]
Today's modern commercial aircraft are almost entirely software driven and therefore simply another virtual
machine. Flight simulators clearly operate on this principle.

I would suggest that MH370 night flight was more likely the class case study with a tribe of top Chinese technologists being
re-routed on a flight out of Malaysia to "Paradise Island" (Diego Garcia) before the plane was either ditched into the Indian
Ocean or re-cycled as a convenient relabeled option etc. In fact, from memory there were several interesting scenarios around
MH17 that included cadavers and other features. I'm not sure where these ended up in the wash.

The point being that unless there is something out the window in the real world to verify against (like position of sun etc)
then I'm sure for military purposes a large airliner could be totally enclosed in a virtual world simulation from the crew and
passenger perspective -- and quite possibly also satellite tracking for engine monitoring by suppliers.

Before MH370 and MH17 Malaysia was being rather difficult and independent (and critical of the Occupation of Palestine).
Apart from the geopolitical impacts, just the subsequent commercial impact on Malaysian Airlines brought a rather
sudden silence, compliance and silence from the Malaysian quarter. And here we are again, perhaps, simply a new cast of
actors as victims etc.

E Mo Scel , Jan 12 2020 9:11 utc | 391
It is correct that the FAA ban relates to the region and not just Tehran (FIR Tehran). I had checked that after my comment. It is still pointing to the fact that, as confirmed by statements by Iran, that there was a lot of movement in the airspace around Iran and possibly in Iran, and that civilian planes could be affected by misidentification - just the way it happened, but with almost 150 Iranians on board of the plane (some with dual citizenships). In my view, it is not feasible to assume the US did not respond to the Iranian strikes. The US hit hard and fast, just as Trump had said. The US outmaneuvered Iran from an angle they were not prepared for, right inside Iran, right in Tehran. The US come out of this clean. The lack of an overt response to the Iranian strikes can't be emphasized enough; same goes for the involvement of the CIA with Pompeo and Haspel.
uncle tungsten , Jan 12 2020 9:14 utc | 392
ADKC #342
Iran has been seduced by Trump and the illusory promise of symbolic actions/theatre. Iran has lost the phony war because it failed to see the US is not just a unwelcome visitor that will leave the Middle East when they are made to feel uncomfortable. The US cannot leave the Middle East because it would destroy itself if it did so.

I don't agree with your first proposition. I don't even think it is possible for Iran to have any illusions as to what they are up against militarily or the idiocy and malevolence of the USA. They are also aware of the near term chance to fracture the continuity of Trump as President and hope for a better or vaguely smarter person. If there is symbolism, then the Iranians made it clear 'this is a slap in the face'. That means an initial gesture of displeasure or challenge to a duel perhaps. It is not the revenge the Iranians have promised to extract from the occupying forces of the five eyes plus NATO plus Saudi sponsored ISIS. I anticipate there will soon be stage two of the vengeance extraction.

The USA will leave the Middle East either in tatters or with a smart withdrawal. The battlefield has just enlarged and entered new and murderous dimensions (thanks mainly to the assassination strategy of the USA) much as it did in Vietnam after the French were slaughtered at Dien Bien Phu. This will take some time to play out and there may be no victor but there will be a withdrawal of the USA.

You say the USA cannot withdraw due to its dependence on petrodollar cover of its currency. I say it has very little choice. The entire Shia and even perhaps some mighty angry Sunni are keen to kick the USA cadaver about the public square.

Osama Bin Laden was Sunni!! The forces of the USA are diustributed throughout the Sunni lands at their invitation ;- the USA occupies Sunni holy lands: this from NEO-

As of now, the US has 5,000 troops in the UAE; 7,000 in Bahrain; above 13,000 in Kuwait; 3,00o in Jordan; 3,000 in Saudi Arabia; 10,000 in Qatar; 5,000 in Iraq; around 1,000 in Syria -- all of course well within the range of Iranian missiles, making them an extremely attractive targets for the Iranian forces.

Only in Iraq, about 5,000 US troops could very well be sitting ducks if the Popular Mobilisation Forces were to launch a war of attrition. If history is any guide to future, it might be unrealistic to completely rule out a replay of the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings

The USA can huff and puff as much as it likes but I suspect they will be displeased and shaken shitless if a couple of the vessels docked in Bahrain only a few kilometers from Iran suddenly are sitting on the seabed.

What is revenge ADKC? What if the new leader of Oman is persuaded to end the invasion of Yemen? This could leave the USA badly shaken. There is no certainty that the long war of revenge will produce good results for Iran but any other course would be craven surrender to both the USA and its Sunni running dogs and the Israeli paper tiger.

John Doe , Jan 12 2020 9:20 utc | 393
The Prime Suspect in Ukrainian PS752 Shootdown: Israel's Unit 8200
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2020/01/10/ps752/
Wtf , Jan 12 2020 9:23 utc | 394
How can you mistake a 737 for a cruise missile with and F band 3D doppler radar. The 737 has the signature of a friggin freight Train!
John Doe , Jan 12 2020 9:32 utc | 395
A shadowy tech firm with deep ties to Israeli intelligence and newly inked contracts to protect Pentagon computers is partnering with Lockheed Martin to gain unprecedented access to the heart of America's democracy.

https://www.mintpressnews.com/cybereason-israel-tech-firm-doomsday-election-simulations/263886/

Peter AU1 , Jan 12 2020 9:37 utc | 396
Wtf 391

https://www.militaryaerospace.com/computers/article/16726118/navy-continues-buying-radarspoofing-electronic-warfare-ew-equipment-from-mercury-systems
"Navy continues buying radar-spoofing electronic warfare (EW) equipment from Mercury Systems.
U.S. Navy airborne electronic warfare (EW) experts are continuing their support of radar-spoofing electronic warfare (EW)
technology from Mercury Systems Inc. that can fool enemy radar systems with false and deceptively moving targets."

At the time, Iran had many reports of incoming cruise missiles. By the sounds, US was hitting Iran with radar spoofing EW systems.

Peter AU1 , Jan 12 2020 10:02 utc | 399
Norwegian

There is the possibility of the uninterruptible auto pilot. It does exist but information on if
it is installed in many Boeing planes is vague. Others here have mentioned the number of incidents
Boeing aircraft have been involved in. I had thought of MH17 and MH370 but there is also 9 11 and
the Korean flight into soviet airspace. Many of the boeing aircraft are mechanical with hydraulic
assist controls so it would require something like the uninterruptible auto pilot to completely
take over the plane from the ground.
The Ukrainian NG has the mechanical controls, but its engines are computer controlled as are some other
functions in the aircraft plus I believe the aircraft has an automated data link back to boeing. This may
well have been sufficient for Boeing to turn of the Transponder and cut an engine so the plane would turn
towards the military site. This would be more than sufficient to ensure the downing of the aircraft under
the circumstances.
With an engine down the pilot would have immediately notified air traffic control and say he was turning back.
This would also explain why the Iranian government were initially certain the crash was due to technical issues.

somebody , Jan 12 2020 10:35 utc | 400
Posted by: E Mo Scel | Jan 12 2020 9:11 utc | 388

In my view, it is not feasible to assume the US did not respond to the Iranian strikes. The US hit hard and fast, just as Trump had said.

This is my sneaking suspicion. The way the news of this night were reported were 1. Iranian strike 2. Plane downed 3. 4.9 earthquake near Bushehr.

Epoch times - Falun Gong - even makes more of a connection

Israel wants the US to take out any Iranian nuclear programme. The escalation needed for such a hit was the only way to do that for Trump. Congress would never approve.

My guess is that Bushehr strikes failed to make an impression whatever they were intended to hit, so it is back to regime change.

Hausmeister , Jan 12 2020 10:45 utc | 402
If it could ever be proven that Boeing planes are being used as RC weaponized drones, the fallout would be epic.

Posted by: Sorghum | Jan 11 2020 23:18 utc | 312

No. It is enough to prove than one can switch off the transponder from a remote place. I have told in case you fly some aircraft over Germany and switch off the transponder it would take 2 minutes till you accompanied by a fighter jet.

Mao , Jan 12 2020 11:19 utc | 407
Boeing's "uninterruptible" autopilot "would be activated ... remotely via radio or satellite links by government agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency."

https://www.flightglobal.com/diagrams-boeing-patents-anti-terrorism-auto-land-system-for-hijacked-airliners/70886.article

https://21stcenturywire.com/2014/08/07/flight-control-boeings-uninterruptible-autopilot-system-drones-remote-hijacking/

Pft , Jan 12 2020 11:42 utc | 408
Not sure how long this lasts before someone messes it up with a mile long link. Why b does not delete comments that disrupt the formatting is a good question.

In any event Iran played right into the US -Israeli hands. They should not have responded. I said at the outset they would be smart not to. They simply should have followed protocol under international law (feeble and futile as it would be). They accomplished nothing with their missiles and showed weakness (30% missed or were duds) If they felt the need to retaliate it should have been a covert op that provided plausible deniability.

I'm still baffled at the airline shoot down. Radar should have shown that the Boeing 737 was on a commonly used flight path heading away from the airport -- if it was inbound into the country it would be easier to explain misidentification . The Boeing 737 should have been transmitting a transponder identification code. If the equipment that picks that up, called an IFF interrogator, was malfunctioning, battery operators would have considered the path and speed of the plane on radar. The Flight was rising toward 8,000 feet at a leisurely 275 knots when flight tracking data from its transponder cut out, a normal profile for an airliner. So it is departing the area, climbing through medium altitude, not trying to hide its signature, looking like a routine operation and its shot down?

I'd say if they shot this plane down they are a mess and that perhaps there are some disloyal elements within the military who might want change and seized the opportunity to make them look bad. Sanctions take a toll on moral and support of the people. Thats the intention. Maybe its working.

I am sure the US and Israel will be ready to jump in and help restore peace and help with reconstruction after the coming revolution. That wont be cheap so we (they) will have to get 50% of the oil/gas, and maybe a Trump Tower in Tehran (after he leaves office).

ADKC , Jan 12 2020 11:51 utc | 409
Uncle Tunsten @392

The Iranian "slap in The face" was effectively arranged with the US. What does that mean?

The assassination of Soliemani was not a stupid irrational act - it was a warning to Iran, Iraq and Iran that there will be no rapproachment. What does that mean for the likelihood of Oman taking a stand against US interests?

You dismiss the petrodollar as it if has no real bearing, but it is everything - without the petrodollar the US crumbles. And, what you also fail to realise is that the US cannot extract itself from the petrodollar therefore it US trapped and compelled to to do anything it can to defend the petrodollar.

irate , Jan 12 2020 11:59 utc | 410
The MEK is the group Trump wants to replace the Iran regime.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oIChqqSgzo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran

Peter AU1 , Jan 12 2020 12:05 utc | 411
Mao the uninterruptible auto pilot in the 21stcenturywire article is for fly by wire aircraft. Airbus are fly by wire as are some boeing models, but the 737s, apart from engine controls are not. 737 Max has fly by wire spoilers. On a fly by wire all that is required is to override or replace pilot input signals into the computer to take control of the flight controls.
The article speaks of embedded software being the uninterruptible auto pilot.
dave , Jan 12 2020 12:10 utc | 412
Nobody is asking questions why didn't Iran close down their airspace if they were expecting retaliation, perhaps because they needed a human shield in case Americans attacked? And they were expecting retaliation that is what the IRGC said.
pretzelattack , Jan 12 2020 12:11 utc | 413
i'm still not sure if some kind of hacking or cyberattack messed up the ability of iranian defense to respond to the plane. at any rate, the ultimate responsibility lies with the u.s. and israel who want regime change in iran and have tried to achieve that for decades.
dave , Jan 12 2020 12:14 utc | 414
@pretzelattack Iran also wanted regime change in the region through their export of the Islamic Revolution. Most likely Iranian defenses got hacked, their communications lines were down, but that does not excuse them for not closing the airspace (perhaps they needed a human shield in case Americans attacked).
dave , Jan 12 2020 12:23 utc | 415
People here writing stuff as if Iran and Russia are like ww2 allies. No they are not, even Putin said Russia is never going to allied herself with 1 country against another country in the middle east, that means Putin's Russia is seeking equilibrium in the middle east. It explains why Russia hesitated (after selling) to deliver the S-300 as agreed to Iran, while willing to sell S-400 to Iraq. That is because Russia wants the whole Middle East to be able to defend themselves against USA/Zionists and against each other -- that is equilibrium.
Peter AU1 , Jan 12 2020 12:29 utc | 416
dave
Iran's S-300s were delivered and deployed some time ago.
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2016-11/news-briefs/russia-completes-s-300-delivery-iran

https://auroraintel.net/middle-east/iranian-s-300-locations

pretzelattack , Jan 12 2020 12:29 utc | 417
they could have just screwed up, too, dave. that happens in war. that doesn't put them on some kind of equal footing with the u.s. and israel. iran hasn't attacked any other countries that i know of, what have they done exactly to topple other governments anywhere?
dave , Jan 12 2020 12:30 utc | 418
@Peter The S-300 has been delivered after a long long long delay (years) after payment. Iran was very very upset and angry about this..
dave , Jan 12 2020 12:35 utc | 419
@pretzelattack On what planet have you been living? Iran has been trying to export their Islamic revolution throughout the region and elsewhere where there are muslims ever since 1979. Iran has a neo-con and a conservative faction. The neo-cons are radicals who are seeking worldwide Islamic Revolution, the conservatives want to keep their revolution within their own borders, it is like Stalin vs Trotsky, Stalin wanted communism in 1 country, Trotsky wanted world wide revolution.
Peter AU1 , Jan 12 2020 12:37 utc | 420
dave
You have just been spreading shit that it was never delivered. Upgraded S-300 systems were delivered to Iran as soon as UNSC nuclear related sanctions were lifted.
pretzelattack , Jan 12 2020 12:37 utc | 421
again, dave, do you have any specifics? what governments has iran tried to topple, and how?
dave , Jan 12 2020 12:40 utc | 422
@pretzelattack No they haven't screwed up, they (Iranian government) denied IRQGC's request to close down the airspace. Same thing as with Ukraine, Ukraine did not close down their airspace while they knew beforehand (as has been proven by news articles before the MH17 shootdown) there was a BUK in hands of rebels (if that news is true), the rebels were also actively shooting down military jets with manpads. Yet the Ukraine did not close down the airspace, they were using the airliners as human shield as has been proven by the fact their jets were shadowing the airliners.
dave , Jan 12 2020 12:41 utc | 423
correction IRQGC --> IRGC
Russ , Jan 12 2020 12:45 utc | 424
dave 414

"Iran also wanted regime change in the region through their export of the Islamic Revolution."

1. Which governments was Iran at odds with other than Western colonial stooges working for Western imperial goals? Which leads to:

2. Any attempted "export" by Iran has been clear-cut self defense against relentlessly aggressive Western exportation of imperial globalized capitalism. It's even more clear-cut one-way US/Western aggression than in the case of the Cold War. Iran's 20th century experiences with Western aggression in all forms is far more than enough to justify anything they have done in response, which in any event has been relatively very modest.

415

"People here writing stuff as if Iran and Russia are like ww2 allies."

They may not be natural "allies", but they've long had a shared enemy in Western imperialism in the Mideast. They still have that shared interest, which is becoming increasingly existential whether Putin or the Iranians want to admit that to themselves or not. I know this berserker US government. It ain't going home willingly. It's not going to go gentle into that goodnight.

pretzelattack , Jan 12 2020 12:47 utc | 425
dave, i didn't say anything about closing down the airspace, although that could be another screwup; i was talking about shooting down the plane. but since you bring it up, do you have any evidence they were using planes as human shields, or any evidence about how the airspace was not closed in the first place? still waiting on the questions of what governments iran has tried to overthrow and how.
Kadath , Jan 12 2020 12:50 utc | 426
This is infuriating i just receieved an emergency alert regarding the picker nuclear power plant telling me to watch local media yet cbc news still has no information what happend in pickering its still wall to wall coverage of ithe iran air crash disaster
dave , Jan 12 2020 12:50 utc | 427
@pretzelattack Though nothing compared to what the Americans have been doing, they were spreading their Islamic ideology throughout the region ever since the Islamic revolution of 1979, by exporting the concept of suicide bombings to the Palestinian areas (Hamas, Islamic Jihad), their involvement with Yemen where houthi are trying to overthrow their government, they have been involved in Bosnia. The middle east has seen a Islamic revival thanks to the Iranians and the Americans who needed an Islamic block against secular and socialist block of the 3rd world and 2nd world.
Laguerre , Jan 12 2020 12:55 utc | 428
dave 414

"Iran also wanted regime change in the region through their export of the Islamic Revolution."

There wasn't any export that I was aware of. And certainly not regime change. The only question was the Shi'a of Iraq, and Sistani rejected the Iranian model of vilayat-i faqih.

Peter AU1 , Jan 12 2020 12:57 utc | 429
Kadath

https://sputniknews.com/world/202001121078015363-incident-reported-at-canadas-pickering-nuclear-power-plant/
The alert, issued at 7:20 am Sunday, assured Ontarians that "there has been NO abnormal release of radioactivity from the station and emergency staff are responding to the situation."
The bulletin also indicated that people nearby "do not need to take protective actions at this time."

dave , Jan 12 2020 13:01 utc | 430
@pretzelattack not closing down airspace while IRGC has asked for it because of possible retaliation, that to me sounds like their politicians wanted victims at the hands of the Americans in front of the world (for propaganda purposes). That is the same as in Sarajevo where Bosnian Muslim government forces placed heavy weaponry in the middle of the heavily populated city targeting Serb villages/positions around the city. That is classic human shield against enemy retaliation, also good for propaganda purposes and world opinion in case the enemy retaliates and creates casualties among civilians. UNPROFOR commander got really angry at the Bosnian forces and demanded withdrawal of the heavy weaponry from the heavily populated area, the UNPROFOR commander even threatened to bomb Bosnian Muslim positions because of this provocation by the Bosnian Muslim government forces.
pretzelattack , Jan 12 2020 13:05 utc | 431
the yemenis are being slaughtered by the saudis, i don't see the iran aid as regime change. and the u.s. had a secular block against the socialist world in saddam till they threw him under the bus. i'm not sure who came up with the idea of suicide bombing, but i don't associate it specifically with iran. it's just another tactic, no more objectionable than pushing typing something on a keyboard half a world away and blowing somebody up by drone, and i don't see how it relates specifically to iran trying to overthrow other governments. i don't support iran's theocratic leanings, but my impression is that prior to the u.s. and u.k. deposing mossaddegh iran was more of an inward looking country.
Russ , Jan 12 2020 13:06 utc | 432
Posted by: dave | Jan 12 2020 12:50 utc | 427

"The middle east has seen a Islamic revival thanks to the Iranians and the Americans who needed an Islamic block against secular and socialist block of the 3rd world and 2nd world."

Yes indeed, the Arabs and the Mideast in general originally wanted to go the route of secular nationalism and only turned to a more religious-oriented movement when the West made nationalist progress impossible. Islamic radicalism wasn't their first choice. From what I've read it sounds like Sayyid Qutb originally had less of an audience than my obscure blog. But they came to realize it was their only effective option.

That, too, is 100% on the West. All fundamentalisms are modern movements of reaction against the aggression of other movements within modernity, most obviously Western cultural, economic, military imperialism.

Russ , Jan 12 2020 13:11 utc | 433
dave 430

The US drove the Yugoslav firestorm by unilaterally recognizing Bosnian independence while the UN was still trying to work out a negotiated settlement. The US egged them on by implying or promising military support. The Bosnians were more like pawns and at any rate certainly were not Iranian proxies acting in accord with what you allege with zero evidence to be Iran's aggressive Islamist plan for world domination.

imo , Jan 12 2020 13:12 utc | 434
@ Pft | Jan 12 2020 11:42 utc | 408

"I'm still baffled at the airline shoot down. Radar should have shown that the Boeing 737 was on a commonly used flight path heading away from the airport -- if it was inbound into the country it would be easier to explain misidentification."

Look, I'm not in any position to say what did (or did not) happen. And neither is anyone else outside a very small covert closed group -- and that probably includes the Iranians with their (allegedly) modern rocket technology and somewhat 19th century thinking and governance systems.

What I do assume is: any technology that the public finds on the magazine/website du jour is already out dated by at least one cycle and probably edging into the release for commercial market phase.

In a previous post I suggested that any virtual software computer system (of which modern jet airliners are mostly -- with a bit of flying hardware attached) can be, in theory, easily separated out into an onion-layered virtual operating system environment which, for all intents and purposes, provides 100% of the simulated environment data/parameters between the layers and applications. The cybernetic world has run on this in the business world since the late 20th century. I doubt the military are in catch-up mode -- quite the opposite, I'd assume.

How do you or I know that what the Iranian 'saw,' or more importantly, thought they saw in that 10 second 'engineered' gap?

One does not need to go full-spectrum Matrix or SkyNet thinking (just yet) to see where this is headed. But I raise an eyebrow at any narrow thinking precluding advanced AI scenarios that synthesis real-world and psychological-world vectors to exploit and manipulate the situation in focus towards desirable outcomes.

Knowing the Iranian character and worldview, and the religious top-down control culture and systems of command (and their weaknesses), allows for strategic modelling of scenarios that, if not directly controlled and created in the virtual 'digital' software world -- probably a few years off yet except in niche environments (hello major MIC supplier Boeing!) -- then at least in terms of statistical 'swarms' of data that nudge the real world towards higher probability preferred scenario. Whether Bayesian statistics is relevant or not, there are advanced options to experiment with.

This cluster-fuck by the Iranian military, set off by an equivalent of 21st century "Archduke Franz Ferdinand" event is like watching (unfortunately, imo, and only because I believe a balanced multi-polar world is a safer scenario) a Mexican peasant running after his hat just blow off his head by a gust of wind. Comical if not so bloody dangerous for the global geopolitical and economic context.

NK is another case altogether. They have enough nuke or no-nuke (as does Israel apparently) binary options to be treated with some junk-yard guard dog 'respect'. But the romantic poets and intellectuals of Tehran (with their 4,000 years of increasingly irrelevant cultural history) are just being played with like a wounded mouse by a cat.

I had written off the USA in accord with the public narrative until this event. Now I've sat back and looked at it again and the pattern looks entirely different. Trump or not, this has coordinated psyops dimensions flashing red all over, imo.

If what I have set out here as a possible (plausible?) scenario is even anywhere near a reality then Iran (Mullah version) is on the edge of collapse. The people will rise up for any number of reasons -- but one critical emerging one will be simply utter frustration with trying to live and work in the modern global world with a state-based ideology suited for the Crusades of the Middle Ages. Why not just uniform up in 'British Red Coats' with a red cross labeled "shoot here!" across the heart? [*]

The last item of interest towards this view is the almost hysterical reaction by the US to Russia's S300/S400/S500... technology expanding into broader markets. I'd suggest, apart from being high-class radar and missile technology, it is also likely resistant to the digital manipulation risk that 'sees' a Boeing lilting sideways (and mapping mentally) as a cruise missile within a critical window of weakness etc. Perhaps one can see behind the Oz wizard curtain better?

----
[*] - Since 9/11 it has been clear to some in the systems/cybernetics fields that an emerging 'chaos' orientated global governance model was coming into play. The use of the periodic 'shock' is the key. Think defibrillation as the metaphor to keep a certain heart-beat rhythm going while chaos (systemic fibrillation) reigns -- and is even promoted in some contexts. The book to read on the theory is "Chaos: Making a New Science" by James Gleick (1987). He applies/explains the defibrillation principles. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos:_Making_a_New_Science )

dave , Jan 12 2020 13:17 utc | 435
USA has attacked secular Iraq, secular Lybia, they helped Al Qaeda and other Islamists in their battle against secular governments (Afghanistan), USA (democrats) are in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood, USA has helped the Muslim Brotherhood and instigated the revolution in overthrowing the secular/military government of Egypt. USA was involved with the Arab Spring which targeted secular governments.

Soviet Union and USA both supported Saddam's Iraq against Iran, then USA dumped Saddam starting in 1991.

The concept of suicide bombings comes from Iran, they were promoting and instigating suicide bombings against Israel. Sunni Islam never had a history of suicide bombings before. Al Qaeda took that concept of suicide bombings from Iran and got a CIA sponsor (in the afghanistan war). Iran also has a tradition of religious flagellation: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2507355/Slashing-chained-blades-bloodied-Muslims-including-young-boys-flagellate-themselves.html

Emily , Jan 12 2020 13:18 utc | 436
Dave 427

Seems to me you need to swot up on the Sunni and Shia.
When you find out the differences come back.
This for instance...
Craig Murray 4th Jan
Quote
The truth of the matter is that if you take every American killed including and since 9/11, in the resultant Middle East related wars, conflicts and terrorist acts, well over 90% of them have been killed by Sunni Muslims financed and supported out of Saudi Arabia and its gulf satellites, and less than 10% of those Americans have been killed by Shia Muslims tied to Iran.
This is a horribly inconvenient fact for US administrations which, regardless of party, are beholden to Saudi Arabia and its money. It is, the USA affirms, the Sunnis who are the allies and the Shias who are the enemy. Yet every journalist or aid worker hostage who has been horribly beheaded or otherwise executed has been murdered by a Sunni, every jihadist terrorist attack in the USA itself, including 9/11, has been exclusively Sunni, the Benghazi attack was by Sunnis, Isil are Sunni, Al Nusra are Sunni, the Taliban are Sunni and the vast majority of US troops killed in the region are killed by Sunnis.
Precisely which are these hundreds of deaths for which the Shia forces of Soleimani were responsible? Is there a list? It is of course a simple lie. Its tenuous connection with truth relates to the Pentagon's estimate – suspiciously upped repeatedly since Iran became the designated enemy – that back during the invasion of Iraq itself, 83% of US troop deaths were at the hands of Sunni resistance and 17% of of US troop deaths were at the hands of Shia resistance, that is 603 troops. All the latter are now lain at the door of Soleimani, remarkably.
Those were US troops killed in combat during an invasion. The Iraqi Shia militias – whether Iran backed or not – had every legal right to fight the US invasion. The idea that the killing of invading American troops was somehow illegal or illegitimate is risible. Plainly the US propaganda that Soleimani was "responsible for hundreds of American deaths" is intended, as part of the justification for his murder, to give the impression he was involved in terrorism, not legitimate combat against invading forces. The idea that the US has the right to execute those who fight it when it invades is an absolutely stinking abnegation of the laws of war.
As I understand it, there is very little evidence that Soleimani had active operational command of Shia militias during the invasion, and in any case to credit him personally with every American soldier killed is plainly a nonsense. But even if Soleimani had personally supervised every combat success, these were legitimate acts of war. You cannot simply assassinate opposing generals who fought you, years after you invade.

dave , Jan 12 2020 13:34 utc | 437
@Russ Yes Bosnia was primarily US proxy, Alija Izetbegovic, Bosnian Muslim leader, he staged a coup with US backing, before he organized the illegal arming of his political party with illegal weapons, they started the war by attacking Yugoslav forces, Alija Izetbegovic wanted an Islamic State according to the Iranian revolution (as he had written in his book "Islamic Declaration"), many Iranian mujahideen (including Solaymani himself) besides famous Al Qaeda members went to Bosnia to fight (together). The Clinton administration gave the green light to Iran for their support to the Bosnian Muslims (which also included Sunni Islamic radicals and known 911 hijackers). Iran is willing to support Sunni terrorists if that is in their geopolitical interests, just as they supported Sunni radicals in the Palestinian areas (suicide bombings). Now Iran is enemy with Sunni radicals/terrorists, but Iran always wanted to unite all Islamic forces against Israel (and Christian world). Russia is seeking equilibrium in the middle east, Putin does not want to allied himself with 1 country against another country in the middle east, Russia does not want to allied herself with Iran against Israel, or the other way around.
Peter AU1 , Jan 12 2020 13:47 utc | 438
dave
You are rapped up in the concept of suicide attacks. It is as old as war itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_attack#History,_pre-1980

Jack_garbo , Jan 12 2020 13:50 utc | 439
No more "whatabout" distraction from Iranian incompetence and guilt. One shootdown at a time. Iranian officers must be punished, commanders dismissed, compensation offered.
US and other Western crimes are separate, keep them separate.
Carciofi , Jan 12 2020 13:57 utc | 440
@269

"It is a mystery to me why the airport was not closed down that night, esp. in view of the FAA warning that specifically addresses Tehran."

This questions has been asked multiple times by numerous people, b included. Speculation only, but one possibility is that after the missile strike on the air bases the Iranian government was expecting a military response from the U.S., perhaps even Shock and Awe Ver 2. Maybe in that highly tense period somebody high up decided it would be better not to close the airspace immediately, thinking it would complicate matters for the U.S. And if a civilian plane did get hit in the cross-fire, the U.S. could be rightfully blamed.

Al Kiani , Jan 12 2020 13:59 utc | 441
Immediately after this horrific tragedy the leaders of the US Canada Austria Germany Holland as well as other Western leaders claimed that a missile had brought the plane down sighting "intelligence." How did the Western leaders know so quickly? Were their intelligence organizations privy in any way in bringing down the plane? Through hacking air defense radars or some other high-tech tools?

As the fog of War lifts, as we proceed forward I suspect we will know more. A lot more.

Sasha , Jan 12 2020 14:03 utc | 442
Some points...

-That now The Donald comes Twitting in Farsi is the obvious evidence that he does not manage his Twitter account, but one of his "ideologues", or a CIA agent...I bet Steven Miller...that nazi disguised in a gentleman suit trying, without success, to constrain his overwhelming rage againt everybody who do not profess his ideas...

-The regime in Oman will do nothing and will never join the Axis of Resistance, as a regime which resulted from a coup d´etat supported by the US/UK against its own father/monarch. We will be dándonos con un canto en los dientes if they remain somwhow "neutral"...
People who are more worried for their long time made up turbans, who hate getting untidy by any reason, do not usually take part in any fight, but like to remain as espectators...
That same could be said of the Swiss...who had the entrails to remain neutral during the nazi carnage, in the voew of all Europe being invaded, destroyed, submitted...hence they are now a rich country who act mainly as postman of the US...they had never to recover and rebuilt anything from smithereens as the rest of all....

-@Vintage Red, I join your expression of gratitude to bevin, although had to search for your numbered comments amongst the sea of trolls, but you notice the clear contrast with other alleged leftist resident of always ( notice how well they swim here in this sea of trolls and how they have taken advantage today to be prolific....)
That of bevin would be the common stance of any decent honest leftist, or person, in the world. The others resident here, who seem part time lefties, they really are not, but Trotskyite NATOist capitalist imperialist fifth column, the ones who have disintegrated and dismantled the genuine left in Europe and the whole West with their confussing stances, one day they say this, the other just the opposite....they criticize, slightly, the US, but then, at the first opprtunity, fall over any country or people from the resistance field as a hammer, justifying that way the evil deeds of the US and its cohort of criminal collaborating governments in Europe and North America.

-I continue finding the Russian stance in all these events shamefully mild, when not totally absent.

Peter AU1 , Jan 12 2020 14:07 utc | 443
The US and five eyes Orwellian hypocracy is far worse than any suicide attackers - in fact they now back the majority of them - the destruction a good part of the world in their war of terror, the humanitarian bombs and right to protect, weapons of mass destruction and vials of white powder regime changing friend and foe alike... the other day I had the pleasure of happening to be near a radio and had to listen to MH17 2.0 narrative ad nauseam. When Iran officials still thought the plane had come down due to technical problems fife new not only that it was downed by a surface to air missile, but that it was downed with a Tor missile.
With that it was completely obvious five eyes had pulled off another MH17 stunt.
And now shit head trolls like yourself and garbage man come to infest this site.
vk , Jan 12 2020 14:08 utc | 444
Now that Iran admitted downing the plane by mistake, some western journalists are pushing the narrative that it did it on purpose, and not by accident:

Iran keeps concocting fake news on downed jet

Stephen Bryen is the broken clock who was, for the first time in his life, right about the cause of the downing of the plane. Now he's riding on this excitement and is going one step further, echoing Trudeau's accusation one day earlier.

His main point of argument is that it is not possible the Tor operator had "only 6 seconds" to decide.

In the last thread, people who used the "it's too much coincidence" argument won the debate against all odds.

Now it's time for another "it's too much coincidence" argument: why, of all planes, it was a Boeing? Why, of all nationalities, it was Ukraine?

If Iran really downed the plane on purpose, then we're in counter-intelligence territory. The list of the names of the passengers is already out; some people here highlighted the fact that there were nuclear scientists in it; others highlighted the fact that the Americans can "mask" the signatures of a Boeing to make it look like a military plane; others got so far as to speculate about some kind of autopilot from afar. The correct question, though, should be: what did the Iranians discovered in or about that specific flight of such importance that they thought it better to publicly admit they downed it "by mistake"?

Kadath , Jan 12 2020 14:13 utc | 445
Re Peter Au,

Yes thats the same message that came with the alert no details on what happend though. Pickering has a terrible safety record so the government assurances mean very little to me if they felt this was important enough to send out an emergency warning saying you dont need to do anything they should at least give some explantion of what happend - as im typing they send out another emergency alert saying the first alert was sent in error what a bunch of monkeys what is going on another Hawaii missile drill

Peter AU1 , Jan 12 2020 14:28 utc | 446
vk "what did the Iranians discovered in or about that specific flight of such importance that they thought it better to publicly admit they downed it "by mistake"

Over the last years, Iran has gone to great pains to do things by the letter of international law. It has top quality diplomats and statesmen like Zarif. It wishes to trade with the world, be accepted by the world while retaining sovereignty and way of life. IT complied with the original stipulation of the nuke deal for a year after US pulled out, and with the introductions of US sanctions, European countries pulled out of deals and trade with Iran. Even now Iran is still within the terms of the nuke deal as the are stipulations on what can be done if a party pulls out or does not abide by the deal.
Iranian government for the first day or so where sure the plane had come down due to technical problems. When they found it had been shot down as their enemies were saying, it was a major blow. Those few days of denying it had been shot down undone much of the painstaking diplomatic work they had accomplished over a decade or so.
Also on the military side, Iranian military have proven to be very professional and high tech, but this shootdown will be used against them to try and show incompetence as many of the trolls here are doing.

Saraah , Jan 12 2020 14:30 utc | 447
Dave, for others to understand everything, please answer the only question. Are you one of those who are tolerantly called Zionists on this site?
ADKC , Jan 12 2020 14:51 utc | 448
Dave @422

"Ukraine did not close down the airspace, they were using the airliners as human shield as has been proven by the fact their jets were shadowing the airliners."

If we accept your view then we must accept that this was an intended win/win situation for Ukraine; Ukraine could use civilian aircraft for cover and, also, induce the rebels to shoot down a civilian aircraft. (I have a different view of MH17 but it would be OT to go into).

The MH17 scenario that you describe can only be comparable to Iranian shooting down PS752 if the US used similar tactics (presumably by use of electronic warfare) in order to induce Iran to shoot down PS752...

...or is it that your posts are full of fact-free, poorly researched whataboutism that should just be disregarded by any thinking person?

vk @444 asks the correct question? Perhaps, Iran know much more but a pre-requisite is that they must take responsibility for what they did - shooting down PS752) - and, perhaps, this is not what the US/west expected Iran to do? How would Iran know? Perhaps, Russian monitoring of US EW activity has revealed much more than the US expected? And, perhaps, Russia will not agree to any public relevation at present?

Sasha , Jan 12 2020 14:53 utc | 449
@Posted by: Emily | Jan 12 2020 13:18 utc | 436

To your list of Sunni terrorists´ victims, add all those resulting from terrorist attacks in Europe in the last years, by, then discovered, suspciously Sunni extremists related to mosques and mullahs funde by KSA for long time old known of the security services of any European country which has suffered these terrorist attacks....

Everybody a bit informed and their dogs knows by now that all these attacks were made to create "shock and awe" amongst the gullible population to jusitify European intevention in the illegal wars on Lybia, Syria and Iraq....What the gullible population do not know is that their governments were allying in all those invaded and slaughtered countries the same Sunni extremist terrorist who have slaughtered their own population in Europe, and not only, but morevoer they gave them prizes... like with the case of the UK MI6 founded/funded/trained White Helmets of HM...

BM , Jan 12 2020 14:59 utc | 450
There is a lot of tin hat conspiracy theorising in this thread (1) centred on an alleged FAA ban on US flights over "Tehran", and (2) that the Ukraine flight allegedly turned back to the airport before being hit by the missile.

The nonesense over the alleged FAA ban on US flights over "Tehran" has thankfully already been dealt with by the posting of the full text of the NOTAMs: the FAA ban, which applied only to US aircraft, was for all US flights in the whole of Iran airspace and the whole of Iraq airspace. Such a ban is fully to be expected in view of recent US military actions.

As regards the alleged turn of the aircraft. The Flightradar24 site shows the actual path of the Ukraine flight up to the point the transponder signals ceased (the point where the missile hit), and compare it both with the other 9 flights from Tehran that morning, and with the previous 45 scheduled flights by PS752. It is crystal clear that the only turn the aircraft made up to the point it was hit was 100% in line with it's scheduled flight plan. The only difference that could be drawn is that in terms of angle of climb it was well below average - almost but not quite the lowest of the 45 flights - because the aircraft was way overweight and therefore had difficulty climbing even on full power. The pilot Peter Haisenko wrote in detail about that. The turn, however, (up to the end of transponder transmissions) was only about 50 degrees, and was completely in line with other flights. The turn was also completed well before the missile hit - when the missile hit it was already established on straight and level flight.

The video of the Aerospace Commander's presentation shows a very sketchy hand-drawn diagram which is not to scale, with an exaggerated turn (but still depicted as less than the claimed 90 degrees). However the Aerospace Commander's sketch and the Flightradar24 charts are wholly in agreement despite the very inaccurate sketch - this is clear from the locality map given by Flightplan24, and further down the page the elevation plan, which shows the topography in 3-D.

In the latter picture you can clearly see the mountains in the background, and two smaller pointed hills in the foreground. From the video it is clear that the air defence base was at the top of the second (further) of these small hills, obviously utilising the high ground for the defence of Tehran. Virtually all the flights shown by Flightradar24 first start to turn at exactly the same point - level with the first hill - and turn towards a path going immediately to the left of the second hill where the air defence is mounted. This means that immediately on completion of the turn, all these flights would be pointing nearly directly at the air defence base, exactly as shown on the commander's sketch (except that the latter exaggerated somewhat the angle of turn). Comparing the map with the 3-D view this can be seen quite clearly.

This does not say anything about whether there was a turn after being hit - if the missile hit one engine this would automatically cause the aircraft to turn unless compensated for by the pilots, who may have been already dead - that is irrelevant to this issue.


I do share the gut feeling that the incident may have been set-up by the US, because there are a lot of grounds for suspicion, but as far as I know there is no concrete evidence in the public domain in support of that suspicion at this stage - certainly not in terms of an unusual turn before being hit by the missile.

Grounds for the Iranians to believe they had detected cruise missiles are likely very strong - the US uses electronic warfare measures (see the link posted by Peter AU) which cause the Iranian radar to see phantom images of moving objects. Many US aircraft were moving around the outside(??) of Iranian airspace, presumably creating these phantom radar images of cruise missiles, therefore the Iranians would presumably have "seen" these suspected cruise missiles in the border regions, assumed they then penetrated Iranian territory unseen by hugging the ground through the mountains, in which case they could suddenly appear subsequently at some stage where radar can detect them.

[Jan 12, 2020] It continue to be highly suspicious of the fact that it is a Ukrainian plane. Ukraine is firmly in the Anglo-Zionist camp,

Jan 12, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Tom_LX , Jan 11 2020 19:40 utc | 250

The fact that the plane was brought down because of the conflict initiated by Trump makes everything about it very suspicious. Just because Iran states that it is responsible does not disqualify the possibility that they were not made to make this mistake. We do not know the facts as to what the Iranian defense system saw as that Ukrainian plane was flying.

I continue to be highly suspicious of the fact that it is a Ukrainian plane. Ukraine is firmly in the Anglo-Zionist camp, period. Zelensky or not the deal was sealed when V. Nuland finished her work in Kiev. The only reason Ukraine made a deal with Russia is because it is in financial trouble and needs revenue. The West will not keep it afloat. So thinking that suddenly it is conducting its own foreign policy is incorrect.

As an aside. Does a sovereign country bring in a man like this to help it run its country ?

Mikheil Saakashvili - born 21 December 1967) is a Georgian and Ukrainian politician.[7][8] He was the third President of Georgia for two consecutive terms from 25 January 2004 to 17 November 2013. From May 2015 until November 2016, Saakashvili was the Governor of Ukraine's Odessa Oblast.[1][9][10] He is the founder and former chairman of the United National Movement party.
How about this one,
Natalie Ann Jaresko is an American-born Ukrainian investment banker who served as Ukraine's Minister of Finance from December 2014 until April 2016.[1] In 20 March 2017, she was appointed as executive director of the Financial Oversight & Management Board for Puerto Rico.
or this one,
Aivaras Abromavičius is a Lithuanian-born Ukrainian investment banker and politician. On 31 August 2019 Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky appointed Abromavičius the Director General of Ukroboronprom.[1] Previously he was Ukraine's Minister of Economy and Trade starting in December 2014 (Abromavičius announced his resignation on 3 February 2016). He did not retain his post in the Groysman Government that was installed in 14 April 2016.[2]

Ukraine is a Captured State.

Thus the possibility exists that that plane may have had some equipment placed in it in Kiev that could trick the Iranian Defense system to think a craft is a danger to it. Kiev would have been a safe place to do it (reasons above). If this were true does anyone here believe that announcing this fact Public opinion would believe it ? I for one don't. Russia knows how that worked out with Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (MH17). No matter what Iran would have said that would have been spun in the West as attempting to blame someone else. Thanks to this all attention in the Media would have been on Iran which Trump would have loved. Again, Russia knows how this was played out in Malaysia MH17 case. The average CNN viewer in that case would not see how the BUKA Russian was being used as evidence that it was Russia that shot the plane down.

Iran did the right thing in admitted that it was responsible whether it was their fault or not. There was simply no way to win in the case of having being fooled into shooting the plane down.

E Mo Scél , Jan 11 2020 20:36 utc | 259

The FAA banned flights of commercial airplanes over Tehran 2 hours before the plane came down. Note, over Tehran, not over Iran. That's quite specific. Communication was lost when the officer had to make a decision. Communication jamming is part of modern warfare. Maybe this is a thwarted attempt by the US at a "disproportionate response" to Iranian strikes. Maybe this is why Trump is not that excited and had to take drugs before performing his Iran speech.
alaff , Jan 11 2020 21:00 utc | 265
Iran deserves respect, if only because it openly and honestly admitted its responsibility for what happened. This shows the maturity and courage of the political and military leadership of this country.
It is clear that the plane was shot down unintentionally. It is also obvious that Iran was provoked by the actions of the United States.

This is called life. That happens. And not only that. Human factor. We cannot avoid this and 100% eliminate all risks.

In 1914, an idiot killed a monarch, which led to a large-scale war and the death of millions of people. Human factor. Soldiers accidentally make the wrong buttons. Workers at an oil factory smoke in the wrong place, resulting in huge fires. People do not notice an extinct burner on a gas stove, resulting in an explosion, collapse of the house and death of people. Vacationers tourists did not extinguish after themselves a fire in the forest, as a result of which a giant fire covers thousands of hectares of territory. During the invasion of Iraq in 2003, American Patriot systems destroyed a friendly British Tornado fighter bomber (in addition to the destroyed American fighters). In February 2017, the Russian Aerospace Forces mistakenly attacked the Turkish military in northern Syria. In 2001, Ukrainian air defense, conducting military exercises, shot down a Russian passenger plane TU-154 over the Black Sea, 78 people died. So on and so on... The technique and equipment is imperfect. People all the more.

The Iranian situation is very similar to what happened in September 2018. Syrian air defense shot down a Russian military plane, provoked by deliberate actions by Israeli aviation. Just to remind that the Russian side has made it clear who is the true culprit of the tragedy. In the case of Iran, the same thing. It is one thing if the plane crashes as a result of a pilot error or a technical malfunction. But when it is now clear that plane was shot down, and the Iranian air defense acted as it was provoked by the actions of the United States, then the guilt of the United States only increases.

bevin , Jan 11 2020 19:27 utc | 242
Iran bears very little, if any responsibility in this matter.
The United States is entirely to blame-what has occurred is exactly what the
US government was aiming at. It has created an atmosphere of fear and panic
in the knowledge that it would create chaos-that normal government would break down
and mistakes be made.
The US plays with the lives of people. It plays God, a God dedicated to the principle of pure evil.
It plays with people's lives, the lives of the 'ants' that Harry Lime saw from above Vienna,
as a matter of course. In Gaza children with cancer cannot get treatment because the US and Israel
want to make life harder for their parents. The evil objective is to madden the people to the point
that they will rise up and kill those who oppose the Occupation. In Colombia, Bolivia, Honduras, Ecuador
and Brazil-even as we speak Death Squads-trained armed and financed-by the US and Israel stalk those
who want to reform their society. In Venezuela the supply of food and medicine is interrupted as far as
the power of the US and its allies extends.
Around the world where there are evil deeds being carried out, where children are starving, medicines are
withheld, protesters are being assassinated and militias are terrorising the population-the hands of the
United States and its allies are always evident. It was they who imported tens of thousands of wahhabis
into Afghanistan, Russia, China and the battlegrounds that we all know in order to kill, frighten and impoverish
the people. The people of Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Iran, Lebanon and far beyond- all of them have seen their
living standards diminished, their security removed their hopes of happiness systematically thwarted.
In order, evil order, to punish them, not for anything that they have done but in the hope that they will
surrender themselves to the United States and its agents, submit.
The truth is that human history has never seen a regime like that now ruling the United States and attempting
to rule the world. Nothing compares with it, the Nazis were simply malicious pygmies in comparison.
Many people from Trudeau to posters here refuse to admit what is crystal clear and what history will
confirm: all the deaths that come, daily, weekly, yearly from this assumption by the United States of
prerogatives, religion reserves for God; all the deaths that come from this juvenile playing with the lives of
ordinary people are entirely the choice of the US government.
Trudeau bears more responsibility for the deaths of these airline passengers than anyone in Iran. It was his choice to
keep the Embassy doors closed, to withdraw diplomatic representation and to join the US in its sanctions
against the Iranian people. He has made the same choice in Venezuela, where similar accidents may occur (have occurred
as in the sabotage of the power grid). People died then, people die daily and they do so because of choices made by
governments playing with the lives of the people.
Everyone of the victims would be alive today had not the mafia in Washington decided to smash up their society.
And they would almost certainly have been alive still had Trudeau and Freeland-and the four parties in Ottawa- done
, what most Canadians want them to do and disassociate themselves and Canada from the evil games Washington plays.

I hope that no Iranian is tricked into surrendering to evil. I hope that the tone of the Revolutionary Guards-one
of sincere regret and manly apology- does not inform their future moves which must be to re-double their commitment
to the defence of their country and the defeat of the most evil government the world has ever seen.

Ort , Jan 11 2020 19:30 utc | 243
Re: Trudeau's escalating attempts at scene-stealing

The odious, opportunistic popinjay Trudeau seems to have calculated that it's time for him to upgrade his "brand" from "dashing young Bonnie Prince Justin" to "Mature Statesman with Gravitas".

Thus, his predilection for elbowing his way to the head of the Western Hegemony Official Spokesperson line and bumptiously blowing off his big bazoo.

The new beard is a "tell"; some men, especially handsome but "baby-faced" men, are susceptible to an abiding adolescent impulse to grow facial hair in order to appear more mature. It can't be a coincidence that Trudeau's beard correlates with his increased penchant for making (fatuous) bold and aggressive pronouncements on geopolitical crises.

I know that Trudeau has a pedigree that nominally puts him in the top drawer of Canada's political aristocracy. Still, he reminds me a lot of the Venezuelan golpista boy-toy Juan "Random Guy" Guaidó.

Andromeda , Jan 11 2020 20:38 utc | 261
Prometheus - Thank you for your information. I previously thought the transponder signal would identify the plane as a civilian aircraft but one question remains for me: even without IFF would the airtraffic control not (verify the identity)and be in contact with the pilot when the course is changed? Is there no coordination between civlian and military air-control? (especially in such a tense situation)

(the Ukrainain plane turned around - why?)

Still ...despite the admission it is strange that an aviation expert like Peter Haisenko (retired Lufthansa pilot with special technical knowledge who knows Tehran airport well) came to a very different conclusion: (excerpt from German Original - my translation)

Weil mittlerweile bekannt ist, dass die Boeing nach dem ersten Aufprall noch etwa 500 Meter über den Boden geschrammt ist, darf man davon ausgehen, dass sie in flachem Winkel den Boden berührt hat, etwa wie bei einer Landung. Sie ist also nicht „ungespitzt" in den Boden gerammt.

Since it is now known the Boing grazed the ground for about 500 metres after impact it is reasonable to assume that she touched the ground at a flat-angle, like in a regular landing. [...]

Das deutet wiederum darauf hin, dass sich die Piloten in ihrer Notlage gar nicht bewusst waren, wie nahe sie dem Boden bereits sind und völlig unerwartet Bodenkontakt hatten. [...]

This is an indication that the Pilots were not aware of their emergency (how close to the ground they were) and unexpectedly touched the ground. [...]


Fest steht wohl, dass die ukrainische Boeing nach dem Start einen Motorschaden hatte. Und zwar einen soliden, mit Feuer und Totalausfall.

It appears to be certain that the Ukrainian Boeing suffered an engine breakdown after take-off, a severe one with fire and total failure.


Zunächst stelle ich fest, dass es nahezu unmöglich ist, ein Passagierflugzeug in dieser Flugphase abzuschießen. Man müsste schon jemanden mit einer kleinen Boden-Luft-Rakete im erwarteten Abflugkorridor platzieren, der dann dem abfliegenden Jet die Rakete hinterher schießt. Dieses hitzesuchende Projektil könnte dann einen Motor treffen, was aber kein zwingender Grund für einen Absturz ist. Mit einem Motor kann das Flugzeug weiter fliegen, wenn die Rahmenumstände entsprechend aller Vorschriften gesetzt worden sind. Eine größere, aufwendigere Flugabwehreinrichtung scheidet für diese Flugphase und den Ort aus. Nicht nur wegen der geringen Höhe über Grund, sondern auch, weil es solche Anlagen in dieser Gegend nicht gibt. Wenn, dann befinden sie sich im weiteren Umkreis, um Angriffe aus größerer Höhe weit vor der Stadt abzuwehren. Warum ist es dann überhaupt zu dem Absturz gekommen?

https://www.anderweltonline.com/wissenschaft-und-technik/luftfahrt-2020/ist-die-ukrainische-b-737-in-teheran-abgeschossen-worden/

Haisenko asserts that " it is nearly impossible to shoot down a passenger plane in this phase of the flight. In order to do that you'd need to place a (sort of) MANPAD in the expected flight-corridor and the heat-seaking missile could then destroy one of the engines.But this does not automatically lead to the crashing of the plane since it is able to fly with one engine [...] A bigger anti-aircraft system is not suitable for this phase of the flight ... these systems aim to intercept (destroy) targets flying at much higher altitutes and farther away from the cities ... So why did the crash happen?

Obviously he wrote that before the Iranian admission was published and with limited knowledge but still one wonders if electronic warfare played a role and certain parties wanted that plane to crash ... (at least a closer look at the passenger list seems advisable)


Emily , Jan 11 2020 21:01 utc | 266
Bevin 242

That is one of the best posts I have ever read and I have read more than a few.
Never a truer word.
If it needed a precis.......
Madeleine Albright.
The deaths of of 500,000 Iraqi children is a price worth paying.
This from a woman who had played a leading role in the destruction of Yugoslavia and the handing of the Serbian province of Kosovo to the KLA a forerunner of Al Qaeda and ISIS.
Today a narco criminal islamic state - and a base for the bloodletting and birthing of the European Caliphate.
And unlimited proxies for the USA War Of!! Terror across the Middle East.
Pure evil.

harold , Jan 11 2020 21:02 utc | 268
Sadly due to their own incompetence, Iran lost there moral high ground!
A great disappointment to those of us who supported Iran through thick and thin.

I'm not convinced this is a moral issue.

E Mo Scel , Jan 11 2020 21:03 utc | 269
am repeating my first comment for context sake:

The FAA banned flights of commercial airplanes over Tehran 2 hours before the plane came down. Note, over Tehran, not over Iran. That's quite specific. Communication was lost when the officer had to make a decision. Communication jamming is part of modern warfare. Maybe this is a thwarted attempt by the US at a "disproportionate response" to Iranian strikes. Maybe this is why Trump is not that excited and had to take drugs before performing his Iran speech.

Adding:

This would also explain why this is the first time the US did not respond to a state attacking US institutions/military bases. The Us, in fact, did respond: "Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!"

we have (!) targeted (that must mean there were plans for imminent actions in place, it's not saying "we will target") Iranian sites, some at a very high level (!), very fast (!) and very hard.

Their response went horribly wrong. Maybe a US drone was found. Maybe the US jammed communication systems. It's all speculation but it could be that the US response is the cause for the shooting down of the plane. It is a mystery to me why the airport was not closed down that night, esp. in view of the FAA warning that specifically addresses Tehran. The Iranian civil flights authority should have known about this, or is information of this kind proprietary, i.e. not shared across countries/systems? The FAA is a lead aviation agency, it's not as if the aviation agency of Tristan da Cunha had issued such a ban.

The FAA banning US aircraft flying over Tehran after Iran had struck the bases - my gut tells me the US had planned and were executing a response involving a target in Tehran which resulted in the plane being targeted by Iranian air defense systems... the jamming of communication systems (which would have been part of the US response) would be the direct cause for the plane being targeted. If this is true the US has this blood on their hands, not Iran. Again, that's why Trump was clearly under the influence of some drugs. Because that blood is on his hands, or rather, his big mouth and big ego.

...

"Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD."

somebody , Jan 11 2020 21:08 utc | 270
Daily Telegraph with explanations
(before Iran confessed)
How would the passenger plane have been accidentally targeted?

That is less clear, but is one of the challenges facing any missile operator. While military aircraft will plot course to avoid radar, civilian airliners are equipped with transponders that identify the craft and their flight path set and share it with military bases in the area.

Theoretically, the Ukrainian Boeing 737-800 should have been identified as a civilian craft on any radar. But if the Western assessment is true, this incident will join other tragic incidents of civilian planes being shot down by anti-aircraft weaponry.

In 2014, Malaysia Airline Flight 17 was suspected to have been inadvertently shot down by Russian missiles, though Moscow has consistently denied any involvement. And in 1988, a US warship engaging with Iranian gunboats in the Persian Gulf, the USS Vincennes, shot down an Iranian passenger plane after mistaking it for a jet fighter, killing all 290 people on board.

They have a nice map of Iran's rocket range. The map explains the Russian attitude towards Iran which is complex. Iran's rockets do NOT reach the USA but they reach the whole of the Middle East and a large part of Russia.

mikh , Jan 11 2020 21:29 utc | 272
To all the smart asses:Yes Iran should have closed the airport but other have some responsibility too. The Ukraine for example. Allowing planes to fly in to what is practically a war zone. Not that thei have done it before..
Peter AU1 , Jan 11 2020 21:34 utc | 274
Iranian military presentation which shows flight path, at what position in the turn
the aircraft was hit and location of SAM site in relation to the plane.
https://twitter.com/AbasAslani/status/1215942737557671936

The aircraft was hit when it had turned directly towards the Tor unit, at that point a
turn of nearly ninety degrees which I take it was located at the military site.

Bill Smith , Jan 11 2020 21:46 utc | 281
According to this Iran has fired this system at other civilian aircraft. From the news in 2012:

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/03/world/middleeast/wary-of-israel-iran-is-said-to-blunder-in-strikes.html

"Iranian air defense units have taken inappropriate actions dozens of times, including firing antiaircraft artillery and scrambling aircraft against unidentified or misidentified targets," noted a heavily classified Pentagon intelligence report, which added that the Iranian military's communications were so inadequate and its training deficiencies so significant that "misidentification of aircraft will continue."

Peter AU1 , Jan 11 2020 22:14 utc | 291
E Mo Scel 284

The Ukraine plane was the target and the operation was successfull.
this was the only way US could strike Iran without Iran striking US bases throughout the regin plus Israel.
When Trump threatened strikes against 52 cultural sites if Iran retaliated for the killing of Soleimani, Iran said Isreal would also be hit (it has been noticeable US and Isreal have beeing trying pass of US as threatening Iran as indipendent of Isreal).
This is when the Trump admin and Israel would have settled on the takedown of a civian craftby Iran air defence. This makes Iran look fools in the eyes of fools as has occurred here and not the highly professional force they truly are.

Sam , Jan 11 2020 22:21 utc | 292
Iranians have gathered in the streets of Tehran to demand the resignation of Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei after the regime admitted it had mistakenly shot down a civilian passenger plane.

Angry crowds gathered on Saturday night in at least four locations in Tehran, chanting 'death to liars' and calling for the country's supreme leader to step down over the tragic military blunder, video from the scene shows.

What began as mournful vigils for Iranian lives lost on the flight soon turned to outrage and protest against the regime, and riot police quickly cracked down, firing tear gas into the crowd.

'Death to the Islamic Republic' protesters chanted, as the regime's security forces allegedly used ambulances to sneak heavily armed paramilitary police into the middle of crowds to disperse the demonstration.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7876363/Iranian-protesters-Tehran-turn-against-regime-military-admits-shooting-plane.html

I don't blame the Iranians protesting the unnecessary deaths of their compatriots through sheer incompetence and lack of coordination among civil and military officials. They clearly should have grounded all commercial flights. Their air defense units should have at least the basic ability to discern between a commercial jet and military aircraft & missiles. If they are this incompetent or their systems are so poor how do they expect to withstand the onslaught of an air attack by the US that would include thousands of missiles and thousands of sorties a day! Tehran will be flattened.

E Mo Scel , Jan 11 2020 23:19 utc | 313
Peter AU1 291

We agree that there was a US response, and that the plane was involved in this response. You think it was the idea from the beginning to trick Iranian air defense into shooting this particular plane down, I think there was a different target and things did not go according to plan, while the plane played a role. Both of us are speculating. You think the operation was successful, I say no, things went wrong. The US could not continue with their operation as this would have made it obvious they had utilized the plane in some way. It's different from the incident where Syria shot down a Russian military plane when Israeli jets used it as cover - this here was a civilian plane. So, speculation from my side.

It's also to be observed that 146 people on the plane were Iranian citizens; this could speak for your theory as this is a problem for the government of Iran (protests) ("One-hundred forty-six victims held Iranian passport, ten Afghan, five Canadian, four Swede and two Ukrainian. All nine crew members consisting of three cockpit crew and six cabin crew were Ukrainian. Note: A number of victims could have had multiple nationalities, so other news reports might introduce them with different nationalities than the ones in this report. The above list concerns the passport with which they left the Islamic Republic of Iran air border.") https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Iran-CAO-PS752-Initial-Report.pdf

I have no means to know. I am sure, though, that the big mouthed announcement of Trump is real. There was a response. I hope the dams won't hold for this one.

Peter AU1 , Jan 11 2020 23:32 utc | 314
E Mo Scel

Various MSM have stories of victims. The British and Canadian victims I saw in these articles all had Iranian names. Students expats ect returning to Iran for a visit.
One couple to get married in Iran.
Seemed to be a large number of university students including a couple of professors.

Vasco da Gama , Jan 11 2020 23:39 utc | 317
Regarding the FAA NOTAMS restricting airspace a list is provided here . It is not accurate to claim only Tehran was restricted:

KICZ A0001/20 - SECURITY..UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FLIGHT PROHIBITION AGAINST CERTAIN FLIGHTS IN THE BAGHDAD FLIGHT INFORMATON REGION (FIR)
(ORBB) - 07 JAN 23:45 2020 UNTIL PERM. CREATED: 07 JAN 23:49 2020

KICZ A0002/20 - SECURITY..UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FLIGHT PROHIBITION AGAINST CERTAIN FLIGHTS IN THE TEHRAN FLIGHT INFORMATON REGION (FIR) (OIIX) - 08 JAN 00:10 2020 UNTIL PERM. CREATED: 08 JAN 00:07 2020

Notice these cover national airspace, it is not limited to the cities they refer to. The timezones are UTC.

Zanon , Jan 11 2020 23:41 utc | 318
Well Israel and neocons sure have a good laugh how well it turned out for them past week. Not sure how Iran will be able to get back from this anytime soon, now being attacked both from abroad and internally. Not to mention the collaboration between protesters and the west.
Qparticle , Jan 11 2020 23:51 utc | 321
This site and its comments have been an unfortunate repository of ridiculous, reflexive anti-American nonsense over the past few weeks. The speculation about the flight, and inability to accept Iranian responsibility, was one of the more silly charades.

Posted by: Daniel Lennon | Jan 11 2020 16:46 utc | 185

I would add anti-Semitic too....
In my own country can't criticise Mossad actions on the news.. it would be anti-Semitic too...

So here what came from a Forbes article that helped uncover a huge Mossad Operation targeting Cyprus Larnaka airport (their Cypriot allies)
The 2 "ex" agents identified is only probably the tip of the proverbial iceberg...

"A Multimillionaire Surveillance Dealer Steps Out Of The Shadows . . . And His $9 Million WhatsApp Hacking Van"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2019/08/05/a-multimillionaire-surveillance-dealer-steps-out-of-the-shadows-and-his-9-million-whatsapp-hacking-van#5787fb8231b7

Youtube: https://youtu.be/Tl3mpywMYFA

9.5 million smart phones it is estimated were hacked by the Mossad Stingray like tech discuised as plain ambulances alone in Larnaka air port during the time of the operation.

Peter AU1 , Jan 12 2020 1:10 utc | 346
This is looking to be a very complex operation the US and five eyes is pulling off. Rather than simply reacting to events after the killing of Soleimani, the killing was inteded to set up circumstances to induce Iran into firing at a civilian aircraft. The act of war in killing the Iranian military official and diplomat followed by threats against Iranian cultural sites. With Iran air dfences on high alert, all it required was to cut air defence coms and turn an aircraft at the same time. Once that is aclomplashed, making Iran look incompetent in the eyes of the world it is straight into the pre-organised regime change operation.
I hope Russia and China will be giving Iran a bit of an assist in this because they are facing a very dangerous moment. Anything can happen now that US thinks it has Iran on the backfoot. And I think Iran is on the backfoot at the moment. What has happened has shocked them. Zarif and others, saying the plane definitely was not shot down and then realising they were wrong.
Very dangerous period for Iran as US will now press its attack harder, and perhaps in more unexpected ways. Hopefully the crew that fired will not be punished because of this. If they are, air defense crew will be hesitant to make decisions anytime their coms are cut.
The IRGC said they had asked for all flights to be grounded but the request was not acted on. This is the area hopefully the Iranian investigation will focus on.
Peter AU1 , Jan 12 2020 1:38 utc | 353
VK "Right after the assassination of Soleimani, Pompeo went publicly and said Iran was "one step closer to regime change""

The Assassination was the first step. Trump threats against Iran cultural sites the second step. Iran retaliation against the US bases the third step. Downing the civilian aircraft step four. And guess what... regime change operation kicks into gear.

stevelaudig , Jan 12 2020 1:43 utc | 354
But for Trump's murder of Soleimani, the Iranians would not have been so jumpy.
Trump's murder of Soleimani, was a significant factor in making the Iranians jumpy.
These deaths go on Trump's death count card along with all the dead in Syria.

[Jan 12, 2020] The petrodollar is the way in which the US gets the rest of the world to fund its wars

Notable quotes:
"... Economic growth is more about financialising goods and services that were previously free or are/were social goods. There is no real growth; just taxing the living. ..."
"... So, in my view, the only restraint on destroying Iran is capability, is the cost and the risk of retaliation (not just from Iran) - not the destruction of Iran's capital - better for Iran's capital to be destroyed than for Iran to be independent or a competitor. ..."
Jan 12, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

ADKC , Jan 12 2020 2:10 utc | 359

vk @334

My comment @342 should have read: "The petrodollar is the way in which the US gets the rest of the world to fund its wars,"

---------

Your comment about capitalist accumulation doesn't hold (as a motivator for the US) when we have a capitalist monopolist situation. Rate of profit is not about growth (of real goods); it is about reducing competition and scarcity. When you are the monopolist you can charge what you like but profit becomes meaningless - the monopolist power comes from the control of resources - the monopolistic capitalist becomes a ruler/monarch. You no longer need ever-increasing customers so you can dispense with them if you so chose (by reducing the population). One bottle of water is far more valuable and a lot less trouble to produce that 100 millions bottles of water. There is no point in AI to provide for the needs of "the many"; AI becomes a means to dispense with "the many" altogether.

Economic growth is more about financialising goods and services that were previously free or are/were social goods. There is no real growth; just taxing the living.

So, in my view, the only restraint on destroying Iran is capability, is the cost and the risk of retaliation (not just from Iran) - not the destruction of Iran's capital - better for Iran's capital to be destroyed than for Iran to be independent or a competitor.

[Jan 12, 2020] Utter incompetence and criminal negligence of Iran authorities

So they warned Americans about incoming missile strikes, but did not cancel passenger flights... "As Iran has already notified the Swiss embassy prior to attack on American bases, it is curious why Iran did not close its airspace and ground flights following the attack."
Still it does seems an extraordinary lack of common sense that commercial civilian flights were allowed to fly around under conditions of such high tension in the country. Also night take-offs. Better to wait until morning . . .
Notable quotes:
"... To let the civilians planes to flight while expecting they could have an US retaliation is a big mistake, because, as the Israeli did in the shooting-down of the IL-20 in Syria, the US plane could choose to be "radar-shadowed" by the civilians planes and use the civilians planes as shields before bomb the Iranian targets ..."
"... They should have grounded all commercial flights. Really, Really dumb on Iran's part. And I see the saker has been mum on the whole affair. ..."
"... It definitely shoots some holes in his propping up of the Iranian military/government to show how ready and focused they are for an American invasion. ..."
"... Why did the US keep info under wraps in the intelligence briefing to members U.S. Congress ... afterwards they specifically said there was. NO intelligence Ukraine airliner was shot down ... lots to learn for all. Not following the Putin playbook. Or other cover-ups like NATO downing an Italian passenger jet near Ithaca. Ukraine themselves have accidentally shot down a Siberian airliner by exercises above the Black Sea. ..."
"... Pretty hard to believe an accident this stupid. Sorry. ..."
Jan 12, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
David , Jan 11 2020 11:58 utc | 107
The Iranian Armed Forces General Staff just admitted (in Farsi, English translation ) that its air defenses inadvertently shot down the Ukrainian flight PS 752 shortly after it took off on January 8 in Tehran :
2- In early hours after the missile attack [on US' Ain al-Assad base in Iraq], the military flights of the US' terrorist forces had increased around the country. The Iranian defence units received news of witnessing flying targets moving towards Iran's strategic centres, and then several targets were observed in some [Iranian] radars, which incited further sensitivity at the Air Defence units.

3- Under such sensitive and critical circumstances, the Ukrainian airline's Flight PS752 took off from Imam Khomeini Airport, and when turning around, it approached a sensitive military site of the IRGC, taking the shape and altitude of a hostile target. In such conditions, due to human error and in an unintentional move, the airplane was hit [by the Air Defence], which caused the martyrdom of a number of our compatriots and the deaths of several foreign nationals.

4- The General Staff of the Armed Forces offers condolences and expresses sympathy with the bereaved families of the Iranian and foreign victims, and apologizes for the human error. It also gives full assurances that it will make major revision in the operational procedures of its armed forces in order to make impossible the recurrence of such errors. It will also immediately hand over the culprits to the Judicial Organization of the Armed Forces for prosecution.

The Pentagon had claimed that Iran shot down the airliner but the evidence it presented was flimsy and not sufficient as the U.S. tends to spread disinformation about Iran.

To let the civilians planes to flight while expecting they could have an US retaliation is a big mistake, because, as the Israeli did in the shooting-down of the IL-20 in Syria, the US plane could choose to be "radar-shadowed" by the civilians planes and use the civilians planes as shields before bomb the Iranian targets

Nemesiscalling , Jan 11 2020 4:29 utc | 1

At the very least, it does show us that anxieties were running very high that evening/early morning with no "in-the-know" arrangement for how the deescalation was going to pan out.

They should have grounded all commercial flights. Really, Really dumb on Iran's part. And I see the saker has been mum on the whole affair.

It definitely shoots some holes in his propping up of the Iranian military/government to show how ready and focused they are for an American invasion.

Bodes poorly.

Mark , Jan 11 2020 4:53 utc | 4
Sadly due to their own incompetence, Iran lost there moral high ground!
A great disappointment to those of us who supported Iran through thick and thin.

/Slow clap

Peter AU1 , Jan 11 2020 5:01 utc | 7
So much for engine malfunction. fives eyes said it was a missile so I thought it would have been their proxies like Ukraine, but not the case this time. Downing the drone firing only one missile, precision strikes on the US base... shit happens especially when the US and five eyes are involved and creating the fog of war. Hope it doesn't make the Iranians hesitate when they next need to fire one.
Sam , Jan 11 2020 5:05 utc | 8
@1

Yes, why didn't Iran ground all commercial flights while there was hostilities and the potential for reprisal missile and air attacks? Their air defenses can't be that good if they can't distinguish between a commercial jet and a military jet.

Indeed does not bode well in the event of war with the US which would destroy much of Iran.

Peter AU1 , Jan 11 2020 5:14 utc | 10
For the trolls currently infesting this site - Iraq, a relatively small country when it comes to superpowers has been successfully fending off the US for fourty years. Fourty years when they could be attacked by the US at any time. They have developed their own air defences plus high tech missiles that accurately hit a US base within an Iraqi base. Trump is intent on destroying Iran. The US regime wouldn't hesitate to use a civilian plane to try and penetrate Iran's defences. US is as culpable of this downing as was the crew of the US ship that far from home and on Iran's doorstep downed the Iranian passenger jet.
SharonM , Jan 11 2020 5:15 utc | 11
@4 Mark

I'm pretty sure Iran will never lose the moral high ground against the U.S. and Israel;)

pleasebeleafme , Jan 11 2020 5:15 utc | 12
Well. Looks like Iran will have to lay low for awhile or at least until the US starts the war for real. Not necessarily a bad thing?
At least the victims families get some closure. Iran should propose that some of their frozen assets be released to pay restitution.
The downing of the plane probably helped avoid an American retaliation for the missile strikes.
Sam , Jan 11 2020 5:17 utc | 13
Iran cleared up the crash site where the passenger jet came down and before admitting its responsibility on Friday, said it wanted to handle the black box data itself.

The debris of the Boeing 737 has been removed from the crash site near Tehran before Ukrainian investigators have even arrived , sparking fears of a cover-up.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7875505/Iran-ADMITS-shooting-Ukrainian-jetliner.html

It was a dead giveaway yesterday when Iran started clearing the debris from the crash site before any independent investigators arrived. When you add that to video that showed the Ukranian airliner exploding in the air, it would have indicated a decent probability that Iran was hiding something. But....most everyone in the earlier threads on the downing of the jet were finding all kinds of excuses why it couldn't have been an Iranian air defense missile.

Lysander , Jan 11 2020 5:30 utc | 18
Yes this is a horrible tragedy and I wish Iran had grounded all flights until they were certain all was clear. But in real life accidents and mistakes happen, sometimes very tragic and costly.

But all this talk of Iranian 'incompetence' and 'loss of moral high ground' is utter nonesense.

Iran handled this tragic mistake about as well as anyone could. Indeed far better than many others have. Especially when you consider that they knew that their enemies would use everything in an inform8war against them. Given the circumstances, Iran handled the aftermath as well as possible. 'Why did it take Iran so long to admit it?' Well, 'so long' is 3 days. And even before that, they invited experts from Boeing and even the NTSB to help with the investinvestigation.

And now those who wished to use this incident against Iran are stuck. What can they say? The US making a fuss about it will only offer an opportunity to remind everyone of IA655. Iran has already admitted it and apologized. Not much more to use.

And none of this changes the fact that Iran is the only country to openly retaliate against the US military and have the US back down.

tucenz , Jan 11 2020 5:37 utc | 20
The following link has interesting info about some of the people killed in the Ukrainian flight PS 752. Originally, I wasn't going to mention this article because in it it said "...A crash which US authorities are now saying was caused by Iran's own missile defence systems. An explanation which Iran seems to be accepting for the moment. ..." but as that seems to be the case. This tragic shootdown will make Russia cautious in supplying Iran with missiles.

https://postmanproductions.wordpress.com/2020/01/10/uss-cvn-aotearoa-a-lockheed-weapons-platform/

Fundas , Jan 11 2020 5:45 utc | 23

It only took 2 Days! US never publicly accepted responsibility for IR655. Iran promise to punish not honor or reward the guilty. MH17 any takers yet?

IronForge , Jan 11 2020 6:01 utc | 28
My Ship was headed to the Gulf on the Monday after the Friday Vincennes Incident.

I was in my Homeport in Japan that Evening. Spent Supper and Watched Music Videos at the Officers' Club. As I got off my Bike at the Pier - an Associate told me that We shot down an Iranian F-14.

We already had Skirmishes the Previous Summer with the USS Stark, which Kicked Off the Naval Convoys of Operation Earnest Will.

We know that the IRNians were harassing the Vincennes with their Gunboats. The Vincennes were told to leave the Area several times afterwards; but Disobeyed - Seeking to Destroy. The Air Warfare Team were hell bent on the Hunt, they Deluded Themselves to believe that a Hostile Aircraft was approaching. With no Comms/Responses and no one checking Commercial Flight Paths, they Shot Down the Airliner.

I confirmed this with the Officer leading the Anti Surface Team on the Vincennes that Day - when I met him during an MBA Prospective Tour at Harvard years later.

Human Error - Rushed Judgement. Now we need to see if the Aircraft did Deviate from the Path / Warnings+Comms were ongoing - and to see if it wasn't a Cover for Intel Photo Ops over the Base.

Oui , Jan 11 2020 6:03 utc | 29
The United States KNEW about the tragic event from the moment it happened. Military satellites in the sky can make sharper photo's than reporters on the ground of the crash site. The intelligence was shared with 5 Eyes plus ... incl. at least Israel and The Netherlands (PM Mark Rutte if MH-17 fame).

Why did the US keep info under wraps in the intelligence briefing to members U.S. Congress ... afterwards they specifically said there was. NO intelligence Ukraine airliner was shot down ... lots to learn for all. Not following the Putin playbook. Or other cover-ups like NATO downing an Italian passenger jet near Ithaca. Ukraine themselves have accidentally shot down a Siberian airliner by exercises above the Black Sea.

Pft , Jan 11 2020 6:41 utc | 40
Pretty hard to believe an accident this stupid. Sorry.

Could an Iranian have been turned by foreign agents to shoot down a passenger airliner, and then claim it was an accident?

Or could Iran have been enticed to make a false admission to protect Boeings reputation and/or the Ukraine airlines reputation. Perhaps a carrot of lesser severity in the new sanctions?

There is no way to know really. I suppose its simplest to just take Irans admission as truth. If US fighters were flying over Irans airspace I suppose thats an adequate defense.

Still, its hard to see it. I mean if that was the case and enemy aircraft were intruding over Irans airspace local civilian planes wouldn't have been cleared to take off by ATC because there is no way to guarantee the flight path is clear. They just wouldn't. And if they did Iran has just basically admitted how incompetent they are. I mean they knew what was coming since they launched the missiles into Iraq. They had to have a plan on if there was a retaliatory response They had to be tracking any incoming flights very carefully as potential targets. A flight taking off from Tehran cant possibly be confused as an attacker unless their air defense system and training of operators is FUBAR

I'm going back and watch Fake Wrestling. Its more believable

Peter AU1 , Jan 11 2020 9:11 utc | 72
somebody
five eyes will come at you covered in any type of sheep clothing. Australian aid to east timor, UK's white helmets, plenty of stories of CIA inserting itself into aid agencies. Operation northwoods was one scheme put forward but not carried out. Sounds like the Ukraine plane may have made a sudden turn to head back to the airport but towards a protected site without allowing time for air defences to be notified.
There may be more to this story when flight records are retrieved.
Zanon , Jan 11 2020 10:50 utc | 89
Wow,

'I wish I was dead': Senior IRGC commander accepts full responsibility for downing Ukrainian plane, apologizes to nation
https://www.rt.com/news/478011-irgc-accepts-guilt-downing/

Zanon , Jan 11 2020 10:54 utc | 91
According to the commander of the Aerospace Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Amir Ali Hajizadeh, Iranian air defence systems mistook the Boeing 737 for a cruise missile. The plane was shot down with a short-range projectile, he added.
https://sputniknews.com/world/202001111078005863-iran-says-ukrainian-aircraft-brought-down-by-human-error-ap-reports/#article_item_1078007210
jiri , Jan 11 2020 10:58 utc | 92
Sounds very much like the situation with the Russian Il-20 that was brought down in Syria last year. Was someone trying to use the Ukrainian jet as a cover to attack the IRGC site?

Hostile planes in the area.

Flight 752 making an approach "positioning itself at the altitude and form of a hostile flight".

Maybe some experts will explain how common is it for an airliner to have an altitude and trajectory consistent with a hostile flight (of an attacking missile).

Apparently the plane first took on extra fuel because it was overloaded and then offloaded cargo because then it was even more overloaded. This seems illogical. What is the standard practice in these cases?

And then there was someone who was there early in the morning ready to take video of the flight.

And we had pictures of the missile fragment very soon after the crash. Someone knew what to look for and searched for it.

Remote controlled hijacking???

Many questions-few answers.

Perhaps the solution is to have a S-300 or S-400 system put in place just like Putin did after the IL-20 shootdown.


Quote from Farsnews

***
"Following threats by the criminal US president and military commanders to strike a large number of targets on the Islamic Republic of Iran's territory in case of an Iranian attack and due to the unprecedented aerial movements in the region, the Islamic Republic of Iran's Armed Forces were on highest levels of alert to respond to any possible threats," the statement said.

"In the early hours after the missile attack, military flights of the US terrorist forces increased around the country and defense units received some reports about flying objects that were moving towards the country's strategic centers as several targets appeared on radar screens which made the air defense units more sensitive," it added.

"Under such sensitive and critical circumstances, flight number 752 of the Ukrainian airline company left Imam Khomeini airport and then approached a sensitive military center after a turn, positioning itselt at the altitude and form of a hostile flight and was hit because of a human error and unintentionally under such conditions, and as a result a number of our country men and women and some foreign citizens lost their lives," it added.
****

End quote

https://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13981021000078

Jen , Jan 11 2020 11:01 utc | 93
Johwa @ 92:

My first thought on seeing the news that the Iranian military had admitted to shooting down UIA Flight PS752 was similar to yours.

By making this admission, the Iranians nip in the bud any conspiracy theories and narratives that their enemies might try to weave and convince the public around the world (and especially diaspora Iranians) insinuating their guilt, whether actual or not, in the plane crash.

Supposing the Iranians did deliberately shoot down the plane, there may be a reason why they decided to say it was an accident: such an admission not only absolves them from accusations of cold-bloodedness which might cost them the trust of their neighbours (and others beyond their neighbourhood) but also relieves them of having to explain the real reason for shooting down the plane - because that reason may very well be something involving Ukraine in a regime-change activity or operation against Iran or one of its allies.

Chechens are known to be in Ukraine, and to be fighting for and against Kiev. What other groups not normally resident in Ukraine might have arrived there in the years since Yanukovych's ousting as President in February 2014, being trained as fighters to fight in other lands that have committed the unholy sin of defying the United States and the masters Washington DC serves?

What the Iranians have done in admitting culpability is sure to displease a lot of people, not satisfy them. They sure didn't see that one coming.

somebody , Jan 11 2020 11:09 utc | 96
Posted by: Peter AU1 | Jan 11 2020 10:51 utc | 99

I am sure they will fix the problem.

Why did the US not bother to warn other airlines ?

But shortly before the crash , the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration announced an emergency flight restriction for U.S. airlines flying over areas of Iraq and Iran. The FAA warned of the " potential for miscalculation or misidentification " of civilian planes because of increased military tensions in those areas.
Ghost Ship , Jan 11 2020 11:17 utc | 97
Iran will now be taken to the cleaners. The entire IRGC is classified by Washington as a terrorist organisation so I imagine some US vulture law firm is already looking at taking action in American courts against Iran in the full expectation that each victim's estate will be awarded billions of dollars compensation and the US law firm will earn billions in fees. Iran should get ahead of this game and make offers of substantial compensation (far more than the legal minimum) to the families of all the victims.
Peter AU1 , Jan 11 2020 12:10 utc | 115

"Russian anti-aircraft missile "Tor" hit the liner in the lower part of the front of the fuselage, directly under the cockpit.

A direct hit and the cabin flared up inside. Instantly turned off the transponder of the aircraft, which gives signals about the flight. Instantly lost contact.

While there is no data, one or two missiles have caused such damage. It is possible that the second missile also hit the fuselage from below close to the first. But all this remains to be clarified."

If this is the case, it is doubtful the pilots and perhaps the cockpit controls would have been in any condition to turn the aircraft after the first hit.

Red Ryder , Jan 11 2020 12:16 utc | 116
This is one good reason to make certain Iran does not get nuclear weapons.

Russia and China absolutely are working to keep Iran from getting nukes. And those are Iran's closest "allies", who are risking sanctions to help Iran survive the maximum pressure hybrid war.

Time to get real about Iran.

The regime should have let the Russians sell them the S-400, and let the Russians build an integrated defense system with communications for all units. It might have prevented such a tragedy. But the regime is full of pride and wants its weapons to be built by Iran. Thus, tragedy has befallen Iran. Needlessly.

They need to come up with a diplomatic, negotiating strategy (like listen to Putin) and change the present terms of engagement. The US will crush them economically otherwise. Trump doesn't have to fire a shot. Iran is stumbling backward, not just on a back foot.

Jonathan W , Jan 11 2020 12:43 utc | 125
The Daily Mail says right in the first paragraph that the communications were jammed, so let us look beyond the flight patterns to electronic warfare. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7875505/Iran-ADMITS-shooting-Ukrainian-jetliner.html?ito=facebook_share_article-top&fbclid=IwAR29exjv4giGs-UtLosaUXbynVfwsBg65VLyvryIhgw1wr-qTNnUQmLaiBg

[Jan 11, 2020] 'Brought to Jesus' the evangelical grip on the Trump administration US news The Guardian

Jan 11, 2020 | www.theguardian.com

'Brought to Jesus': the evangelical grip on the Trump administration The influence of evangelical Christianity is likely to become an important question as Trump finds himself dependent on them for political survival

Julian Borger in Washington

Fri 11 Jan 2019 02.00 EST Last modified on Fri 18 Jan 2019 16.51 EST Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via Email Donald Trump at the Republican national convention in Cleveland, Ohio, on 18 July 2016. Photograph: Mike Segar/Reuters I n setting out the Trump administration's Middle East policy, one of the first things Mike Pompeo made clear to his audience in Cairo is that he had come to the region as "as an evangelical Christian".

In his speech at the American University in Cairo, Pompeo said that in his state department office: "I keep a Bible open on my desk to remind me of God and his word, and the truth."

The secretary of state's primary message in Cairo was that the US was ready once more to embrace conservative Middle Eastern regimes, no matter how repressive, if they made common cause against Iran.

His second message was religious. In his visit to Egypt, he came across as much as a preacher as a diplomat. He talked about "America's innate goodness" and marveled at a newly built cathedral as "a stunning testament to the Lord's hand".

ss="rich-link"> 'Toxic Christianity': the evangelicals creating champions for Trump Read more

The desire to erase Barack Obama's legacy, Donald Trump's instinctive embrace of autocrats, and the private interests of the Trump Organisation have all been analysed as driving forces behind the administration's foreign policy.

The gravitational pull of white evangelicals has been less visible. But it could have far-reaching policy consequences. Vice President Mike Pence and Pompeo both cite evangelical theology as a powerful motivating force.

Just as he did in Cairo, Pompeo called on the congregation of a Kansan megachurch three years ago to join a fight of good against evil.

"We will continue to fight these battles," the then congressman said at the Summit church in Wichita. "It is a never-ending struggle until the rapture. Be part of it. Be in the fight."

For Pompeo's audience, the rapture invoked an apocalyptical Christian vision of the future, a final battle between good and evil, and the second coming of Jesus Christ, when the faithful will ascend to heaven and the rest will go to hell.

For many US evangelical Christians, one of the key preconditions for such a moment is the gathering of the world's Jews in a greater Israel between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River. It is a belief, known as premillenial dispensationalism or Christian Zionism – and it has very real potential consequences for US foreign policy .

It directly colours views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and indirectly, attitudes towards Iran, broader Middle East geopolitics and the primacy of protecting Christian minorities. In his Cairo visit, Pompeo heaped praise on Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, for building the new cathedral, but made no reference to the 60,000 political prisoners the regime is thought to be holding, or its routine use of torture.

Pompeo is an evangelical Presbyterian, who says he was "brought to Jesus" by other cadets at the West Point military academy in the 1980s.

https://www.theguardian.com/email/form/plaintone/4300

"He knows best how his faith interacts with his political beliefs and the duties he undertakes as secretary of state," said Stan van den Berg, senior pastor of Pompeo's church in Wichita in an email. "Suffice to say, he is a faithful man, he has integrity, he has a compassionate heart, a humble disposition and a mind for wisdom."

As Donald Trump finds himself ever more dependent on them for his political survival, the influence of Pence, Pompeo and the ultra-conservative white Evangelicals who stand behind them is likely to grow.

"Many of them relish the second coming because for them it means eternal life in heaven," Andrew Chesnut, professor of religious studies at Virginia Commonwealth University said. "There is a palpable danger that people in high position who subscribe to these beliefs will be readier to take us into a conflict that brings on Armageddon."

Chesnut argues that Christian Zionism has become the "majority theology" among white US Evangelicals, who represent about a quarter of the adult population . In a 2015 poll , 73% of evangelical Christians said events in Israel are prophesied in the Book of Revelation. Respondents were not asked specifically whether their believed developments in Israel would actually bring forth the apocalypse.

The relationship between evangelicals and the president himself is complicated.

Trump himself embodies the very opposite of a pious Christian ideal. Trump is not churchgoer. He is profane, twice divorced, who has boasted of sexually assaulting women. But white evangelicals have embraced him.

Eighty per cent of white evangelicals voted for him in 2016, and his popularity among them is remains in the 70s. While other white voters have flaked away in the first two years of his presidency, white evangelicals have become his last solid bastion.

Some leading evangelicals see Trump as a latterday King Cyrus, the sixth-century BC Persian emperor who liberated the Jews from Babylonian captivity.

The comparison is made explicitly in The Trump Prophecy , a religious film screened in 1,200 cinemas around the country in October, depicting a retired firefighter who claims to have heard God's voice, saying: "I've chosen this man, Donald Trump, for such a time as this."

Lance Wallnau , a self-proclaimed prophet who features in the film, has called Trump "God's Chaos Candidate" and a "modern Cyrus".

"Cyrus is the model for a nonbeliever appointed by God as a vessel for the purposes of the faithful," said Katherine Stewart , who writes extensively about the Christian right.

She added that they welcome his readiness to break democratic norms to combat perceived threats to their values and way of life.

"The Christian nationalist movement is characterized by feelings of persecution and, to some degree, paranoia – a clear example is the idea that there is somehow a 'war on Christmas'," Stewart said. "People in those positions will often go for authoritarian leaders who will do whatever is necessary to fight for their cause."

Trump was raised as a Presbyterian, but leaned increasingly towards evangelical preachers as he began contemplating a run for the presidency.

Trump's choice of Pence as a running mate was a gesture of his commitment, and four of the six preachers at his inauguration were evangelicals, including White and Franklin Graham, the eldest son of the preacher Billy Graham, who defended Trump through his many sex scandals, pointing out: "We are all sinners."

Having lost control of the House of Representatives in November, and under ever closer scrutiny for his campaign's links to the Kremlin, Trump's instinct has been to cleave ever closer to his most loyal supporters.

Almost alone among major demographic groups, white evangelicals are overwhelmingly in favour of Trump's border wall, which some preachers equate with fortifications in the Bible.

Evangelical links have also helped shape US alliances in the Trump presidency. As secretary of state, Pompeo has been instrumental in forging link with other evangelical leaders in the hemisphere, including Guatemala's Jimmy Morales and the new Brazilian president, Jair Bolsonaro . Both have undertaken to follow the US lead in moving their embassies in Israel to Jerusalem .

Trump's order to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv – over the objections of his foreign policy and national security team – is a striking example of evangelical clout.

ss="rich-link"> Sheldon Adelson: the casino mogul driving Trump's Middle East policy Read more

The move was also pushed by Las Vegas billionaire and Republican mega-donor, Sheldon Adelson, but the orchestration of the embassy opening ceremony last May, reflected the audience Trump was trying hardest to appease.

The two pastors given the prime speaking slots were both ardent Christian Zionists: Robert Jeffress, a Dallas pastor on record as saying Jews, like Muslims and Mormons, are bound for hell ; and John Hagee, a televangelist and founder of Christians United for Israel (Cufi), who once said that Hitler and the Holocaust were part of God's plan to get Jews back to Israel , to pave the way for the Rapture.

For many evangelicals, the move cemented Trump's status as the new Cyrus, who oversaw the Jews return to Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple.

The tightening of the evangelical grip on the administration has also been reflected in a growing hostility to the UN, often portrayed as a sinister and godless organisation.

Since the US ambassador, Nikki Haley, announced her departure in October and Pompeo took more direct control, the US mission has become increasingly combative, blocking references to gender and reproductive health in UN documents.

Some theologians also see an increasingly evangelical tinge to the administration's broader Middle East policies, in particular its fierce embrace of Binyamin Netanyahu's government, the lack of balancing sympathy for the Palestinians – and the insistent demonisation of the Iranian government.

ss="rich-link"> US will expel every last Iranian boot from Syria, says Mike Pompeo Read more

Evangelicals, Chesnut said, "now see the United States locked into a holy war against the forces of evil who they see as embodied by Iran".

In a speech at the end of a regional tour on Thursday, Pompeo reprised the theme, describing Iran as a "cancerous influence".

This zeal for a defining struggle has thus far found common cause with more secular hawks such as the national security adviser, John Bolton, and Trump's own drive to eliminate the legacy of Barack Obama, whose signature foreign policy achievement was the 2015 nuclear deal with Tehran, which Trump abrogated last May.

In conversations with European leaders such as Emmanuel Macron and Theresa May, Trump has reportedly insisted he has no intention of going to war with Iran. His desire to extricate US troops from Syria marks a break with hawks, religious and secular, who want to contain Iranian influence there.

But the logic of his policy of ever-increasing pressure, coupled with unstinting support for Israel and Saudi Arabia, makes confrontation with Iran ever more likely.

One of the most momentous foreign policy questions of 2019 is whether Trump can veer away from the collision course he has helped set in motion – perhaps conjuring up a last minute deal, as he did with North Korea – or instead welcome conflict as a distraction from his domestic woes, and sell it to the faithful as a crusade.

Topics Donald Trump Evangelical Christianity Trump administration US foreign policy Religion US politics Christianity features

[Jan 11, 2020] Can The US Assassination Of Qassem Soleimani Be Justified by Barkley Rosser

Notable quotes:
"... We know from various Congressional folks that briefers of Congress have failed to produce any evidence of "imminent" plans to kill Americans Soleimani was involved with that would have made this a legal killing rather than an illegal assassination. ..."
"... As Sergey Lavrov and President Putin have stated for a long time (and long before President Trump came along), the USA is 'agreement incapable'. However, now you have to wonder if any country really trusts any agreement they will make with the USA. Without trust on any level, cooperation/trade treaties and so on on are impossible or eminently disposable, i.e., not worth the paper upon which they are written. ..."
"... 603 Americans killed in Iraq, he says Trump supporters claim, but we had millions of Iraqi's, Syrians, Libyans and others killed or their lives uprooted by Bush and Obama and company – yet they were not assassinated. ..."
"... NO. Shockingly bad decision; you can just manage to glimpse around the edges of the war propaganda the embarrassment and backpedaling for having willingly stepped into such a gigantic steaming pile of excrement. The parade of smooth-faced liars on the MSM asserting that the US is now safer (the "war is peace" crowd) is sickening. Some even have the gall to assert that the enormous crowds in Iran are forced to attend by the repressive regime. Of course, there's no evidence of a provocation and they'll never produce any. ..."
"... I find it interesting that Pompeo was "disappointed" – what did he think would happen? For a Secretary of State, he's obviously extremely out of touch with the rest of the world if he didn't have some realistic idea of how this would go down. ..."
"... One other glaring omission from the article – the only reason there was a US military contractor in Iraq available to be killed in the first place is due to the illegal war based on false premises launched almost two decades ago by the US, which continues to occupy the country to this day. ..."
"... Pretty clear who the terrorists are on this case. ..."
"... Fascinating developments on this issue today. Pompeo admits that nothing was "imminent." Given the very specific definitions of Imminence that draw red lines between what is or is not legal in international law, this could get big very quickly. ..."
"... War hawks dressed in red or blue can become mercenaries and create Go Fund Me drives to protect their investments and any particular country which they have a personal affinity or citizenship. ..."
"... Lest we forget: "War is a racket." ..."
"... How does this meet the internationally recognized legal requirement of "imminent" danger to human life required to kill a political or military leader outside of a declared war? All public statements by the U.S. political and military leadership point to a retaliatory killing, at best, with a vague overlay of preemptive action. ..."
"... If you agree that the "Bethlehem Doctrine" has never been recognized by the United Nations, the International Criminal Court, or the legislatures of the three rogue states who have adopted it, the assassination of Suleimani appears to have been a murder. ..."
"... "I cross-checked a Pentagon casualty database with obituaries and not 1 of the 9 American servicemen killed fighting in Iraq since 2011 died at the hands of militias backed by Suleimani. His assassination was about revenge and provocation, not self-defense." ..."
"... The unsuccessful operation may indicate that the Trump administration's killing of Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani last week was part of a broader operation than previously explained, raising questions about whether the mission was designed to cripple the leadership of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or solely to prevent an imminent attack on Americans as originally stated. ..."
"... For some "exceptional" reason we don't recognize international law! We are the terrorists not them. ..."
Jan 11, 2020 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Can The US Assassination Of Qassem Soleimani Be Justified? Posted on January 10, 2020 by Yves Smith Yves here. Even though the angst over "what next" with the US/Iran confrontation has fallen a bit, there is still a depressingly significant amount of mis- and dis-information about the Soleimani assassination. This post is a nice high level treatment that might be a good candidate for circulating among friends and colleagues who've gotten a hefty dose of MSM oversimplifications and social media sloganeering.

Update 6:50 AM: Due to the hour, I neglected to add a quibble, and readers jumped on the issue in comments. First, it has not been established who launched the attack that killed a the US contractor. The US quickly asserted it was Kat'ib Hezbollah, but there were plenty of groups in the area that had arguably better motives, plus Kat'ib Hezbollah has denied it made the strike. Second, Kat'ib Hezbollah is an Iraqi military unit.

By Barkley Rosser, Professor of Economics at James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. Originally published at EconoSpeak

We know from various Congressional folks that briefers of Congress have failed to produce any evidence of "imminent" plans to kill Americans Soleimani was involved with that would have made this a legal killing rather than an illegal assassination. The public statements by administration figures have cited such things as the 1979 hostage crisis, the already dead contractor, and, oh, the need to "reestablish deterrence" after Trump did not follow through on previous threats he made. None of this looks remotely like "imminent plans," not to mention that the Iraqi PM Abdul-Mahdi has reported that Soleimani was on the way to see him with a reply to a Saudi peace proposal. What a threatening imminent plan!

As it is, despite the apparent lack of "imminent plans" to kill Americans, much of the supporting rhetoric for this assassination coming out of Trump supporters (with bragging about it having reportedly been put up on Trump's reelection funding website) involves charges that Soleimani was "the world's Number One terrorist" and was personally responsible for killing 603 Americans in Iraq. Even as many commentators have noted the lack of any "imminent plans," pretty much all American ones have prefaced these questions with assertions that Soleimani was unquestionable "evil" and "bad" and a generally no good guy who deserved to be offed, if not right at this time and in this way. He was the central mastermind and boss of a massive international terror network that obeyed his orders and key to Iran's reputed position as "the Number One state supporter of terrorism," with Soleimani the key to all of that.

Of course, in Iran it turns out that Soleimani was highly respected, even as many oppose the hawkish policies he was part of. He was viewed as crucial to the victory over ISIS/ISIL/Daesh in Iraq, much feared by Iranians. Shia take martyrdom seriously, and he is viewed as a martyr. It appears that even Trump took notice of the massive outpouring of mourning and praise for Soleimani there up to the point of people dying in a stampede in a mourning crowd in his hometown. But, hey, obviously these people simply do not understand that he was The World's Number One Terrorist! Heck, I saw one commenter on Marginal Revolution claiming Soleimani was responsible killing "hundreds of thousands." Yes, this sort of claim is floating around out there.

A basic problem here is that while indeed Soleimani commanded the IGRC al Quds force that supported and supplied various Shia militias in several Middle Eastern nations, these all were (and are) ultimately independent. Soleimani may have advised them, but he was never in a position to order any of them to do anything. Al Quds itself has never carried out any of the various attacks outside of Iran that Soleimani is supposedly personally responsible for.

Let us consider the specific case that gets pushed most emphatically, the 603 Americans dead in Iraq, without doubt a hot button item here in the US. First of all, even if Soleimani really was personally responsible for their deaths, there is the technical matter that their deaths cannot be labeled "terrorism." That is about killing non-combatant civilians, not military personnel involved in combat. I do not support the killing of those American soldiers, most of whom were done in by IEDs, which also horribly injured many more. But indeed this awful stuff happened. But in fact this was all done by Iraqi -based Shia militias. Yes, they were supported by Soleimani, but while some have charged al Quds suppplied the IEDs, this turns out not to be the case. These were apparently made in Iraq by these local militias. Soleimani's al Quds are not totally innocent in all this, reportedly providing some training and some inputs. But the IEDs were made by the militias themselves and planted by them.

It is also the case that when the militias and Americans were working together against ISIS/IISIL/Daesh, none of this happened, and indeed that was still the case up until this most recent set of events, with the death setting off all this an American civilian contractor caught on a base where several Iraqis were killed by a rocket from the Kat'b Hezbollah Iraqi group. Of course with Trump having Soleimani assassinated, this cooperation has ceased, with the US military no longer either fighting ISIS/ISIL/Daesh nor training the Iraqi military. Indeed, the Iraqi parliament has demanded that US troops leave entirely, although Trump threatened Iraq with economic sanctions if that is followed through on.

As it is, the US datinrg back to the Obama administration has been supplying Saudi Arabia with both arms and intelligence that has been used to kill thousands of Yemeni civilians. Frankly, US leaders look more like terrorists than Soleimani.

I shall close by noting the major changes in opinion in both Iran and Iraq regarding the US as a result of this assassination. In Iran as many have noted there were major demonstrations against the regime going on, protesting bad economic conditions, even as those substantially were the result of the illegal US economic sanctions imposed after the US withdrew from the JCPOA nuclear deal, to which Iran was adhering. Now those demonstrations have stopped and been replaced by the mass demonstrations against the US over Soleimani's assassination. And we also have Iran further withdrawing from that deal and moving to more highly enrich uranium.

In Iraq, there had been major anti-Iran demonstrations going on, with these supported to some degree by the highest religious authority in the nation, Ayatollah Ali Sistani. However, when Soleimani's body was being transferred to Iran, Sistani's son accompanied his body. It really is hard to see anything that justifies this assassination.

I guess I should note for the record that I am not a fan of the Iranian regime, much less the IGRC and its former and new commander. It is theocratic and repressive, with many political prisoners and a record of killing protestors. However, frankly, it is not clearly all that much worse than quite a few of its neighboring regimes. While Supreme Jurisprudent Khamenei was not popularly elected, its president, Rouhani, was, who obeyed popular opinion in negotiating the JCPOA that led to the relaxation of economic sanctions, with his power reduced when Trump withdrew from the agreement. Its rival Saudi Arabia has no democracy at all, and is also a religiously reactionary and repressive regime that uses bone saws on opponents and is slaughtering civilians in a neighboring nation.

xkeyscored , January 10, 2020 at 6:12 am

with the death setting off all this an American civilian contractor caught on a base where several Iraqis were killed by a rocket from the Kat'b Hezbollah Iraqi group.
Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding this, but it appears to be presented here as a fact.
Kat'b Hezbollah have denied responsibility for that rocket attack. To the best of my knowledge, no proof whatsoever has been presented that it was not an attack by jihadis in the area, whom Khat'b Hezbollah were fighting, or by others with an interest in stirring the pot.

Cat Burglar , January 10, 2020 at 12:37 pm

They are having a hard time coming up with public evidence to support any justification, aren't they?

The latest was Pence's "keeping it secret to protect sources and methods" meme. Purely speculating here, but I immediately thought, "Oh, Israeli intelligence." Gotta protect allies in the region.

xkeyscored , January 10, 2020 at 1:38 pm

Debka, run by supposedly-former Israeli military intelligence, was enthusing about upcoming joint operations against Iran and its allies a month or two ago. In contrast, they've been uncharacteristically quiet, though supportive of the US, regarding recent developments.

Trump and Netanyahu confirm US-Israel military coordination against threatened Iranian attack

A US-Iran military front is fast shaping up on the Syrian-Iraqi border – with a role for the IDF

Dwight , January 10, 2020 at 6:32 am

Secretary of State Pompeo claimed that Soleimani was responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths in Syria. Basically blaming Iran for all deaths in the Syrian war.

Donald , January 10, 2020 at 8:35 am

People more commonly do this with Assad. A complicated war with multiple factions fighting each other, armed by outside sources including the US, most with horrific human rights records, but almost every pundit and politician in the US talks as though Assad killed everyone personally.

Once in a while you get a little bit of honesty seeping in, but it never changes the narrative. Caitlin Johnstone said something about that, not specifically about Syria. The idea was that you can sometimes find facts reported in the mainstream press that contradict the narrative put out by pundits and politicians and for that matter most news stories, but these contradictory facts never seem to change the prevailing narrative.

ChrisFromGeorgia , January 10, 2020 at 9:15 am

That sounds suspiciously like sour grapes and another possible motive for the killing – revenge.

Soleimani led a number of militias that were successful in defeating the Saudi (and CIA) sponsored Sunni jihadis who failed to implement the empire's "regime change" playbook in Syria.

No doubt a lot of guys like Pompeo wanted him dead for that reason alone.

Thuto , January 10, 2020 at 6:36 am

The simple answer NO, killing a sitting army general of a sovereign state on a diplomatic mission resides in the realm of the truly absurd. Twisting the meaning of the word "imminent" far beyond its ordinary use to justify the murder is even more absurd. And the floating subtext to all this talk about lost American lives is that the US can invade and occupy foreign lands, engage in the sanctimonious slaughter of locals and whoever else gets in the way of feeding the bloodlust of Pompeo and his ilk (to say nothing of feeding the outsized ego of a lunatic like Trump), and yet expect to suffer no combat casualties from those defending their lands. It's the most warped form of "exceptional" thinking.

As an aside, I wonder if the msm faithfully pushing the talk about Iran downing that Ukrainian commercial jet is designed to take the heat off a beleaguered Boeing. The investigation hasn't even begun but already we have the smoking gun, Iran did it.

Olga , January 10, 2020 at 8:27 am

Even the question is wrong. The killing was cowardly, outside all international norms (this from a country that dares to invoke "international order" whenever it is suitable), a colossal mistake, a strategic blunder, and plain destructive.
The more one learns about QS' activities, the more it seems that he was "disposed of" precisely because of his unique talent and abilities to bring together the various local factions (particularly, in Iraq), so that then – unified – they could fight against the common enemy (guess who?). He was not guilty of killing amrikans – nor was he planning to – his "sin" was to try and unite locals to push the us out of ME. It was always going to be an uphill battle, but in death he may – in time – achieve his wish.

Susan the other , January 10, 2020 at 11:49 am

I'm in this camp too. But with a twist. Pure speculation here – and I'm sure it would never be exposed, but is there even any proof we did it? Was it an apache helicopter or a drone; whom have we supplied with these things? Who is this bold? Since our military has been dead-set-against assassinating Soleimani or any other leader it seems highly unlikely they proposed this to Trump. Mattis flatly refused to even consider such a thing. So I keep wondering if the usual suspect might be the right one – the Israelis. They have the proper expertise. And the confusion that followed? If we had done it we'd have had our PSAs ready to print. Instead we proffered an unsigned letter and other "rough drafts" of the incident and then retracted them like idiots. As if we were frantic to step in and prevent the Rapture. We could have taken the blame just to prevent a greater war. Really, that's what it looks like to me.

bold'un , January 10, 2020 at 5:19 pm

Surely the whole point of the strike is that it was illegal: that is to say that it was a message to the Iraqis that they are NOT allowed to help Iran evade sanctions, NOT allowed to do oil-for-infrastructure deals with China and NOT allowed to invite senior Iranians around for talks: i.e. Iraq is not yet sovereign and it is the US that makes the rules around there; any disobedience will summarily be punished by the de facto rulers even if that violates agreements and laws applicable in Iraq.

If you disagree, then what should the US do if Iraq does not toe the Western line?

makedonamend , January 11, 2020 at 4:29 am

Hiya Olga & t'Others,

" The killing was cowardly, outside all international norms (this from a country that dares to invoke "international order" whenever it is suitable), a colossal mistake, a strategic blunder, and plain destructive "

I think the immediate impact which has long terms implications for how other countries view USA foreign policy is simply that any high ranking individual from any other country on earth has got to be aware that essentially no international norms now exist. It's one thing to 'whack' a bin Laden or dispose of a Gaddafi but another whole kettle of fish to assassinate a high ranking official going about their business who's no immediate security threat to the USA and when no state of war exists.

For example, might a EU general now acquiesce to demands about NATO? Not saying this is going to happen by a long shot, but still a niggling thought might linger. Surely the individual will be resentful at the very least. I'm also reminded of a story about John Bolton allegedly telling a negotiator (UN or European?) that Bolton knew where the negotiator's family resided. These things add up.

As Sergey Lavrov and President Putin have stated for a long time (and long before President Trump came along), the USA is 'agreement incapable'. However, now you have to wonder if any country really trusts any agreement they will make with the USA. Without trust on any level, cooperation/trade treaties and so on on are impossible or eminently disposable, i.e., not worth the paper upon which they are written.

This is where the middle term ramifications start to kick-in. We know that Russia and China are making some tentative steps towards superficial integration in limited areas beyond just cooperation. Will they find more common ground? Will European countries (and by extension the EU) really start to deliver on an alternative financial clearing system? How will India and Japan react? Does nationalism of the imperial variety re-emerge as a world force – for good or bad?

Will regional powers such as Russia, China, India, France or Iran quietly find more common ground also? But alliances are problematic and sometimes impose limitations that are exploitable. So, might a different form of cooperation emerge?

Long term its all about advantage and trust. Trust is a busted flush now. (My 2 cents, and properly priced.)

vlade , January 10, 2020 at 6:40 am

As Thuto above says, the simple answer is "No". IF S was guilty of all those things ascribed to him, he'd have been judged and sentenced (yes, I do realise Iran would never extradite him etc. etc. – but there would have been a process and after the process, well, some things would be more justifiable). But we have the process because it's important to have a process – otherwise, anyone can find themselves on a hit list for any reason whatsoever.

If the US doesn't want to follow and process, then it can't be suprised if others won't. Ignoring the process works for the strongest, while they are the strongest. And then it doesn't.

timbers , January 10, 2020 at 6:53 am

603 Americans killed in Iraq, he says Trump supporters claim, but we had millions of Iraqi's, Syrians, Libyans and others killed or their lives uprooted by Bush and Obama and company – yet they were not assassinated.

I think – just a guess – the reason Soleimani was killed can be summed up in one word:

Netanyahu.

That, and on a broader, bird's eye view level in broad strokes – Michael Hudson's recent article outlining U.S. policy of preserving USD hegemony at all costs, that has existed since at least the 1950's, which depicts Soleimani's assassination as not a Trump qwerk but a logical application of that policy.

You might say the swamp drainers came to drain the swamp and ended filling it up instead.

Darius , January 10, 2020 at 8:04 am

The mostest terriblest guy in the history of this or any other universe, but the average Joe never heard of until they announced they killed him. His epochal terribleness really flew under the radar.

Wukchumni , January 10, 2020 at 8:14 am

A joke I heard on the slopes yesterday: Nobody had ever heard of Soleimani, and then he blew up overnight, so now everybody knows who he is.

Philo Beddoh , January 10, 2020 at 8:13 am

The swamp drainers are so busy guzzling as much as they can quaff, without drowning; writhing each others' dead-eyed, bloated feeding frenzy; that obscene media distractions need to escalate in sadistic, off-hand terror. But, it's so ingrained into our governance, we just call it democracy?

Susan the other , January 10, 2020 at 12:05 pm

Hudson's take on USD hegemony is reasonable, but I don't think we'd assassinate Soleimani in anticipation of losing it. We have dealt with all the sects in the middle east for a long time and we have come to terms with them, until now. In a time that requires the shutting down of oil and gas production. I think (Carney, Keen, Murphy, etc.) oil is the basis for our economy, for productivity, for the world, that's a no brainer. But my second thoughts go more along the lines that oil and natural gas will be government monopolies directly – no need to use those resources to make the dollar or other currencies monopolies. Sovereign currency will still be a sovereign monopoly regardless of the oil industry. That also explains why we want hands-on control of this resource. And with that in mind, it would seem Soleimani might have been more of an asset for us.

Yves Smith Post author , January 10, 2020 at 8:48 pm

I hate to tell you but as much as we are fans of Hudson, he's all wet on this one. The dollar is the reserve currency because the US is willing to run sustained trade deficits, which is tantamount to exporting jobs. Perhaps more important, my connected economists say they know of no one who has the ear of the military-intel state who believes this either. This may indeed have been a line of thought 50 years ago but it isn't now.

rusti , January 10, 2020 at 7:18 am

much of the supporting rhetoric for this assassination coming out of Trump supporters (with bragging about it having reportedly been put up on Trump's reelection funding website)

I thought I had a pretty strong stomach for this stuff, but it's been really nauseating for me to see the displays of joy and flag waving over the assassination of someone the overwhelming majority of people were wholly unaware of prior to his death. My guess is that it's mostly just a sort of schadenfreude at the squirming of Democrats as they (with few exceptions) fail to articulate any coherent response.

The response should be clear without any caveats, "Trump is a coward who would never gamble with his life, but will happily gamble with the lives of your kids in uniform." This should resonate with most people, I don't believe that neocons really have any grassroots support.

carl , January 10, 2020 at 7:27 am

NO. Shockingly bad decision; you can just manage to glimpse around the edges of the war propaganda the embarrassment and backpedaling for having willingly stepped into such a gigantic steaming pile of excrement. The parade of smooth-faced liars on the MSM asserting that the US is now safer (the "war is peace" crowd) is sickening. Some even have the gall to assert that the enormous crowds in Iran are forced to attend by the repressive regime. Of course, there's no evidence of a provocation and they'll never produce any.

PlutoniumKun , January 10, 2020 at 7:49 am

Politico Europe is reporting that behind Europes seemingly supine response, officials and politicians are 'seething' over the attack. Its clearly seen around the world as not just illegal, but an appalling precedent.

So far, American efforts to convince Europeans of the bright side of Soleimani's killing have been met with dropped jaws .

The Historian , January 10, 2020 at 10:30 am

The silence from other countries on this event has been deafening. And that should tell Trump and Pompeo something, but I doubt if they are smart enough to figure it out.

I find it interesting that Pompeo was "disappointed" – what did he think would happen? For a Secretary of State, he's obviously extremely out of touch with the rest of the world if he didn't have some realistic idea of how this would go down.

Eclair , January 10, 2020 at 11:17 am

One wonders it this will be recalled as the episode in which the US finally jumped the shark.

MyLessThanPrimeBeef , January 10, 2020 at 2:56 pm

On one hand, the life of each and every victim of head-separation and droning is as precious as that of one Soleimani.

On the other, the general's is more precious and thus, the behind the scene seething by Europe's politicians and officials. (They and many others are all potential targets now, versus previously droning wedding guests – time to seethe).

Which is it? More precious or equally precious?

Harry , January 10, 2020 at 7:57 am

The more I think about it, the more it seemed like the Administration and its allies were probing to see how far they could go. They bombed PMUs and appeared to get away with it. So then they upped the ante when the Iraqis complained and finally got some moderate push-back. Not taking American lives in the missile strike seems to prove they Iranians didn't want to escalate. Still, I dont know about the Pentagon, but I was impressed with the accuracy.

Procopius , January 10, 2020 at 7:01 pm

I was impressed with the accuracy.

Yes. From the picture at Vineyard of the Saker, they hit specific buildings. There were comments after the drone attack on Abqaiq and Khurais oil fields in KSA that they showed surprising accuracy, but perhaps this time surprised the intelligence agencies. Perhaps that was why Trump declared victory instead of further escalating. This is speculation, of course.

The Rev Kev , January 10, 2020 at 7:23 pm

There is also a good article giving more detail of these attacks and underlining the fact that not a single solitary missile was intercepted. What percentage did the Syrians/Russians manage to intercept of the US/UK/French missiles attack back in 2018? Wasn't it about seventy percent?

https://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2020/01/the-strike-ttg.html

Yves Smith Post author , January 10, 2020 at 8:51 pm

The Iranians are not done retaliating. They have a history of disproportionate retaliation, but when the right opportunity presents itself, and that routinely takes years. The limited strike was out of character and appears to have been the result of the amount of upset internally over the killing.

Darius , January 10, 2020 at 8:12 am

I have more a lot more respect for the strategic acumen of the Iranian regime than I do for that of the American regime. Now it's led by a collection of fragile male egos and superstitious rapture ready religious fanatics. Before them the regime was led by cowardly corporate suck ups. They all take their cues from the same military intelligence complex.

lyman alpha blob , January 10, 2020 at 8:18 am

One other glaring omission from the article – the only reason there was a US military contractor in Iraq available to be killed in the first place is due to the illegal war based on false premises launched almost two decades ago by the US, which continues to occupy the country to this day.

Pretty clear who the terrorists are on this case.

Amfortas the hippie , January 10, 2020 at 8:55 am

Aye! This!
assume a ladder on a windy day, with a hammer irresponsibly left perched on the edge of the top rung.
if i blithely walk under that ladder just as the wind gusts and get bonked in the head by the falling hammer whose fault is it?
we shouldn't be there in the first damned place.

and as soon as the enabling lies were exposed, we should have left, post haste .leaving all kinds of money and apologies in our wake.
to still be hanging around, unwanted by the locals, all these years later is arrogant and stupid.

during the Bush Darkness, i was accused to my face(even strangled, once!) of being an american-hating traitor for being against the war, the Bush Cabal, and the very idea of American Empire.

almost 20 years later, I'm still absolutely opposed to those things not least out of a care for the Troops(tm) .and a fervent wish that for once in my 50 years i could be proud to be an American.

what a gigantic misallocation of resources, in service of rapine and hegemony, while my fellow americans suffer and wither and scratch around for crumbs.

Mikel , January 10, 2020 at 8:32 am

Another of many questions that remain involve the warped interpretation of "imminent" of the Bethlehem Doctrine. What institution will put a full stop to that doctrine of terror?
It is a global hazard to continue to let that be adopted as any kind of standard.

Susan the other , January 10, 2020 at 12:15 pm

Under the Bethlehem Doctrine the entire political class in the USA, and possibly a few other countries, could be assassinated. What is legal or justified for one is justified for all.

David , January 10, 2020 at 8:33 am

Rosser is an economist rather than a philosopher or. jurist, and so he doesn't appear to realize that "justification" in the abstract is meaningless. An act can only be justified or not according to some ethical or legal principle, and you need to say what that principle is at the beginning before you start your argument. He doesn't do that, so his argument has no more validity than that of someone you get into a discussion with in a bar or over coffee at work.
Legally, of course, there is no justification, because there was no state of armed conflict between the US and Iran, so the act was an act of state murder. It doesn't matter who the person was or what we was alleged to have done or be going to do. There's been a dangerous tendency developing in recent years to claim some kind of right to pre-emptive attacks. There is no such legal doctrine, and the ultimate source of the misrepresentation – Art 51 of the UN Charter – simply recognizes that nothing in the Charter stops a state resisting aggression until help arrives. That's it.
Oh, and of course if this act were "justified" then any similar act in a similar situation would be justified as well, which might not work out necessarily to America's advantage.

Carolinian , January 10, 2020 at 8:36 am

Via ZH site this article is an interesting take on the situation

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2020/01/donald-trump-has-just-blown-up-his-goal-of-isolating-iran/

General Jonathan Shaw, former commander of UK forces in Iraq, put it well: Iran's objectives are political, not military. Their aim is not to destroy any American air base, but to drive a wedge between the US and its Arab allies -- and the Soleimani assassination has achieved more to this end than anything that could have been cooked up in Tehran. The Sunnis are standing down and the US and Israel now once again face being without real friends in the region. When push came to shove, all Kushner's efforts amounted to nothing. How elated the Iranians must be, even in the midst of such a setback.

Which if true means that instead of divide and conquer Trump and Pompeo may instead be practicing unite and be conquered when it comes to US meddling in the Middle East.

The Rev Kev , January 10, 2020 at 10:07 am

I think that I see a danger for Israel here with a very tight pucker factor. I had assumed that if there was a war between Israel and Hezbollah, that Hezbollah would let loose their older rockets first to use up the Israeli anti-missile ordinance that they have. After that would come their modern accurate missiles.

But part of that Iranian attack on those US bases was the use of older missiles that had been retro-fitted with gear for accurate targeting which obviously worked out spectacularly. Israel could assume that Iran would have given Hezbollah the same technology and the implication here is that any first wave of older Hezbollah missiles would just be as accurate as the following barrages of newer missiles.

Susan the other , January 10, 2020 at 12:36 pm

I wonder if it is remotely possible that all countries, say at the UN, could design acceptable language to make oil and natural gas a universal resource with a mandated conservation – agreed to by all. Those countries which have had oil economies and have become rich might agree to it because the use of oil and gas will be so restricted in future that they will not have those profits. But it would at least provide them with some steady income. It would prevent the oil wars we will otherwise have in our rush to monopolize the industry for profit; it would conserve the use of oil/gas and extend it farther out into the future so we can build a sustainable worldwide civilization and mitigate much of the damage we have done to the planet, etc. How can we all come together and make energy, oil and natgas access a universal human right (for the correct use)?

The Rev Kev , January 10, 2020 at 8:38 am

Actually Soleimani was guilty of the deaths of tens of thousands of people. Tens of thousands of ISIS fighters that is. Do they count? The Saudis, Gulf States and the CIA may shed a tear for them but nobody else will. When Soleimani arrived in Baghdad, he was traveling in a diplomatic capacity to help try to ease off tensions between the Saudis and the Iranians. And this was the imminent danger that Trump was talking about. Not an imminent danger to US troops but a danger that the Saudis and Iranians might negotiate an accommodation. Michael Hudson has said similar in a recent article.

I think that what became apparent from that attack last year on the Saudi oil installations was that they were now a hostage. In other words, if the US attacks Iran, then Iran will take out the entirety of Saudi oil production and perhaps the Saudi Royal family themselves. There is no scenario in an Iran-US war where the Kingdom come out intact. So it seems that they have been putting out feelers with the Iranians about coming to an accommodation. This would explain why when Soleimani was murdered, there was radio silence on behalf of the Saudis.

Maybe Trump has worked out that all of the Saudi oil facilities becoming toast would be bad for America too but, more importantly, to himself personally. After all, what is the point of having the Saudis only sell their oil in US dollars if there is no oil to sell? What would such a development do to the standing of the US dollar internationally? The financial crisis would sink his chances for a win this November and that is something that he will never allow. And I bet that he did not Tucker Carlson to tell him that.

nippersdad , January 10, 2020 at 10:17 am

Fascinating developments on this issue today. Pompeo admits that nothing was "imminent." Given the very specific definitions of Imminence that draw red lines between what is or is not legal in international law, this could get big very quickly.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/477664-pompeo-says-we-dont-know-when-we-dont-know-where-soleimani-had

And the Iraqi's are not backing down.

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/policy-strategy/477651-iraqi-prime-minister-tells-pompeo-to-prepare-a-mechanism-for

Without a SOFA in place that leaves us open to charges of war crimes; prolly not something that Trump wants to see during an election year.

JTMcPhee , January 10, 2020 at 11:36 am

What percent of the presumed Trump base, and imperial Big Business and Banksters, not to mention the sloshing mass of other parts of the electorate subject to "spinning" in the Bernays Tilt-a-Whirl, would give a rat's aff about "war crimes" charges? Drone murders to date, the whole stupid of profitable (to a few, externalities ignored) GWOT, all the sh!t the CIA and CENTCOM and Very Special Ops have done with impunity against brown people and even people here at home, not anything more than squeaks from a small fraction of us.

And Trump is the Decider, yes, who signed off (as far as we know) on killing Soleimani that was lined up by the Borg, but really, how personalized to him would any repentance and disgust or even scapegoat targeting by the Blob really be, in the kayfabe that passes for "democracy in America?"

I always though de Tocqueville titled his oeuvre on the political economy he limned way back when as a neat bit of Gallic irony

xkeyscored , January 10, 2020 at 11:54 am

I don't know. Might Trump benefit from charges of war crimes, spinning them as further proof that the United Nations, International Criminal Court, etc. are controlled by commies and muslims out to get the USA?
As for the imminence of the hypothetical attacks, "There is no doubt that there were a series of imminent attacks being plotted by Qassem Soleimani," Pompeo told the Fox News host. "We don't know precisely when and we don't know precisely where, but it was real."
Remember that imminent=possible at some time in the near or distant future, and
Vice President Dick Cheney articulated shortly after 9/11: in Mr. Suskind's words, "if there was even a 1 percent chance of terrorists getting a weapon of mass destruction -- and there has been a small probability of such an occurrence for some time -- the United States must now act as if it were a certainty." That doctrine didn't prevent Bush's re-election.
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/20/books/20kaku.html

shinola , January 10, 2020 at 10:19 am

The assassination was carried out by the Good Ol' USA – ipso facto it was justified.

Shiloh1 , January 10, 2020 at 12:10 pm

Declare victory and bring them all home. Leave behind W's Mission Accomplished banner and pallets of newly printed $100s with Obama's picture.

Along the lines of Bismarck, not worth the life of a single Pomeranian grenadier. Not my 20 year old, not anybody else's in my name, either, especially since this began before they were born.

And to whom will they sell their oil and natural gas? Who cares – its a fungible commodity of perhaps only of concern to our "allies" in Western Europe. Not my problem and great plan to mitigate carbon emissions!

War hawks dressed in red or blue can become mercenaries and create Go Fund Me drives to protect their investments and any particular country which they have a personal affinity or citizenship.

Synoia , January 10, 2020 at 12:13 pm

It is US election year, and much money is to be had by pandering to various piles of money.

Wacking an effective Iranian General is good news to some pile of money, and would encourage the pile of money to the Wacking party.

I see this incident as no more that the behaviors of criminal gangs.

The real question is Quo Bono. The answer appears to be the Israel Supporters giving $ to Trump.

JTMcPhee , January 10, 2020 at 12:47 pm

Lest we forget: "War is a racket."

Monty , January 10, 2020 at 2:36 pm

The whole episode reminds me of a Martin Scorsese plot line. A disagreement among "Made Men". The unfortunate symbolism and 'disrespect' of the embassy protest demanded a response, especially after all the fuss Trump made about Benghazi. Some things cannot be allowed. The Iranians, Russians and Americans probably decided between themselves what would be sufficient symbolism to prevent a war, and so Soleimani was sacrificed to die as a hero/martyr. A small price to prevent things spiraling out of control. The Iranian response seems to add weight to this hypothesis.

Rosario , January 10, 2020 at 12:54 pm

Forgive me for taking this a little more in the direction of theory, but can the rest of the world justify the assassination of CIA/Pentagon/CENTCOM officials in a similar manner given the opportunity? Are these organizations not an analog to Quds? That seems to be more in line with the type of questions we need to be asking ourselves as US citizens in a multi-polar world. This article, despite its best intentions, still hints at an American exceptionalism that no longer exists in the international mind. The US could barely get away with its BS in the 90s, it definitely can't in 2020.

The US no longer has the monopoly on the narrative ("Big Lie") rationalizing its actions, not to say the other countries have the correct narrative, just that, there are a whole bunch of narratives ("Lies") out there being told to the world by various powers that are not the US, and the US is having a difficult time holding on to the mic. The sensible route would be to figure out how to assert cultural and political values/power in this world without the mafiosi methods. Maybe some old fashioned (if not icky, cynical) diplomacy. It is better than spilled blood, or nuclear war.

The US military/intelligence wonks overplayed their hand with Soleimani. I think the Neo-Cons gave Trump a death warrant for Soleimani, and Trump was too self-involved (stupid) to know or care who he was offing. His reaction to the blow back betrays that.

Now he is f*****, along with the chicken-hawks, and they all know it. They just have to sit back and watch Iran bomb US bases because the alternative is a potential big war, possibly involving China and Russia, that can't be fought by our Islamist foreign legions. It'll demand the involvement of US troops on the ground and the US electorate won't tolerate it.

Ashburn , January 10, 2020 at 12:57 pm

Anyone who has worked in the counter-terrorism field knows that when a credible and imminent threat is received the first act is to devise a response to counter the threat. It may involve raising security measures at an airline security checkpoint, it may involve arrests, if possible, of the would-be terrorist(s). It may involve evacuating a building and conducting a search for a bomb. It may involve changing a scheduled appearance or route of travel of a VIP.

The point is to stop the operators behind the threat from completing their terrorist act. What it certainly does NOT involve is assassinating someone who may have given the order but is definitely not involved in carrying out the act. Such an assassination would not only be ineffective in countering the threat but would likely be seen as increasing the motivation behind the attack. Such was the assassination of Soleimani, even if one believes in the alleged imminent threat. This was simply a revenge killing due to Soleimani's success at organizing the opposition to US occupation.

David in Santa Cruz , January 10, 2020 at 1:08 pm

We don't know precisely when and we don't know precisely where, but it was real.

How does this meet the internationally recognized legal requirement of "imminent" danger to human life required to kill a political or military leader outside of a declared war? All public statements by the U.S. political and military leadership point to a retaliatory killing, at best, with a vague overlay of preemptive action.

If you agree that the "Bethlehem Doctrine" has never been recognized by the United Nations, the International Criminal Court, or the legislatures of the three rogue states who have adopted it, the assassination of Suleimani appears to have been a murder.

This is absolutely chilling. These "End Times/Armageddon" lunatics want to destroy the world. Who would Jesus have murdered? They stand the lessons of his state-sanctioned murder on their heads

xkeyscored , January 10, 2020 at 1:13 pm

Mintpress has an interesting article: Study Finds Bots and MAGA Supporters Pushing #IraniansDetestSoleimani Hashtag

A social media disinformation expert studied 60,000 tweets from nearly 10,000 accounts using the hashtag #IraniansDetestSoleimani and found that the most common phrases in those users' biographies were "Make America Great Again" and "Trump."
https://www.mintpressnews.com/study-bots-maga-supporters-iraniansdetestsoleimani-hashtag/264024/

Monty , January 10, 2020 at 2:37 pm

Shocking! /s

Tom Bradford , January 10, 2020 at 1:56 pm

My two-pennyworth? The US press and the circles surrounding Trump are already crowing that he 'won' the exchange. If, as speculated, he went against military advice in ordering this assassination, his 'victory' will only confirm his illusions that he is a military genius, which makes him even more dangerous. There are some rather nasty parallels with the rise of Hitler appearing here.

mauisurfer , January 10, 2020 at 2:03 pm

The claim that Soleimani had killed hundreds of Americans was repeated, word for word, in many articles in the papers of record (e.g., New York Times, 1/7/20; Washington Post, 1/3/20, 1/3/20) as well as across the media (e.g., Boston Globe, 1/3/20; Fox News, 1/6/20; The Hill, 1/7/20).

These "hundreds of Americans" were US forces killed by improvised explosive devices (IEDs) during the Iraq War, supposedly made in Iran and planted by Iranian-backed Shia militias. As professor Stephen Zunes pointed out in the Progressive (1/7/20), the Pentagon provided no evidence that Iran made the IEDs, other than the far-fetched claim that they were too sophisticated to be made in Iraq -- even though the US invasion had been justified by claims that Iraq had an incredibly threatening WMD program. The made-in-Iran claim, in turn, was the main basis for pinning responsibility for IED attacks on Shia militias -- which were, in any case, sanctioned by the Iraqi government, making Baghdad more answerable for their actions than anyone in Tehran. Last year, Gareth Porter reported in Truthout, (7/9/19) that the claim that Iran was behind the deaths of US troops was part of Vice President Dick Cheney's plan to build a case for yet another war.

J7915 , January 10, 2020 at 8:47 pm

IIRC the "sophistication claim" was made years ago. Apparently the basic technology is applied in oilfields to pierce oil well lining tubes at the oil layer. So the Iraqis knew all about the basic technique, only needed some more information.

Bill Carson , January 10, 2020 at 2:21 pm

About those "603 American deaths" that Soleimani is posthumously being charged with .

"I cross-checked a Pentagon casualty database with obituaries and not 1 of the 9 American servicemen killed fighting in Iraq since 2011 died at the hands of militias backed by Suleimani. His assassination was about revenge and provocation, not self-defense."

Robert Mackey on Twitter

mauisurfer , January 10, 2020 at 2:24 pm

Larry Johnson:

"The U.S. Government and almost all of the media continue to declare that Iran is the biggest sponsor of terrorism. That is not true. That is a lie. I realize that calling this assertion a lie opens me to accusations of being an apologist for Iran. But simply look at the facts."
"The Trump Administration needs to stop with its infantile ranting and railing about Iran and terrorism. The actual issues surrounding Iran's growing influence in the region have little to do with terrorism. Our policies and actions towards Iran are accelerating their cooperation with China and Russia, not diminishing it. I do not think that serves the longterm interests of the United States or our allies in the Middle East"

read whole story here:

https://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2020/01/the-facts-about-iran-and-terrorism-by-larry-c-johnson.html

Bill Carson , January 10, 2020 at 2:24 pm

Also this -- -

"On the night the US killed Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani, it tried to kill another senior Iranian military official in Yemen, two sources say"

CNN Breaking News on Twitter

Somebody's got some 'splainin' to do.

xkeyscored , January 10, 2020 at 4:00 pm

Thank you, Bill.

The strike targeting Abdul Reza Shahlai, a financier and key commander of Iran's elite Quds Force who has been active in Yemen, did not result in his death, according to four U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

The unsuccessful operation may indicate that the Trump administration's killing of Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani last week was part of a broader operation than previously explained, raising questions about whether the mission was designed to cripple the leadership of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or solely to prevent an imminent attack on Americans as originally stated.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/on-the-day-us-forces-killed-soleimani-they-launched-another-secret-operation-targeting-a-senior-iranian-official-in-yemen/2020/01/10/60f86dbc-3245-11ea-898f-eb846b7e9feb_story.html

sierra7 , January 10, 2020 at 2:29 pm

"Justification"????? You're kidding right? "They", those who we firstly "embrace" for our own interests are "for us" until we decide we are "against them"! What a farce our foreign policies are!

For some "exceptional" reason we don't recognize international law! We are the terrorists not them.

rjs , January 10, 2020 at 7:09 pm

NB: the comment i had removed from this post is now posted on a copy of the same post at Angry Bear

oaf , January 10, 2020 at 7:23 pm

the more that is at stake, the less one should listen to advisers

Jack Parsons , January 10, 2020 at 8:25 pm

Prediction for this stupidest of all worlds: Iraq really does boot us out, T-bone siezes on this for its obvious popularity among his base, and uses "He Kept Us Out Of War" for re-election.

Shiloh1 , January 11, 2020 at 10:37 am

Feature, not bug.

Where is my peace dividend after fall of Berlin Wall and Soviet Union?

Poppy and MIC wouldn't have it, hence April Galaspie's "no instructions" response to Saddam's initial inquiry over the Iraq / Kuwait surveying and mineral rights dispute on Kuwait's drilling at the border 30 years ago.

[Jan 11, 2020] How Trump made the decision to kill Soleimani Daylight Reporters

Jan 11, 2020 | daylightreporters.com

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Defence Secretary Mark Esper, and General Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had gone to Palm Beach, Florida, to brief Trump on airstrikes the Pentagon had just carried out in Iraq and Syria against Iranian-sponsored Shiite militia groups.

Read full story at https://daylightreporters.com/2020/01/04/how-trump-made-the-decision-to-kill-soleimani/

[Jan 11, 2020] How Pompeo convinced Trump to kill Soleimani and fulfilled a decade-long goal - KRDO

Notable quotes:
"... Pompeo has forged "very close relationships" with Haspel and Esper, alliances that bolstered his ability to make the case to Trump. "They all work together very, very closely," said the former Republican national security official. ..."
Jan 11, 2020 | krdo.com

... ... ...

As planning got underway, Pompeo worked with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Army Gen. Mark Milley and the commander of CENTCOM Marine Gen. Kenneth McKenzie to assess the profile of troops in the field. Multiple sources also say that hawkish Republican Sens. Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, were kept in the loop and also pushed Trump to respond.

Trump was not at all reluctant to target Soleimani, multiple sources said, adding that the President's other senior advisers -- Esper, Milley, CIA Director Gina Haspel and national security adviser Robert O'Brien -- "were all on board."

Pompeo has forged "very close relationships" with Haspel and Esper, alliances that bolstered his ability to make the case to Trump. "They all work together very, very closely," said the former Republican national security official.

That said, the former official expressed concern about the lack of deep expertise in Trump's national security team. Several analysts pointed to this as one factor in Pompeo's outsized influence within the administration.

The government is so compromised by Trump and by all the vacancies and lack of experience, this former official said, that "everything is being done by a handful of principles -- Pompeo, Esper, Milley. There are a lot of things being left on the floor."

'Such a low bar'

Pompeo is arguably the most experienced of the national security Cabinet, the former national security official said, "but it's such a low bar."

"It's such a small group and there's so much that needs to be done," the former official said. "Everyone in this administration is a level and a half higher than they would be in a normal administration. They have no bench," they said.

The Trump administration has been handicapped by the President's refusal to hire Republicans who criticize him. Other Republicans won't work for the administration, for fear of being "tainted" or summarily fired, the former official said.

As layers of experience have been peeled away at the White House, some analysts say safeguards have been removed as well. CNN's Peter Bergen has written in his new book, "Trump and his Generals," that former Defense Secretary James Mattis told his aides not to present the President with options for confronting Iran militarily.

Randa Slim, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, argues that since the departure of Mattis, former Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and former White House chief of staff and retired Marine Gen. John Kelly, there are very few voices at the White House to offer "deeply considered advice."

"We don't have those people who have that experience and could look Trump in the eye and who have his respect and who could say, 'Hey, hey, hey -- wait!'," Slim said.

[Jan 11, 2020] Pompeo and Pence reportedly pushed Trump to kill Soleimani. Pentagon leaders were 'stunned' Trump agreed.

Jan 11, 2020 | theweek.com

For years, "Pompeo has tried to stake out a maximalist position on Iran that has made him popular among two critical pro-Israel constituencies in Republican politics: conservative Jewish donors and Christian evangelicals," the Post explains . "Since his time as CIA director, Pompeo has forged a friendship with Yossi Cohen, the director of the Israeli intelligence service Mossad," and "at the State Department, he is a voracious consumer of diplomatic notes and reporting on Iran, and he places the country far above other geopolitical and economic hot spots in the world." Read more at The Washington Post . Peter Weber

[Jan 11, 2020] "When They Kill One Sureimani, A Thousand More Are Born": spectacular betrail by Trump of his voters

Notable quotes:
"... Peter Certo is the editorial manager of the Institute for Policy Studies and editor of Foreign Policy In Focus. ..."
Jan 03, 2020 | fpif.org

Originally published in OtherWords .

Trump's Iran Aggression Deserves Full-Throated Opposition - FPIF By Peter Certo

Trump is betraying his voters and threatening millions of lives.

In a full-blown U.S. war with Iran, up to a million people could die initially.

Hundreds of thousands more could die in the vacuum to follow. Millions would be made refugees. That's the conclusion of experts surveyed by Vox reporter Alex Ward . "The worst-case scenarios here are quite serious," Middle East scholar Michael Hanna warned.

With the brazen assassination of Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani in Iraq, President Trump has brought us leaps and bounds closer to that conflagration -- a decision Trump appears to have made while golfing at Mar-a-Lago .

Lawmakers need to move before it's too late.

The Iranians may respond cautiously , perhaps forestalling a full-blown conflict. But there can be no doubt the White House has been driving in that direction from day one.

In a few short years, Trump has blown up the Iran nuclear deal, put a horrific economic stranglehold on the country, and sent a stunning 14,000 new troops to the Middle East since just last spring. Some 3,500 more are now on their way.

"Hope this is the first step to regime change in Tehran," John Bolton tweeted about the assassination . Bolton may have left the White House, but clearly his spirit lives on.

What next? Get ready to hear a lot about what a " bad guy " Soleimani was, and how Iran is a "state sponsor" of terrorism.

No doubt, Soleimani had blood on his hands -- he was a general. Yet after two decades of U.S. wars in the Middle East, that's the pot calling the kettle black. It was the U.S. who invaded Iraq, started a civil war, and paved the way for a literal terrorist state, ISIS, to occupy the country afterward (a force Soleimani himself was instrumental in dismantling).

That senseless war caused hundreds of thousands of deaths, exploded the terrorist threat, and is destabilizing the region to this day. Yet somehow, war hawks like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo can go on TV and -- with a straight face -- predict ordinary Iranians will essentially thank the U.S. for murdering their general.

"People not only in Iraq but in Iran will view the American action last night as giving them freedom," Pompeo said the morning after the assassination. You couldn't caricature a better callback to Dick Cheney's infamous prediction that Iraqis would "greet us as liberators" if you tried.

This war-mongering should be as toxic politically as it is morally . Trump rode into office promising to end America's wars, winning him crucial votes in swing states with large military and veteran populations. Huge bipartisan majorities, including 58 percent of Republicans, say they want U.S. troops out of the Middle East.

Trump is betraying them spectacularly.

Yet too many Democrats are merely objecting to Trump's failure to consult them. Speaker Nancy Pelosi complained the strike "was taken without the consultation of the Congress." South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg offered colorlessly that "there are serious questions about how this decision was made." Others complained about the apparent lack of a "strategy."

It's illegal for a president to unilaterally launch a war -- that's important. But these complaints make it sound like if you want to kill a million people for no reason, you just have to go to the DMV first. As if Trump's base doesn't love it when he cuts the line in Washington.

Senator Bernie Sanders, who warned that "Trump's dangerous escalation brings us closer to another disastrous war in the Middle East that could cost countless lives and trillions more dollars," came closer to communicating the real threat.

Millions of lives are at stake. Trump's aggression demands -- and voters will more likely reward -- real opposition. Call him on it before it's too late.

Peter Certo is the editorial manager of the Institute for Policy Studies and editor of Foreign Policy In Focus.

[Jan 11, 2020] The resonances with the MH17 atrocity are uncanny.

Jan 11, 2020 | off-guardian.org

Jan 11, 2020

David Macilwain ,

Your post merely adds to the feeling something very very odd has gone on here, as the resonances with the MH17 atrocity are uncanny. If the Ukrainian army had come out and admitted, in only two days, that their unit from Lviv had accidentally hit MH17 instead of the plane Putin was allegedly travelling in over the same area, then things may have been very different. But of course they didn't, and didn't need to, as fighter jets had done the job for them anyway. On the other hand, had the Separatists trying to defend the population from Kiev's air campaign from fighter jets and military transports accidentally hit MH17 they would have been the first to admit it. Those claiming they were responsible, before Higgins concocted his silly story, admitted that it would have been a "tragic accident" – as Morrison has described this latest crash – but soon started blaming them. Talk of Kiev being partly responsible for allowing MH17 to fly, off course, over an active war zone, also went unheard.

But of course the two events are not the same, and not connected, or are they?

Did the Ukrainian plane have its transponder turned on? Was it the first plane to leave Tehran following the Iranian missile volleys? Would a cruise missile have been launched from Afghanistan towards the firing site in Kermanshah, passing over Tehran? What went on in the control tower of Imam Khomeini airport?
Nothing is clear yet, except "cui bono".

[Jan 11, 2020] DISCUSS Iran Admit to Shooting Down Ukrainian Passenger Flight OffGuardian

Jan 11, 2020 | off-guardian.org

Editor

(Photo by Akbar TAVAKOLI / IRNA / AFP)

Earlier today, President Rouhanie of Iran formally admitted that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps had shot down the Ukrainian passenger jet leaving Tehran a few days ago.

Speculation has been rampant, but here are the alleged facts of the case, at this time:

In the early hours of the 8th January, Iran launched missiles at two US-occupied bases in Iraq. This was done in retaliation for the death of General Qassem Soleimani. Ukraine Airlines flight PS 752 departed Tehran airport on 8th January. Three minutes later it crashed. There were 176 passengers/crew on board. Mostly Iranians, Ukrainians and Canadians. Within hours, Western media were quoting anonymous "Iraqi intelligence officials" that Iran had shot the plane down "likely by accident". The US State Dept, and their proxy NGOs, echoed this theory. A great rundown of who said what and when can be found on Moon of Alabama . Despite at first denying these accusations, the Iranian government has since admitted to "accidentally" downing the plane. Their statement can be read here (or here in the original Farsi). Iran claim the missiles were launched by an individual who was out of radio contact with his commander and "panicked" upon seeing the fast-moving object on radar. Response to the admission has come from many world leaders. Justin Trudeau called for "further investigation", Vladimir Zelensky demanded Iran take "full responsibility", whilst Boris Johnson called it "an important first step". The US has already announced further sanctions. Reports are already coming in of "unrest" and "protests" in the wake of this admission. The Guardian and Newsweek, among others, claiming young people especially are tired of the leadership demanding "resignations and prosecutions" (we are, as yet unable to confirm these protests took place).

So what does this mean for the region as a whole?

Will this – as Boris Johnson said – be "first step to de-escalation" in the region? Will there be extensive protests? Will Iraq now rescind their demand the US leave their country?

As always, discuss below.

Protect ,

Sabotage can take many shapes and forms. Remember when the Syrian army was fooled into shooting down a Russian surveillance aircraft with 15 people onboard?
Those imposing punitive santions and continually threatening a desstructive war must definitely be held responsible for the extreme conditions they have created.

Charlotte Russe ,

The conditional word "if" often is used to begin describing the most horrific events. If they hadn't been driving the night the other car careened into their lane; if they didn't go into that store shortly before the robbery; if they didn't go sailing during an awful storm; if Trump didn't order the assassination of General Soleimani 176 innocent civilians would still be alive; and if all imperialist wars would stop collateral murder would also end.

An Iranian Officer mistook the plane for a hostile missile and made the "bad decision" to open fire. He said he "wished" he "was dead" when he learned about the downing of the aircraft. There were 82 Iranians aboard the Boeing Jet.

Most on the plane were graduate students from Canada. I was not aware that Canada is home to a large Iranian diaspora, with some 210,000 citizens of Iranian descent.

"The country is also a popular destination for Iranian graduate and postdoctoral students to study and conduct research abroad, which is why many students were on the flight, returning to university following the winter break.

There is also no direct flight between Canada and Iran, and the Ukraine International Airlines flight from Tehran to Kiev and then to Toronto is popular because it is one of the most affordable options for the journey."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51053220

KneelB4Zod! ,

Not mentioned before – and it is another reason why I still consider that the incident is not just human error but sabotage: In 6 months embargo on weapon sales to Iran will expire and the country will be able to buy S-400, Iskanders or fighter jets. Quite good reason to awake sleeping agent

Philpot ,

Are the Integrity Initiative hard at work on here?

David Macilwain ,

Your post merely adds to the feeling something very very odd has gone on here, as the resonances with the MH17 atrocity are uncanny. If the Ukrainian army had come out and admitted, in only two days, that their unit from Lviv had accidentally hit MH17 instead of the plane Putin was allegedly travelling in over the same area, then things may have been very different. But of course they didn't, and didn't need to, as fighter jets had done the job for them anyway. On the other hand, had the Separatists trying to defend the population from Kiev's air campaign from fighter jets and military transports accidentally hit MH17 they would have been the first to admit it. Those claiming they were responsible, before Higgins concocted his silly story, admitted that it would have been a "tragic accident" – as Morrison has described this latest crash – but soon started blaming them. Talk of Kiev being partly responsible for allowing MH17 to fly, off course, over an active war zone, also went unheard.

But of course the two events are not the same, and not connected, or are they?

Did the Ukrainian plane have its transponder turned on? Was it the first plane to leave Tehran following the Iranian missile volleys? Would a cruise missile have been launched from Afghanistan towards the firing site in Kermanshah, passing over Tehran? What went on in the control tower of Imam Khomeini airport?
Nothing is clear yet, except "cui bono".

Dimly Glimpsed ,

Matt,

Have you considered the arguments and evidence which show the BUK missile in the MH17 case came from the Ukranian government-controlled battery?

Also, from what I can recall, the Americans and NATO countries routinely lie about everything. Mike Pompeo, the American Secretary of State, for example, in a April, 2019 speech at Texas A&M, made the following statement about the CIA:

"I was the CIA Director – We Lied, We Cheated, We stole".

Trump lies so routinely that lying is now becoming normalized in American society.

The "Allies" appear to be lying not only about MH17, but also about the Skripal case, the charges (backed up by lies by the U.N. agency OPCW) that Assad used sarin and/or chlorine in Douma, that Huawei technology is insecure because there are hidden back doors (true of Cisco with CIA back doors, but no one can prove any exist in Huawei), etc.

Perhaps you recall that the "Allies" launched a war of aggression against Iraq, based on the false charge that Saddam had nuclear weapons, and backed up by a sloppy and juvenile "sexed up dossier" that Tony Blair's government used as justification, and lies such as the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassdor claiming that Saddam's soldiers threw babies out of incubators.

Perhaps you recall that the USA used illegal chemical weapons such as white phosphorus in its extermination of the civilian city Fallujah during the American attack on Iraq. Perhaps you are aware that the "Allies" hide and deny Israel's proven use of white phosphorus on the captive Palestinian population, along with using the Palestinians as human shields and killing unarmed Palestinian women and children targeted intentionally by snipers.

If your interest is an objective view of matters, the hopefully you'll consider the track records of the players involved. Iran has invaded no other country in hundreds of years. The US is the world champion of invading other countries, and Britain and France have disgraceful histories of colonization and genocidal crimes against native peoples, as does America and other members of the "Allies", including Australia and Canada.

I could go on, and on, and on. The "Allies" are much more guilty of killing and lies than Iran.

As you may know, the CIA has assassinated a number of country leaders, including several in South America, by bombing planes. Rumor is that is what the CIA had planned for Evo Morales, which is why he fled to Mexico, knowing the USA and traitors in the Bolivian army were planning just such an assassination.

I'm also having a bit of difficulty recalling many lies by the Iranians. On the other hand, from mere recollection alone, I could keep typing for yours adding to a list of lies I do recall by America and the Europeans, many of which were coverups of bloody insurrections, assassinations and murders.

Bottom line: I don't trust anything America or the Europeans say. They are biased, have a track record of lying, and have a history of unclean hands. The Iranians, on the other hand, have a much better record in all those areas.

Paul ,

It was the same in Iran back in 1953 with the sudden appearance of angry and armed 'anti a Communists' protesting the government, winding up the political time bomb. It cost the State Department a lot of money – although not as much as spent on the Shah! Later these mercenary protesters, often special forces types seeped in brutality upped the PR with flowers and colours as symbols. In other places, where they faced serious opposition they reverted to the dirtiest of tricks involving snipers creating havoc, as in Kiev in 2014. Something similar seems to be happening in Hong King and Tehran but then did anybody expect the Empire to roll over?!

Brian Steere ,

I don't see reason to doubt this. A suspicious mind can conjecture – but why would Iran admit this unless they verified that it happened?

If combatants are killed in the line of duty it is part of the risk of combat.
When civilians are killed in error it is tragic.

War and fear of attack are extremely dangerous. 'Friendly fire' so called, is not uncommon.

In this sense the token 'revenge' has backfired.

But the full facts may not be known.

KneelB4Zod! ,

As I wrote, it's strangely convenient for the hegemons. Now Trump even tweets in Farsi, supporting Tehran protest.

I have no doubt that the plane was downed by Iranian missile. But was it an error? It's not outside of realm of possibilities that it was a sabotage. Mole withing air defense unit nearby Tehran's civil airport.

Under the current circumstances it's less damaging for Iran to take responsiblity for the tragedy then admit that the internal security was severely breached and infiltrated by hostile forces.

Jack_Garbo ,

As has already been stated, the Iranian attacked on two US bases was not the "revenge" for Soleimani's assassination, but a show of 1. Iranian tactical ability (warned first, no casualties), 2, the beginning of revenge for Soleimani and others killed by the US presence. It has only begun.
Don't think like a (short-term) Westerner, but like a long term Easterner. The US will eventually be driven out, the Iranians will them them good-bye.

KneelB4Zod! ,

Considering the fact how convenient the whole airliner incident is for the hegemons I still have doubts if it was just human error.

Pompeo tweeting support for Tehran protest which follows today's announcement. British ambassador arrested amid participation in it. It pseaks loud imo

JudyJ ,

If the footage of the missile striking the plane is genuine, I remain unclear as to why someone would have been, it would appear, randomly pointing a phone camera at a black night sky on the outskirts of Tehran at 6.30 in the morning and, by sheer coincidence, caught the moment of impact. The way the camera was being aligned would suggest the person behind the camera was anticipating a particular event and was eager to capture it on film. Maybe I'm being unduly suspicious. Of course we don't know for sure that the footage in question was indeed genuine.

Mike Leach ,

I don't think there's any such thing as 'unduly suspicious' in the present state of the world.

Derek ,

Iran claim the missiles were launched by an individual who was out of radio contact with his commander and "panicked" upon seeing the fast-moving object on radar.

More than one missile was launched so is it not possible that's why the person was filming?

Loverat ,

One thing I think I mentioned on another thread as cynical as it is, this plane possibly might have been shot down deliberately by Iran. If you think about it, this event has distracted and possibly taken the 'sting' out of the main event. And of course if the West knows the plane was shot down by Iran deliberately it could have been a message not to retaliate for the air base attack. Iran admitting it accidentally shot down the plane might take some of the force out of my argument/ possible theory but then again this might be an effort to take out the 'secondary sting or risk of retaliation. Hope that makes some sense!

Let's face it, there are other states aside from US and UK might create or stage 'events'. As for demos in Iran, can't really see why this would be a major issue for Iranians, or if so likely to be significantly talked up by Pompeo and extremist war rags like the Guardian.

But who really knows at this stage?

Martin Usher ,

Actually, it ruined what should have been a perfect response. I honestly thought their air defenses were more sophisticated than they were, in particular that there was a level of coordination between individual units and a command and control center that could verify whether a threat was real or not. We can speculate about whether this event was engineered or not but as far as I'm concerned its a screwup of the same order as the Vincennes incident. (The only different being that the Iranians didn't have a news crew taping 'our boys' in action while they paniced and overreacted.)

Sad as this is I don't think it will happen again. Needless to say we in the US will make as much political capital about it as we can but then its our job.

[Jan 11, 2020] A leak from the Ukrainian side about the investigation: Compare the behaviour of Iranian authorities and Ukrainian Provitional Goverment(junta) in case of MH17

Jan 11, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Another leak (ukr) from the Ukrainian side of the investigation gives some hints on how the plane came down (machine translation):

"We took up the restoration of fragments of the aircraft. It was necessary to determine how these pieces of metal dumped into a huge pile should be interconnected.

The intrigue remained until late. The fact is that there were no damages on most parts of the aircraft. There was no explosion and no fire in the engines or on the wings. It is possible that the plane could fall almost intact. Unlike the remains of the Boeing MN-17, there were no immediately visible signs of defeat by combat elements on the fuselage and wings. A lot of damage to the case is the result of a fall. But after laying out all the fragments of the aircraft, it became obvious that the bottom of the cockpit was missing.

Among the wreckage, fragments of the upper part of the cabin were identified. And then the find finally took place - at about 22 hours. On a fragment of the cockpit, we found holes in the damaging elements of the warhead of the rocket, which pierced the skin. We found! For the first time, direct evidence appeared in this case, which made it possible to prove what caused the death of the aircraft. For us it was a turning point.

So what we now understand:

Russian anti-aircraft missile "Tor" hit the liner in the lower part of the front of the fuselage, directly under the cockpit.

A direct hit and the cabin flared up inside. Instantly turned off the transponder of the aircraft, which gives signals about the flight. Instantly lost contact.

While there is no data, one or two missiles have caused such damage. It is possible that the second missile also hit the fuselage from below close to the first. But all this remains to be clarified.

We continue to lay out fragments of the aircraft until the complete collection of all surviving parts.

We expect that today we will gain access to all objective control data.

In cooperation with Iranian colleagues, we get the impression that those who contact us sincerely want to help themselves and figure it out, in general, there are no problems. Let's hope that such a mood and working contacts remain with us now."

[Jan 11, 2020] Iran didn't cancel flights because they most likely had an agreement with the ZioAmericans allowing them to attack the US bases, and were told there would be no retaliation.. Were Iran communications disrupted by the cyberattack?

Notable quotes:
"... 5 eye propaganda is vile. Other people's propaganda is not much better. No one sane trusts their government. ..."
"... Why was Zelensky ( Pres. of the Ukraine ) being so reasonable and calm about the whole situation, telling everyone not to jump to conclusions, when his handlers ( zioamerica ) were crying shoot down almost from the beginning. ..."
"... What was the reason for the plane's hour long delay at the airport ? ..."
"... Zelensky is out of the US orbit as his sponsor Kholomojsky seems to have decided that his business interests are with Russia - but apart from that, Zelensky is a Russian speaker, with a Jewish background, and not part of the Western Ukraine Bandera proto-fascists. ..."
"... Don't commercial aircraft have radar identification beacons on them ? ..."
"... As Iran has already notified the Swiss embassy prior to attack on American bases, it is curious why Iran did not close its airspace and ground flights following the attack. ..."
"... It is also wise that Iran accepts the guilt and apologizes. I am sure that they will do more. ..."
"... The IRGC must learn this: modern warfare is not fought with bravery, but with cold-blooded rationality. We're not in ancient warfare anymore: this is industrial warfare, waged with machines which kill humans (and destroy other machines) in a mass scale with maximum efficiency, operated by mathematical calculations at superhuman speeds. This is the era of the nerds, not of the macho men. ..."
"... So, before indoctrinating its soldiers with random religious texts and tales of martyrdom, the IRGC better teach them to fill a fucking log and keep their nerves in place first. And welcome to the 21st Century. ..."
"... According to reports, SIX of these people were NUCLEAR SCIENTISTS. Visiting IRAN. At the same time. on the same plane. What are the chances that it's coincidence? ..."
"... Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Iranian_nuclear_scientists ..."
"... There is only so much human error can explain. If the missile in the famous video is what caused the crash, note that it was flying EAST. The jamming incident explains a lot. Several outbound civilian flights had taken off in the late afternoon following the same flight pattern, so WHY at that time? Also, why does Trump not want to share the intel, saying people have no right to see it? ..."
"... Lots of idiots here. Be glad they accepted responsibility within a reasonable time frame. This is what happens in a WAR. Who drove the Iranians to this point? They certainly have my respect, unlike those cowboys. ..."
"... Still it does seems an extraordinary lack of common sense that commercial civilian flights were allowed to fly around under conditions of such high tension in the country. Also night take-offs. Better to wait until morning . . . ..."
"... Staying in the domain of facts rather than speculation and having worked on the design of air defence systems, I can add a tidbit of info. TOR system can be in a configuration without a surveillance radar, with only a tracking radar. Then when not integrated into a wide area system with centralised control, the crew of such system cannot track aircraft, they can only detect aircraft. Detecting an approaching aircraft/target, tracking it from the moment of detection and not really knowing where it originated from is probably why the crew had to make a faithful decision in a very short time. ..."
"... General note to self: never fly Boeing and stay away from flights which approach any of the war zones that JUSA regularly creates. ..."
"... On the reported taking advantage by Germany to target Iran as terrorist state and ask for more sanctions, we must recall Germany's responsibility along with the US, Canada and current Ukrainian regime, for the terrorist events which gave place to the nazi coup d´etat in the Ukraine, amongst them, the Maidan Snippers event, but not only, also those enumerated by me in another comment above. ..."
"... Given Pompeo's curriculum, it was probable that the CIA had the wrong conjunctural assessment of Iran. They expected that a "silent majority" would revive the riots of some months ago, leaving the theocracy one step closer to collapse. Unless there was indeed serious consideration about using "tactical" nukes, that's the only rational explanation for Soleimani's murder. ..."
"... Right after the funeral day, Trump quickly sought contact with the Ayatollah to negotiate a scale down. Rumor says he even agreed with a "proportional" retaliation against an American target. And then the Iraqi parliament debacle happened, which put the USA in a very embarassing situation. ..."
"... It would be very optimistic to assume that JUSA would just gloat at this accident and milk it for its maximum propaganda value ..."
"... " An attacker could potentially pivot, Santamarta says, from the in-flight entertainment system to the CIS/MS to send commands to far more sensitive components that control the plane's safety-critical systems, including its engine, brakes, and sensors. Boeing maintains that other security barriers in the 787's network architecture would make that progression impossible." ..."
"... IRGC Aerospace Cmdr.: We were at that time ready for an all-out war with US. We had reports of cruise missiles fired at Iran. It was an individual's error that caused this tragedy. ..."
"... Certainly they were on high alert and it could have been an individual error combined with a system malfunction, the aircraft straying out of its commercial lane or any confluence of events. Something may be lurking beneath the surface. The media jumped on and pushed the story hard and that always leaves me suspicious. The borg was correct and knew what happened immediately and reported it truthfully. An even stranger event. ..."
"... What an epic mistake to not close the airspace. I'm impressed that the IRGC admitted full responsibility and even gave a detailed description of the human error. Adding in the EW jamming and it is easy how this could happen. What a horrible tragedy. ..."
"... "The cyberattacks -- a contingency plan developed over weeks amid escalating tensions -- disabled Iranian computer systems that controlled its rocket and missile launchers, the officials said. Two of the officials said the attacks, which specifically targeted Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps computer system, were provided as options after Iranian forces blew up two oil tankers earlier this month." ..."
Jan 11, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

somebody , Jan 11 2020 12:46 utc | 126

Posted by: ChasMARK | Jan 11 2020 12:26 utc | 122

Of course they did. But Iranians should have seen that coming. Some people still think they can continue with this stupidity - like Jerusalem Post on the tit for tat "Kindergarten" strategy .

What they are doing is "showing capabilities" and testing weapons systems. They had a "game" of conventional war justified by "not killing anybody". Well they did. Both parties. Real all out conventional war is impossible without mass casualties on all sides. And all out unconventional/assymetric war just draws out the misery.

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Jan 11 2020 12:21 utc | 119

I was talking about the ability to be sad and apologize. I prefer not to have a religious authority dictating my private life.

5 eye propaganda is vile. Other people's propaganda is not much better. No one sane trusts their government.

William Gruff , Jan 11 2020 12:49 utc | 127

Norwegian @120

Sadly, no facts. Perhaps if we had full bios on the passengers we could tally up how many had done undergrad studies at George Washington University, but spooks usually have fictional biographies so I am not sure how much help that would be.

Fog of War , Jan 11 2020 13:02 utc | 128
Some points to consider:
  • Iran didn't cancel flights because they most likely had an agreement with the ZioAmericans allowing them to attack the US bases, and were told there would be no retaliation..
  • Don't commercial aircraft have radar identification beacons on them ?
  • Why was Zelensky ( Pres. of the Ukraine ) being so reasonable and calm about the whole situation, telling everyone not to jump to conclusions, when his handlers ( zioamerica ) were crying shoot down almost from the beginning.
  • What was the reason for the plane's hour long delay at the airport ?
somebody , Jan 11 2020 13:15 utc | 129
Posted by: Fog of War | Jan 11 2020 13:02 utc | 128

Zelensky is out of the US orbit as his sponsor Kholomojsky seems to have decided that his business interests are with Russia - but apart from that, Zelensky is a Russian speaker, with a Jewish background, and not part of the Western Ukraine Bandera proto-fascists.

Don't commercial aircraft have radar identification beacons on them ?

If your system is not compromised and can read it.

The Boeing was hit by a Tor system, related to the BUK of MH17 fame. There were a lot of flights over Teheran airport at the time. Can anyone find out if the Ukraine Airlines flight was the only Boeing and is the hack specific to Boeing?

Innocent Civilian , Jan 11 2020 13:16 utc | 130
It is sad that the real victims of this escalation so far has been 176 souls that have nothing to do with this affair. As Iran has already notified the Swiss embassy prior to attack on American bases, it is curious why Iran did not close its airspace and ground flights following the attack.

I personally put the blame on USA for its disproportionate responses in the entire affair as it created the conditions that lead to this horrible accident, but Iran could have been more careful by considering that human factors can prove catastrophic under tense circumstances.

It is also wise that Iran accepts the guilt and apologizes. I am sure that they will do more.

vk , Jan 11 2020 13:17 utc | 131
IRGC Aerospace Cmdr.: The officials, including Aviation authorities, who kept denying the missile hit, are not guilty. They made those remarks based on what they knew . We are to blame for everything.

Well well - there's always the human factor. As the saying goes: there's no fool-proof plan. Days of investigative speculation undone by (probably) a small bureaucratic error which resulted in a lack of communication.

The IRGC must learn this: modern warfare is not fought with bravery, but with cold-blooded rationality. We're not in ancient warfare anymore: this is industrial warfare, waged with machines which kill humans (and destroy other machines) in a mass scale with maximum efficiency, operated by mathematical calculations at superhuman speeds. This is the era of the nerds, not of the macho men.

So, before indoctrinating its soldiers with random religious texts and tales of martyrdom, the IRGC better teach them to fill a fucking log and keep their nerves in place first. And welcome to the 21st Century.

somebody , Jan 11 2020 13:18 utc | 132
Posted by: somebody | Jan 11 2020 13:15 utc | 129

add: Is Boeings Friend or Foe System different from other Airlines? Or does commercial Boeing simply look a lot like military Boeing?
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_AEW%26C

dave , Jan 11 2020 13:22 utc | 133
1/2

According to reports, SIX of these people were NUCLEAR SCIENTISTS. Visiting IRAN. At the same time. on the same plane. What are the chances that it's coincidence?

https://twitter.com/Kerryactivism/status/1215413680281718785

dave , Jan 11 2020 13:22 utc | 134
Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Iranian_nuclear_scientists
Jonathan W , Jan 11 2020 13:28 utc | 135
There is only so much human error can explain. If the missile in the famous video is what caused the crash, note that it was flying EAST. The jamming incident explains a lot. Several outbound civilian flights had taken off in the late afternoon following the same flight pattern, so WHY at that time? Also, why does Trump not want to share the intel, saying people have no right to see it?
Peter AU1 , Jan 11 2020 13:40 utc | 139
129 "Can anyone find out if the Ukraine Airlines flight was the only Boeing and is the hack specific to Boeing?"

One Embraer, seven Airbus, two Boeing.https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/ukrainian-flight-ps752-crashes-shortly-after-take-off-from-tehran/

The other Boeing took off headed for Hong Kong only seconds before the Ukraine flight. Looks to be the green flight path that turns back east southeast shortly after takeoff. The Ukraine flight was the only Boeing that took the northern flight path.

Ian2 , Jan 11 2020 13:46 utc | 141
Lots of idiots here. Be glad they accepted responsibility within a reasonable time frame. This is what happens in a WAR. Who drove the Iranians to this point? They certainly have my respect, unlike those cowboys.
Really?? , Jan 11 2020 13:46 utc | 142
Jan @ 40

"Or could Iran have been enticed to make a false admission to protect Boeing's reputation and/or the Ukraine airline's reputation. Perhaps a carrot of lesser severity in the new sanctions?"

This doesn't seem to comport with what we know/have been told about how the Iranian govt and religious leadership works.

Still it does seems an extraordinary lack of common sense that commercial civilian flights were allowed to fly around under conditions of such high tension in the country. Also night take-offs. Better to wait until morning . . .

I am so, so saddened to hear of the cause of this terrible incident, and I do blame it on the USA, which started this provocation of Iraq-Iran.

Kiza , Jan 11 2020 13:47 utc | 143
Staying in the domain of facts rather than speculation and having worked on the design of air defence systems, I can add a tidbit of info. TOR system can be in a configuration without a surveillance radar, with only a tracking radar. Then when not integrated into a wide area system with centralised control, the crew of such system cannot track aircraft, they can only detect aircraft. Detecting an approaching aircraft/target, tracking it from the moment of detection and not really knowing where it originated from is probably why the crew had to make a faithful decision in a very short time.

Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) looks great in theory but has many drawbacks (relatively easy spoofing) therefore is generally not relied upon, especially not by the second grade EW countries. I remind everybody how, during 1st Gulf War, US air defence in Kuwait shot down (at least) one British bomber (killed pilot);returning from a mission in Iraq. That much for IFF even within first EW grade countries of NATO.

Stand-alone air defence units (not integrated) in a very complex air space environment (with civilian air traffic in the air, possible drones, cruise missiles, low observability military planes, etc etc) are a definite recipe for disaster. Trying to avoid the cost of air traffic disruption (or loss of overflight fees) despite high risk of an even bigger cost happened in Ukraine already (MH17) and Iran did not learn from it. (It does not matter who shot down MH17 Ukraine is responsible). Whoever did not close down the civilian air traffic after shooting missiles at US targets is really responsible for this tragedy, slightly more than JUSA. But governments never learn because their power protects them from the need to learn.

General note to self: never fly Boeing and stay away from flights which approach any of the war zones that JUSA regularly creates.

Sasha , Jan 11 2020 13:52 utc | 144
On the reported taking advantage by Germany to target Iran as terrorist state and ask for more sanctions, we must recall Germany's responsibility along with the US, Canada and current Ukrainian regime, for the terrorist events which gave place to the nazi coup d´etat in the Ukraine, amongst them, the Maidan Snippers event, but not only, also those enumerated by me in another comment above.

Also we must add Germany's responsibility in the war information which gave place to the justification of the destruction of former Yugoslavia as a way of getting rid of an European superpower inclined to the Est which could oppose current German hegemony in Europe, which, being Germany an Us occupied country, only means US hegemony over Europe.

Go preparing for the "renaissance" of the IV Reich and its evolution, and not only in hairdos....

Germany, along with UK, is responsible for all the evil has happened in Europe since the falling of the Spanish Empire. GLADIO and many other operations come to mind.

Thus, better shut up when labelling others as terrorists...

A P , Jan 11 2020 13:59 utc | 145
Time to remind the pro-US/Zionist trolls here that, as war criminal GHW Bush was quoted, the US will never admit it is wrong, let alone trying to fulfill stupid ancient texts for their sheeple Zionist Jew and right-wing Christian voters and political funders (think Rothschild, Adelson). The End of Days may not become reality, but a Yinon Plan/AIPAC, Greater Israel is all too likely a prospect. All because Lord Balfour didn't have the balls to tell Lord Rothschild to go pound salt, and the US was too stupid to avoid taking up the Zionist cause after WW2.

The US has SO MUCH more to apologize for, like LIES about WMD's, Syria gas attacks, Kuwaiti babies thrown from incubators, South American death squads, reaching back beyond "Remember the Maine".

So the US/ZATO needs to take the hundreds of logs out of their own eye before endlessly demanding Iran take the sliver from their eye.

The US is run by lying, hypocritical psychopaths, from the Oval Office down through Congress, to the bowels of the NSA/FBI/CIA/Mossad and the Pentagon.

Oū Sī / 區司/ Usman , Jan 11 2020 14:00 utc | 146
.
. The greatest irony of it all:
-- That the US almost never compensate the families or counties hit by 'mistakes' or killed as 'collateral damage'.
-- That the Iran authorities and judicial system make some compensation obligatory.
-- That Iran has been cut off from the means to aquire US dollars or Euro and have been cut off from all international payment systems: Any compensation would have to be paid in Iranian reals and used within Iran.
. Good for future tourism by airplane travel to Tehran?
Piotr Berman , Jan 11 2020 14:03 utc | 147
Saying Soleimani was a hero for fighting ISIS is just like saying Hitler was a hero for fighting Stalin.

The only world player that has been unselfishly good in recent memory is Cuba by sending its doctors throughout the.world and Venezuela under Chavez sending oil to poor people including those in the US.

Posted by: CognitiveDissonance | Jan 11 2020 5:25 utc | 15

--------

One can make any classifications of "good, but not unselfishly", "kind of good" and so on, but this is a pernicious type of whataboutery. Basically, we should find reasons to be obedient subjects of the Empire, yes, the Empire is not good but almost no one is much better, so find better deals for seeds for our little garden, focus on that, convince others not to do anything either.

To understand the Empire, one has to read stories about school bullying. A charismatic kid accumulates a circle of friends and a victim. The victim is harassed, his/her stuff damaged, and a creative combination of verbal humiliation, physical humiliations and outright assaults keeps the circle amused. If anyone defends the chosen victim, the efforts redouble against that person, so the majority is either actively sycophantic (bravo, Mr. Johnson, bravo, Mr. Trudeau!) or sullen. But not too sullen (OK job, Madam Merkel, we will punish you only mildly). That can raise the wrath of the dominant clique too.

It is often the case that the victim is "not perfect". And the removal of the top bully does not have to change the school into paradise. But doing nothing is a coward option, however "sensible". It is also stupid, nobody can deliver paradise, but avoiding hell is totally possible, so why we should be content with hell?

vk , Jan 11 2020 14:09 utc | 150
@ Posted by: CognitiveDissonance | Jan 11 2020 5:25 utc | 15

Evidence available strongly indicates Soleimani was indeed extremely popular in Iran.

It is probable the USA expected brand new and stronger anti-government manifestation in the streets of Tehran after he was murdered. Pompeo claimed right after - in cheerful tone - that "Iran is nearer regime change after Soleimani's assassination".

Given Pompeo's curriculum, it was probable that the CIA had the wrong conjunctural assessment of Iran. They expected that a "silent majority" would revive the riots of some months ago, leaving the theocracy one step closer to collapse. Unless there was indeed serious consideration about using "tactical" nukes, that's the only rational explanation for Soleimani's murder.

His hopes of regime change were quickly dashed by the millions who showed up in the streets of Tehran for his funeral. He was indeed very popular, the official propaganda was true: Soleimani's reputation really preceeded him.

Right after the funeral day, Trump quickly sought contact with the Ayatollah to negotiate a scale down. Rumor says he even agreed with a "proportional" retaliation against an American target. And then the Iraqi parliament debacle happened, which put the USA in a very embarassing situation.

In the greater scheme of things, this accidental downing of a commercial plane was a very small price to pay. It's one of those once in a blue moon incidents where the imponderable overcame what 99.99% of the then available evidence indicated. It doesn't change the morality of the conflict: the USA still has to get out of Iraq, and Iran's cause (regardless of its theocratic regime) is still just. Or do you expect a prosperous Iran to rise from an hypothetic American occupation of the country?

The days of the Marshall Plan are still over. The USA can't nation build anymore - it simply doesn't have the resources (as it had in 1946).

Kiza , Jan 11 2020 14:11 utc | 151
It would be very optimistic to assume that JUSA would just gloat at this accident and milk it for its maximum propaganda value . Unfortunately, it is likely that the leading shitbags of the World will not fail to use the shell shock state of the Iranian air defense to bomb soon for the benefit of lower losses due to Iranian FUD. I can only hope that the Iranian air defense will recover it's mental state quickly or the loss of life will be much much bigger than one plane load. Soleimani was a nasty military character, but his style of organisational skills is sorely needed for a quick reorganisation of the Iranian air defence under clear and present danger.
Peter AU1 , Jan 11 2020 14:12 utc | 152
Passenger list.
https://www.unian.info/society/10822121-uia-publishes-full-passenger-list-for-flight-ps752-crashed-in-iran.html
Peter AU1 , Jan 11 2020 14:20 utc | 153
143 "Stand-alone air defence units (not integrated) in a very complex air space environment (with civilian air traffic in the air, possible drones, cruise missiles, low observability military planes, etc etc) are a definite recipe for disaster."

From my understanding, all Russian and perhaps previous to that society defense systems are made to be able to operate as stand alone units incase the network goes down. This appears to be what happened in Iran Whoever was commanding that unit, with coms down had make a decision with no input from the wider defense network.

US, five eyes and mossad are very good at covering their tracks at times, but modus operandi and narrative give them away.

Jonathan W , Jan 11 2020 14:26 utc | 155
You can always blame the airport for not shutting down the traffic but that is usually easier to say after the fact. Of course, you could shut down all air traffic across the globe as a precautionary measure. It is convenient to speculate retrospectively that - after the Iranian strike in Iraq - Tehran should have shut down its airport ( which it had except for a few flights).

This is where the theory of Iranian misinformation boomerangs: even if the state media had shown the Iranian strikes in Iraq on TV, what reason did anyone have to believe it?

Farsnews reported that 80 American soldiers died in those strikes but now the US says that was not true either. So what reason had anyone to believe anything. This is not comparable to the crash in Ukraine at all. There the plane was flying above the warzone, here the distance between Tehran and Iraq was about 800 km. Of course, it would be convenient for the US to command every airport in Iran to shut down....

Peter AU1 , Jan 11 2020 14:31 utc | 156
"Now, nearly a year later, Santamarta claims that leaked code has led him to something unprecedented: security flaws in one of the 787 Dreamliner's components, deep in the plane's multi-tiered network. He suggests that for a hacker, exploiting those bugs could represent one step in a multi­stage attack that starts in the plane's in-flight entertainment system and extends to highly protected, safety-critical systems like flight controls and sensors."

" An attacker could potentially pivot, Santamarta says, from the in-flight entertainment system to the CIS/MS to send commands to far more sensitive components that control the plane's safety-critical systems, including its engine, brakes, and sensors. Boeing maintains that other security barriers in the 787's network architecture would make that progression impossible."
https://www.wired.com/story/boeing-787-code-leak-security-flaws/

What Boeing is saying here is admitting the plane can be taken over from the ground, or at least many things disrupted, but their security is that good nobody can break into it. I believe most Boeing aircraft send automated data back to Boeing (maintenance, faults and so forth) which may mean Boeing always has an open line into the aircraft. Boeing being part of US MIC.

Kiza , Jan 11 2020 14:49 utc | 157
Well Peter 153, you are right about the ability to operate stand-alone. But such is a fall-back tactic, not a to begin with tactic. When comms and the operations centre are destroyed no civilian aircraft are supposed to remain in the air. I did not read that all Iranian comms were down. I also did not read a statement that their radars were jammed. BTW, I have experienced radar and comms jamming by a US aircraft carrier and despite being targeted at military frequencies, it is disruptive to all civilian comms and civilian aircraft as well. Therefore, this plane would not have been flying under radio and radar jamming conditions.

I can only repeat the two obvious root causes: you expect a military retaliation but do not close down civilian air traffic and you scatter your air defense units unconnected to a centre (which essentially leaves considerable destructive power in the hands of below average brains connected to twitchy fingers at least somewhere in such scatter - imagine the statistical risk level).

Never assume that this could never happen in your country. Only countries without governments are safe. The only difference is whether the government admits or not, TWA800 anyone?

dltravers , Jan 11 2020 14:50 utc | 158
I can sit at home with my laptop and monitor almost all commercial air traffic in my area with an antenna, ABS software, and a RTL SDR donegal. It is not that difficult and the internet is not needed as long as the aircraft withing withing range of the antenna. They transmit in 1.090 gigahertz. RTL-SDR Tutorial: Cheap ADS-B Aircraft RADAR

IRGC Aerospace Cmdr.: We were at that time ready for an all-out war with US. We had reports of cruise missiles fired at Iran. It was an individual's error that caused this tragedy.

Certainly they were on high alert and it could have been an individual error combined with a system malfunction, the aircraft straying out of its commercial lane or any confluence of events. Something may be lurking beneath the surface. The media jumped on and pushed the story hard and that always leaves me suspicious. The borg was correct and knew what happened immediately and reported it truthfully. An even stranger event.


Sasha , Jan 11 2020 14:56 utc | 159
@Posted by: Sasha | Jan 11 2020 14:05 utc | 148

To add....I tried hard to change my connection to Moscow, but no way, just imagine what my mood was on travelling by Kiev connection on a flag airline of a now nazi state being myself a real left, pro-Russian activist...

While in the long queue to check in and baggage dropp in, I dedicated myself to, out of curiosity, observe my Ukrainian flight companions, and must say they all seemed to me, by their face´s expression, peaceful and patient stance, innocent people totally misdirected by a bunch of oligarchic and foreign interests, mainly residing in North America...

One would say they mostly seemed and innocent crowd who then provided a quite peaceful flight and connection, i must adit also quite effectiveness by the Kiev airport personel related to timely departure and baggage organization...

On harsh contrast, I suffered a quite disturbing incident protagonized by some Iranians coming from the US in a flight to Teheran....I had been the first to place my handbaggage in the compartment up my sit, when some US diaspora Iranian women( clearly way over-empoverished by the US life style even for an European like me.. ) arrived, dropped my baggage out the compartiment so as to place theirs, leaving mine on the floor, without leaving any place left for it in the compartment, which obly me to put it further from I was sat, something I usually try to avoid as long as possible by sometimes standing up in the line to boarding while others remain sat. I complained in English ( which they clearly understood...) adding Spanish temperament, to no avail, such was their stuborness to prevail...

Then, during the flight, they kept talking to me as if nothing unpolite had happened, including the one sat by my side....I got to the conclusion that they had been obviously brutalized by living in the US, since the attittude of Iranians in Iran during all my travel was astonishingly polite and hospitable....

Red Ryder , Jan 11 2020 14:57 utc | 160
@121

A little bit of factual history for you to learn the facts of the situation.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34767012

"Russia has signed a contract to supply Iran with sophisticated S-300 surface-to-air missiles. The contract got the go-ahead after international sanctions on Iran were lifted earlier this year, following a deal over its nuclear programme. Israel, the US and Saudi Arabia are all opposed to the missile contract. Russian officials say the first batch could be delivered 18 months after Iran has specified the S-300 type that it wants. Technical talks are continuing.

"The deal to supply the S-300 to Iran has not only been signed between the parties but it has already come into force," said Sergei Chemezov, head of Russia's Rostec arms firm, speaking at the Dubai Airshow-2015.

The $800m (£545m) contract, signed in 2007, was frozen by Russia in 2010 because of the international sanctions. President Vladimir Putin unfroze it in April.

Israel and the US fear the missiles could be used to protect Iranian nuclear sites from air strikes. The missiles can shoot down jets and other missiles hundreds of kilometres away. The S-300 can be used against multiple targets including jets, or to shoot down other missiles.

The S-300B4 variant - delivered to the Russian armed forces last year - can shoot down any medium-range missile in the world today, flies at five times the speed of sound and has a range of 400km (248 miles), Tass reports."

When the Russian deal was suspended Iran filed a lawsuit seeking billions of dollars in damages. Mr Chemezov said Saudi Arabia had asked Rostec repeatedly not to supply the S-300 to Iran. But he insisted that it was a defensive weapon. "So if the Gulf countries are not going to attack Iran... why should they be threatened? Because this is defence equipment," Reuters news agency quoted him as saying."

As for the offer in 2016 to sell the S-400 to Iran, which it turned down, here is one source: https://www.gazeta.ru/army/2016/08/25/10158377.shtml

Minister of defence of the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) Hossein Dehgan said: "We produce a system to ensure air safety at three levels. Available high-range deficiencies we made up for the purchase of s-300, we do not have any need to purchase other systems", -- quotes Agency Tasnim statement Dehgan.

The Iranian defense Minister Dehgan said that "Iran has the necessary defensive system that is able to ensure aerospace security of the country".


In the past year, 2019, Russia indicated it would offer to sell the S-400. "We are open for discussions on delivering S-400 Triumph air defense systems, including to Iran. Especially given that this equipment is not subject to restrictions outlined in UN Security Council's resolution issued on June 20, 2015," a representative of the press service of the Russian Federal Service of Military-Technical Cooperation told Sputnik on Friday."
Iran's own Presstv.com reported.
https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2019/06/28/599649/Russia-Iran-S400

Sorghum , Jan 11 2020 14:59 utc | 161
Thanks b for the update and the excellent coverage.

What an epic mistake to not close the airspace. I'm impressed that the IRGC admitted full responsibility and even gave a detailed description of the human error. Adding in the EW jamming and it is easy how this could happen. What a horrible tragedy.

veto , Jan 11 2020 15:01 utc | 162
Posted by: William Gruff | Jan 11 2020 12:07 utc | 114

Yes, this was my first guess as well. Who was actually on that plane. Ukraine is CIA/Mossad territory, but the Russians may have ways to find out who are on a flight to Kiev, and they may choose to pass that information on. Then again, it might just be a mistake as admitted.

dorje , Jan 11 2020 15:03 utc | 163
I am very surprised by this admission. Are the Iranians just closing the door on this Passenger jet and shifting the focus of conversation? Was there an actual mistake made by their Air Defense?

Having apologized for an event that occurred under the Fog of War Iran will definitely get credit from most Westerners as our governments never apologize. Why would a vicious psychopath apologize? We are all Palestinians' to our governments in the 'Free West'?

I don't believe this admission changes the dynamic now under way: the U.S. has no defense in the M.E. from Missile attack, if they continue to move forces to the ME to get to 100,000 (I calculate the Iranians as being able to field 100,000+ regulares and militia)it will be viewed as an act of war as will bringing in Patriot systems.

All eyes must now be on what Washington DOES not what it says as, to most observers, it always appears to be lying.

Bonus points for all westerners: can anyone think of a Western hero since DeGaulle or JFK? I can't and I really wish it were otherwise.

Kiza , Jan 11 2020 15:07 utc | 164
My final comment on the topic. I blame both the war instigators and the local decision makers for this tragedy. Yet, it is my strong impression that the person who pressed the button, the US Cretin in Chief and Jonathan W here share about the same level of reasoning.

It is immensely comforting to know that one's life may be in the hands of such individual at some point in life, hope NOT.

Piotr Berman , Jan 11 2020 15:13 utc | 165
The obvious result of several generations of recruiting/hiring military and/or military technicians for loyalty and obedience instead of intelligence. It is lucky for everyone that they found that out now, before nuclear weapons were available.

Posted by: Mike-SMO | Jan 11 2020 14:23 utc | 154

Too late! Do you think that Pompeo got recruited/hired for intelligence? Or any believer of the esoteric cult recently named "inter-agency consensus"? Not to mention that brainwashing in educational programs of our finest institutions (check bio of Fiona Hill) can dampen deleterious side-effects of intelligence (independent thinking and crap like that). They got the nukes, and a galore of other toys to play with, as we had seen in the case of Suleimani. And this process of creating esoteric supremacist doctrine is quite a bit longer than the history of Iranian revolution.

I used the word esoteric to mean a doctrine with multiple levels of initiation and knowledge, with deference to the higher levels. As Pompeo was explaining, there was a full consensus among the people of the highest knowledge level, so Congressional blokes should know their place. Most of them did, with a notable exception of a yokel from Utah.

Peter AU1 , Jan 11 2020 15:15 utc | 166
kiza This is from last year. A good chance that after the Iranian missile strike, US would have been trying to disrupt IRGC command and communication systems. IRGC manned the Tor unit and according to Iran their coms were out at the time of the incident.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2019/06/23/us-struck-iranian-military-computers-this-week/

"The cyberattacks -- a contingency plan developed over weeks amid escalating tensions -- disabled Iranian computer systems that controlled its rocket and missile launchers, the officials said. Two of the officials said the attacks, which specifically targeted Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps computer system, were provided as options after Iranian forces blew up two oil tankers earlier this month."

Kiza, adding this sort of crap in each comment really does give you away. "which essentially leaves considerable destructive power in the hands of below average brains connected to twitchy fingers"

[Jan 11, 2020] Big Money in Politics Doesn't Just Drive Inequality. It Drives War. - FPIF

Notable quotes:
"... Citizens United ..."
Jan 11, 2020 | fpif.org

Big Money in Politics Doesn't Just Drive Inequality. It Drives War.

Military contractors have shelled out over $1 million to the 2016 presidential candidates -- including over $200,000 to Hillary Clinton alone.

By Rebecca Green , April 27, 2016 . Originally published in OtherWords .

Print Friendly, PDF & EmailPrint Military-Industrial Diagnosis

Khalil Bendib / OtherWords.org

The 2016 presidential elections are proving historic, and not just because of the surprising success of self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders, the lively debate among feminists over whether to support Hillary Clinton, or Donald Trump's unorthodox candidacy.

The elections are also groundbreaking because they're revealing more dramatically than ever the corrosive effect of big money on our decaying democracy.

Following the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision and related rulings, corporations and the wealthiest Americans gained the legal right to raise and spend as much money as they want on political candidates.

The 2012 elections were consequently the most expensive in U.S. history. And this year's races are predicted to cost even more. With the general election still six months away, donors have already sunk $1 billion into the presidential race -- with $619 million raised by candidates and another $412 million by super PACs.

Big money in politics drives grave inequality in our country. It also drives war.

After all, war is a profitable industry. While millions of people all over the world are being killed and traumatized by violence, a small few make a killing from the never-ending war machine.

During the Iraq War, for example, weapons manufacturers and a cadre of other corporations made billions on federal contracts.

Most notoriously this included Halliburton, a military contractor previously led by Dick Cheney. The company made huge profits from George W. Bush's decision to wage a costly, unjustified, and illegal war while Cheney served as his vice president.

Military-industrial corporations spend heavily on political campaigns. They've given over $1 million to this year's presidential candidates so far -- over $200,000 of which went to Hillary Clinton, who leads the pack in industry backing.

These corporations target House and Senate members who sit on the Armed Forces and Appropriations Committees, who control the purse strings for key defense line items. And cleverly, they've planted factories in most congressional districts. Even if they provide just a few dozen constituent jobs per district, that helps curry favor with each member of Congress.

Thanks to aggressive lobbying efforts, weapons manufacturers have secured the five largest contracts made by the federal government over the last seven years. In 2014, the U.S. government awarded over $90 billion worth of contracts to Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman.

Military spending has been one of the top three biggest federal programs every year since 2000, and it's far and away the largest discretionary portion. Year after year, elected officials spend several times more on the military than on education, energy, and the environment combined.

Lockheed Martin's problematic F-35 jet illustrates this disturbingly disproportionate use of funds. The same $1.5 trillion Washington will spend on the jet, journalist Tom Cahill calculates , could have provided tuition-free public higher education for every student in the U.S. for the next 23 years. Instead, the Pentagon ordered a fighter plane that can't even fire its own gun yet.

Given all of this, how can anyone justify war spending?

Some folks will say it's to make us safer . Yet the aggressive U.S. military response following the 9/11 attacks -- the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the NATO bombing of Libya, and drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen -- has only destabilized the region. "Regime change" foreign policies have collapsed governments and opened the doors to Islamist terrorist groups like ISIS.

Others may say they support a robust Pentagon budget because of the jobs the military creates . But dollar for dollar, education spending creates nearly three times more jobs than military spending.

We need to stop letting politicians and corporations treat violence and death as "business opportunities." Until politics become about people instead of profits, we'll remain crushed in the death grip of the war machine.

And that is the real national security threat facing the United States today. Share this:

[Jan 11, 2020] Meet the CEOs Raking It in from Trump's Aggression Toward Iran - FPIF

Notable quotes:
"... Sarah Anderson directs the Global Economy Project at the Institute for Policy Studies and co-edits the IPS publication Inequality.org. Follow her at @SarahDAnderson1. ..."
Jan 11, 2020 | fpif.org

Meet the CEOs Raking It in from Trump's Aggression Toward Iran

Major military contractors saw a stock surge from the U.S. assassination of an Iranian general. For CEOs, that means payday comes early.

By Sarah Anderson , January 6, 2020 . Originally published in Inequality.org .

Print Friendly, PDF & EmailPrint military-industrial-complex-arms-contractors

Chris Devers / Flickr

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Print

  • https://www.facebook.com/v2.3/plugins/share_button.php?app_id=249643311490&channel=https%3A%2F%2Fstaticxx.facebook.com%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter.php%3Fversion%3D45%23cb%3Df36fb37a175ca3%26domain%3Dfpif.org%26origin%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Ffpif.org%252Ff1d50e8e50a940b%26relation%3Dparent.parent&container_width=0&href=https%3A%2F%2Ffpif.org%2Fmeet-the-ceos-raking-it-in-from-trumps-aggression-toward-iran%2F&layout=button_count&locale=en_US&sdk=joey

  • Share
  • Tweet

  • https://widgets.getpocket.com/v1/button?label=pocket&count=horizontal&v=1&url=https%3A%2F%2Ffpif.org%2Fmeet-the-ceos-raking-it-in-from-trumps-aggression-toward-iran%2F&title=Meet%20the%20CEOs%20Raking%20It%20in%20from%20Trump's%20Aggression%20Toward%20Iran%20-%20FPIF&src=https%3A%2F%2Ffpif.org%2Fmeet-the-ceos-raking-it-in-from-trumps-aggression-toward-iran%2F&r=0.8283299836378031

Sarah Anderson directs the Global Economy Project at the Institute for Policy Studies and co-edits the IPS publication Inequality.org. Follow her at @SarahDAnderson1.

[Jan 11, 2020] U.S. slaps fresh sanctions against Iran after missile attacks

By killing Soleimani the USA formally declared war of Iran. So sactions is jus secondary effect of this decition.
Notable quotes:
"... Since its unilateral exit from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018, Washington has been mounting pressure on Tehran through a series of sanctions. Iran has maintained a tough stance and scaled back its nuclear commitments in response. ..."
Jan 11, 2020 | www.xinhuanet.com

The latest move included sanctions on metal manufacturing and other sectors of the Iranian economy, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin told reporters at a White House press briefing, noting that the sanctions are both primary and secondary.

Mnuchin also said the Treasury had designated eight senior Iranian officials, including Ali Shamkhani, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, Mohammad Reza Ashtiani, deputy chief of staff of Iranian armed force, and others.

"The United States is targeting senior Iranian officials for their involvement and complicity in Tuesday's ballistic missile strikes," Mnuchin claimed in a statement issued by the Treasury.

Also on Friday, U.S. President Donald Trump said in a White House statement that the punishing measures aimed at denying Iran's revenue that "may be used to fund and support its nuclear program, missile development, terrorism and terrorist proxy networks, and malign regional influence."

The Pentagon confirmed that Iran had launched 16 ballistic missiles against two military bases housing U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq earlier this week.

Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) had claimed responsibility for the missile attacks, saying that they were meant to retaliate the U.S. killing of Qassem Soleimani, former commander of the Quds Force of the IRGC.

Trump said Wednesday in an address to the nation that "the United States will immediately impose additional punishing economic sanctions on the Iranian regime. These powerful sanctions will remain until Iran changes its behavior."

Since its unilateral exit from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018, Washington has been mounting pressure on Tehran through a series of sanctions. Iran has maintained a tough stance and scaled back its nuclear commitments in response.

[Jan 10, 2020] Mike Pompeo played loose with the facts and should step down as secretary of state: there were no eminent threat

He's played fast and loose with the facts, undermining his credibility on the world stage.
Democrats insist the move was hasty and claim there wasn't adequate intelligence to justify killing Soleimani. Essetually he was murged because Pompeo wanted to show the strength of the USA in view of the attack on the USA embassy (which did not have any victims)
Pompeo collected more campaign donations from the Kochs and their employees than any candidate in the country
Notable quotes:
"... In fact, military analysts say Soleimani's assassination by the US is tantamount to a declaration of war against regional superpower Iran. What is certain is that his death marks the beginning of a terrifying new and unpredictable era in an already turbulent region. ..."
"... Indeed, in retrospect it seems nothing short of astonishing that just a day earlier the ayatollah himself had mocked Trump about the violence outside the US embassy in Iraq, which Washington claimed was orchestrated by Iran. 'You can't do anything,' Khamenei said, in what will surely go down in history as one of the most ill-advised tweets ever posted by a country's leader. ..."
"... While most people in the West will not have known much, if anything, about Soleimani before the announcement of his death yesterday, in Iran he was the most revered military leader since the country's 1979 revolution. ..."
Jan 10, 2020 | dailymail.co.uk

Consequences: Donald Trump appears to have no strategy for dealing with the fall-out

In fact, military analysts say Soleimani's assassination by the US is tantamount to a declaration of war against regional superpower Iran. What is certain is that his death marks the beginning of a terrifying new and unpredictable era in an already turbulent region.

Unsurprisingly, Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei warned that 'severe consequences' await the killers of Soleimani, while the country's foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, denounced the assassination as an 'act of international terrorism'.

Meanwhile in the US, a number of major cities have increased security to protect prominent landmarks and civilians from possible revenge terrorist attacks.

Whether or not that US reaction is justified, it would be difficult to overstate just how big a loss Soleimani's death is for the Iranian regime, how seriously we should take its vows of revenge – or, just as crucially, how humiliatingly off-guard Iran's leaders were when Trump gave his kill order.

Indeed, in retrospect it seems nothing short of astonishing that just a day earlier the ayatollah himself had mocked Trump about the violence outside the US embassy in Iraq, which Washington claimed was orchestrated by Iran. 'You can't do anything,' Khamenei said, in what will surely go down in history as one of the most ill-advised tweets ever posted by a country's leader.

Meanwhile, so apparently unconcerned was Soleimani about his own safety that the general – famed for constantly outsmarting his enemies on the battlefield – did not bother to keep his travel plans secret.

While most people in the West will not have known much, if anything, about Soleimani before the announcement of his death yesterday, in Iran he was the most revered military leader since the country's 1979 revolution.

[Jan 10, 2020] Mike Pompeo Fed the Rats in the President* s Brain to Get What He Wanted by Charles P. Pierce

Jan 06, 2020 | www.esquire.com
America's top diplomat does not seem to think his job is to prevent war.

The Washington Post dives deeply into what is laughingly called the administration*'s "process" leading up to the decision to kill Qasem Soleimani with fire last week. In short, all the "imminent threat" palaver was pure moonshine. According to the Post, this particular catastrophe was brewed up for a while amid the stalactites in the mind of Mike Pompeo, a Secretary of State who makes Henry Kissinger look like Gandhi.

The secretary also spoke to President Trump multiple times every day last week, culminating in Trump's decision to approve the killing of Iran's top military commander, Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, at the urging of Pompeo and Vice President Pence, the officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

Pompeo had lost a similar high-stakes deliberation last summer when Trump declined to retaliate militarily against Iran after it downed a U.S. surveillance drone, an outcome that left Pompeo "morose," according to one U.S. official. But recent changes to Trump's national security team and the whims of a president anxious about being viewed as hesitant in the face of Iranian aggression created an opening for Pompeo to press for the kind of action he had been advocating.

Poor Mike was morose. So, in an effort to bring himself out of the dumps, Mike decided to keep feeding the rats in the president*'s head.

Trump, too, sought to draw down from the Middle East as he promised from the opening days of his presidential campaign. But that mind-set shifted on Dec. 27 when 30 rockets hit a joint U.S.-Iraqi base outside Kirkuk, killing an American civilian contractor and injuring service members. On Dec. 29, Pompeo, Esper and Milley traveled to the president's private club in Florida, where the two defense officials presented possible responses to Iranian aggression, including the option of killing Soleimani, senior U.S. officials said.
The whole squad got involved on this one.
Alex Wong Getty Images
Trump's decision to target Soleimani came as a surprise and a shock to some officials briefed on his decision, given the Pentagon's long-standing concerns about escalation and the president's aversion to using military force against Iran. One significant factor was the "lockstep" coordination for the operation between Pompeo and Esper, both graduates in the same class at the U.S. Military Academy, who deliberated ahead of the briefing with Trump, senior U.S. officials said. Pence also endorsed the decision, but he did not attend the meeting in Florida.

First-in-His-Class Mike Pompeo knows his audience. There's no question that he knows how to get what he wants from a guy who doesn't know anything about anything, and who may have gone, as George V. Higgins once put it, as soft as church music. This, I guess, is a skill. Of course, Pompeo's job is easier because the president* is still a raving maniac on the electric Twitter machine. A handy compilation:

Iran is talking very boldly about targeting certain USA assets as revenge for our ridding the world of their terrorist leader who had just killed an American, & badly wounded many others, not to mention all of the people he had killed over his lifetime, including recently hundreds of Iranian protesters. He was already attacking our Embassy, and preparing for additional hits in other locations. Iran has been nothing but problems for many years. Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!
They attacked us, & we hit back. If they attack again, which I would strongly advise them not to do, we will hit them harder than they have ever been hit before!
The United States just spent Two Trillion Dollars on Military Equipment. We are the biggest and by far the BEST in the World! If Iran attacks an American Base, or any American, we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way...and without hesitation!

And, this, perhaps my favorite piece of presidentin" yet.

These Media Posts will serve as notification to the United States Congress that should Iran strike any U.S. person or target, the United States will quickly & fully strike back, & perhaps in a disproportionate manner. Such legal notice is not required, but is given nevertheless!

You have been informed, Congress. You have been informed, Iran.

No, really. It's down there below the cat videos.

Trump Dished Some Bullsh*t on Iran

Respond to this post on the Esquire Politics Facebook page here .

Charles P. Pierce Charles P Pierce is the author of four books, most recently Idiot America, and has been a working journalist since 1976.

[Jan 10, 2020] Pompous killer

Notable quotes:
"... Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has been revealed to be the puppet master behind POTUS Trump's motion to liquidate a top Iranian commander, CNN reported citing sources inside and around the White House, with the revelation indicating Pompeo's influential status in the Trump administration. ..."
"... The sources suggested that the Iranian general was Pompeo's fixation, so that he even sought to get a visa to Iran in 2016 when he represented Kansas in Congress, before assuming the role of CIA director and then his current one. ..."
"... Despite winning the moniker of "Trump whisperer" over the ties he has developed with POTUS, Pompeo's ability to sell an aggressive Iran strategy to Trump, who has commonly opposed any military confrontation, has caused a certain sway, the sources implied. ..."
"... "He's the one leading the way", according to the source in Pompeo's inner circle, discussing the showdown with Iran. "It's the president's policy, but Pompeo has been the leading voice in helping the president craft this policy. There is no doubt Mike is the one leading it in the Cabinet". ..."
"... While bragging about Washington's "big and accurate" missiles as well as US achievements during his tenure, he separately praised the "new powerful economic sanctions" aimed at Iran, promising that they would be in place until Tehran "changes its behaviour". Also, he invited NATO to get more deeply involved in what is going on in the Middle East, with the Transatlantic bloc reacting favorably to the suggestion. ..."
Jan 10, 2020 | sputniknews.com

Mike Pompeo has reportedly long cherished plans to take the Iranian general off the Middle East battlefield, as he is said to have for quite a while seen late Commander Soleimani as the one behind the spiralling tensions with Tehran. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has been revealed to be the puppet master behind POTUS Trump's motion to liquidate a top Iranian commander, CNN reported citing sources inside and around the White House, with the revelation indicating Pompeo's influential status in the Trump administration.

According to several sources, taking Iranian General Qasem Soleimani – the leader of the elite Quds Force, a powerful military group with vast leverage in the region - "off the battlefield" has been Pompeo's goal for a decade.

Pompeo "was the one who made the case to take out Soleimani, it was him absolutely", a source said, adding he apparently floated the idea when debating the US Embassy raid over New Year with Trump.

According to a number of sources close to Pompeo, the secretary of state has at all times believed that Iran is the root cause of the woes in the Middle East, and Soleimani in particular - the mastermind of terrorism raging across the region. This point of view is notably in tune with how Pompeo commented on the commander's assassination:

"We took a bad guy off the battlefield", Pompeo told CNN on 5 January. "We made the right decision". The same day, Pompeo told ABC that killing Soleimani was important "because this was a fella who was the glue, who was conducting active plotting against the United States of America, putting American lives at risk".

The sources suggested that the Iranian general was Pompeo's fixation, so that he even sought to get a visa to Iran in 2016 when he represented Kansas in Congress, before assuming the role of CIA director and then his current one.

Despite winning the moniker of "Trump whisperer" over the ties he has developed with POTUS, Pompeo's ability to sell an aggressive Iran strategy to Trump, who has commonly opposed any military confrontation, has caused a certain sway, the sources implied.

"He's the one leading the way", according to the source in Pompeo's inner circle, discussing the showdown with Iran. "It's the president's policy, but Pompeo has been the leading voice in helping the president craft this policy. There is no doubt Mike is the one leading it in the Cabinet".

Regardless of who inspired the drone attack that killed Soleimani, the two countries are indeed going through a stint of severe tensions, but no direct military confrontation. After Tehran's retaliatory attack, Trump announced a slew of more stringent economic limitations to be slapped on Iran.

While bragging about Washington's "big and accurate" missiles as well as US achievements during his tenure, he separately praised the "new powerful economic sanctions" aimed at Iran, promising that they would be in place until Tehran "changes its behaviour". Also, he invited NATO to get more deeply involved in what is going on in the Middle East, with the Transatlantic bloc reacting favorably to the suggestion.

[Jan 10, 2020] "Moqtada al-Sadr advices to prepare for the battle by closing all Hashd al-Shaabi offices to avoid offering easy targets to the #US when the decision of armed resistance is decided and if the US refuses to withdraw from Iraq."

Notable quotes:
"... Hopefully you are right on the Kurds and Sunnis, but the US ability to enlist proxies has always surprised me. ..."
"... Newspeak: IRAN APPEARS TO BE STANDING DOWN. Imperial words when attacked directly. ..."
"... Iran has been patiently demonstrating its capabilities. The following terms came into the vernacular and are associated with those capabilities: Stena Impero/Adryan Darya, Khurais and Abqaiq, RQ-4A Global Hawk, PMU/PMF and many others, and now, Ain al-Asad. ..."
"... US cannot afford to fight a war with Iran directly. If so, it would have to fight from Hindu Kush to the Mediterranean, so, just be ready for skirmishes here and there. I see RSH is posting here now. He has been predicting a war between the two nations by the end of 2010, end of 2011, end of 2012, and on and on, on other sites. Haven't read enough of his comments to see if it's now by the end of 2020? ..."
"... But I think both Iran and North Korea will keep the pressure on the US high throughout this election year, entirely intentional of course. ..."
"... Damn, I'm late to the party again. It's probably been said already, but Iran's response is pure genius. Early warning to try to avoid casualties, speaks volumes about the differences between the evil empire and the Iranians. ..."
"... Unless one entertains the belief that Iran's missile attacks all misfired and missed their human targets-which appears to be the view that the friends of Israel and those who believe in the indefatigability of the US military, hold- then what Iran has just provided is spectacular confirmation that, short of a nuclear attack, there is nothing that the US can do, but go. ..."
"... Clearly its bases cannot be defended, that is what the craters and smashed buildings are telling them. If the Secretary of Defense wants to wait for a written request to leave the country that is his privilege-he's lucky not to be living there- but there is no way that the US forces can stay there. They have become unwelcome guests. ..."
"... People voted for Trump primarily for two reasons: Obama and the D-Party had stabbed them in the back allowing millions to lose their homes while the fraudulent banksters got away scot-free and with $Trillions too-boot, and they knew Clinton was a deranged warmonger while Trump talked reasonably about the Outlaw US Empire's many Imperial Follies. In short, Trump was seen by many as the lesser of two evils. No, I voted Green. ..."
"... It sounds as though Abdel Mahdi is being forced into the popular opinion. The US is being reduced into its best defended bases. Where from there, when those bases are isolated? ..."
"... The US did not escalate today. Trump's speech was all bluster and falsehood, directed almost exclusively to American audience in the interest of domestic politics. ..."
"... It is also possible that what Pompeo and Esper and Netanyahoo are seeking to accomplish is to maintain the highest level of tension possible without precipitating actual war. This is because all parties recognize that actual war with Iran would entail the destruction of much of Israel's infrastructure and many thousands of Israeli casualties, and these are prices too high to pay for the overthrowing of even the "evil" Iranian "regime". ..."
"... The Iranians have just displayed that they can and will attack targets with precision. No message? Seriously? You've missed the bigger picture. Iran have scored one on the Strategic level. What you're also missing is that Iraq is moving even closer to Iranian and Chinese-Russian orbit. ..."
"... Iran communicated its intent to strike US targets in Iraq directly to the Iraqi Prime Minister a full two hours prior to the missiles being launched; Iraq then shared this information with US military commanders, who were able to ensure all US troops were in hardened shelters at the time of the attack. ..."
Jan 10, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Clueless Joe , Jan 8 2020 21:43 utc | 296

psychohistorian , Jan 8 2020 21:43 utc | 297
About whether any died in the Iran attack

Iran told the US they were going to attack and what areas.

Of course the US military is not going to abandon its radar installation is it? Maybe there were a few others stationed where survival was iffy. If they die then not surprising that their deaths were covered up because they were told those areas would be hit.

That is the reason we had the Trump presser today that was projection of, we got the message, don't do any more...stand down.

If the latest about bombs in the Baghdad Green Zone are accurate then either more Iran or some other factor wanting to trigger US response or ???

We are all still alive so China/Russia is backstopping Iran from nuclear attack seems clear

karlof1 , Jan 8 2020 21:44 utc | 298
Events continue

Bubbles , Jan 8 2020 20:18 utc | 231

With those poor disenfranchised American folks putting all their hope in trump and his agenda, are they realizing the benefits of their support yet? I've read 71% of young Americans can't afford to buy a home now the money men have inflated prices to the extreme. Trump's people, the money men.

Did they vote for him as a show of support for his granting every wish Netanyahu ever had?

Did they vote for him to support Netanyahu's aggression against his chosen foe, which clearly was an effort to cast the spear of fear into the hearts of Israeli's?

Demagogues and wannabes set about to rule by making the population afraid.

Peter AU1 , Jan 8 2020 20:25 utc | 233
Walter
Thanks for the explanation.In layman terms and I would guess many professions and trades, speed and velocity are interchangeable.

Laguerre. Hopefully you are right on the Kurds and Sunnis, but the US ability to enlist proxies has always surprised me. There always seem to be corruptible people anywhere, plus others interested in using the US for their small time ends. But Iraq has changed with the killing of Soleimani. Anti US may end up trumping local grievances for the majority.

Sakineh Bagoom , Jan 8 2020 20:26 utc | 235
Newspeak: IRAN APPEARS TO BE STANDING DOWN. Imperial words when attacked directly.

What is lost in all this debate whether this was Kabuki or not is that Iran went toe to toe with the empire -- directly. Pissed on the red lines set by the empire a day earlier. No need for proxies. No need for false flag from the enemies. Iran has justified legality under article 51 as Zarif pointed out.

Terror needed re-balancing, and for now, balance of terror has been established.

Iran has been patiently demonstrating its capabilities. The following terms came into the vernacular and are associated with those capabilities: Stena Impero/Adryan Darya, Khurais and Abqaiq, RQ-4A Global Hawk, PMU/PMF and many others, and now, Ain al-Asad.

US cannot afford to fight a war with Iran directly. If so, it would have to fight from Hindu Kush to the Mediterranean, so, just be ready for skirmishes here and there. I see RSH is posting here now. He has been predicting a war between the two nations by the end of 2010, end of 2011, end of 2012, and on and on, on other sites. Haven't read enough of his comments to see if it's now by the end of 2020?

Alexander P , Jan 8 2020 20:28 utc | 236
Posted by: oldhippie | Jan 8 2020 19:26 utc | 204

The stage rigging is on plain display here. This was arranged and calculated well in advance. Arranged by someone with power to compel obedience, who would expect perfect compliance to a scheme with many moving parts. So may parts of this might have gone wrong, with WW3 as the consequence of a mistake.

I completely agree, I think this entire thing is a precursor to something much worse, such as a massive false-flag that will let this conflict turn hot. Last night was but a small taste or using Iranian wording 'mosquito bite'. People are quick to dismiss that war would never be a viable option for the powers that be. When really they have been setting the stage for global calamity for quite some time. The Iran/US/Israel theater is just the first of a number of dominoes that have been carefully set up (NK-US; India-Pakistan; Russia-NATO) to name but a few. Tensions are intentionally being ratcheted up for a major cascading explosion that will ripple around the globe. The ponzi economy bubble-game they have created during the last 20 years is part of that plan to trigger even worse panic among the populace. Having said all of this, it seems to me that they want Trump to still be re-elected before things really turn sour, so there seems to be some time left, which is why the current de-escalation.

But I think both Iran and North Korea will keep the pressure on the US high throughout this election year, entirely intentional of course.

Mao , Jan 8 2020 20:28 utc | 237 ben , Jan 8 2020 20:30 utc | 238
Damn, I'm late to the party again. It's probably been said already, but Iran's response is pure genius. Early warning to try to avoid casualties, speaks volumes about the differences between the evil empire and the Iranians.

Thanks b, and all. So much better coming here, as opposed to the MSM..

Mao , Jan 8 2020 20:30 utc | 239 WJ , Jan 8 2020 20:31 utc | 240
It all depends now on Trump's reelection strategy: Will he run on bringing the troops home or will he run on another Middle East war.

Posted by: somebody | Jan 8 2020 16:34 utc | 108

Were I a zionist advisor/donor to Trump, I would advise/blackmail him to do the following: Run a 2020 campaign premised on bringing the troops home, and indeed bring enough of them home (or to Germany) to make that plausible. Then, after you win the election, stage some action or invent some pretext (we control the media and can help you do both) that requires you do go to war against Iran. It will be unpopular and many of your citizens will die. But you are in your second term, we have given you lots of $$$$, and we still have that video tape from the late 1990s of you and the 14-year old eastern european girl.

bevin , Jan 8 2020 20:34 utc | 243
Unless one entertains the belief that Iran's missile attacks all misfired and missed their human targets-which appears to be the view that the friends of Israel and those who believe in the indefatigability of the US military, hold- then what Iran has just provided is spectacular confirmation that, short of a nuclear attack, there is nothing that the US can do, but go.

Clearly its bases cannot be defended, that is what the craters and smashed buildings are telling them. If the Secretary of Defense wants to wait for a written request to leave the country that is his privilege-he's lucky not to be living there- but there is no way that the US forces can stay there. They have become unwelcome guests.

Of course there are still those who tell us that Iraqi public opinion is divided and that the sunni and the Kurds will be willing agents of the imperialists: I don't think so. What the US has done is to unite Iraqis around nationalist objects and to close the carefully opened divide between the sects. They have come full circle since 2003 and now even the Iraqi members of ISIS (who are a small minority in the Foreign Legion of Uighurs, Bosnians, Albanians, Chechens and wahhabis) will not serve as a wedge to keep Iraqis fighting each other.

Or Iran: it has taken trillions of dollars and decades for Washington to knock it into the densest politicians' heads but now everyone understands:

"The US is our enemy, it sees us as untermenschen to be exterminated like vermin. In order to survive and to rebuild our lives and communities we must expel them. We have no choice.

First we will ask the Swiss Embassy to tell them to leave, then we will pass resolutions in Parliament, and put on fireworks displays at their bases. And they will leave."

And next will come the matter of Palestine, and the al quds Soleimani's brigade was named for. Israel is beginning to look very lonely now in the Levant- a very abusive, violent and noisy neighbour given to trespassing and larceny.

Zanon , Jan 8 2020 20:35 utc | 244
Jackrabbit
That's all he got. Sanctions?

Sanctions are act of war. Trump has Conducted a War against Iran for many months with sanctions https://twitter.com/jricole/status/1214912785999650816

Mina , Jan 8 2020 20:37 utc | 245
#219
As in "sanctions vs the EU doing business with"
Peter AU1 , Jan 8 2020 20:38 utc | 246
https://ejmagnier.com/2020/01/08/iranian-messages-behind-attacking-us-bases-in-iraq-and-the-consequences/

"Prime Minister Adel Abdel Mahdi -- according to well-informed sources in Baghdad -- answered that "this act may carry devastating results on the Middle East: Iraq refuses to become the theatre for a US-Iran war".

The Iranian official replied: "Those who began this cycle of violence are the US, not Iran; the decision has been taken."

Prime Minister Abdel Mahdi informed the US forces of the Iranian decision. US declared a state of emergency and alerted all US bases in Iraq and the region in advance of the attack.

Iran bombed the most significant US military base in Iraq, Ayn al-Assad, where just in the last two days, the US command had gathered the largest number of forces. Many US bases, particularly in Shia controlled areas and around Baghdad, were evacuated in the last days for security reason towards Ayn al-Assad, a base that holds anti-nuclear shelters."

Peter AU1 , Jan 8 2020 20:44 utc | 250
Easy to see why the US approved of Mahdi as president. A pissweak appeaser how can do no more than write letters to the UN. If he doesn't want a US Iran war in Iraq then he should be booting the yanks out as the Yanks are based there purely on Iran's account. What Mahdi is doing amounts to providing sanctuary to the US on Iran's border.
Lone Wolf , Jan 8 2020 20:47 utc | 254
I stand corrected, Magnier has just posted, now b has a source to copy and paste.
https://ejmagnier.com/2020/01/08/iranian-messages-behind-attacking-us-bases-in-iraq-and-the-consequences/

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Jan 8 2020 20:38 utc | 246

Thank you, Peter AU1!

Lone Wolf

james , Jan 8 2020 20:47 utc | 255
@ lone wolf... bye, bye... why would anyone bother to get worked up about your post? lol..
Cynica , Jan 8 2020 20:48 utc | 256
@Lone Wolf #248

Some of us are indeed quite skeptical that there were no casualties reported whatsoever - by "Western" media outlets. This commenter previously noted that it would be in the US establishment's interest to downplay the impact of the attack as much as possible. Furthermore, to those who are wondering how true casualty figures could be prevented from being leaked, all the US government has to do is declare such information classified, at which point it becomes a serious felony (think Snowden or Manning) to leak it.

Passer by , Jan 8 2020 20:48 utc | 257
Posted by: DFC | Jan 8 2020 19:20 utc | 198

>>b) The fact that Suleimani was a national hero for a nation of 82 million people and also for 150 million of shia around the world, mourned by millions in the streets, make a bigger Trump "victory" over the Iranian "regime", and it is a powerful advice to the others leaders and commanders in the world that try to fight or oppose to USA.

This is not a gain, the US will be hated and sabotaged by the many shia groups across the world (a young and growing demographic with combat experience), and there will be many covert activities against it all over the place. An american dying here and there, a US company sabotaged here and there. The US will be very busy fighting shia groups undercover just as it needs to compete with Russia and China, not to mention the security costs. They will probaly give tacit support to some sunni groups already fighting the US. Taliban getting manpads and targeting info of US presence in Afghainstan? No, this is not good news for the US. It means having more and more enemies everywhere and dividing resources into many fronts. Taking on Russia, China and Iran/Iraq/Shia Crescent will to be too much. The debt clock is ticking.

>>g) The retaliation of the PMU lob some katyusha rockets in the backyard of few US bases

No, they will simply make it impossible for any american to get out outside of the Embassy in Iraq. Workers, companies etc. will be driven out by harrassment.

>>h) Trump is defiant about not leaving Iraq, I think at the end they will go but after they have a very good deal. Of course it is all about the Iraqi oil, in exchange for the American blood and money wasted in Iraq. Iraq has the biggest oil reserves in the world and USA want a good chunk of them, they never ever leave "giving" all of them to the Chinese or Iranians or anybody else. Trump does not want US soldiers in Iraq, but he wants the oil above anything else (it is condition "sine qua non" to maintain the Empire)

You don't know much about Iraq then. Iraq (including elites) does not want the US there. It does not want to be a battlefield and it does not want to have Shia leaders attacked in their own country. This is a Red Line for iraqis. Muqtada Al Sadr, the most influential person in Iraq, who kicked the arse of the US occupation in 2004-2007 wants the US and even the Embassy out, embargo on US products, etc. Iraqi shia are not intimidated by the US, far from it, they have seen far worse in the past and that only angered them even more. Iraq will move into China-Russia-Iran orbit, this is a done deal. A chinese delegation just arrived in Iraq to provide security solutions for the country.

>> Trump has now the full enthusiastic support of the AIPAC and all the others powerful Israeli lobby he will have more money than required for the election. He has demonstrated he is the best possible POTUS for Israel.

This is debatable, considering that 80 % of US jews voted against Trump. Israel is not the only issue for US jews. They do not like loud mouthed white racists. US media is an expression of US jews and US media continues to be highly hostile to Trump. If they really wanted him, media would be supportive.

j) In the short term USA will leave Syria and in the medium term Iraq, OK, but they never ever leave "all the region", they need to be there to maintain the "American Way of Live" (US $ as reserve currency)

There will be less US presence in the Middle East and it won't be just Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan drawdowns. US debt levels point to unsustainable military spending. That is, in 2025 - 2030 the US will be forced to cut military spending significantly. Even now the US is cutting the number of ships due to lack of money. So in general, there will be less US presence everywhere, including in the Middle East. Too much debt.

As for Iraq, the US HQ for Iraq was just evacuated to Kuwait, US forces stopped operations and are confinded to their bases (defacto house arrest), and US workers are fleeing the country.

>>If nothing dramatically change, I expect a crushing victory of Trump in the coming US election, he has all the cards now in his hand, and he will not waste them.

And i see people in the US and all over the world deeply disturbed by his behavior. People want calm, not never ending drama, threats, sexism, racism, vulgarity and warmongering. Women (majority of voters) do not like such behavior. Women and minorites are very hostile to Trump due to this. Republicans lost the House and it looks like someone did not get the message. Even if Trump somehow wins, this will lead to civil war like situation in the US due to the changing demographics. Minorities DO NOT want Trump and their numbers will only be increasing far into the future. This means growing division and infighting within the US.

You look at this through the eyes of an American, that is why you see it as 'kabuki' and 'face saving' weakness, because as an American your answer is wholesale slaughter. Body count is your metric of success.

Zanon , Jan 8 2020 20:59 utc | 262
Two Rockets Fall in Green Zone in Iraqi Capital of Baghdad
https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/202001081077983534-two-blasts-sirens-heard-in-iraqi-capital-of-baghdad-reports/

If this is Iran. This is getting ridiculous and wont be appreciated by Iraq.

Nemo , Jan 8 2020 21:01 utc | 264
America cant retaliate because they know the next blow will bleed. They were unable to intercept the incoming missiles because US point defenses are mediocre. Once a projectile gets past the patriots, not a difficult task, they will only face some rail mounted stingers and 20 mm cannon. Has to be scarry for the dumb grunts.
albagen , Jan 8 2020 21:02 utc | 265
@ lone wolf

I won't attack you or your post, but it is no good manners to enter somebody's house and speak shit. If your family didn't teach you this, and your education didn't manage to polish the animal in you, then you are a lost case, no need to deal with you. You'll live on mother earth and then die without having any good impact whatsoever.

good riddance

karlof1 , Jan 8 2020 21:03 utc | 266
Bubbles @231--

People voted for Trump primarily for two reasons: Obama and the D-Party had stabbed them in the back allowing millions to lose their homes while the fraudulent banksters got away scot-free and with $Trillions too-boot, and they knew Clinton was a deranged warmonger while Trump talked reasonably about the Outlaw US Empire's many Imperial Follies. In short, Trump was seen by many as the lesser of two evils. No, I voted Green.

If you read Dr. Hudson's analysis and the transcript from this show , you'll be informed about a great many facts about the Outlaw US Empire that the vast majority of its citizens are unaware of thanks to BigLie Media. And I could direct you to dozens of additional examples that provide even more facts about the situation, the core of the problem and potential solutions.

Many good academics and others have tried to inform the USA's citizenry about the why of their dilemma and provided suggestions for action, but their voices are drowned out by what's known as the Establishment Narrative parroted by BigLie Media. IMO, Sanders would have waxed Trump in 2016, but he was clearly the target of a conspiracy to prevent him from gaining the D-Party nomination. IMO, the only reason he endorsed Clinton was he knew of the sort of domestic mayhem Trump and the R-Party would wreck upon his supporters. Please, before denigrating the masses within the Evil Outlaw US Empire, try to discover why they behave as they do. Lumping them all together and calling them dumb fuck-wits won't get you anywhere and only serves to exacerbate things.

Laguerre , Jan 8 2020 21:03 utc | 267
Posted by: Peter AU1 | Jan 8 2020 20:38 utc | 246

It sounds as though Abdel Mahdi is being forced into the popular opinion. The US is being reduced into its best defended bases. Where from there, when those bases are isolated?

I am reposting this.

The Iranians care, they sent some of the best gifts, and they're rightly proud of them. A Hallmark kinna time, the Holidays n all that.

Brother, I have read about the problems involved, I took some calculus long ago, but the engineering behind what Iran has demonstrated in very complex. They put the clown on the back foot.

There is a realignment of strategy in the Celestial Heaven of DC... Not a change in goal, just "whaddwe do now, how r we gunna smash 'em"...

jayc , Jan 8 2020 21:06 utc | 270
The US did not escalate today. Trump's speech was all bluster and falsehood, directed almost exclusively to American audience in the interest of domestic politics. If anything, the call for NATO to step up was an indication the Americans planned to step back. The Turks will not be pouring troops into Iraq. Trump was referring to the Europeans. The US corporate media continues to report with subdued tone, with ultra hawkish Fox News continuing to describe the struck airbases as "Iraqi facilities".
WJ , Jan 8 2020 21:10 utc | 273
Cynica @256,

"This commenter previously noted that it would be in the US establishment's interest to downplay the impact of the attack as much as possible."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is true only on the assumption that the "US establishment" is united in seeking to de-escalate with Iran. But evidence suggests that at least two members of that establishment--Pompeo and Esper--are clearly not interested in de-escalation (notwithstanding Pompeo's directive to the embassies). For them, the death of dozens of American soldiers could only be a good thing, as it would easily be manipulated in the press to motivate the US populace's desire for retribution.

It is also possible that what Pompeo and Esper and Netanyahoo are seeking to accomplish is to maintain the highest level of tension possible without precipitating actual war. This is because all parties recognize that actual war with Iran would entail the destruction of much of Israel's infrastructure and many thousands of Israeli casualties, and these are prices too high to pay for the overthrowing of even the "evil" Iranian "regime".

De-escalation with Iran hurts Netanyahoo; actual war with Iran hurts Netanyahoo. What helps Netanyahoo is the constant threat of war with Iran along with the public perception that only he, of all Israeli politicians, has the sufficient resolve to face down the Persian menace. Because I am of the view that Israel is not just an outpost of the US empire but in many cases the tail that wags the dog of this empire, I fully expect that the US will continue to seek to ride the escalation-de-escalation wave with Iran until Netanyahoo either stabilizes his domestic position in Israel or loses it altogether.

Passer by , Jan 8 2020 21:13 utc | 275
Posted by: Zanon | Jan 8 2020 19:25 utc | 203

Actually the Hashd Al Shaabi militia, which is part of the Iraqi military, wanted to take over the US Embassy and Mehdi threatened to resign over that, not over the protests in general or the harrassment of the US Embassy. This is why iraqi troops stayed out as the Embassy was besieged. He chose China over the US for reconstruction of Iraq and made very compromising remarks about Trump (how he threatened to put snipers killing people in Iraq, how Soleimani was there for diplomatic mission as peace envoy, etc.)

Mehdi is an expression of the majority Shia sentiment in Iraq - it is him who came to Parliament to demand a resolution for US withdrawal from the country. As for Iraqi Shia sentiment, numerically speaking, 80 % of Shia MPs and the PM demanded a US withdrawal from the country.

David G , Jan 8 2020 21:14 utc | 276
What is the source for the account that the Swiss embassy received advance warning of the missile strike?

I haven't seen it elsewhere. I'm not saying that to knock it, but since b doesn't mention or link to a source, and I don't see it discussed in comments, I'd like to know where he got that report from.

CNN.com says Iran reached out through various channels, "including through Switzerland and other countries", but after the strike, to make known there was nothing else on the way.

Walter , Jan 8 2020 21:19 utc | 279
WJ | Jan 8 2020 21:10 utc | 273

If Iran succeeds in forcing the Empire out, then obviously the zionists would be unable to remain more than briefly. But without zionists Jews and Arabs have always got along reasonably well... So we may imagine "Israel" going through a "phase change" when Empire departs...because then the decent people can have a say in things, then justice may prevail - something all Abrahamic Creeds respect and call for as a basic foundation. Of course there's nothing pretty about a civil war in Israel, or as it is at present "forward operating base zion"

Zanon , Jan 8 2020 21:28 utc | 283
Passer By

Actually what they said about foreign troops:

"The Iraqi government must work to end the presence of any foreign troops on Iraqi soil and prohibit them from using its land, airspace or water for any reason."

Mahdi have tried hard to disband PMU. https://thedefensepost.com/2019/07/03/iraq-mahdi-orders-popular-mobilization-units-integration/ That is the PMU that US, Israel have been bombing for months.

Ian2 , Jan 8 2020 21:34 utc | 288
Ian Dobbs | Jan 8 2020 19:52 utc | 223:
This entire episode has been an absolute disaster for the Iranians. They sent no message to the US.

Disaster? How so? The Iranians have just displayed that they can and will attack targets with precision. No message? Seriously? You've missed the bigger picture. Iran have scored one on the Strategic level. What you're also missing is that Iraq is moving even closer to Iranian and Chinese-Russian orbit.

The missile strikes is also a message to Iranian regional competitors. I can guarantee you Riyadh and Abu Dhabi have taken notice.

I'm expecting more small level attacks on US assets in Iraq and it'll likely spread to other neighboring countries. Death by a thousand cuts. In the end, the US will have no choice but to leave Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan.

David G , Jan 8 2020 21:38 utc | 291
Further from mine @276:

Scott Ritter also says there was advance warning, though via the Iraqi government, not mentioning the Swiss embassy in Tehran:

Iran communicated its intent to strike US targets in Iraq directly to the Iraqi Prime Minister a full two hours prior to the missiles being launched; Iraq then shared this information with US military commanders, who were able to ensure all US troops were in hardened shelters at the time of the attack.
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/477759-iran-missiles-subdued-us-strike/

Ritter doesn't give his sourcing either. Of course the significant thing is that such advance warning was given at all. I'd just like to know how solid the factual basis is, and to what extent it is officially confirmed by any of the relevant governments.

Clueless Joe , Jan 8 2020 21:43 utc | 296

If US soldiers were killed by the attack, this can't be hidden forever; sooner or later, coffins will go back home and families will be informed. Specially if it's as high as 80. Though for the moment, the Pentagon can stay quiet, and won't publicly acknowledge it, the bodies will have to come back to the US and be buried - as far as I know, they're not janissaries but US military, most have relatives, friends and family and can't be disappeared just like that.

The USS Liberty is a different situation: the US didn't hide for decades that people were lost in the bombing, it didn't acknowledge that it was a deliberate attack. Pretty much the opposite case to the present one.

[Jan 10, 2020] This reckless act by Trump administion was the last gasp of "Full spectrum dominance" doctime and probably means end of Pompeo career as the Secretary of state and Trump as the President

See also With his imminent attack fake Mike Pompeo Is a Dollar Store Kissinger
Notable quotes:
"... This is not just about how to de-escalate – it's about recognizing that America fundamentally needs to change its disastrous course. Even if de-escalation of the acute tensions is possible, the risks will remain as long as the United States pursues a reckless policy. ..."
Jan 10, 2020 | www.theguardian.com

This crisis was sparked by Donald Trump. Trump withdrew from the deal that had stopped Iran's nuclear weapons program, leading Iran to restart its nuclear program. Trump ramped up economic pressure and sent more US troops to the region, and tensions grew. Then the US killed Gen Qassem Suleimani , signaling a significant escalation, to which Iran responded with an attack on Iraqi bases where US and Iraqi troops are stationed.

ass="inline-garnett-quote inline-icon ">

ass="inline-garnett-quote inline-icon ">

America is far worse off today towards Iran and in the Middle East than it was when Trump took office

It is up to Congress and the American people to force Trump to adopt a more pragmatic path. For too long Congress has ceded to the executive branch its authority to determine when America goes to war, and the current crisis with Iran is exactly the kind of moment that requires intense coordination between the legislative and executive branches. The president cannot start a war without congressional authorization, and with the erratic Trump in office, Congress must make that clear by cutting off the use of funds for war with Iran.

This is not just about how to de-escalate – it's about recognizing that America fundamentally needs to change its disastrous course. Even if de-escalation of the acute tensions is possible, the risks will remain as long as the United States pursues a reckless policy. America is far worse off today towards Iran and in the Middle East than it was when Trump took office – even worse off than we were on 1 January 2020. Today, Iran is advancing its nuclear program, America has suspended its anti-Isis campaign, Iraq's parliament has voted to evict US troops from the country, and we are in a dangerous military standoff with Iran.

Digging out of this hole will be difficult and this administration is not capable of it. Over the long run, future administrations will need to reorient America's goals and policies. America needs to re-enter the nuclear deal and begin negotiations to strengthen it; work with partners like Iraq – without a large US troop presence – in countering potential threats like a resurgence of Isis; and adopt a broader regional policy that focuses on protecting US interests and standing up for human rights and democracy rather than picking sides in a regional civil war between dictatorships like Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Achieving US goals in the region will not be possible with a mere de-escalation of tensions – we need to find a new path towards Iran and the Middle East.

[Jan 10, 2020] Pompeo Goes Full Neocon The National Interest

Jan 10, 2020 | nationalinterest.org

November 18, 2019 Topic: Security Region: Americas Tags: Mike Pompeo Donald Trump Foreign Policy Iran Sanctions Pompeo Goes Full Neocon

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo pivots back from America First.

by Matthew Petti Follow Matthew Petti on Twitter L ,

https://lockerdome.com/lad/12130885885741670?pubid=ld-12130885885741670-935&pubo=https%3A%2F%2Fnationalinterest.org&rid=duckduckgo.com&width=896

[Jan 09, 2020] Mike Pompeo is officially the Secretary of State. Apparently, he is also unofficially the Secretary of Defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the very model of a modern major bureaucrat by Charles P. Pierce

Jan 07, 2020 | www.esquire.com

Mike Pompeo is officially the Secretary of State. Apparently, he is also unofficially the Secretary of Defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the very model of a modern major bureaucrat. He's running things on war and peace these days because the president* sure as hell isn't. He's a Dollar Store Kissinger with nobody to restrain him. And he has no compunction whatsoever about lying in public -- about Barack Obama, and about the definition of the word "imminent," which, to Pompeo, seems to extend back in time to the Persian Empire and forward into the second term of the Malia Obama administration.

Pompeo met the press on Tuesday and everything he said was completely worthless. For example, did you know that the Iran nuclear deal hastened the development of Iran's nuclear capacity, but that pulling out of it, and frying the second-highest official of their government, slowed it down? Mike Pompeo knows that.

President Trump could not be more clear. On our watch, Iran will not get a nuclear weapon and, when we came into office, Iran was on a pathway that had been provided by the nuclear deal, which clearly gave them the opportunity to get those nuclear weapons. We won't let that happen...It's not political. The previous administration made a different choice. They chose to underwrite and appease. We have chose to confront and contain.

But that's not political, you appeasing, underwriting wimps who worked for 11 years to get a deal with these people. And that goes for all you appeasing, underwriting European bastards as well, who don't think this president* knows anything about anything. And, as to the whole imminence thing, well, everything is imminent sometime, and it's five o'clock somewhere.

"We know what happened at the end of last year in December ultimately leading to the death of an American. If you're looking for imminence, you needn't look no further than the days that led up to the strike that was taken against Soleimani. Then you had in addition to that what we could clearly see was continuing efforts on behalf of this terrorist to build out a network of campaign activities that were going to lead potentially to the death of many more Americans. It was the right decision, we got it right."

Yeah, they got nothing -- except the power, of course. The last time we had a terrible Republican president determined to lie us into a war in the Middle East, he and his people at least did not do so by employing utter and transparent gibberish. Times change.

[Jan 09, 2020] AGAINST THE BLITZ WOLF -- RUSSIAN REINFORCEMENTS FOR IRAN'S DEFENCE

Notable quotes:
"... National Defence, ..."
"... National Defence ..."
Jun 25, 2019 | johnhelmer.net

The Russian General Staff has reinforced the air defences for Russians at the Iranian nuclear reactor complex at Bushehr, on the Persian Gulf, according to sources in Moscow. At the same time, Iran has allowed filming of the movement of several of its mobile S-300 air-defence missile batteries to the south, covering the Iranian coastline of the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. More secretly, elements of Russian military intelligence, electronic warfare, and command and control advisers for Iran's air defence systems have been mobilized to support Iran against US and allied attacks.

The range of the new surveillance extends well beyond the S-300 strike distance of 200 kilometres, and covers US drone and aircraft bases on the Arabian peninsula, as well as US warships in (and under) the Persian Gulf and off the Gulf of Oman. Early warning of US air and naval-launched attacks has now been cut below the old 4 to 6-minute Iranian threshold. Counter-firing by the Iranian armed forces has been automated from attack warning and target location.

This means that if the US is detected launching a swarm of missiles aimed at Iran's air-defence sites, uranium mines, reactors, and military operations bunkers, Iran will launch its own swarm of missiles at the US firing platforms, as well as at Saudi and other oil production sites, refineries, and pipelines, as well tankers in ports and under way in the Gulf.

"The armed forces of Iran," said a Russian military source requesting anonymity, "have air defence systems capable of hitting air targets at those heights at which drones of the Global Hawk series can fly; this is about 19,000 to 20,000 metres. Iran's means of air defence are both foreign-purchased systems and systems of Iran's own design; among them, in particular, the old Soviet system S-75 and the new Russian S-300. Recently, Iran transported some S-300's to the south, but that happened after the drone was shot down [June 20]. Russian specialists are working at Bushehr now and this means that the S-300's are also for protection of Bushehr."


Flight distance between Bushehr and Bandar Abbas is about 570 kms. From Bandar Abbas southeast to Kuhmobarak, the site of the Iranian missile firing against the US drone, is another 200 kms.

Last Thursday, June 20, just after midnight, a US Global Hawk drone was tracked by Iran from its launch at an airbase in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), south of Dubai. The take-off and initial flight route appear to have been more than 300 kms from Iranian tracking radars. Four hours later, the aircraft was destroyed by an Iranian missile at a point at sea off Kuhmobarak. Follow the route tracking data published by the Iranian Foreign Minister, Javad Zarif here .


KEY: blue line=drone flight path; yellow line=Iranian Flight Information Region (FIR); red line=Iranian territorial waters; green line=Iranian internal waters; yellow dots=Iran radio warnings sent; red square=point of impact. Source: Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif: https://twitter.com/ The US claims the point of impact was outside the red line.

Additional tracking data on the US drone operation have been published in a simulation by the Iranian state news agency, Fars. The news agency claims the successful strike was by the Iran-made Khordad missile, an S-300 copy; the altitude has not been reported (design ceiling for the aircraft is 18,000 metres). The Russian military source says there is now active coordination between Russian and Iranian military staffs. "About coordination, of course there is participation of Russia in intelligence-sharing because of Bushehr and ISIS. We have a long and successful partnership with Iran, especially in terms of fighting against international terrorism." Two days after the drone incident, Russian specialist media published Iranian video footage of the movement of S-300's on trailer trucks. This report claims that although the S-300's are wheeled and motorized for rapid position changes, the use of highway transporters was intended to minimize road fatigue on the weapons.

Iranian military sources have told western reporters they have established "a joint operations room to inform all its allies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Afghanistan of every step it is adopting in confronting the US in case of all-out war in the Middle East."

Maps published to date in open Russian military sources show the four main anti-air missile defence groups (PVO) on Iranian territory, and the strike range of their missiles. The 3 rd and 4 th PVOs are now being reinforced to oppose US reinforcements at sea and on Saudi and Emirati territory.


Key: yellow=units of the main air-defence (PVO) groups; split blue circles=military bases; blue diamond=nuclear industry sites; red rings=kill range for missiles; solid red=command-and-control operations centres. Source: Anatoly Gavrilov, "Before the storm", National Defence, April 2019

The weaknesses and vulnerabilities of Iranian defences against US air attack are, naturally, state secrets. The open-source discussion by Russian air-defence expert Anatoly Gavrilov can be followed here . According to Gavrilov writing in March, the expected plan of US attack will be the use of precision missiles and bombs at "primary targets plants for the production and processing of nuclear fuel, uranium mines, production for its enrichment, refineries, other industrial centers. But initially [the objective] will be to suppress (completely destroy) the air defense system. The mass use of cruise missiles for various purposes and guided aircraft bombs will disable the control system of Iran's troops and suppress the system of reconnaissance and anti-aircraft missile fire. In this case, the task of the attacking side will be the destruction in the first two or three days of 70% to 80% of the radar, and after that, up to 90% manned aircraft will begin to bomb only after the complete suppression of the air defense system. The West protects its professional pilots, and it does not matter that the civilian population of Iran will also suffer."

The main Iranian vulnerability facing American attack, reports Gavrilov, is less the range, volume and density of firepower with which the Iranians can respond than the relatively slow time they have shown to date for processing incoming attack data, fixing targets, and directing counter-fire. "In today's conditions of organization and conduct of rapid air combat, a high degree of automation of the processes of collection, processing, transmission and exchange of radar information, development of solutions for repelling strikes, and conducting anti-aircraft missile fire is extremely necessary."

RANGE AND ALTITUDE OF MAIN IRANIAN AIR DEFENCE WEAPONS


CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE
Horizontal axis, range in kilometres for each identified weapon; vertical axis, altitude of interception. Source: Anatoly Gavrilov, National Defence , April 2019

Gavrilov does not estimate how far the Iranians have been able to solve by themselves, and with Russian help, the problems of automation and coordination of fire. To offset whatever weakness may remain, he recommends specific technical contributions the Russians can make. These include the technology of electronic countermeasures (ECM) to jam or deflect US targeting signals and ordnance guidance systems.

While Gavrilov believes the Iranian military have already achieved high enough density of fire against incoming weapons, he isn't sure the range and altitude of Iranian radars will be good enough to match the attack risks. To neutralize those, he recommends "Russian-made electronic warfare systems. The complex of EW systems is able to significantly reduce the ability of attack aircraft to search for, detect and defeat ground targets; disrupt the onboard equipment of cruise missiles in the GPS satellite navigation system; distort the readings of radio altimeters of attack aircraft, cruise missiles and UAV's [unmanned aerial vehicle, drone] "

In briefings for sympathetic western reporters, Iranian commanders are emphasizing the Armageddon option; that is, however weak or strong their defences may prove to be under prolonged US attack, the Iranian strategy is not to wait. Their plan, they say, is to counter-attack against Arab as well as American targets as soon as a US missile attack commences; that's to say, at launch, not inflight nor at impact.


Left: Kremlin photograph of the Security Council meeting at the Kremlin on the afternoon of June 21. Source: http://en.kremlin.ru/ Right: Major General Mohammad Baqeri, Iran's armed forces chief of staff.

The day following the US attack and Iranian success, President Vladimir Putin chaired a meeting of his regular Security Council members in Moscow. The military were represented by the Defence Minister, Sergei Shoigu. The US attack on Iran was the main issue on the table. "The participants," reported the Kremlin communiqué, "discussed, in particular, the developments in the Persian Gulf. They expressed serious concern over the rising tension and urged the countries involved to show restraint, because unwise actions could have unpredictable consequences in terms of regional and global stability."

Unpredictable consequences in Russian is being translated in Farsi to mean the cessation of the oil trade in the Persian Gulf. "As oil and commodities of other countries are passing through the Strait of Hormuz, ours are also moving through it," Major General Mohammad Baqeri, the Iranian chief of staff, said on April 28. "If our crude is not to pass through the Strait of Hormuz, others' [crude] will not pass either."

[Jan 09, 2020] Iraq Reopens Negotiations For Purchase Of Russian S-300 Air Defense Systems Zero Hedge

Jan 09, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

by Tyler Durden Thu, 01/09/2020 - 12:55 0 SHARES

With Iraq's airspace being frequently violated by American and even Israeli bombing raids against the country's paramilitary units backed by Iran of late, Iraq has for the last several months considered purchasing Russian air defense and missile systems, including both the S-300 and more advanced S-400, however, it has been met with fierce pressure from the US.

And now Russian media is reporting authorities in Baghdad have formally resumed talks to possibly acquire the S-300 systems. Head of the Iraqi Parliament's Security and Defense Committee, Mohammad Reza, has indicated negotiations were renewed following the latest attacks initiated nearly two weeks ago on Shiite Popular Mobilization Forces .

"The issue was supposed to be solved several months ago after attacks on Shiite militia al-Ḥashd ash-Sha'bi [Popular Mobilization Forces, PMF] bases in Baghdad and other provinces created the need for such air defenses", the lawmaker was quoted in Russia's Sputnik as saying.

Russian S-300 anti-air systems file.

It was first revealed in September that Baghdad was mulling the purchase of the S-300. This after a summer in which Israel brazenly launched multiple drone and aerial attacks on PMF bases which at first had 'mysterious' origins , but was later confirmed to have the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) behind them.

According to Iraqi official sources, those initial purchase talks were quashed when Washington vehemently objected , also at a moment parliament officials and the public were increasingly angered over unilateral US bombing raids against PMF sites conducted without the knowledge or approval of Iraq's government and military.

At the point when talks were initiated with Russia in September, international reports counted nine strikes in total on Iraq's paramilitary forces -- in some cases while they were allegedly operating just across the country's western border with Syria.

Prior alleged Israeli airstrike on a military base southwest of Baghdad which took place in August. Image source: AP.

This had also fueled speculation that the Trump administration had greenlighted stepped up Israeli attacks on Iranian proxies in the region as an alternative to direct war with Iran.

However, this simultaneously bolstered the ongoing political movement in Iraqi parliament to have US troops expelled once in for all, especially over charges they had invited in and cooperated with a foreign power to attack sovereign Iraqi soil.

[Jan 09, 2020] Duck Soup Donald Trump, Dancing to the Tune of the Military Industrial Empire

Notable quotes:
"... The 1933 Marx brothers film Duck Soup was meant to be a satirical look at Benito Mussolini, ruler of Italy. In the film the mythical country of Freedonia , ruled by the effervescent Rufus T. Firefly ( played by Groucho), due to an insult by the ambassador of rival nation Sylvania, declares war. Laughs abound. Well, in our own nation of ' Free markets', ' Free enterprise' and ' Free use of war' whenever it pleases us, we are led by another Firefly, who is as comedic as he is dangerous to peace. ..."
"... Philip A Farruggio is a contributing editor for The Greanville Post. He is also frequently posted on Global Research, Nation of Change, World News Trust and Off Guardian sites. He is the son and grandson of Brooklyn NYC longshoremen and a graduate of Brooklyn College, class of 1974. Since the 2000 election debacle Philip has written over 300 columns on the Military Industrial Empire and other facets of life in an upside down America. He is also host of the ' It's the Empire Stupid ' radio show, co produced by Chuck Gregory. Philip can be reached at [email protected] ..."
Jan 09, 2020 | www.globalresearch.ca

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

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

Violence Is as Violence Does. All in the Name of "Restoring Democracy"

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

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

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

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

[Jan 09, 2020] GOP's Mike Lee Blasts Intel Briefers For Telling Senators They Can't Debate War Authorization

Jan 09, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Jason Ditz via AntiWar.com,

After the Trump Administration's 75-minute briefing to the US Senate on the assassination of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) was deeply critical , calling it the worst briefing he'd gotten in his nine years in the Senate.

Saying the administration's briefers offered little on the legal or practical justification for the attack, Sen. Lee particularly took umbrage at them warning the Senators that they must not debate the War Powers authorization for a war with Iran .

Republican Senator Mike Lee with Sen. Rand Paul. Image via ABC/Reuters

Those giving the briefing objected to the very idea of the Senate discussing the matter publicly, saying it would "embolden Iran." Sen. Lee noted that this is a power Constitutionally reserved explicitly for the legislature.

"For them to tell us ... for us to debate and discuss these things on the Senate floor would somehow weaken the American cause and embolden Iran in any other actions, I find very insulting ," Lee said, who did not specify to reporters on Capitol Hill which briefer made the assertion.

"It is not acceptable for officials within the executive branch of government -- I don't care if they're with the CIA, the Department of Defense or otherwise -- to come in and tell us that we can't debate and discuss the appropriateness of military intervention against Iran, " Lee added. -- ABC

Not only did Lee express annoyance that there was no pushback from any of the briefers on telling the Senate not to debate something legally in their purview, but he said that while he'd had problems with the language of Sen. Tim Kaine's (D-VA) resolution, he has now decided that he will support the resolution, on condition of some amendments.

*

Boogity , 11 minutes ago link

Senator Lee just got cut off from Uncle Shlomo's slush fund.

IUDAEA_DELENDA_EST , 12 minutes ago link

The CIA works hard.

But for whom?

It is most certainly not The Republic.

SpeechFreedom , 33 minutes ago link

Trump The Zionist Whore!

"Trump is too stupid, or willfully ignorant to know that Soleimani was at the forefront of the US led coalition to eradicate ISIS from Northern Iraq in March 2015.

Soleimani also, as a commander of the Iranian Quds Force, was part of the American-led coalition under US General Tommy Franks fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan in the October 2001 Battle of Herat .

Moreover, Soleimani worked to protect Eastern Christians against ISIS in both Syria and Iraq, and empowered them to defend themselves as best they could.

As for the flunkie at State, Pompeo put up a clip of a few Iraqis celebrating the death of Soleimani while parroting Trump's own lies that Iranians "hated and feared him."

However, Pompass didn't show the millions mourning Soleimani in Iran, Iraq, and Syria, including the minorities in Sunni states such as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.

That's not "hate and fear," that's "honor and respect."

Most Americans never heard of Soleimani -- a soft-spoken man of high refinement -- until his murder last week. Now they're clamoring as if Trump had slain the devil himself."

When World?

Have you not had enough of the *** monstrosity Yet?

Scipio Africanuz , 1 hour ago link

Seems the dam has burst, the [Trump] personality cult is crumbling, and the purveyors of unprovoked aggression are reeling..

So where are the Americans to back up the courageous and retake their congress from the grip of blackmailers and threat issuers?

Perhaps they are gearing up...

[Jan 09, 2020] Opposing War With Iran: Three Reasons by Anthony DiMaggio

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... War will allow Trump to claim the mantle of "national" wartime leader, while diverting attention away from his impeachment trial. And in light of the intensification of belligerent rhetoric from this administration, war appears to be increasingly likely. ..."
"... The American people have a moral responsibility to question not only Trump's motives, but to consider the humanitarian disaster that inevitably accompanies war. ..."
"... is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Lehigh University. He holds a PhD in political communication, and is the author of the newly released: The Politics of Persuasion: Economic Policy and Media Bias in the Modern Era (Paperback, 2018), and Selling War, Selling Hope: Presidential Rhetoric, the News Media , and U.S. Foreign Policy After 9/11 (Paperback: 2016). He can be reached at: [email protected] ..."
Jan 09, 2020 | www.counterpunch.org

The U.S. stands at the precipice of war. President Trump's rhetorical efforts to sell himself as the "anti-war" president have been exposed as a fraud via his assault on Iran. Most Orwellian of all is Trump's claim that the assassination of Iranian General Qassam Soleimani was necessary to avert war, following the New Year's Eve attack on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. In reality the U.S. hit on Soleimani represents a criminal escalation of the conflict between these two countries. The general's assassination was rightly seen as an act of war , so the claim that the strike is a step toward peace is absurd on its face. We should be perfectly clear about the fundamental threat to peace posed by the Trump administration. Iran has already promised "harsh retaliation" following the assassination, and announced it is pulling out of the 2015 multi-national agreement prohibiting the nation from developing nuclear weapons. Trump's escalation has dramatically increased the threat of all-out war. Recognizing this threat, I sketch out an argument here based on my initial thoughts of this conflict, providing three reasons for why Americans need to oppose war.

#1: No Agreement about an Iranian Threat

Soleimani was the head of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – the Quds Force – a clandestine military intelligence organization that specializes in paramilitary-style operations throughout the Middle East, and which is described as seeking to further Iranian political influence throughout the region. Trump celebrated the assassination as necessary to bringing Soleimani's "reign of terror" to an end. The strike, he claimed, was vital after the U.S. caught Iran "in the act" of planning "imminent and sinister attacks on American diplomats and military personnel."

But Trump's justification for war comes from a country with a long history of distorting and fabricating evidence of an Iranian threat. American leaders have disingenuously and propagandistically portrayed Iran as on the brink of developing nuclear weapons for decades. Presidents Bush and Obama were both rebuked, however, by domestic intelligence and international weapons inspectors , which failed to uncover evidence that Iran was developing these weapons, or that it was a threat to the U.S.

Outside of previous exaggerations, evidence is emerging that the Trump administration and the intelligence community are not of one mind regarding Iran's alleged threat. Shortly after Soleimani's assassination, the Department of Homeland Security declared there was "no specific, credible threat" from Iran within U.S. borders. And U.S. military officials disagree regarding Trump's military escalation. As the New York Times reports :

"In the chaotic days leading to the death of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, Iran's most powerful commander, top American military officials put the option of killing him -- which they viewed as the most extreme response to recent Iranian-led violence in Iraq -- on the menu they presented to President Trump. They didn't think he would take it. In the wars waged since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Pentagon officials have often offered improbable options to presidents to make other possibilities appear more palatable."

"Top pentagon officials," the Times reports , "were stunned" by the President's order. Furthermore, the paper reported that "the intelligence" supposedly confirming Iranian plans to attack U.S. diplomats was "thin," in the words of at least one U.S. military official who was privy to the administration's deliberations. According to that source , there is no evidence of an "imminent" attack in the foreseeable future against American targets outside U.S. borders.

U.S. leaders have always obscured facts, distorted intelligence, and fabricated information to stoke public fears and build support for war. So it should come as no surprise that this president is politicizing intelligence. He certainly has reason to – in order to draw attention away from his Senate impeachment trial, and considering Trump's increasingly desperate efforts to demonstrate that he is a serious President, not a tin-pot authoritarian who ignores the rule of law, while shamelessly coercing and extorting foreign leaders in pursuit of domestic electoral advantage.

Independent of the corruption charges against Trump, it is unwise for Americans to take the President at his word, considering the blatant lies employed in the post-9/11 era to justify war in the Middle East. Not so long ago the American public was sold a bill of goods regarding Iraq's alleged WMDs and ties to terrorism. Neither of those claims was remotely true, and Americans were left footing the bill for a war that cost trillions , based on the lies of an opportunistic president who was dead-set on exploiting public fears of terrorism in a time of crisis. The Bush administration sold war based on intelligence they knew was fraudulent, manipulating the nation into on a decade-long war that led to the murder of more than 1 million Iraqis and more than 5,000 American servicemen, resulting in a failed Iraqi state, and paving the way for the rise of ISIS. All of this is to say that the risks of beginning another war in the Middle East are incredibly high, and Americans would do well to seriously consider the consequences of entering a war based (yet again) on questionable intelligence.

#2: The "War on Terrorism" as a Red Herring

U.S. leaders have long used the rhetoric of terrorism to justify war. But this strategy represents a serious distortion of reality, via the conflation of terrorism – understood as premeditated acts of violence to intimidate civilians – with acts of war. Trump fed into this misrepresentation when he described Soleimani's "reign of terror" as encompassing not only the alleged targeting of U.S. diplomats, but attacks on "U.S. military personnel." The effort to link the deaths of U.S. soldiers in wartime to terrorism echoes the State Department's 2019 statement , which designated Iran's Quds Force a "terrorist" organization, citing its responsibility "for the deaths of at least 603 American service members in Iraq" from "2003 to 2011" via its support for Iraqi militias that were engaging in attacks on U.S. forces.

As propaganda goes, the attempt to link these acts of war to "terrorism" is quite perverse. U.S. military personnel killed in Iraq were participating in a criminal, illegal occupation, which was widely condemned by the international community. The U.S. war in Iraq was a crime of aggression under the Nuremberg Charter, and it violated the United Nations Charter's prohibition on the use of force, which is only allowed via Security Council authorization (which the U.S. did not have), or in the case of military acts undertaken in self-defense against an ongoing attack (Iraq was not at war with the U.S. prior to the 2003 invasion). Contrary to Trump's and the State Department's propaganda, there are no grounds to classify the deaths of military personnel in an illegal war as terrorism. Instead, one could argue that domestic Iraqi political actors (of which Iraqi militias are included, regardless of their ties to Iran) were within their legal rights under international law to engage in acts of self-defense against American troops acting on behalf of a belligerent foreign power, which was conducting an illegal occupation.

#3: More War = Further Destabilization of the Middle East

The largest takeaway from recent events should be to recognize the tremendous danger that escalation of war poses to the U.S. and the region. The legacy of U.S. militarism in the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia, is one of death, destruction, and instability. Every major war involving the U.S. has produced humanitarian devastation and mass destruction, while fueling instability and terrorism. With the 1979 Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, U.S. support for Mujahedeen radicals led to the breakdown of social order, and the rise of the radical Taliban regime, which housed al Qaeda fundamentalists in the years prior to the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. The 2001 U.S. invasion of Afghanistan contributed to the further deterioration of Afghan society, and was accompanied by the return of the Taliban, ensuing in a civil war that has persisted over the last two decades.

With Iraq, the U.S. invasion produced a massive security vacuum following the collapse of the Iraqi government, which made possible the rise of al Qaeda in Iraq. The U.S. fueled numerous civil wars, in Iraq during the 2000s and Syria in the 2010s, creating mass instability, and giving rise to ISIS, which became a mini-state of its own operating across both countries. And then there was the 2011 U.S.-NATO supported rebellion against Muammar Gaddafi, which not only resulted in the dictator's overthrow, but in the rise of another ISIS affiliate within Libya's border. Even Obama, the biggest cheerleader for the war, subsequently admitted the intervention was his "worst mistake," due to the civil war that emerged after Gaddafi's overthrow, which opened the door for the rise of ISIS.

All of these conflicts have one thing in common. They brought tremendous devastation to the countries under assault, via scorched-earth military campaigns, which left death, misery, and destruction in their wake. The U.S. is adept at destroying countries, but shows little interest in, or ability to reconstruct them. These wars provided fertile ground for Islamist radicals, who took advantage of the resulting chaos and instability.

The primary lesson of the "War on Terror" should be clear to rationally minded observers: U.S. wars breed not only instability, but desperation, as the people victimized by war become increasingly tolerant of domestic extremist movements. Repressive states are widely reviled by the people they subjugate. But the only thing worse than a dictatorship is no order at all, when societies collapse into civil war, anarchy, and genocide. The story of ISIS's rise is one of citizens suffering under war and instability, and becoming increasingly tolerant of extremist political actors, so long as they are able to provide order in times of crisis. This point is consistently neglected in U.S. political and media discourse – a sign of how propagandistic "debates" over war have become, nearly 20 years into the U.S. "War on Terrorism."

Where Do We Go From Here?

Trump followed up the Soleimani assassination with a Twitter announcement that the U.S. has "targeted" 52 additional "Iranian sites," which will be attacked "if Iran strikes any Americans or American assets." There's no reason in light of recent events to chalk this announcement up to typical Trump-Twitter bluster. This President is desperate to begin a war with Iran, as Trump has courted confrontation with the Islamic republic since the early days of his presidency.

War will allow Trump to claim the mantle of "national" wartime leader, while diverting attention away from his impeachment trial. And in light of the intensification of belligerent rhetoric from this administration, war appears to be increasingly likely.

The American people have a moral responsibility to question not only Trump's motives, but to consider the humanitarian disaster that inevitably accompanies war. War with Iran will only make the Middle East more unstable, further fueling anti-American radicalism, and increasing the terror threat to the U.S. This conclusion isn't based on speculation, but on two decades of experience with a "War on Terror" that's done little but destroy nations and increase terror threats. The American people can reduce the dangers of war by protesting Trump's latest provocation, and by pressuring Congress to pass legislation condemning any future attack on Iran as a violation of national and international law.

To contact your Representative or Senator, use the following links:

Join the debate on Facebook

More articles by: Anthony DiMaggio

Anthony DiMaggio is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Lehigh University. He holds a PhD in political communication, and is the author of the newly released: The Politics of Persuasion: Economic Policy and Media Bias in the Modern Era (Paperback, 2018), and Selling War, Selling Hope: Presidential Rhetoric, the News Media , and U.S. Foreign Policy After 9/11 (Paperback: 2016). He can be reached at: [email protected]

[Jan 08, 2020] Soleimani and Al-Muhandis are being mourned in Aleppo churches

Jan 08, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

StSarkiscathedraltehran2016

(Tehran Armenian Cathedral)

Mike Pompeo was on the TeeVee today scoffing at those who do not agree with him and the Ziocon inspired "maximum pressure" campaign against Iran. It must be a terrible thing for intelligence analysts of integrity and actual Middle East knowledge and experience to have to try to brief him and Trump, people who KNOW, KNOW from some superior source of knowledge that Iran is the worst threat to the world since Nazi Germany, or was it Saddam's Iraq that was the worst threat since "beautiful Adolf?"

The "maximum pressure" campaign is born of Zionist terrors, terrors deeply felt. It is the same kind of campaign that has been waged by the Israelis against the Palestinians and all other enemies great and small. This approach does not seem to have done much for Israel. The terrors are still there.

Someone sent me the news tape linked below from Aleppo in NW Syria. I have watched it a number of times. You need some ability in Arabic to understand it. The tape was filmed in several Christian churches in Aleppo where these two men (Soleimani and al-Muhandis) are described from the pulpit and in the street as "heroic martyr victims of criminal American state terrorism." Pompeo likes to describe Soleimani as the instigator of "massacre" and "genocide" in Syria. Strangely (irony) the Syriac, Armenian Uniate and Presbyterian ministers of the Gospel in this tape do not see him and al-Muhandis that way. They see them as men who helped to defend Aleppo and its minority populations from the wrath of Sunni jihadi Salafists like ISIS and the AQ affiliates in Syria. They see them and Lebanese Hizbullah as having helped save these Christians by fighting alongside the Syrian Army, Russia and other allies like the Druze and Christian militias.

It should be remembered that the US was intent on and may still be intent on replacing the multi-confessional government of Syria with the forces of medieval tyranny. Everyone who really knows anything about the Syrian Civil War knows that the essential character of the New Syrian Army, so beloved by McCain, Graham and the other Ziocons was always jihadi and it was always fully supported by Wahhabi Saudi Arabia as a project in establishing Sunni triumphalism. They and the self proclaimed jihadis of HTS (AQ) are still supported in Idlib and western Aleppo provinces both by the Saudis and the present Islamist and neo-Ottoman government of Turkey.

Well pilgrims, there are Christmas trees in the newly re-built Christian churches of Aleppo and these, my brothers and sisters in Christ remember who stood by them in "the last ditch."

"Currently there are at least 600 churches and 500,000–1,000,000 Christians in Iran." wiki below. Are they dhimmis? Yes, but they are there. There are no churches in Saudi Arabia, not a single one and Christianity is a banned religion. These are our allies?

Mr. Jefferson wrote that "he feared for his country when he remembered that God is just." He meant Virginia but I fear in the same way for the United States. pl

https://twitter.com/i/status/1214223383635857409

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Iran

Posted at 02:13 PM in As The Borg Turns , Borg Wars , Current Affairs , Iran , Iraq , Israel , Middle East , Pakistan , Religion , Saudi Arabia , Syria , Yemen | Permalink

[Jan 08, 2020] As long as Neocons and Christian Zionists run our foreign policy we're screwed.

Jan 08, 2020 | www.unz.com

Z-man , says: Show Comment January 7, 2020 at 1:27 pm GMT

Yes, as long as Neoco hens and Christian Zionists run our foreign policy we're screwed.
BTW, Mike Pompeo or as I affectionately call him; Lard face, Plump'eo, crazed CZ-zealot fat boy, etc., is now a legitimate target of the Iranians. May Allah provide justice to the family of Soleimani. (Grin) And look, I'm wishing 'ill will' on a zealot 'goy' (gentile) instead of a typical Neo-cohen snake, how ironic. (Another grin)
A positve spin:
With the 'incorrect' memo leaked by the Pentagon about an orderly exit from Iraq this can be the silver lining in all this mess. This assassination might actually accelerate the exiting of US forces from Iraq and the surrounding quagmires. Who knows, Trump might be a genius.
Again, NO MORE WARS FOR ZION, BDS NOW, ONE STATE SOLUTION-PALESTINE.
And to really stick it to Neo cohens (My apologies to Prof. Steven Cohen ), Trump-Putin Axis Da!! Destroy the Deep State and the CABAL .

[Jan 08, 2020] I can't quite understand how gratuitous US piracy and adventurism in places on the globe beyond the knowledge and reach of most Americans could possibly be compared to Iranian actions securing their immediate regional borders and interests.

Highly recommended!
Jan 08, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Patroklos , Jan 6 2020 22:30 utc | 104

@Ian Dobbs and Dan

I can't quite understand how gratuitous US piracy and adventurism in places on the globe beyond the knowledge and reach of most Americans could possibly be compared to Iranian actions securing their immediate regional borders and interests. You can at least understand (even if you critique) a US preoccupation with Cuba over the years, or drug cartels in central America, or economic refugees in Mexico because they are close by and have a more less direct effect on the stability of the US. But they have no authority beyond that other than the ability to project violence and force. That's just simple imperialism. But now the US have whacked a made guy without any real reason (i.e. looking at you the wrong way is not a reason). Any mafia hood knows that, especially a New Yorker like Trump. So the climax of The Godfather comes to mind. It is staggeringly naive and frankly moronic to think that this is about good and evil. I bet Soleimani was no angel, but he wasn't whacked because he was a bad guy, but because he was extraordinarily effective military organizer. Star Wars has a lot to answer for in stunting the historical sensibilities of entire generations, but its underlying narrative is the only MSM playbook now. Even more staggering is the stupendous arrogance of the US belief in its 'rights' (based on thuggery and avarice), as though it were the only power in the world capable of establishing a moral order. The lesson in humility to come will be both long-awaited and go unheeded. Even the mob understand there has to be rules.

Alpi , Jan 6 2020 22:32 utc | 105

After reading Crooke and Federicci's articles, there is only one way to stop this madness blowing into a global conflict. Russia and China need to get involved whether they like it or not. Diplomacy and sideline analysis has run its course. This is their time to stamp their influence in the region and finish off the empire once and for all. Maybe that way, The Europeans will grow some minerals and become sovereign again.

Otherwise, China can kiss its Belt and Road goodbye and go into a recession with the loss of their investments up to this point and become slaves to the Americans again.

And Russia, the enemy du jour of Europe and US will be next and be crushed under economic sanctions and isolation.

This is the moment that stars are aligned . Russia and China should park their battle carriers off the Gulf and gives direct warning to Israel and US that any nuclear threat , tactical or otherwise, against anyone in the region is a non-starter.

I read so much about these two countries and that they will get involved. I have recited those lines myself. But after these events and how things are escalating, I cannot see how they cannot be involved. US is its most vulnerable and weakest with respect to economic, diplomatic and military conditions.

The time of condemnations, letters of objection to the UN and veto votes in UNSC is over. There is only one way to deal with a rogue nation and that is by force.

[Jan 08, 2020] Iran, Soleimani, oil and dollar status as the world reserve currency

Jan 08, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

After the September 11, 2001 attacks, instead of using the opportunity to widen the circle of U.S. allies or at least non-enemies in the Middle East, the Bush administration declared war on "all terrorism of global reach," not just on the Sunni terrorists responsible. That meant not seeking some sort of détente with Shiite Iran -- despite its assistance in overturning the Taliban in Afghanistan and forming a replacement government -- but putting Tehran in an "Axis of Evil" with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Some members of the Bush administration went further. John Bolton, then an undersecretary of state nominally tasked with arms control (he mostly did the reverse), said that Iran should "take a number," implying it would be the next to experience regime change after Iraq. Neoconservatives worried about Iran and its expanding stockpile of low-enriched uranium, as well as its long opposition to Israel, said that "real men go to Tehran," not Baghdad.

The Bush administration also went back on a promise to trade leaders of the Mujaheddin-e Khalq -- a militant Iranian group nurtured by Saddam that fought on Iraq's side during the Iran-Iraq war -- for members of al-Qaeda detained in Iran. Instead the U.S. gave the group protection and Bolton among others argued that the MEK could be deployed against Iran.

As a result, the U.S. helped turn the Quds Force -- the elite overseas branch of Iran's Revolutionary Guards -- into a full-fledged enemy even as its removal of Saddam's Baathist regime opened Iraq fully to Iran-backed militants, many of whom were trained in Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. Starting with the Badr Brigade, Iran has since helped shape other Iraqi militias, among them Kataib Hezbollah, whose targeting of Americans in Iraq touched off the latest escalatory spiral.

Of course, the Trump administration's decision in 2018 to quit the Iran nuclear deal and a year later to impose an oil embargo on Iran has been the major cause of the mayhem in the region over the past nine months.

Now, by assassinating Quds Force leader Qassem Soleimani, the Trump administration has likely foreclosed any possibility of U.S.-Iran diplomacy and sharply increased the likelihood of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. Iran announced on Sunday that it would no longer observe the limits set in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and would resume its nuclear program. That will incentivize Saudi Arabia to get nukes of its own.

It is said that George W. Bush, when he decided to invade Iraq, did not understand the difference between Sunnis and Shias. Donald Trump seems to dislike all Muslims, except those who buy American arms or host Trump properties.


In killing Soleimani, Trump has shown his ignorance of the power of martyrdom in Shia theology. To Iranians and many Arab Shia -- including those who would like to get Iran out of their countries' affairs -- Soleimani was a bulwark against al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, defending the interests of a religious minority in the Middle East. Pictures of Soleimani being embraced by the Imam Hussein -- the revered Shia figure martyred in the year 680 in Karbala, Iraq, by the forces of the Sunni tyrant Yazid -- are circulating widely on social media. The U.S., by implication, has become Yazid.

Kathleen King • 12 hours ago

It is not 'Shia' vs. 'Sunni' when referencing the perspective of the U.S. : Middle East relationship. It is the petro dollar. And every so often we have someone writing from a 'thinktank', i.e., The Atlantic Council, that never touches upon the scenario of the 'petro' dollar and how it governs U.S. foreign policy in that region. Instead they frame their gripes with partisan politics. Bush, Obama, and Trump have to kiss the Saudi ass in order to pay for the enormous 'warfare' and 'welfare' state of Washington D.C. The Petro Dollar ensures that the printing presses in Washington continue to print those dollars that will support a larger budget for the Pentagon, and Medicare, and in the very near future if Trump loses the White House: Medicare for All {including undocumented immigrants}, Reparations, free college for all, etc. You can add the United State's incredible generosity with tax payer money that pretty much pays for an 'ungrateful' Western Europe security.

And Trump did not do this to America. But he has to continue it in order to keep those printing presses rolling at the Treasury: in other words keep the American Dollar the 'top dog' currency of the world which allows for this $20 trillion + deficit and at the same time 'fantasy island' welfare state promises from the politicians. And politicians have no problem with this policy - they can just exploit it for partisan politics and at the same time promise an pseudo 'sustainable' increase in the welfare state to win elections.

That said, the Saudis are Sunnis. They want to increase their power. And in order to keep them happy {so they will not change currency exchanges for their oil to the 'gold-backed' yuan}, then the United States must fight messy and horrible wars in Yemen; start wars in Syria [General Mattis was and is a big time supporter of this] - supporting terrorist groups who love killing Christians with U.S. weapons, and ultimately regime change in Iran. Why do you think George W. Bush, etal have to look the other way on 9/11 - shield the Saudis {oh, and Obama is included on this list also}. All U.S. presidents face this problem. But especially the Democrats since their big welfare state costs way more to sustain than the Pentagon.

In conclusion - Obama, a Democrat, oversaw the CIA that supported and aided MBS onto the throne in Saudi Arabia because, unlike his myriad of family members, he will continue to exchange oil {along with the Gulf 'Sunni' dominated states' using the Dollar. It is all the presidents of all political parties beginning with the Nixon administration.

polistra24 • 9 hours ago
Russia and China are ALREADY seen as more sane and rational powers than USA. That's why we couldn't let Soleimani negotiate peace between Persia and Saudi. Killing him won't stop the negotiations; more likely it will speed up Saudi's divorce from US/Israel craziness.
Sid Finster • 7 hours ago
Putin and Xi are more honest and useful brokers than the United States.

That is not a major accomplishment. The United States has demonstrated time and again that it acts not even in its own interests, but in the interests of its Saudi owners and Israeli masters.

Dr. Rieux Sid Finster • 6 hours ago • edited
The message underlying the Book of Daniel: Better than sitting on the throne is to be the power behind it.
TheSnark • 7 hours ago • edited
In theory, the US could be a powerful stabilizing force in the Middle East. We have the resources and the military might to provide very effective carrots and sticks.

However, over the past decades we have proven that we are so ignorant of the local cultures and politics, so blinded by our own preconceptions and ideologies, and so unwilling to learn, that we keep punishing people with carrots and rewarding them with sticks. Time to admit we can't get it right and go home.

Sid Finster TheSnark • 7 hours ago
Even worse, we have chosen two particular countries in the region, the Israelis and the Saudis, as Our Special Friends and we use the carrots and sticks almost entirely in their interests.
TISO_AX2 TheSnark • 6 hours ago
The biggest impediment to that is the frequent change of administrations and their policies. But since we weren't designed to be doing that sort of thing in the first place it's only natural that we aren't very good at it. We should get out of foreign entanglements but Congress (and its lobbyists) fights it tooth and nail, across administrations. They've even developed a nasty word for it... isolationism .

[Jan 08, 2020] Pompeo and his lies got us into this mess with Iran caucus99percent

Pompeo was and is despicable liar: If the threat was 'imminent', wouldn't that already be known?
Notable quotes:
"... @Not Henry Kissinger ..."
"... @Not Henry Kissinger ..."
Jan 08, 2020 | caucus99percent.com

gjohnsit on Mon, 01/06/2020 - 6:14pm Just a few days ago SoS Mike Pompeo said that we assassinated General Soleimani to stop an 'imminent attack' on Americans.
No evidence was presented to back up this claim. We are just supposed to believe it.

It turns out that Pompeo and VP Pence had pushed Trump hard to do this assassination.

gjohnsit on Mon, 01/06/2020 - 6:28pm
Netanyahu was obviously involved

@Not Henry Kissinger
But I can understand his efforts to distance himself.
It shows more smarts than what Trump has been doing.

The patient way the Iranians are preparing to respond is scaring them.

Not Henry Kissinger on Mon, 01/06/2020 - 6:37pm
Netanyahu should be scared.

@gjohnsit

Bibi for Soleimani is looking more and more like the appropriate 'proportional' response for all concerned.

gjohnsit on Mon, 01/06/2020 - 7:02pm
Meanwhile in Kenya/Somalia

@gjohnsit
normally this would be big news

"Seven aircraft and three military vehicles were destroyed in the attack," said the statement, which included photos of aircraft ablaze and an al Shabaab militant standing nearby. In a tweet, the US Africa Command confirmed an attack on the Manda Bay Airfield had occurred.

3 americans killed

One US military service member and two contractors were killed in an Islamist attack on a military base in Kenya.

Islamist militant group al-Shabab attacked the base, used by Kenyan and US forces, in the popular coastal region of Lamu on Sunday.
The US military said in a statement that two others from the Department of Defense were wounded.

"The wounded Americans are currently in stable condition and being evacuated," the US military's Africa Command said.

Raggedy Ann on Mon, 01/06/2020 - 6:34pm
Hilarious!

@Not Henry Kissinger
Here we go - a pissing contest about to begin!

But the response of Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu , was particularly striking, as he has been one of Trump's staunchest supporters on the world stage.

He told a meeting of his security cabinet on Monday: "The assassination of Suleimani isn't an Israeli event but an American event. We were not involved and should not be dragged into it."

Uh huh.



[Jan 08, 2020] Fragmentation In 'The Axis Of Resistance' Led To Soleimani's Death by Elijah Magnier

Jan 07, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Elijah Magnier via EJMagnier.com,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Was the leader of the "resistance axis" managing and running it?

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

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

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

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

Arising , 4 hours ago link

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

If the 'source' in this article was so close to Soleimani, then he would also have mentioned that Russia was dictating terms in Syria.

Soleimani knew this and could not afford to lose Russia as an ally, this would definitely have happened if another 'player' was brought into the war just because Soleimani decided to retaliate to Zionist bombing.

Putin, Assad and Soleimani had a long term view of winning in Syria, not making things worse because of a quick retaliatory strike.

Joe A , 5 hours ago link

So far his death has led to the Iraqi parliament giving the boot to foreign troops. His death is winning for the axis of resistance.

hoffstetter , 3 hours ago link

Non-binding resolution asking the prime minister to rescind Iraq's invitation...

The current government is unlikely to push this through. After a new PM is chosen, it would still take a year or more to move the US troops out by the agreements under which they set up their base. All of this has to be viewed under the context that the US was asked to send troops by the Iraqi president.

hoffstetter , 3 hours ago link

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/08/world/middleeast/us-to-send-1500-more-troops-to-iraq.html

https://www.google.com/search?q=iraqi+president+requests+US+troops&client=firefox-b-1-d&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2005%2Ccd_max%3A1%2F1%2F2018&tbm=

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/28/495808708/the-u-s-is-sending-600-more-troops-to-iraq

You may not like it, you may claim the US forced the government to "request" troops, but they did request them.

HowdyDoody , 32 minutes ago link

In response to the US unleashing ISIS on the Iraqis? 'Nice country you got there'.

[Jan 08, 2020] Chaos Pentagon Denies Poorly Worded Iraq Withdrawal Letter, Esper Says No Decision To Leave Iraq, Period

Jan 08, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Yesterday, Iraqi lawmakers voted to expel foreign troops from the country during an emergency parliamentary session. Interim Iraqi prime minister, Adil Abdul Mahdi, stressed during the session, that while the US government notified the Iraqi military of the planned strike on Soleimani, his government denied Washington permission to continue with the operation.

In a meeting Monday, Mahdi, a caretaker prime minister who said in November he would resign, told US Ambassador Matthew H. Tueller that the US and Iraq needed to cooperate "to implement the withdrawal of foreign forces in accordance with the decision of the Iraqi parliament," according to a statement from the PM's office that was cited by the Washington Post .

Though the Iraq war 'officially' ended in 2011, thousands of coalition troops stuck around. Their numbers increased following the rise of ISIS in the region.

Ending the US troop presence in Iraq has been a longtime goal of non-interventionists like Ron Paul and his son, Rand.

That said, even without troops in Iraq, the US will still have plenty of capacity to bully Iran, and other other regional powers.

LA_Goldbug , 37 minutes ago link

Looking back at some of the old articles about Suleimani really makes you think. The only reason to kill him is to Start a War.

The myth behind Iran's military mastermind is getting out of control

Armin Rosen

Mar 16, 2015, 10:01 PM

https://www.businessinsider.com/why-irans-qassem-suleimaini-is-everywhere-2015-3?r=US&IR=T

CIA director: Iran is becoming part of the problem in Iraq

Associated Press

Mar 22, 2015, 6:06 PM

AP WASHINGTON (AP) -- Having the leader of Iran's elite Quds Force direct Iraqi forces battling the Islamic State group is complicating the U.S. mission against terrorism and contributing to destabilization in Iraq, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency said Sunday.

https://www.businessinsider.com/cia-director-iran-is-becoming-part-of-the-problem-in-iraq-2015-3?r=US&IR=T

[Jan 08, 2020] The Donald's Assassination Of General Soleimani -- As Stupid As It Gets by David Stockman

Jan 08, 2020 | www.unz.com

During more than a half-century of Washington watching we have seen stupidity rise from one height to yet another. But nothing -- just plain nothing -- compares to the the blithering stupidity of the Donald's Iran "policy", culminating in the mindless assassination of its top military leader and hero of the so-called Islamic Revolution, Major General Qassem Soleimani.

To be sure, we don't give a flying f*ck about the dead man himself. Like most generals of whatever army (including the US army), he was a cold-blooded, professional killer.

And in this day and age of urban and irregular warfare and drone-based annihilation delivered by remote joy-stick, generals tend to kill more civilians than combatants. The dead civilian victims in their millions of U.S. generals reaching back to the 1960s surely attest to that.

Then again, even the outright belligerents Soleimani did battle with over the decades were not exactly alms-bearing devotees of Mother Theresa, either. In sequential order, they were the lethally armed combatants mustered by Saddam Hussein, George W. Bush, the Sunni jihadists of ISIS and the Israeli and Saudi air forces, which at this very moment are raining high tech bombs and missiles on Iranian allies and proxies in Syria, Lebanon and Yemen.

The only reason these years of combat are described in the mainstream media as evidence of Iranian terrorism propagated by its Quds forces is that the neocons have declared it so. That is, by Washington's lights Iran is not allowed to have a foreign policy and its alliances with mainly Shiite co-religionists in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen are alleged per se to be schemes of aggression and terror, warranting any and all retaliations including assassination of its highest officials.

But that's just colossal nonsense and imperialistic arrogance. The Assad government in Syria, the largest political party in Lebanon (Hezbollah), the dominant population of northern Yemen (Houthis) and a significant portion of the Iraqi armed forces represented by the Shiite militias (the PMF or Popular Mobilization Forces) are no less civilized and no more prone to sectarian violence than anybody else in this woebegone region. And the real head-choppers of ISIS and its imitators and rivals have all been Sunni jihadist insurrectionists, not Shiite-based governments and political parties.

The truth is, America has no dog in the Shiite versus Sunni hunt, which has been going on for 1300 years in the region. And when it comes to spillover of those benighted forces into Europe or America, recent history is absolutely clear: 100% of all Islamic terrorist incidents in the US since they began in the 1990s were perpetrated or inspired by Sunni jihadists, not Iran or its Shiite allies and proxies in the region.

So we needs be direct. The aggression in the Persian Gulf region during the last three decades has originated in the Washington DC nest of neocon vipers and among Bibi Netanyahu's proxies, collaborators and assigns who rule the roost in the Imperial City and among both political parties. And the motivating force has all along been the malicious quest for regime change -- first in Iraq and then in Syria and Iran.

Needless to say, Washington instigated "regime change" tends to provoke a determined self-defense and a usually violent counter-reaction among the changees. So the truth is, the so-called Shiite crescent is not an alliance of terrorists inflicting wanton violence on the region; it's a league of regime-change resisters and armed combatants who have elected to say "no" to Washington's imperial schemes for remaking the middle eastern maps.

So in taking out Soleimani, the usually befuddled and increasingly belligerent occupant of the Oval Office was not striking a blow against "terrorism". He was just dramatically escalating Washington's long-standing regime-change aggression in the region, thereby risking an outbreak of even greater violence and possibly a catastrophic conflagration in the Persian Gulf where one-fifth of the world's oil traverses daily.

And most certainly, the Donald has now crushed his own oft-repeated intent to withdraw American forces from the middle east and get out of the regime change business -- the very platform upon which he campaigned in 2016. There are now upwards of 50,000 US military personnel in the immediate Persian Gulf region and tens of thousands of more contractors, proxies and mercenaries. After Friday's reckless maneuver, that number can now only go up -- and possibly dramatically.

In joy-sticking Soleimani while lounging in his plush digs at Mar-a-Lago, the Donald was also not avenging the innocent casualties of Iranian aggression -- Americans or otherwise. He was just jamming another regime-change stick in the hornets nest of anti-Americanism in the region that Washington's bloody interventions have spawned over the decades, and which will now intensify by orders of magnitude.

Sometimes a picture does tell a thousand words, and this one from the funeral procession in Tehran yesterday surely makes a mockery of Secretary Pompeo's idiotic claim that the middle east is now safer than before. If there was ever a case that this neocon knucklehead should be immediately dispatched to his hog and corn farm back in Kansas, this is surely it.

Iranians carried the coffins of top general Qassem Soleimani and his allies in Kerman, Iran

The larger point here is that Imperial Washington and its mainstream media megaphones have so egregiously and relentlessly vilified Iran and falsified the middle east narrative that the Iranian side of the story has been completely lost -- literally airbrushed right off the pages of contemporary history in Stalineseque fashion.

Not that the benighted, mullah-controlled Iranian regime is comprised of anything which resembles white hats. One of the great misfortunes of the last four decades is that the long-suffering people of Iran have not been able to throw-off the cultural and religious shackles imposed by this theocratic regime or escape the economic backwardness and incompetence of what is essentially rule by authoritarian clerics.

But that's exactly the crime of Washington's neocon-inspired hostility and threats to the Iranian regime. It merely rekindles Iranian nationalism and causes the public to rally to the support of the regime, as is so evident at the current moment.

Worse still, the underlying patriotic foundation of this pro-regime sentiment is completely lost on Imperial Washington owing to its false narrative about post-1979 history. Yet the fact is, in the eyes of the Iranian people the Quds forces and Soleimani have plausible claims to having been valiant defenders of the nation.

In the original instance, of course, Soleimani earned his chops on the battlefield contending with the chemical weapons-dropping air force of Saddam Hussein during the 1980s. And Saddam was the invader whose chemical bombs achieved especially deadly accuracy against often barely armed teenage Iranian soldiers owing to spotting and targeting assistance rendered by the U.S. air force -- a Washington assisted depredation that a whole generation of Iranians know all about, even if present day Washington feints ignorance.

Then after Bush the Younger visited uninvited and unrequested Shock & Awe upon Baghdad and much of the Iraqi countryside, it transpired that the nation's majority Shiite population didn't cotton much to being "liberated" by Washington. Indeed, the more radical elements of the Iraqi Shiite community in Sadr City and other towns of central and south Iraq took up arms during 2003-2011 against what they perceived to be the American "occupiers" because, well, it was their country.

Needless to say, their Shiite kinsman in Iran were more than ready to give aid and comfort to the Iraqi Shiite in their struggle against what by then was perceived as Iran's own mortal enemy. After all, a full year before Bush the Younger launched the utterly folly of the second gulf war in March 2003, his demented neocon advisors and speechwriters, led by the insufferable David Frum, had concocted a bogeyman called the Axis of Evil, which included Iran and marked it as next in line for Shock & Awe.

But the idea that the Iraqi people and especially its majority Shiite population would have been dancing in the streets to welcome the US military save for the insidious interference of Iran is just baseless War Party propaganda.

Stated differently, Washington sent 158,000 lethally armed fighters into a country that had never threatened America's homeland security or harbored its enemies, and had no capacity to do so in any event. But contrary to the glib assurances of Rumsfeld, Cheney and the rest of the neocon jackals around Bush, these U.S. fighters soon came to be widely viewed as "invaders", not liberators, and met resistance from a wide variety of Iraqi elements including remnants of Saddam's government and military, radicalized Sunni jihadists and a motley array of Shiite politicians, clerics and militias.

Foremost among these was the Sadr clan which emerged as the tribune of the the dispossessed Shiite communities in the south and Baghdad. They rose to prominence after Bush the Elder urged the Shiite to rise up against Saddam after the 1991 Gulf War, and then left them dangling in the wind.

No U.S. support materialized as the regime's indiscriminate crackdown on the population systematically arrested and killed tens of thousands of Shiites and destroyed Shiite shrines, centers of learning, towns and villages. According to eyewitness accounts, Baathist tanks were painted with messages like "No Shiites after today," people were hanged from electric poles, and tanks ran over women and children and towed bodies through the streets.

From this horror and brutality emerged Mohammad Mohammad Sadeq al-Sadr, the founder of the Sadrist movement that today, under the leadership of his son Muqtada, constitutes Iraq's most powerful political movement. After the collapse of the Baathist regime in 2003, the Sadrist movement formally established its own militia, known as the Jaysh al-Mahdi, or the Mahdi Army .

The vast Shiite underclass needed protection, social services and leadership, and the Sadrist movement stepped into these gaps by reactivating Sadeq al-Sadr's network. In the course of U.S. occupation, the Mahdi Army's ranks of supporters, members and fighters swelled, particularly as sectarian conflict intensified and discontent towards the occupation grew out of frustration with the lack of security and basis services.At one point the Mahdi Army numbered more than 60,000 fighters, and especially as Iraq degenerated into total sectarian chaos after 2005, it became a deadly thorn in the side of U.S. forces occupying a country where they were distinctly unwelcome.

But the Mahdi Army was homegrown; it was Arab, not Persian, and it was fighting for its own homes and communities, not the Iranians, the Quds or Soleimani. In fact, the Sadrists strongly opposed the Iranian influence among other Shiite dissident groups including the brutal Badr Brigade and the Iran-aligned Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution (SCIRI). As the above study further noted,

I raqis today refer to the Sadrist Movement's Peace Brigades as the "rebellious" militias, because of their refusal to submit not only to Iran , but also to the federal government and religious establishment. Muqtada al-Sadr has oriented his organization around Iraqi nationalistic sentiments and derided the Iran-aligned militias . In line with the true political outlook of his father and his followers, Muqtada's supporters chanted anti-Iranian slogans and stormed the offices of the Dawa Party, ISCI and the Badr Brigade when they protested against the government in May 2016.

As it happened, the overwhelming share of the 603 US servicemen the Pentagon claims to have been killed by Iranian proxies were actually victims of the Mahdi Army uprisings during 2003-2007. These attacks were led by the above mentioned Iraqi nationalist firebrand and son of the movements founder, Muqtada al-Sadr.

In fact, however, the surge in U.S. deaths at that time was the direct result of subsequently disgraced General David Petraeus' infamous "surge" campaign. Among others, it targeted al-Sadr's Mahdi Army in the hope of weakening it. Beginning in late April 2007, the U.S. launched dozens of military operations aimed solely at capturing or killing Mahdi Army officers, causing the Mahdi Army to strongly resist those raids and impose mounting casualties on U.S. troops.

So amidst the fog of two decades of DOD and neocon propaganda, how did Iran and Soleimani get tagged over and over with the "killing Americans" charge, as if they were attacking innocent bystanders in lower Manhattan on 9/11?

It's just the hoary old canard that Iran was the source of the powerful roadside bombs called Explosively Formed Penetrators (EFPs) that were being used by many of the Shiite militias, as well as the Sunni jihadists in Anbar province and the west. Yet that claim was debunked more than a decade ago by evidence that the Mahdi Army and other Shiite militias were getting their weapons not just from the Iranians but from wherever they could, as well as manufacturing their own.

As the estimable Iran export, Gareth Porter, recently noted:

The command's effort to push its line about Iran and EFPs encountered one embarrassing revelation after another. In February 2007 a US command briefing asserted that the EFPs had "characteristics unique to being manufactured in Iran." However, after NBC correspondent Jane Arraf confronted the deputy commander of coalition troops, Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, with the fact that a senior military official had acknowledged to her that US troops had been discovering many sites manufacturing EFPs in Iraq, Odierno was forced to admit that it was true.

Then in late February 2007, US troops found another cache of parts and explosives for EFPs near Baghdad, which included shipments of PVC tubes for the canisters that contradicted its claims . They had come not from factories in Iran, but from factories in the UAE and other Arab countries, including Iraq itself. That evidence clearly suggested that the Shiites were procuring EFP parts on the commercial market rather than getting them from Iran.

Although the military briefing by the command in February 2007 pointed to cross-border weapons smuggling, it actually confirmed in one of its slides that it was being handled by "Iraqi extremist group members" rather than by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). And as Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, the US commander for southern Iraq, admitted in a July 6 press briefing , his troops had not "captured anybody that we can directly tie back to Iran."

On the other hand, what the Iranian Quds forces have actually accomplished in Iraq and Syria has been virtually expunged from the mainstream narrative. To wit, they have been the veritable tip of the spear in the eradication of the Islamic State.

Indeed, in Iraq it was the wobbly Iraqi national army that Washington stood up at a cost of billions, which turned tail and ran when ISIS emerged in Anbar province in 2014. So doing, they left behind thousands of US armored vehicles, mobile artillery and even tanks, as well as massive troves of guns and ammo, which enabled the Islamic State to briefly thrive and subjugate several million people across the Euphrates Valley.

It was also Washington that trained, equipped, armed and funded the so-called anti-Assad rebels in Syria, which so weakened and distracted Damascus that that the Islamic State was briefly able to fill the power vacuum and impose its barbaric rule on the citizens of Raqqa and its environs. And again, it did so in large part with weaponry captured from or sold to ISIS by the so-called moderate rebels.

To the contrary, the panic and unraveling in Iraq during 2014-2015 was stopped and reversed when the Iranians at the invitation of Baghdad's Shiite government helped organize and mobilize the Iraqi Shiite militias, which eventually chased ISIS out of Mosul and Anbar.

Likewise, outside of the northern border areas liberated by the Syrian Kurds, it was the Shiite alliance of Assad, Hezbollah and the Iranian Quds forces that rid Syria of the ISIS plague.

Yes, the U.S. air force literally incinerated two great cities temporarily occupied by the Islamic State -- Mosul and Raqqa. But it was the Shiite fighters who were literally fighting for their lives, homes and hearth who cleared that land of a barbaric infestation that had been spawned and enabled by the very Washington neocons who are now dripping red in tooth and claw.

So we revert to the Donald's act of utter stupidity. On the one hand, it is now evident that the reason Soleimani was in Baghdad was to deliver an official response from Tehran to a recent Saudi de-escalation offer. And that's by the word of the very prime minister that Washington has stood up in the rump state of Iraq and who has now joined a majority of the Iraqi parliament in demanding that Iraq's putative liberators -- after expending trillions in treasure and blood -- leave the country forthwith:

Before the vote Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi told the parliament that he was scheduled to meet with Soleimani a day after his arrival to receive a letter from Iran to Iraq in response to a de-escalation offer Saudi Arabia had made. The U.S. assassinated Soleimani before the letter could be delivered by him. Abdul-Mahdi also said that Trump had asked him to mediate between the U.S. and Iran. Did he do that to trap Soleimani? It is no wonder then that Abdul-Mahdi is fuming.

At the same time, the positive trends that were in motion in the region just days ago -- -ISIS gone, Syria closing in on the remaining jihadists, Saudi Arabia and Iran tentatively exploring a more peaceful modus vivendi, the Yemen genocide winding to a close -- may now literally go up in smoke. As the always sagacious Pat Buchanan observed today,

What a difference a presidential decision can make.

Two months ago, crowds were in the streets of Iraq protesting Iran's dominance of their politics. Crowds were in the streets of Iran cursing that regime for squandering the nation's resources on imperial adventures in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen. Things were going America's way.

Now it is the Americans who are the targets of protests.

Over three days, crowds numbering in the hundreds of thousands and even millions have packed Iraqi and Iranian streets and squares to pay tribute to Soleimani and to curse the Americans who killed him.

We have long believed that there is nothing stupider in Washington than the neocon policy mafia that has wrecked such unspeakable havoc on the middle east as well as upon American

Sasha , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:41 am GMT

"Not that the benighted, mullah-controlled Iranian regime is comprised of anything which resembles white hats. One of the great misfortunes of the last four decades is that the long-suffering people of Iran have not been able to throw-off the cultural and religious shackles imposed by this theocratic regime or escape the economic backwardness and incompetence of what is essentially rule by authoritarian clerics."

I get it that maybe Iranians don't have a Walmart in every town, and may not have the privilege of mortgaging their lives on a Visa or MC – but that's not what I call backwardness, rather progress. If times are tough, is it the backwardness of their system, or might crippling sanctions play a small role in that? What "cultural and religious shackles" might these be? Please be more specific, or I might think you mean that they don't have instant access to Hollywood blockbusters or something. The horror! Finally – if you want to use the term "regime", please apply it with a broad brush, maybe even broad enough to touch on the oh-so-democratic West. Let's just call them "governments", OK?

Carlton Meyer , says: Website Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:21 am GMT
Nice to see the great David Stockman appear at Unz. Watch him teach Fox Business News blabbers economics and political realities. Then he stuns them by saying the Pentagon's budget must be cut:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/_-fUmMrzzJc?feature=oembed

Haxo Angmark , says: Website Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:26 am GMT
well said by Stockman, though it's all water under the bridge now.

Drumpf, a life-long Zion-stooge, and the (((neo-conz))) and their cucks

have got their War of Choice. Depending how the Greater MidEast War goes,

it may help solve all sorts of outstanding problems, there

and here. Right now it's just after dawn in Tehran .let's see how far

Drumpf et al. up the bloody ante today.

Justsaying , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:30 am GMT
@Sasha Well and truly spoken. American pop and consumerist culture along with pop drinks and endless fads, crude music and fast foods are being peddled as markers of serious culture. They are shoved down the throats of unsuspecting minds in asymmetric commerce as part of an aggressive campaign to turn the planet into a consumerist backyard for American junk and to consolidate American hegemony.
Justsaying , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:41 am GMT

The larger point here is that Imperial Washington and its mainstream media megaphones have so egregiously and relentlessly vilified Iran and falsified the middle east narrative that the Iranian side of the story has been completely lost --

Iran's foreign minister Zarif has been denied entry into the United States to attend a UN meeting. Speaking of idiocy in denying Iranians their side of the story. That has been the imperial modus operandi in appropriating narratives with the complicity of our poor excuse for journalism, the servile MSM.

JUSA , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:55 am GMT
@Sasha I agree. If Iranians are really that disgusted by the "cultural and religious shackles imposed by this theocratic regime or the economic backwardness and incompetence of what is essentially rule by authoritarian clerics", those clerics wouldn't still be in power. All they have to do is look at the degeneration of the West from drugs, alcohol, money, power, coarsening pop culture, pornography, all manners of sexual perversion and they know they are wise to take a different path.

Culturally, economically, politically, even technologically, the US is on a downward spiral, courtesy of the Jews. This warmongering perpetuated by the same tribe will eventually finish us off. China, Russia and Iran have existed for thousands of years. They will have the last laugh.

A123 , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 6:05 am GMT

Before the vote Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi told the parliament that he was scheduled to meet with Soleimani a day after his arrival to receive a letter from Iran to Iraq in response to a de-escalation offer Saudi Arabia had made. The U.S. assassinated Soleimani before the letter could be delivered by him.

So, Iranian de-escalation was based on a sneak attack against the U.S. Embassy? No. Simple logic shows that Mahdi is lying. Iran *escalated* by attacking the embassy.

-- What does Stockman suggest as a response to the Iranian sneak attack on the U.S. Embassy?
-- Why are the voices that are always screaming about 'International Law' not outraged by Iran's violations?

Given the history of such actions from the Carter era, a strong response was necessary and inevitable. Iran offered war. And, Trump responded prudently and proportionally.
________

Based on tonight's news, Khameni made a 'show' reprisal that had little impact on U.S. Forces. (1)

Iran fired more than a dozen ballistic missiles at two Iraqi bases housing U.S. troops, but preliminary reports suggest there are no U.S. casualties yet, two sources with direct knowledge of actions on the ground told Military Times Tuesday night.

Khameni's attack on the embassy was a failure that backfired badly. He is now desperately trying to back down, because he knows that Iran has no effective defense against U.S. Military options.

PEACE

______

(1) https://www.militarytimes.com/flashpoints/2020/01/08/no-us-casualties-in-iran-missile-strike-preliminary-reports-say/

Mark James , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 6:09 am GMT
Stockman knew Reagan's first budget was a joke. He wrote it: telling the late Bill Greider –in real time– that it was a 'Trojan Horse.'

Now he's telling Pompeo to go back to the pig farm but word is the Sec.State is now not running for a Senate seat. But I tend to believe Pompeo is not directing things it's coming from Trump's inner circle. Kushner strikes me as more of a neocon and he's obviously down with what they want in Tel Aviv. Which I think is an attack on Iran Nuclear capabilities before the end of the summer.

I heard Andrea Mitchell praising Stephen Hadley (Bush Neocon) as a "wise man" who called this an opportunity for negotiation. That's g one Andrea: it went out when Trump got rid of the deal Iran was adhering to, which the neocons and Israel didn't want.

freedom-cat , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 6:14 am GMT
I was reading earlier today that American Military Contractor company's stock began soaring right after the assassination; Ratheon, Northrup Grumman, Lockheed, Boeing, etc etc

Now Asian market defense contracting company stocks are soaring because Iran has fired missiles at a couple US bases in Iraq.

Insanity. Hitting your head over and over on a brick wall, while thinking you'll start feeling better.

I'm sorry to say I voted for this moron; and all because I hated the alternative and he was flapping his jaws about ending the warring in M.E. I had my doubts from the beginning but I was willing to give him a chance. Won't be voting in this fall's election. There is not one candidate worth voting for; none.

Geez, by November we might be in full blown WW3 & elections suspended. who the hell knows at this point.

gotmituns , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 6:16 am GMT
As stupid as it gets
-- -- -- -- -- -- –
Well, the Iranians really loused up now. Now Trump and his Israeli loving friends can finally kick their butts really good. Very bad idea attacking us.
Biff , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 6:31 am GMT
After the latest round of shit-slinging, Washington stinks, Tehran stinks, but Israel is still smelling like a rose even though they are the instigator of the whole affair.
How do they keep getting away with it each and every time?
Mr. Allen , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 6:38 am GMT
This is absurd. Don't lump all generals in together as the same. You might as well say Nazi generals and Russian generals and British generals and American generals and Japanese generals are all the same – all equally culpable of equal war crimes in WWII.

Unless you truly believe there is no good and bad sides in all these Middle Eastern wars this can't be true.

The Americans are aggressors and invaders in the Middle East. For the Iraqis to turn on the Americans it must mean something.

We get closer to the truth when we see Soleimani as a freedom fighter and Americans as terrorists.

To lump Soleimani with the American lot is devoid of morals and common sense

Lockean Proviso , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 6:59 am GMT
@JUSA

All they have to do is look at the degeneration of the West from drugs, alcohol, money, power, coarsening pop culture, pornography, all manners of sexual perversion and they know they are wise to take a different path.

Yes, although it is interesting to note that the Iran has been one of the top nations for sex-change surgeries because the regime would rather change tomboys and sissies into "boys" and "girls" rather than allow homosexuality or even atypical gender affect. They do avoid having a pernicious and culturally radicalizing gay lobby though.

Anyway, it's none of our business and if we really had to choose sides in the Saudi vs Iran conflict then Iran would be the rational choice. Maybe neocon stupidity will help bring that conflict to a truce as they unite against the USA.

Passer by , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 7:22 am GMT
Pretty bad news for the US:

Signed:

YOUR ENEMY MOQTADA AL-SADR #Iraq #US #USA_غادروا_العراق pic.twitter.com/CcSmNOHqUu

-- Elijah J. Magnier (@ejmalrai) January 6, 2020

Moqtada al-Sadr, the most influential person in Iraq, is now calling the US an enemy and threatening Trump personally. If Mahdi Army joins the other Shia groups around the world, big damage will be done to the US via many means and no american will be able to stay in Iraq. Embassy could be gone too. US companies working on oil and gas will be kicked out. The country will move strongly towards Russia and China. All US investment in the Iraq adventure will be totally lost.

Angering iraqi shia is very stupid US move. They are an ascending force, with young combat ready population and young and expanding demographics. Last time the US angered the iraqi shia (2004), it lost the war in Iraq even before it knew it.

This is the result of a declining power not recognizing its decline and making enemies everywhere.

The 2020s will be a turbulent period of power transition where the US and Europe decline and the rest of the world rises, the end of the superpower moment and the beginning of a multipolar world.

JackOH , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 8:16 am GMT
That David Stockman? Kudos, Ron.
CBTerry , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 8:16 am GMT
Excellent article by a man so principled that as a representative from Michigan he voted against the Chrysler bail-out.
So please forgive me for pointing out this error:

From the interweb:

A feint (noun) is primarily a deceptive move, such as in fencing or military maneuvering. It can also mean presenting a feigned appearance. Feint can also be a verb, but in that case it simply means to execute a feint.
To feign (verb) is to deceive; either by acting as if you're something or someone you're not, or lying.
There is some overlap between particular meanings of the two words (For example, his ignorance was a feint, he was feigning ignorance), but mostly they are separate.
Both words come from the French feindre, which means to "pretend, represent, imitate, shirk".

Hans Vogel , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 9:03 am GMT
Thanks for this well-written, passionate but nevertheless lucid analysis.

Yet I feel mention should always be made of US corporate and imperial greed as a main motive for intervention anywhere in the world. It is about the oil and the profits and it is highly illuminating to turn to works by non-US authors. A good starting point would be Pino Solanas classic masterpiece La hora de los hornos (The Hour of the Furnaces) from 1968.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/jQOXKoMHOE0?feature=oembed

Also read Alfons Goldschmidt's eloquent and committed Die dritte Eroberung Amerikas (1929). And the recent magnificent overview by Matthieu Auzanneau, Or noir. La grande histoire du pétrole (2015).

Here is the best short analysis of the crime that was the invasion and conquest of Iraq:

eah , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 9:04 am GMT

The Trump presidency has been nothing but neoliberalism and Zionism on steroids and shouldn't be renewed for a second season. Feel free to convince me otherwise

-- EMPEROR WHITEPILL (@CptBlackPill) January 8, 2020

Hans Vogel , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 9:04 am GMT
@Justsaying Spot on!
swamped , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 9:08 am GMT
"In the original instance, of course, Soleimani earned his chops on the battlefield contending with the chemical weapons-dropping air force of Saddam Hussein during the 1980s. And Saddam was the invader whose chemical bombs achieved especially deadly accuracy against often barely armed teenage Iranian soldiers owing to spotting and targeting assistance rendered by the U.S. air force -- a Washington assisted depredation that a whole generation of Iranians know all about, even if present day Washington feints (sic) ignorance" and a whole generation (and more) know that this Washington-assisted depredation was carried out by the U.S. Administration in which Mr.Stockman served, whether or not he prefers now to "feint" ignorance of that, too. An Administration which also gave us the Nicaraguan Contra terrorists, the infamous Iran-Contra deal, Central American death squads, Israel's invasion of Lebanon & much more. Funny how Mr. Stockman was mum on such matters at the time. Maybe, like Jimmy Carter, he's found his moral compass since leaving government but wish he had found it a whole lot sooner. Hate to see a good Harvard Divinity School education go to waste. No matter, the article makes perfect sense even if it comes a little late.
GeeBee , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 9:23 am GMT
'The dead civilian victims in their millions of U.S. generals reaching back to the 1960s 1944 surely attest to that.'

There, fixed it for you.

Sabretache , says: Website Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 10:15 am GMT
Whenever I see the kind of absurd foul language employed here by Stockman, I simply stop reading. What on earth is a "flying f ** ck' anyway, other than a supposed macho signal of just how big and angry a 'BSD' (to use another swaggering obscenity prevalent on his home turf) he thinks he is. Perhaps he'd care to explain.
Ronnie , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 10:40 am GMT
The recent and nearly simultaneous crash of the newish Ukranian 737 in Tehran (with the 15 missiles launched from Iran) may be quite significant – indirect way to hurt the US (Boeing) again and Israel too – owned by Ukraine's most notorious billionaire Kolomoisky – and the guy who selected the new comedian President – and amazingly no US or Israeli passengers on board. Was it an accident or an exquisite punishment?
Vaterland , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 11:11 am GMT

And when it comes to spillover of those benighted forces into Europe or America, recent history is absolutely clear: 100% of all Islamic terrorist incidents in the US since they began in the 1990s were perpetrated or inspired by Sunni jihadists, not Iran or its Shiite allies and proxies in the region.

It is especially hard to overlook that the terrorists and self-radicalized (mass-)murders who killed hundreds of Europeans, including my own countrymen, were adherents to the wahhabist ideology, created, funded and often staffed by the very countries which are the closest allies of the USA and Israel. And whom they sell hundreds of billions of weapons to as they wage their so called "war on terror" which is mostly the war to take out Israel's and Saudi-Arabias enemies.

David Stockman may be at the center of the intelligentsia which built the empire that many in the world looked up to and admired, and which crude figures like Pompeo, Bolton, Shapiro, Perle and Nuland are tearing down. But the problems and outright evilness of the empire now are inherent to its system and not merely a question of sophistication versus brutishness.

It's past time to close Rammstein.

ben sampson , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 11:15 am GMT
@Sabretache Stockman is just guilty and fake thats all..why he uses such language.

there is not a sincere word in all that he wrote above there, save that there is somethng important in there that Stockman is losing or wants..and is trying to set up to get

Ipostle , says: Website Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 11:21 am GMT
@Sasha You can't fault David Stockman for calling Islam a shackle. Unless you want to agree with Bush that Islam is peaceful.
Biff , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 11:28 am GMT
@A123

Iran *escalated* by attacking the embassy.

And you have proof of this where?

Amon , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 11:33 am GMT
@A123 So this is what a paid shill looks like.
Proud_Srbin , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 11:49 am GMT
Mass murderer and Assassin in Chief is SIMPLY continuing to execute blood lusty and genocidal policies established by alliance of TERROR which calls itself 5 eyes but Sovereign, FREEDOM loving people call 5 headed BEAST.
God Bless Axis of Resistance!
Resist Slavery, TERROR and neoNazis!
Hans Vogel , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 11:53 am GMT
@Mr. Allen

This is absurd. Don't lump all generals in together as the same. You might as well say Nazi generals and Russian generals and British generals and American generals and Japanese generals are all the same – all equally culpable of equal war crimes in WWII.

Yes indeed, all generals are fundamentally the same. War crimes are not the exclusive realm of any one nationality or political or religious category.

Hollywood says otherwise, but what Hollywood says is little to do with historical fact and accuracy.

9/11 Inside job , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 11:54 am GMT
David Stockman blames "neocon stupidity", but Trump's foreign policy has nothing to do with stupidity it's planned and it's all about Israel ,"endless wars" , arms manufacturing and sales , and ensuring that the "war on terror" continues . We live in a Pathocracy and are governed by psychopaths and narcissists who have no compunction about the killing of civilians (collateral damage ) ,murder by drone , the destruction of cultural sites, the killing of 500,000 Iraqui children by sanctions (it was worth it – Madeleine Albright) and the murder of populist leaders such as Allende .
barr , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 12:09 pm GMT
@Sasha How does the mind develop? A boy grows up loving baseball ,because he grew up watching it since age 3 or 10 . If he watched soccer or Tennis, that would have been his favorite game . A blank page is ready for description of murder or love in English or Iranian language .
It is same about religion ,participation in civic rituals ,enjoying certain shows or music or theaters, food,consumption,and giving into outside demands rather than to self restraint self reflection and self observation and self evaluation of the imposed needs .
Mind learns to praise hollow words and illegal amoral immoral activities . Because we don't appreciate the converse and don't reward the opposite. Gradually society eliminates those thinkers Very soon we have one sort of thinking everywhere . Very soon adult bullying is copied by kids from TV and from watching the praise heaped on psychopaths.
This also means IQ gets distorted . Capacity to analyze gets impaired .
,American mind is manufactured mind by outside . BUt the process never stops. It doesn't get that chance to take internal control at any stage . In childhood and adolescence, when the time is right to inculcate this habit and enforce this angle or build this trait ,it is not done at all. Other nations try and other cultures do. Here is the difference between self assured content mind and nervous expectant mind always on a shopping outing . Most of our problems in society come from this situation,
anonymous [245] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 12:29 pm GMT
@JackOH Hmm.

I enjoyed reading someone with a Washington resume' tearing into the current crew, too. And it was a relief to see addressed the accusation about the Iranian official being not only killed for, but set up by feigned US interest in, peace. Those with a public voice -- especially "journalists" -- who won't even mention this are either inept or corrupt.

But note the condescension towards the people of the Middle East and their "regimes" noted above, starting with comment #1. Read the column carefully, and you'll see that the criticism from Mr. Stockman is tactical, not principled. That's because he puts himself above all of those people over there, including the group shown relative sympathy, who "are no less civilized and no more prone to sectarian violence than anybody else in this woebegone region." Ask yourself the writer's purpose of those last four words, and in his use of "sectarian." Would a more concise "are no less civilized and no more prone to violence than anybody else" be a little too truthful?

I wonder whether this columnist is being brought in to buttress and/or replace the discredited one who he describes as "the always sagacious Pat Buchanan." (Those who haven't should read Mr. Paleoconservative's latest "If Baghdad Wants Us Out, Let's Go!" and the overwhelmingly negative comments it has drawn.) Heretical to their extents, but both remain devout Exceptionalians.

unit472 , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 12:34 pm GMT
After more than a decades worth of failed economic prognostications ( that cost anyone who listened to him dearly) Stockman is now going to give us foreign policy advice? Remember this guys only official role was as an OMB appointee in the first term of Ronald Reagan.
Just passing through , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 12:35 pm GMT
@Ronnie Interestingly the plane just happened to be Ukrainian. Could this be the casus belli the West needs to go ham on Iran? More strikes on Iran justified by this plane crash and perhaps even sanctions on Russa as no doubt they will try an pin it on them as well?
Realist , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 12:35 pm GMT
@Sasha Stockman is notorious for defending cultures and countries (Russia, China, Iran, Islam) by belittling them. Paraphrasing: It is wrong for the US to confront Russia, because they have a third rate economy. or it is wrong for the US to confront China because China can't project power across the world. . He always takes the elitist position the US should not attack lessers like Russia, China, etc'. It seems he is trying to cover his ass against the dreaded charge that he is taking 'the enemy's side'.
SolontoCroesus , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 12:38 pm GMT
@Justsaying Blast from the past:

"What you want to do is just beam in Melrose Place and 90250 into Tehran because that is subversive stuff. The young kids watch this, they want to have nice clothes, nice things . . and these internal forces of dissension beamed into Iran which is, paradoxically, the most open society, a lot more open than Iraq . . . therefore you have more ability to foment this dynamic against Iran. The question now is, Choose: beam Melrose Place -- it will take a long time (ha ha).
On the other hand if you take out Saddam I guarantee you it will have ENORMOUS positive reverberations that people sitting right next door, young people, in Iran, and many others will say, The time of such despots is gone, it's a new age."

https://www.youtube.com/embed/wHmhf_wrcrM?feature=oembed

https://www.youtube.com/embed/fpQdg4D78Jc?feature=oembed
"A nuclear armed Saddam will place the entire world at risk"

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4501196/user-clip-netanyahu-iran-regime-change

PS C Span broadcast a PSA of Peggy Orenstein who will discuss her book about value of easy access to porn and discussion of masturbation.

anon [876] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 1:10 pm GMT
How could a plane crash and several mega sky scapers not implode in seconds? Luchy Siverstein had another proctologist appointment?
DanFromCT , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 1:15 pm GMT
@Haxo Angmark What a trap DJT fell into! The president has proved himself more of a neocon patsy, as he was as much set up as the Iranian general, whose name will be forgotten by week's end in America. The neocons feeding the President a straight diet of cooked intel and their "never Trump" flunkies in the Senate have killed two birds with one stone inasmuch as the President's boasting he'd take out Iran's main cultural landmarks will be cast as a threat of genocide, which the Dems will now use to tar DJT as an intemperate megalomaniac in the minds of independents, probably ending his chances of winning reelection later this year.
Sean , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 1:15 pm GMT

The truth is, America has no dog in the Shiite versus Sunni hunt, which has been going on for 1300 years in the region. [ ] Needless to say, their Shiite kinsman in Iran were more than ready to give aid and comfort to the Iraqi Shiite in their struggle against what by then was perceived as Iran's own mortal enemy

The Sunni regime in Riyadh ceaselessly complain about the treatment of the Arab minority in Iran even though these are Shia Arabs, The Shia in Iraq are likewise Arabs. Iran is almost as big as Egypt or Turkey. Being a country of 80 million Shia Persians Iran could not possibly be conquered by the US without a massive effort, even if the deep state and joint chiefs wanted to, which they do not. The only time Iran runs into trouble is when it tries to act abroad as a power independent of both the US and Russia.

After the Iranian revolution the US was regarded as an all powerful enemy that would stage a coup, and so the Embassy staff, thought to be spies, were taken hostage. America was totally paralyzed and humiliated. Its raid to rescue the hostages was pathetic and exposed a total lack of special forces capability. the Islamic republic repudiated the Shah's role as America's cop on the beat, but it wanted to remain the most dominant power in the region nonetheless. Already worried by the arms given to Iran under the Shah who also supplied the Kurds fighting in Iraq, the 1974-75 Shatt al-Arab clashes between the Shah and Saddam's forces that led to led to 1000 KIAs, Saddam was faced with a radical Shia Iran appealing to his own oppressed Shia majority. After a series of border clashes with the aggressive Revolutionary Guards, Saddam predictably decided on an all out attack on Iran. The US backed Saddam and there was massive support for Iraq from the Soviet Union in the final phase of the war.

The Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran made use of suicide squads of schoolboys to clear minefields and in human wave attacks and by the end the front lines were well within Iraqi territory and Saddam had to settle for merely surviving. Iran had linked up with Assad's minority Alawite regime ruling a Sunni majority, and his Shia allies in Lebanon. Israeli defence minister and former general Ariel Sharon moved Israeli forces into West beirut then allowed Phalange gunmen let into palestinian refugee camps (PLO fighters had already left the city) where they slaughtered thousands of non combatants.

Under the influence of Iranian clerics' interpretations from the war with Saddam justifying suicide if the enemy was killed in the act, Assad's cat's paw Lebanese Shia suicide bombed the US marines out of Beirut. Then Palestinians learnt how suicide bombing was a powerful weapon and in the aftermath of the failure of Camp David 2000 embarked a vicious series of suicide massacres that destroyed Ehud barak and brought Sharon to power. Iran has gained influence in the region but ti is difficult to see what the Palestinians have got ot out of the patronage of Iran, which is first and mainly concerned with itself.

Due entirely to side effects of actions the US took against Saddam's Iraq taken to protect the current regime in Saudi Arabia Iran has went from strength to strength and they seem to think that run of luck will continue. Unfortunately for Iran, they are now a very real threat to Saudi Arabia, and the US knows it cannot put an army in Saudi Arabia to guard it with outraging Islamic nationalist opinion in that country

Instead of poking its nose into Arab affairs why does Iran, which managed to impoverish its own middle class in the last three decades and recently had to cut fuel subsidies, not concentrate on its own business? It seems to be calculating that Trump cannot afford to the bad publicity of starting a war too close to an election, and so they can make hay while the sun shines. Or perhaps they are pressing their luck like any good gambler on a roll. The assassination of Soleimani was intended to be taken a sign that Dame Fortune in the shape of America has grown tired of their insouciance. I think Iran should cut their losses although such is not human nature. The dictates of realism according to Mearsheimer mandate endless offence to gain even the slightest advantage, but he also says a good state must know its limitations.

RichardTaylor , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 1:16 pm GMT
@Justsaying America's problems don't have anything to do with soda pop or fast food. Nor is "consumerism" a serious problem that the world needs to worry about. I like having new smartphones, fast internet, and the convenience of getting things quickly.
Miro23 , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 1:26 pm GMT
A very good summary by David Stockman of the bad place that the US finds itself in.

With an old and confused Presidential tweeter surrounded by Zionist gangsters.

Desert Fox , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 1:32 pm GMT
Trump is insane as is the ZUS government and its dual citizens who are calling the shots. Trump is the reincarnation of the Roman emperor Caligula.

All of this was brought on by the joint attack by Israel and traitors in the ZUS government on the WTC on 911, blamed on the muslims to give the ZUS the excuse to destroy the middle east for zionist Israel and their greater Israel agenda.

Anon [398] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 1:47 pm GMT
Isn't Stockman the guy pumping a large investment newsletter scam? Is Unz getting a % of the scam to promote him? And how about these dumbo boomers who support him. Lmao
Chris Mallory , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 2:03 pm GMT

Like most generals of whatever army (including the US army), he was a cold-blooded, professional killer.

Modern US Army generals are more likely to be lying, azz kissing politiicans than cold blooded killers.

Z-man , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 2:04 pm GMT
@Carlton Meyer

Nice to see the great David Stockman appear at Unz. Watch him teach Fox Business News blabbers economics and political realities. Then he stuns them by saying the Pentagon's budget must be cut:

Yes, I was slightly surprised and gratified by his views.
'Maria' Bartiromo is/was married to a Joo . 'Nuff said.
That other one, the shrill Daegen McDowell, is also married to a Jew but is even more Zionist than your average 'Likudnik'. She was a regular on 'Imus in the Morning' but then had a falling out with Imus and was never back. I hope he haunts her until her demise. (Purple grinning Satan here)

Z-man , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 2:08 pm GMT
@SolontoCroesus Netanyahoo should be taken out with extreme prejudice .
Twodees Partain , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 2:11 pm GMT
@freedom-cat – Hitting your head over and over on a brick wall, while thinking you'll start feeling better.-

More aptly: Hitting yourself on the head with a hammer because it feels so good when you stop.

Carlton Meyer , says: Website Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 2:12 pm GMT
@Mr. Allen

This is absurd. Don't lump all generals in together as the same. You might as well say Nazi generals and Russian generals and British generals and American generals and Japanese generals are all the same – all equally culpable of equal war crimes in WWII.

American censorship ensures that Americans only hear of the greatness of American Generals. American Generals killed far more civilians with weaponry than opposing Generals in World War II, in Korea, and in Vietnam. Few know about mass slaughters they were responsible for, like:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/XVee6taH0iw?feature=oembed

Just passing through , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 2:30 pm GMT
@Z-man Taking him out would be boring, if we are talking about hypotheticals, then better to start isolating Israel and sanctioning them. It will be funny watching them kvetch
TomSchmidt , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 2:34 pm GMT
@barr "A blank page"

Hmmm, not keeping up with the times in mind Research, are we? Start here:

https://read.amazon.com/kp/card?preview=inline&linkCode=kpd&ref_=k4w_oembed_mmOnQFKZcLfUYP&asin=B000QCTNIM&tag=kpembed-20

Hail , says: Website Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 2:37 pm GMT
@freedom-cat

I'm sorry to say I voted for this moron

I remember 2016. I remember many saying they were voting (or had voted) for Trump to get out of the endless/pointless Forever Wars, and as often as not they would mention Iran (the need to not go to war with).

During the slow death of Nationalist-MAGA in 2017 and 2018 , many holdouts continued to say "At least we didn't elected Hillary, or we'd for sure be at war with Iran!"

_______

Steve Sailer's six-word summary of US guiding policy from ca. the 1990s to 2010s (and 2020s, so far), " Invade the World, Invite the World (to resettle in the US)," was the core of DJT's campaign (opposition to them, of course); his core supporter base was motivated by both, some more one than the other, others strongly by both together.

I'd propose the core Trump base in 2016 was:

– 20%: primarily against "Invade the World" (soft, or neutral, or otherwise on "Invite")
– 40%: primary against "Invite the World" (soft, neutral, or even supportive of "Invade")
– 40%: against both Invade and Invite, seeing them as a package deal

I count myself in the third category.

(The proprietor of the Unz Review himself has written that he was for Trump primarily because of foreign policy, putting him in the first category.)

This Jan. 2020 assassination affair, we are told over the death of an Iraqi 'contractor' named Nawres Hamid who had recently handed that debased-currency known as a US passport , shows in dramatic form how much Trump has failed at both Invade and Invite. (Nawres Hamid as personification of Invade-Invite; he and three family members were sponsored to resettle in Sacramento some time in the 2010s.)

TomSchmidt , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 2:41 pm GMT
@freedom-cat "he was flapping his jaws about ending the warring in M.E. I had my doubts from the beginning but I was willing to give him a chance."

To be fair, he was explicit about getting tough with Iran. That's basically the only foreign pledge he has kept. All the dialing down of hostilities was a lie.

He has at least killed fewer people in drone strikes than Obama and Bush.

SolontoCroesus , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 2:46 pm GMT
@Sean Sean, your propaganda is old and tired and boring.

You're still shopping at F W Woolworth.

After the Iranian revolution the US was regarded as an all powerful enemy that would stage a coup, and so the Embassy staff, thought to be spies, were taken hostage.

One major precipitant was the information revealed about how US embassy had been spying on Iran, when Iranian weavers re-assembled massed of documents that embassy staff had shredded.

the rest of your screed = hasbara boilerplate. skewing information

Larry Johnson posted this more balanced overview of The Whole Offense:

https://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2020/01/there-will-be-blood-by-larry-c-johnson.html

Key sentence in the middle of the essay:

Since the terrorist attacks of 9-11, the United States has done a lot of killing of terrorists, real and imagined. Yet, the threat of terrorism has not been erased.

I submit that " the threat of terrorism has not been erased " because the wrong terrorists were being killed.
The real terrorists hive in TelAviv and Washington, DC.

George F. Held , says: Website Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 2:48 pm GMT
@Mr. Allen BS. The Nazi generals were trying to save the western world and civilization from the jews; the other generals, whether they knew it or not, were working for the jews to destroy both. The jews won and have largely obtained their desired end. Just look at Europe today
TomSchmidt , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 2:49 pm GMT
@Vaterland Do it. Complete Nordstream2. Withdraw from NATO. It was 1907 that Britain turned Russia from focusing on Asia to Europe and kicked off the new 30-years war. German organization and Russian spirit and resources would be a fearsome combination.

Putin speaks German, doesn't he?

barr , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 2:49 pm GMT
@TomSchmidt Is it less than 1oo pages ,?then I am try.
Cross Product of Spider-Man , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 2:49 pm GMT
If you live in a GOLDen cage, eventually you may develop Stockman syndrome.

This Trump Iran policy seems like pure genius to me. He may be able to obliterate Israel, Hezbollah and Iran, by goading them with one check-mark on the Obama er um Trump Disposition Matrix.

When I was a young teen I used to like that song, "Storm the Embassy", by the Stray Cats, before they had any fame in the states. Decades later the Offspring scored a hit called "The Kid's Aren't Alright", written in a similar key and chord progression. Groovy

Derp , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 2:50 pm GMT
This is the all-encompassing delusion, the stickiest residual brainwashing of old big shots. The Biggest Big Lie. And you old timers play along with it. Every time.

Stupidity. Stupid my ass.

Wartorn countries are ideal arms-trade entrepots. All the unauditable trillions of stuff that falls off DoD trucks, it's flooding into Syria and Iraq. CIA sells it. And most of it sits in safe caches until the next war. Then CIA sells it again. This is CIA's second biggest profit center, after drugs. And you know this is CIA's war, Right? Right? This is dumb jarheads dumped in there to hold the bag for TIMBER SYCAMORE. Trump has less workplace discretion than a McDonald's fry cook. He's CIA's puppet ruler. Puppets are not stupid, they're inert.

If you're CIA and you've got impunity in municipal law, this is not stupid, this is smart. This is brilliant. Steal arms from the troops, start a war, sell em to wogs, steal em from the wogs, sell to other wogs. Repeat. This is the policy and vital interest of the CIA criminal enterprise that runs your country.

You know it. Say what you actually think ffs. What are they gonna do, send you to Vietnam?

Sick of Orcs , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 2:55 pm GMT
The Orange Fugazi's autonomy is limited to golf and tweets about closely monitoring situations.

It's a lowdown dirty shame.

DanFromCT , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 3:05 pm GMT
@Anon If I'm not mistaken, Stockman has been forecasting a market collapse since 2010 or so. I just checked and in 2013 he recommended selling stocks with end-of-the-world fear mongering. At some point he and the libertarians' advice will coincide with a major adjustment or collapse and the scam perpetuates itself. I'm no expert in market timing myself, but my conclusion is that these guys are basically shills for gold and silver trading interests, using political scare tactics to drive sales, and in the process shamelessly costing naive investors to miss the market time and again since it's low in late 2008.
follyofwar , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 3:05 pm GMT
@Carlton Meyer God, if there is one, please save us from such shrill, hysterical female defenders of the military-industrial-complex as Maria Bartiromo and Degan McDowell. I wonder how screechy-voiced Maria could say with a straight face that we were, prior to Trump, "starving the military." Such women, and let's include the women of The View, make good advertisements for why the 19th Amendment should never have been passed.

David Stockman, though I oppose his libertarianism, is worthy of much credit for going into the den with such venomous vipers.

Mike P , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 3:06 pm GMT
@Hans Vogel

Yes indeed, all generals are fundamentally the same. War crimes are not the exclusive realm of any one nationality or political or religious category.

Still, America leads the world when it comes to killing civilians, POWs, and other war crimes.

I am with Mr. Allen – we shouldn't lump them all together. American generals, and the prostitute "statesmen" that give their orders, deserve a special place in hell – with a guest room, of course, for the likes of Winston Churchill and Bomber Harris.

Sick of Orcs , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 3:10 pm GMT
@Hail The earliest sign we were betrayed was when post-election, pre-Inauguration Trump said he wouldn't go after Cankles. Most people didn't even notice, or still believed he was playing 32-dimensional underwater quantum chess.
Just passing through , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 3:14 pm GMT
@Vaterland Germany still under American (see Jewish) occupation huh? I still here Americans tell me that those European countries are begging for American defence. This is an American trait of arrogance, they think Europeans actually want Americans occupying us and that they are doing us a favour.

I bet they would hit our countries with sanctions and other punishment if we threatened to kick them out just like is the case with Trump demanding billions from Iraq to pay for an air force base that Yankeed built to launch terror raids against Iraqis.

I bet most Germans do not even know about the terrorist occupation of Deutschland by America where they staved and raped with impunity. Americans are truly sickening and nobody would care if they got nuked save for a few Anglos

Alistair , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 3:18 pm GMT
Regardless of our opinion about General Qassem Soleimani, Trump targeted killing him was for his own personal grudge against Soleimani -- that was independent of the official US policy toward Iran.

Over the last couple of years, in the heat of twitter exchanges between Trump and President Rouhani, Trump was using his usual colorful language – street mob style – he was insulting Rouhani on twitter while president Rouhani kept his cool – restraining himself to engage at the street level exchange with Trump -- meanwhile, Gen. Soleimani seized on the occasion and replied to Trump's insults; he taunted Trump, called him "Bartender, Casino manager, Mobster" etc. and threatened to go after his properties worldwide -- you can check Online history of Soleimani's tweets about Donald Trump. Here is a sample that New York Post had published;

https://nypost.com/2020/01/04/iranian-general-qassem-soleimani-once-taunted-trump-in-fiery-speech/

As we all know Donald Trump does not appreciate threats, and if he gets the chance he punch back harder, and that's what has really happened; Donald Trump's personal grudge against Soleimani had led to his assassination; just the way Street Mobs eliminate their opponents; surely, that seems trivial, but these days, the world is governed by fake leaders who won't hesitate to use the power of their office to boost their own ego -- even at their own nation's expense.

Regardless of our opinion; General Soleimani was a brave soldier, a principled man who has dedicated his life to his nation, and that deserves respect -- just as Ernesto "Che" Guevara and Neilson Manddala did.

follyofwar , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 3:20 pm GMT
@Miro23 To perhaps soon be replaced by an even older, and definitely more confused successor come next January. The only saving grace would be if Biden doesn't know how to tweet. But he's every much the Zionist as is Trump, and has said so in the past. With a non-working brain, which is where Trump's lost brain is heading, Biden will believe whatever bullshit his neoliberal advisors feed him. Who is there to save us?
JackOH , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 3:23 pm GMT
@anonymous a#245, thanks for your reply.

You bet, I'm happy to see a Washington name on these pages, because I've been convinced for years a lot of the stuff we talk about here is pretty much mainstream or mainstreamable thought that's been shoved aside by high-motivation rent-seekers of all sorts.

" . . . [N]ote the condescension towards the people of the Middle East . . .". Yes, I did. I don't know squat about foreign policy, but people who sense they're being looked down on or feel they're being used will sometimes want to get back at those who've patronized them when the opportunity arises. I wish our leaders would take that platitude to heart.

America1st , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 3:26 pm GMT
Foolish elitists like Stockman advocate for the failed policies of the past.

From 1979 to 2020, 41 years most of our politically astute appeased Iran. In the early 80's Reagan sunk half of Iran's navy and they quieted down fora few years.

Since 1988 foolish political elites who thought they new better began appeasing again.

Seems only Reagan learned from History how appeasement helped Hitler.

Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2 and Obama all used appeasement. Iran grew stronger and more influential.

Obama foolishly tried to buy peace by releasing $150 billion of frozen Iranian assets, Iran spent it on Missle, Nuclear technologies and funded terrorism.

President Trump is reverting back to the lessons of Historyand trying to clean up Obama's mess.

I pray we reelect him in 2020 and give him 4 more years to save America from the deluded academics.

America1st , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 3:28 pm GMT
@Haxo Angmark How foolish Liberals are.
Hail , says: Website Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 3:39 pm GMT
@America1st

From 1979 to 2020, 41 years most of our politically astute appeased Iran. In the early 80's Reagan sunk half of Iran's navy and they quieted down fora few years.

Since 1988 foolish political elites who thought they new better began appeasing again.

Why not just save time and write Iran Delenda Est , maybe in all-caps, a few times?

Vaterland , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 3:39 pm GMT
@TomSchmidt Yes he does. He was married to a German teacher and was stationed in Dresden. He touched on many of the issues of trust and fear in this speech to the Bundestag. Years before Merkel took office. Different times. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NZQZQLV7tE
Derp , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 3:43 pm GMT
The other mandatory ritual incantation of US public Juche is to vilify the official enemy. Even pseudo-gonzo mavericks like Taibbi find they must do this. Stockman's new tweak of the government-issue boilerplate is admirable for its subtlety, by comparison with Taibbi's abject obeisance to the war line.

"Not that the benighted, mullah-controlled Iranian regime is comprised of anything which resembles white hats. One of the great misfortunes of the last four decades is that the long-suffering people of Iran have not been able to throw-off the cultural and religious shackles imposed by this theocratic regime or escape the economic backwardness and incompetence of what is essentially rule by authoritarian clerics."

As a founding member of the G-77 Iran brought together 80 per cent of the world's population. When the US took to manifest aggression after the WTC fell down, who did the G-77 choose to lead it? Iran. Iran brokered the Tehran Consensus, which unites more countries and people than NATO and doesn't blow shit up. The Non-Aligned Movement made Iran their nuclear/chemical disarmament envoy for peaceful coexistence. Half the world's people and two-thirds of its countries have made Iran a leader of the world. Why? Because they defend the UN Charter. They actually know what's in Article 2(4) and Article 39 and Article 41. Do you?

In objective human rights terms, Iran sucks about as much as the US in terms of three of the highest-level human rights indicators, outperforms the US in terms of openness to external human rights scrutiny, and falls short of US in terms of reporting compliance (although the US got graded very leniently on its delinquent CAT reporting while it ran its worldwide torture gulag.) So you don't have to do new vocal stylings on BAD BAD DOUBLEPLUSBAD ENEMY BAD. You can actually consult the facts. Imagine that.

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Indicators/Pages/HRIndicatorsIndex.aspx

Vaterland , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 3:51 pm GMT
@Just passing through I have very ambivalent feelings towards the USA, in the past and present. Complex topic. Simple analogy: George C. Marshall looks like the twin-brother of my grandfather who served in the Wehrmacht. Sons of Europe, at war with Europe; now increasingly no longer European and a threat to Europe as their empire degrades. I see no reason to hate the American people as a whole, there's millions of good hearted, compassionate and reasonable people living in America today. Just look at Tulsi Gabbard's events. But they, too, are held hostage of this evil Empire. Separate peoples and governments; Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn too lived under the Soviet regime.

I do hate Mike Pompeo though. And I'm not ashamed of it.

A123 , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 3:58 pm GMT
@America1st

President Trump is reverting back to the lessons of Historyand trying to clean up Obama's mess.

You are correct. Trump inherited problems from the prior Obama and Bush administrations. Fortunately, Trump is winning.

Khameni's "retaliation" caused no damage. The high visibility launch covered live by FARS was a PR stunt to placate his domestic audience. (1)

"Optically Quite Dramatic" But Officials Confirm No US Casualties From Iranian Missile Strike

[Iran launched] missiles and purposely miss their intended targets.

Iran has superior missile technology that can hit whatever they want – this could be in an attempt to save face as a public relations event for its citizens while attempting to de-escalate the situation and avoid war.

PEACE
_______

(1) https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/no-us-casualties-iranian-missile-strike

aandrews , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 3:58 pm GMT
If War is to Begin, You're Going to Want to Not Commit Sedition

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
January 8, 2020


At time of writing, it is unclear if we're headed to open war with Iran, though it is seeming more and more likely by the hour.

So, I feel the need to remind everyone that they need to be careful not to commit sedition.

In wartime, sedition can be a very serious crime.

Largely, we have not had people in the United States going to jail for anti-war protests since the World Wars, but a war with Iran will be the biggest war the US has been involved in since World War Two, and there is going to be a lot of opposition to it, so it is probable that there will be actions done to chill speech by making examples of people who protest the war too hard.

[ ]

Nobody Really Knows , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:11 pm GMT
Stockman is a curious gloom and doomer. He reliably rants about the permanent war economy and the biggest defense budget in the world but that's as far as he goes. Like Paul Craig Roberts, his propaganda delivering contemporary, he offers a childish oversimplification of how things work.

When things fall apart the cops and the troops will shoot the citizens and protect the rich. Meanwhile, before things fall completely apart, propaganda specialists like Stockman shoot the unsuspecting citizens with propaganda to protect the rich.

The rich learned long ago to divide the lower classes into the obedient subservient voters who love them and the rest of the poor who don't matter because their brothers and sisters protect the rich. What better time to divide, conquer and stage more international tensions than right now?

Paul , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:23 pm GMT
@Carlton Meyer Bloated "defense" spending is socialism-for-the-rich and military Keynesianism. ISIS does not even have a rowboat.
Curmudgeon , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:30 pm GMT
@A123 Another fine example of American exceptionalism.
There is zero evidence that the American contractor killed, was killed by Kata'ib Hezbollah. It fits the classic Israeli false flag.
The US "retaliates" by killing Iraqis who are the Kata'ib Hezbollah.
It is inconceivable to you that Iraqis may be upset that the country who invaded Iraq in 2003, completely destroyed the infrastructure, built a massive fortified Embassy, and sold off its assets to Jewish interests, primarily, just might be upset that that same country has just massacred the Iraqis who saved the country from ISIS. It had to be Iran behind it, because all Iraqis are grateful for the 2003 US invasion and all of the benefits of occupation that flowed from that. The million Iraqis that died are irrelevant.

Even Stockman doesn't get the Baathists. They don't care about your religious beliefs. They care that your religious beliefs become politicized. Sure Saddam and Assad were minorities, but one was a Sunni, the other a Shi'ite, but both Ba'athists. Both kept the lid on extremists irrespective of religious beliefs. Stockman's reference to Bush 41 incitement and the subsequent backlash is held up as some sort of proof of bad Sunnis. If the Pope successfully goaded German Roman Catholics to take up arms against Protestants, do you think that it just may be, that a Protestant backlash might be severe in places where Protestants were the majority? Nope, it's got to be Hitler's fault, or maybe even Iran's.

Sean , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:37 pm GMT
@SolontoCroesus The assassination of was Soleimani was a deliberately stupid and counterproductive act by America because that is the way to send a message that you are a force to be reckoned with and mean what you say. Costly signalling is honest signalling. In this case the US is signalling they are beyond the rhetoric of the last thirty years and willing to get kinetic .

Iran and their theology of suicide martyrs is the greatest thing that ever happened to the Israeli right, influenced by Shia suicide bombing driving the US marines out of Lebanon the Palestinian massacres of Israeli civilians non combatants got a wall built pening them up, took Sharon to the premiership, and made Israelis turn their back on Ehud Barak. No Israeli leader would now dream of offering what Barak did while he was PM.

Iran is to big to be occupied and that is a fact. What can they be so worried about except ceasing to play independent great power in the Arab mainly Sunni Middle East. Well they are not that powerful. I think the leadership of Iran is taking the free ride they have been getting getting for granted. They did not overthrow Saddam, America did and Iran gained got a windfall.

Saddam was overthrown because the threat he represented to Saudi Arabia had to be neutralised so the US army could be withdrawn from Saudi Arabia, where its infidel presence was causing outrage and resentment. John Bolton got sacked, and a few days later, Iran gets the bright idea to not just threaten Saudi Arabia, but launch–or at least not forbid their Houthie protégés to launch–blatant drone attacks on vital Saudi oil facilities (Sept 2019) thus forcing Trump to send more and more troops there. Iran was sending a message: we can and we will.

My reading of the American government is that their killing of Soleimani was a sign that for them Iran has entered the danger zone where something more that rhetoric and sanctions will be used. Iran can still turn back and be forgiven, but if they choose to go on and take the consequences of ignoring the costly (and therefore sincere) signal that the US has sent, so be it.

AnonFromTN , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:41 pm GMT
This was as stupid as it gets so far. Confidently expect even stupider actions of the Empire in its impotent rage, now that it is losing its grip. Ever since Iraq invasion, the Empire was undermining itself more efficiently than its worst enemies could have hoped for.
TomSchmidt , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:42 pm GMT
@barr Longer. But try the audiobook while you're doing time-wasting activities like driving. It's how I finally read War and Peace.
TKK , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:44 pm GMT
Hmmm . the best way to prevent more American soldiers being killed is to keep alive the man who has been killing so many of them for 20 years?
TomSchmidt , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:45 pm GMT
@America1st When is appeasement the right policy?
Greg Bacon , says: Website Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:47 pm GMT
Since it's apparent that Israel is making our MENA foreign policy and that the foaming at the mouth Zionists want to start a hot shooting war with Iran, using their American mercs, which US city should be sacrificed to Moloch, the G-d of Israel, to start this war?

New York is the safest bet, since there are tens of thousands loyal Jew sayanim living there who would gladly give all to start a war against Iran. Using the time-tested technique of staging a false flag.

Hail , says: Website Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:48 pm GMT
@Curmudgeon

There is zero evidence that the American contractor killed, was killed by Kata'ib Hezbollah.

And that so-called American was actually a 33-year-old Iraqi named Nawres Hamid .

Hamid was only recently (2017) handed a (cheap) US-citizenship for services rendered to the empire, along with a free pass to settle his family in the US (Sacramento).

War-nut, dump-refugees-on-Middle-America-advocate, and empire-pusher John McCain is, I am sure, saluting the flag of Empire in his grave, a tear in his eye at the perfect alignment of every aspect of this saga of Nawres Hamid.

Tom Walsh , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:48 pm GMT
@Mr. Allen What about the RAF generals and 8th airforce generals who killed millions of German women and children in WW2? Were they more civilized than Soleimani?
Paul , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:50 pm GMT
A war between the United States and Iran is wanted by the Israel First people.
Rich , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:51 pm GMT
@Alistair One thing you got right is that the dead Iranian general belongs with murderers and terrorists like Mandela and Che. He was as much a piece of garbage as them.
TomSchmidt , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:51 pm GMT
@America1st Was the Iraq war in 2003 a success or a failure, by the way? Just so we have a reference point on success or failure with you.
Agent76 , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:52 pm GMT
June 6, 2018 Why the US shouldn't build more foreign bases

The United States maintains almost 800 military bases in over 70 countries, which far exceeds our modern day security requirements.

https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2018/06/06/why-the-us-shouldnt-build-more-foreign-bases/

Jun 18, 2019 4 Times the US Threatened to Stage an Attack and Blame it on Iran

The US has threatened to stage an attack and blame it on Iran over and over in the last few years. Don't let a war based on false pretenses happen again.

Mar 27, 2019 The MIC and Wall Street Rule The World: Period!

SteveK9 , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:54 pm GMT
To dismiss Suleimani as yet another thug, then praise the Shiite militia for driving ISIS from Iraq without acknowledging that it was Soleimani that organized and led that battle (from the front) is a little unfair.
JUSA , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:54 pm GMT
@A123 Says the warmonger. The US needs to get the hell out of the Mideast, period. We are fighting (((someone else's))) war.

@Mark James

Kushner strikes me as more of a neocon and he's obviously down with what they want in Tel Aviv. Which I think is an attack on Iran Nuclear capabilities before the end of the summer.

Ya think? The Kushner family from father to son have publicly declared themselves Israel's most loyal sons. They couldn't have found a better man to be president, a stupid puppet goy as part of the family so they can continue to pull the puppet strings in the background. It's the way (((these people))) operate, for thousands of years. Never the front man, always directing things from the shadow.

Hans Vogel , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:55 pm GMT
@Mike P This stance is very understandable but I believe common sense should tell us otherwise. There can be little doubt that since its colonial war in the Philippines, the US has led the pack in terms of numbers of people killed in what used to be called the Third World.

However, I am quite certain the way many people look at the US today (based on all those millions of poor devils killed in the colonies), wishing their leaders a special place in hell, is no different from how one could look at the English a little over a century ago (Sepoy Mutiny, Sudan, Opium War, etc.). Or, for that matter, how the inhabitants of the Italian states might look at the French during the late 1400s and early 1500s. And what about the German Order in the Baltic, the Byzantines, the Romans etc. etc.?

In other words the US can point to a venerable but sad number of precedents to their own criminal operations abroad. It is impossible to define the worst offender among all those included in the long list of evildoers.

Anyone who enters another country, carrying arms and without the permission of the local inhabitants, deserves to be killed. It is that simple. Unfortunately, because since times immemorial most who do that somehow escape their just fate, one sees the same thing happening again and again.

TKK , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 4:57 pm GMT
As usual, this has been turned into an Israel and Jew demonizing circle jerk, save a few sane commenters.

Let's examine the imbecility of this site:

A Jewish, gay, open borders advocate multimillionaire selects "chosen ones", the gold star commenters who are posting wily nilly to dominate the discourse –

who all happen to be Muslim, Latino, foreign born or rabidly Anti- American?

As commenters rage about the take over of the world by Jews, who flood America with -- –

Muslims, Latinos, and foreign borns, and shove the Alphabet Mafia down our throats.

You couldn't sell this as a straight to DVD screenplay. It's that absurd.

Curmudgeon , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:00 pm GMT
@Sean

Instead of poking its nose into Arab affairs why does Iran, which managed to impoverish its own middle class in the last three decades and recently had to cut fuel subsidies, not concentrate on its own business?

Have you been living under a rock?
The US froze (stole) billions in Iranian assets post revolution. The complaints about Obama "paying" Iran for the JCPOA, were nothing but a partial return of Iranian assets. So, the Iranians were short billions for 30 years, which could have been used to rebuild. It's kind of like building a house and finding out a big chunk of the cash in your bank account has been frozen, illegally, by the bank. It's there, but you have no access to, or benefit of, it.
Of course all of the sanctions have nothing to do with Iran's problems. In particular, any country that bought oil from Iran would also be sanctioned, causing a massive drop in revenue, plays no part in the economic difficulties. Additionally, Iran exercising its rights under an international treaty – the NPT, which the US repudiates in Iran's case, thereby removing another large source of revenue, is not a factor either. At least, not to you.

CyrusTheGreat , says: Website Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:11 pm GMT
@Realist You have done the greatest description of Stockman.
SolontoCroesus , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:21 pm GMT
@TKK

The best way to prevent more American soldiers being killed is to keep alive the man who has been killing so many of them for 20 years? [irony]

That's exactly what is being done -- men most responsible for American soldiers being killed are being kept alive:

David Petraeus -- still alive
Robert Kagan -- -still alive
Benjamin Netanyahu -- still alive
George Bush -- – still alive

A year or so ago Mike Morrell commented that "US needs to send maps and crayons to Iran, to demonstrate to them where their borders are: 'Iran HERE, Iran, NOT there.' "

I couldn't get over the irony: USA circles Iran, 7000 miles from continental USA, and somehow Iran is trespassing outside its borders?

Morrell:

"Have the Iranians and the Russians pay a little price. . . . They were supplying weapons that killed Americans . . . kill them covertly . . . I want to scare Assad . . . I want to bomb his offices in the middle of the night, I want to destroy his presidential aircraft . . . I want to destroy his helicopter. . . . I am not advocating assassinating him – I'm not advocating that: I'm advocating going after what he thinks is his power base . . ."

One question: BY WHAT RIGHT?

Desert Fox , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:26 pm GMT
@SteveK9 AL CIADA aka ISIS is a creation of the CIA and the Mossad and MI6 and NATO aka the ZUS and Israel and Britain.

This war in the mideast was brought on by the JOINT Israeli and ZUS attack on the WTC on 911, which was blamed on the muslims to give the ZUS the excuse to destroy the mideast for Israel.

Curmudgeon , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:32 pm GMT
@Alistair

just as Ernesto "Che" Guevara and Neilson Manddala did.

Would that be the same "Che" Guevara that thought Negroes were inferior, and Nelson Mandela who was convicted of attempting to blow up a power station that would have killed dozens of innocent people?

Soleimani rarely targeted civilians. For those who would point to the suicide bombings in Israel, I would remind you that all Israelis over the age of 18 will be, or have been, in the armed forces, and are subject to call up even after discharge.

Bitindawg , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:37 pm GMT
It's all about Israel. Netanyahu has been plotting scheming and demanding that we, that the U.S. bomb Iran back to the stone ages for nigh onto twenty years. He has even issued coded and veiled threats to nuke Iran himself.

Trump is a Zionist collaborator and he is Netanyahu's shabbos goy. He has willingly co-operated in turning over the U.S. military to be Israel's running dog.

America is a Christian majority country, and Bret Stephens is absolutely correct. The Jews are an intellectually superior people. Us mere Goyim, are by comparison, utterly stupid.

America does not genuinely and honestly support Israel. America has been hornswoggled by the superior intelligence and guile of the Jewish people to support the Jew state.

When the Jews decided to set up their own country at the turn of the twentieth century, they knew that they would need the support of Christendom. To that end they initiated a psy-op, a psychological operation tasked with rewriting Christian theology.

Up until the turn of the twentieth century Christian theology had held that the coming of Jesus Christ had negated all of God's covenants with the Jews. This was known as, replacement theology. That, in essence, Christians had become God's chosen people.

As a consequence, down through the ages, Christians and Jews had been at odds. Christ killer was a common epithet and there were many pogroms.

Jews would have been aware that there was an obscure Christian theology that held, that God had not revoked his covenants with the Jews. That God's covenants with the Jews remained intact and were still in force.

This obscure theology was being preached by a ne'er do well preacher named Cyrus Scofield. What the Jews did, and surely this was, what is known as, "Jew genius", they financed Cyrus on two trips to Europe.

What the Jews did, was to take this obscure dispensationalist christian theology and write it into the King James version of the bible as study notes. When Scofield returned from Europe, he had the manuscript of the Scofield study bible. It is presumed that Rabbi's and yeshiva students produced it.

It was published, produced and distributed by the very Jewish Oxford University Press, which still holds the patent on it, and periodically updates it to keep up with changing times in the Middle East.

There is an ample historical trail that validates this thesis.

There is also an historical trail that reveals that today's Jews, Ashkenazim Jews, are not descendants of the biblical era Jews, that they are Jewish converts from the land of Khazar.

More, that the circumstances of their conversion to Judaism was a process that selected for intelligence and drive and that is why today's Jews are an intellectually superior, driven and successful, albeit, artificial people.

Artificial, as they are not a people that occurred naturally, over time and in a land of their own.

Liberty Mike , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:38 pm GMT
@follyofwar What specific libertarianism of Stockman do you oppose?
Curmudgeon , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:38 pm GMT
@JackOH

" . . . [N]ote the condescension towards the people of the Middle East . . .". Yes, I did. I don't know squat about foreign policy, but people who sense they're being looked down on or feel they're being used will sometimes want to get back at those who've patronized them when the opportunity arises. I wish our leaders would take that platitude to heart.

This is a product of American exceptionalism, and it is not confined to the Middle East. The overwhelming majority of Americans refuse to accept that others may be just fine with their own form of government, economic system, and culture.

Agent76 , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:39 pm GMT
Jan 7, 2020 Qassem Soleimani, short biography from South Front

Short biography of the Iranian General, murdered by the Trump regime on 3 January 2020.

Liberty Mike , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:42 pm GMT
@SolontoCroesus Note that it has been the white man, not the jew, not the nigger, and not the tranny, who has been the principle architect of such death and destruction.
Agent76 , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:42 pm GMT
@SolontoCroesus You are all over it Croesus!

Aug 8, 2016 "I want to scare Assad" Mike Morell on Charlie Rose

Mike Morell, former deputy director of the CIA, discusses the need to put pressure on Syria and Russia. The full conversation airs on PBS on August 8th, 2016.

SolontoCroesus , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:43 pm GMT
@Rich In the super-liberal town where I live, garbage gets separated: plastics here, paper there, banana peels there.

If Solemeini is "as much a piece of garbage as Mandela, Che," then what category of garbage were Churchill and Stallin?
FDR -- same piece of garbage as Churchill – Stalin, or more like Solemeini?

How about Arthur "Bomber" Harris -- same garbage, or different?

When Solemeini is coordinating military engagements with US military leaders, is he "as much a piece of garbage as Mandela, Che" or is he more like Kagan and Lady Lindsey?

Rev. Spooner , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:45 pm GMT
@9/11 Inside job You are right, stupidity has nothing to do with it, its well thought out and dictated by Israel. The 'tail actually wags the dog.' Americans (most) will never get it as they are trapped in a bubble while the rest of the world has realized it. In Europe the common folks have while the politicians still have to pretend.
When the hour of awakening arrives, I will have no sympathy for the common Jews as they remain silent today. And Jeffery Epstein didn't kill himself.
Ilyana_Rozumova , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 5:50 pm GMT
It all started with elimination of Mosadeh so US is guilty!
Rurik , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 6:02 pm GMT
@Sasha

What "cultural and religious shackles" might these be? Please be more specific, or I might think you mean that they don't have instant access to Hollywood blockbusters or something. The horror!

The Shah was notorious for encouraging young women to emulate the West and wear miniskirts and such.

At first glance, it seemed like a positive change for the better. (who approves of burkas, for instance). But as we all know by now, the ((cultural elites)) of the West, are feverishly using liberalism to transform the societies they dominate into moral and spiritual sewers.

[insert here photo of Madonna or Miley or some other gutter skank as role model for little girls)

In a well-known case, the 'brutal' rapist of a ten year old Austrian boy, at a public swimming pool, had his conviction set aside by the high court, because not enough sympathy was shown to the rapist's cultural proclivities. This is a society that is spiritually dead. Contrast that with Iran's equally well-known treatment of men who rape boys, by hanging them by their necks from cranes, for all to witness.

Iran, clearly has a lot to teach the dying ((murdered)) West.

If headscarves are the price of female dignity and honor, then I suppose it really isn't all that big of a deal, especially when you consider the alternative in the West.

[I'm not posting a photo of Kardashian or some other skank, because you all know what I mean]

9/11 Inside job , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 6:05 pm GMT
@Sean bbs.chinadaily.com .cn :"Beirut marine [barracks]bombing was Mossad false flag operation "
'I reported that Marines had been sent there to become the focus of a major incident . The Mossad is to arrange for a number of our Marines to be killed in an accident to be blamed on the Arabs! This will be used to inflame American public opinion to help lead us into war ' Dr. Beter, a Pentagon analyst .
Talha , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 6:12 pm GMT
Not possibly as stupid as declaring openly that you want to deliberately commit war crimes on public record.

Of course, when you have guys cheer leading you that couldn't find Iran on a map if their life depended on it, you might not notice:

Fox host defends America committing war crimes: "I don't care about Iranian cultural sites and I'll tell you why. If they could they would destroy every single one of our cultural sites and build a mosque on top of it" pic.twitter.com/AJolDVtzJR

-- Andrew Lawrence (@ndrew_lawrence) January 6, 2020

For everyone who wants a refresher on how this is defined as a war crime, the Red Cross has a great section on the evolution of these particular protocols in history. I would highly recommend the section titled:
"Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property"

Which starts:
"Article 1 of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property defines cultural property, for the purposes of the Convention, irrespective of origin or ownership, as:
(a) movable or immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people, such as monuments of architecture, art or history, whether religious or secular; archaeological sites; groups of buildings which, as a whole, are of historical or artistic interest; works of art; manuscripts, books and other objects of artistic, historical or archaeological interest; as well as scientific collections and important collections of books or archives or of reproductions of the property defined above "
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule38

Note that both Iran and we (the US) are signatories:
http://www.unesco.org/eri/la/convention.asp?KO=13637&language=E&order=alpha

Note also that the US did not sign until 2009. The reasons given are outlined here – main one being*:
"The objections raised by DoD at the time were based on the perceived inability to meet the Convention's obligations in the event of nuclear warfare. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, DoD removed its objection to ratification."
http://usicomos.org/hague-convention-and-usicomos/

Peace.

*Note: This is actually a great starting point for those of us who want to prevent preemptive use of nuclear weapons by our government. The DoD is fully aware that nuclear strikes against population centers will be in violation of the very treaties that they have signed onto in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Mr. Allen , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 6:13 pm GMT
@Tom Walsh

What about the RAF generals and 8th airforce generals who killed millions of German women and children in WW2? Were they more civilized than Soleimani?

I guess I opened a can of worms I didn't mean to I am an American and understand that Americans are not as innocent or as magnanimous as our history books may make it.

But I had also assumed most people would agree that in general, American generals (and Russian generals) would be seen as on the "right side of history" and hence morally infinitely better as compared to Japanese or Nazi generals.

To the extent that is true, we shouldn't be lumping them morally together as the author here is trying to lump American and Iranian generals together.

In my world view, Americans are aggressors in the Middle East today, Iranians are not. So lumping them together is to refuse to see right and wrong .

Back to WWII: most people in the world today are probably happy they are not under Japanese or German rule. So I assume my statements about Nazis and ally generals were correct.

As for whether most people in the world today would be happy from American / Western imperial rule, I would say yes to that. BUT does that REALLY make WWII just another evil war where evil won and where Nazi generals and American and RAF and Russian generals are the same as Japanese and Nazi generals???

9/11 Inside job , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 6:17 pm GMT
@Sean bbs.chinadaily.com .cn:" Beirut Marine[barracks]bombing was a Mossad false flag operation"
" I reported that Marines had been sent there to become the focus of a major incident . The Mossad is to arrange for a number of our Marines to be killed in an incident to be blamed on Arabs! This will be used to inflame American public opinion to help us lead into war " Dr. Beter , a Pentagon analyst
AnonFromTN , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 6:17 pm GMT
Looks like the Empire decided not to escalate further the war it started with Iran. Optimists would say that Trump at least shows some wisdom after utter stupidity of engaging in terrorism. Pessimists would say that the Empire is simply afraid. I am on the fence.
9/11 Inside job , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 6:22 pm GMT
streetwisereports.com : "Israel made the [false flag] attack on the Saudi Oil fields " Special Opinion Piece by Bob Moriarty
MLK , says: Show Comment January 8, 2020 at 6:27 pm GMT
@A123 Thanks for doing your part to introduce some sanity here.

Rather obviously, Iran needs to get it together. I get that it's unhappy that Trump was elected, and wasn't removed from office as the Democrats promised them, so they could get back to the Obama giveaway.

But, hands down, Iran wins the competition for the worst handling of relations with the United States since Trump took the oath.

Now, the ayatollah's train wreck has resulted in the death of his beloved Soleimani.

[Jan 08, 2020] It's very interesting to learn that Soleimani worked alongside US generals. So far none of them have resigned their commissions; that tells me they have no balls and are fine with following orders to go over the cliff with Trump, Pompous, and the rest of the DC Dunces.

Jan 08, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Trailer Trash , Jan 6 2020 20:35 utc | 37

It's very interesting to learn that Soleimani worked alongside US generals. So far none of them have resigned their commissions; that tells me they have no balls and are fine with following orders to go over the cliff with Trump, Pompous, and the rest of the DC Dunces.

The Axis of Resistance will be shouting "MAGA!" as they drive out US killers:
Make
America
Go
Away

I think Trump read the first few chapters of "Dune" and decided he wanted to play Emperor. Too bad he didn't read to the end where the Emperor's landing party is captured and the Empire gets kicked hard.

[Jan 08, 2020] Russian Military Pays Respects to Iran's General Soleiman Assassinated by the US

Jan 08, 2020 | www.anti-empire.com

The commander of the Russian Group of Forces in Syria led a delegation to Iran's Syria embassy mourning ceremony Yuri Lyamin 6 Jan 20 8 Jan 20 Politics 17382 8

  • 31.4k Shares
  • 31.4k Share
  • undefined Tweet
  • undefined Share
  • undefined Share

A military delegation from a group of Russian troops in Syria visited the Iranian embassy to pay tribute and express condolences to the Iranians in connection with the death of General Suleymani, commander of the Kods IRGC Iran, as a result of the American strike. Wreaths were laid from the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation and directly from our group of forces in Syria.

In the photo from the Iranian embassy as part of the delegation, the commander of the group of forces (forces) of the Armed forces of the Russian Federation in the Syrian Arab Republic, General Alexander Chayko.

Source: Yuri Lyamin

[Jan 08, 2020] For the public version of the CIA reasoning, David Petraeus discusses the situation in Foreign Policy

Jan 08, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Patroklos , Jan 6 2020 22:48 utc | 113

For the public version of the CIA reasoning, David Petraeus discusses the situation in Foreign Policy .

Patroklos , Jan 6 2020 23:19 utc | 121

Summary from David Petraeus (DP):

Foreign Policy (FP): What will Iran do to retaliate?

DP: Right now they are probably doing what anyone does in this situation: considering the menu of options. There could be actions in the gulf, in the Strait of Hormuz by proxies in the regional countries, and in other continents where the Quds Force have activities. There's a very considerable number of potential responses by Iran, and then there's any number of potential U.S. responses to those actions

Given the state of their economy, I think they have to be very leery, very concerned that that could actually result in the first real challenge to the regime certainly since the Iran-Iraq War.

FP: Will the Iraqi government kick the U.S. military out of Iraq?

DP: The prime minister has said that he would put forward legislation to do that, although I don't think that the majority of Iraqi leaders want to see that given that ISIS is still a significant threat. They are keenly aware that it was not the Iranian supported militias that defeated the Islamic State, it was U.S.-enabled Iraqi armed forces and special forces that really fought the decisive battles.

How credible is this line that Iran has a tottering economy and that the 'regime' is clinging to power by a thread and so therefore cannot risk the further instability of a war?

Jackrabbit , Jan 6 2020 23:21 utc | 123
Continuing from @116

Seymour Hirsh wrote about Israel, Saudi Arabia, and USA conspiracy against Iran and Syria in 2007: The Redirection .

Sasha , Jan 6 2020 23:35 utc | 130
@Posted by: WJ | Jan 6 2020 23:23 utc | 125

Well, David Petraeus does not seem the most reliable person in this world.
If you take into account that he supported all the lies of his admnistration to unlseashed Iraqi invasion and alleged WOT when what it was the remodelation of rge ME and looting of its resources. And I fear he made his fortune vand caree in Iraq...by looting and lying...

[Jan 08, 2020] Twitter vid of Orthodox service for Soleimani

Jan 08, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 , Jan 7 2020 0:32 utc | 138

Twitter vid of Orthodox service for Soleimani correlates his Mission with that Of Jesus's Mission. An amazing and truthful one minute thank you from the Christians of Syria for his efforts:

"'All what Qassem Soleimani did was stand up for Christians against ISIS and Al Qaeda'

"A mass was held in the evangelical church of Aleppo, Syria to honor the martyrdom of General Soleimani who had an essential role in the liberation battle of Aleppo against US-backed Jihadists."

Compared to Soleimani, Trump is the town drunk lying in the gutter awaiting the police van to take him to the drunk tank.

Several barflies have said it's beyond time for China and Russia to arise and collectively put a stop to this madness. As reported today, China will likely delay the implementation of the first phase of the Trade Deal and a high level delegation met with Iraq's president and council today to discuss arms and economic assistance. Russia's already involved with Iraq through the regional anti-terrorist command post in Baghdad. Putin's been very quiet; not even the usual notice of condolences sent to Iran was noted or published by the Kremlin. Tomorrow's Orthodox Christmas, so perhaps in Putin's message to Russia he'll say something further. But you can be sure that behind the scenes much is happening.

[Jan 08, 2020] Is Soleimani murder 'beginning of the end' of US imperialism

Jan 08, 2020 | off-guardian.org

...no coherent plan was behind the Trump administration's cold-blooded murder of Qassem Soleimani.

It was an act of pure stupid. A dumb 'miscalculation'. Another example of the ignorant hubris in the US State Department that almost brought them into direct conflict with Russia in February 2014, when they failed to comprehend the strategic and cultural significance of Crimea and tried to migrate the Kiev 'Maidan' coup to Sevastopol.

I can pretty much guarantee none of those who advised Trump to assassinate Qassem Suleimani saw this coming. Suleimani has been elevated in status to a martyr on the level of Hussein. https://t.co/xUl7Q5x4BG

-- Scott Ritter (@RealScottRitter) January 4, 2020

This one, while posing a less imminent risk of superpower confrontation, is potentially disastrous for US interests in the region, and risks monumental loss of life in any resultant conflict between Iranian and US military forces.

It seems many people are not yet grasping the seismic shifts going on, and are still thinking in terms of this being the prelude to another imperial regime-change operation like those in Iraq, Libya and the failed attempt in Syria.

It isn't. Not even slightly. It is a whole new and unknown situation, and where it ends is currently anyone's guess.

Threats from the ever bombastic fool Trump, like these towards Iran's culture

.targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!

-- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 4, 2020

and towards Iraq , might bolster the impression that the empire has the initiative and many cards to play, but does it?

What actually can it do against a military far more well-funded and well-supported than anything it has confronted in recent years? Especially now in a situation where almost the entire Shia Middle East has become united in wanting US forces out of the region.

Far from this being imperial business as usual, the Saker , often an insightful analyst, is predicting this crisis will result in nothing less than the end of the empire :

Folks, this is the beginning of the end for the Empire. Yes, I know, this sounds incredible, yet this is exactly what we are seeing happening before our eyes. The very best which the US can hope for now is a quick and complete withdrawal from the Middle-East.

This is pretty extreme, and I'm not entirely convinced he's correct here, but he shows his reasoning, and it's fairly compelling, and I urge you to read this linked article and others in his recent output for a point of view that goes beyond the less than adequate "bloody Americans doing it again" narrative we are getting from some sources.

Iran must retaliate for this outrage perpetrated against them. The US is compelled by its own rhetoric and self-perception as invincible to respond to this retaliation with disproportionate force.

Conflict of some kind seems inevitable, and, as the Saker sees it, this will be a conflict the US can't ultimately win:

So what next? A major war against Iran and against the entire "Shia crescent"? Not a good option either. Not only will the US lose, but it would lose both politically and militarily. Limited strikes? Not good either, since we know that Iran will retaliate massively. A behind-the-scenes major concession to appease Iran? Nope, ain't gonna happen either since if the Iranians let the murder of Soleimani go unpunished, then Hassan Nasrallah, Bashar al-Assad and even Ayatollah Ali Khamenei will be the next ones to be murdered. A massive air campaign? Most likely, and initially this will feel good (lots of flagwaving in the USA), but soon this will turn into a massive disaster.

Over at RT, in an article titled Iran holds all the cards in coming Middle East conflict with US – unless Trump is ready to drop a tactical NUKE , ex-US Marine intelligence officer, Scott Ritter offers a similar scenario. Like the Saker, he thinks, beyond the bluster and Trump's rather foolish willy-waving tweets, US military options are limited (our emphasis):

Trump's threat, however, rings hollow. First, his tweet constitutes de facto evidence of a war crime (Section 5.16.2 of the US Department of Defense Law of War Manual prohibits threats to destroy cultural objects for the express purpose of deterring enemy operations), and as such would likely not be implemented by US military commanders for whom niceties such as the law of war, which forbids the execution of an unlawful order, are serious business.

Of more relevance, however, is the fact that Trump has been down this road before, when he threatened massive military retaliation against Iran for shooting down an unarmed drone over the Strait of Hormuz last May. At that time, he was informed by his military commanders that the US lacked the military wherewithal to counter what was expected to be a full-spectrum response by Iran if the US were to attack targets inside Iran.

In short, Iran was able to inflict massive harm on US and allied targets in the Middle East region, and there was nothing the US could do to prevent this outcome.

Ritter thinks the recent announcement by Iran that it is committed to ending all restrictions on uranium enrichment might give the US a pretext to attack using the one clear advantage it has – nuclear weapons.

Trump has hinted that any future war with Iran would not be a drawn-out affair. And while the law of war might curtail his commanders from executing any retaliation that includes cultural sites, it does not prohibit the US from using a nuclear weapon against a known nuclear facility deemed to pose a threat to national security.
This is the worst-case scenario of any tit-for-tat retaliation between Iran and the US, and it is not as far-fetched as one might believe.

The Saker also considers it quite possible the US or Israel would resort to nuclear weapons, but thinks this also would be ultimately self-defeating:

US/Israeli nukes: yes, unlike Iran, they have nukes. But what they lack are good targets. Oh sure, then can (and will) strike at some symbolic, high-visibility, targets and they can nuke cities. But "can" does not mean that this is a smart thing to do. The truth is that Iran does not offer any good targets to hit with nukes so using nukes against Iran will only make the determination of Iranians (and they allies) go from "formidable" to "infinite". Not smart.

Whether or not we agree this is the beginning of the end of empire, a messy open-ended conflict seems highly probable as things currently stand. Corporate war profiteers might rub their hands at this, but if the chaos spreads will even they be able to reap real benefits? Will this be the cue for them to up sticks from the foundering Exceptional Nation and re-locate elsewhere in the unending quest for exploitation?

After all it can be argued the British Empire, like the Nazis, didn't die, but just had to move – somewhere a little further west. Maybe, if we're cynical, the same thing is about to happen again. Maybe China is about to inherit the earth with the help of some ex-pat neocons.

But that's speculation for another day.

Another perspective worth reading is that of the Veterans Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, whose open 'Memorandum for the President' is published over at Consortium News.

Signed by numerous distinguished intelligence professionals, including Philip Giraldi and Daniel Ellsberg, it urges the Trump admin to "avoid doubling down on catastrophe".

The drone assassination in Iraq of Iranian Quds Force commander General Qassem Soleimani evokes memory of the assassination of Austrian Archduke Ferdinand in June 1914, which led to World War I. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was quick to warn of "severe revenge." That Iran will retaliate at a time and place of its choosing is a near certainty. And escalation into World War III is no longer just a remote possibility, particularly given the multitude of vulnerable targets offered by our large military footprint in the region and in nearby waters.

What your advisers may have avoided telling you is that Iran has not been isolated. Quite the contrary. One short week ago, for example, Iran launched its first joint naval exercises with Russia and China in the Gulf of Oman, in an unprecedented challenge to the U.S. in the region.

Interestingly the corporate media seem currently far from united, or even coherent, in their response to this latest crisis. Threaded through the usual knee jerk demonising of the monster du jour , are unusual elements of skepticism toward the pro-war narrative.

This, for example, on CNN yesterday, in a piece titled Skepticism mounts over evidence of 'imminent' threat that Trump says justified Soleimani killing (our emphasis)

Washington (CNN) – Top US national security officials

[Jan 08, 2020] The murder of Qassem Suleimani and assassination as state policy

Jan 04, 2020 | www.wsws.org

With its drone missile assassination of Iranian Gen. Qassem Suleimani and seven others at Baghdad's international airport in the early morning hours of Friday, the Trump administration has carried out a criminal act of state terrorism that has stunned the world.

Washington's cold-blooded murder of a general in the Iranian army and a man widely described as the second most powerful figure in Tehran is unquestionably both a war crime and a direct act of war against Iran.

President Donald Trump delivers remarks on Iran, at his Mar-a-Lago property, Friday, Jan. 3, 2020, in Palm Beach, Fla. (AP Photo/ Evan Vucci)

It may take some time before Iran responds to the killing. There is no question that Tehran will, in fact, react, especially in the face of public outrage over the murder of a figure who had a mass following.

But Iran will no doubt devote far more consideration to its response than Washington gave to its criminal action. The country's National Security Council met on Friday, and in all probability Iranian officials will discuss the murder of Suleimani with Moscow, Beijing and, more likely than not, Europe. US officials and the corporate media seem almost to desire immediate retaliation for their own purposes, but the Iranians have many options.

It is a political fact that the killing of Soleimani has effectively initiated a war by the US against Iran, a country four times the size and with more than double the population of Iraq. Such a war would threaten to spread armed conflict across the region and, indeed, the entire world, with incalculable consequences.

This crime, driven by increasing US desperation over its position in the Middle East and the mounting internal crisis within the Trump administration, is staggering in its degree of recklessness and lawlessness. The resort by the United States to such a heinous act testifies to the fact that it has failed to achieve any of the strategic objectives that led to the invasions of Iraq in 1991 and 2003.

The murder of Soleimani is the culmination of a protracted process of the criminalization of American foreign policy. "Targeted killings," a term introduced into the lexicon of world imperialist politics by Israel, have been employed by US imperialism against alleged terrorists in countries stretching from South Asia to the Middle East and Africa over the course of nearly two decades. It is unprecedented, however, for the president of the United States to order and then publicly claim responsibility for the killing of a senior government official who was legally and openly visiting a third country.

Soleimani, the leader of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps's Quds Force, was not an Osama bin Laden or Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. On the contrary, he played a pivotal role in defeating the forces of Al Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which those two figures, both assassinated by US special operations death squads, had led.

Hundreds of thousands of people filled the streets of Tehran and cities across Iran on Friday in mourning and protest over the slaying of Soleimani, who was seen as an icon of Iranian nationalism and resistance to US imperialism's decades-long attacks on the country.

In Iraq, the US drone strike has been roundly condemned as a violation of the country's sovereignty and international law. Its victims included not only Soleimani, but also Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the second-in-command of Iraq's Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), the 100,000-strong coalition of Shia militias that is considered part of the country's armed forces.

This response makes a mockery of the ignorant and thuggish statements of Trump and his advisors. The US president, speaking from his vacation resort of Mar-a-Lago in Florida, boasted of having "killed the number one terrorist anywhere in the world." He went on to claim that "Soleimani was plotting imminent and sinister attacks on American diplomats and military personnel, but we caught him in the act and terminated him."

Trump charged that the Iranian general "has been perpetrating acts of terror to destabilize the Middle East for the last 20 years." He declared, "What the United States did yesterday should have been done long ago. A lot of lives would have been saved."

Who does the US president think he is fooling with his Mafia rhetoric? The last 20 years have seen the Middle East devastated by a series of US imperialist interventions. The illegal 2003 US invasion of Iraq, based on lies about "weapons of mass destruction," claimed the lives of over a million people, while decimating what had been among the most advanced societies in the Arab world. Together with Washington's eighteen-year-long war in Afghanistan and the regime-change wars launched in Libya and Syria, US imperialism has unleashed a regionwide crisis that has killed millions and forced tens of millions to flee their homes.

Soleimani, whom Trump accused of having "made the death of innocent people his sick passion" -- an apt self-description -- rose to the leadership of the Iranian military during the eight-year-long Iran-Iraq war, which claimed the lives of some one million Iranians.

He became known to the US military, intelligence and diplomatic apparatus in 2001, when Tehran provided intelligence to Washington to assist its invasion of Afghanistan. Over the course of the US war in Iraq, American officials conducted back-channel negotiations with Soleimani even as his Quds Force was providing aid to Shia militias resisting the American occupation. He played a central role in picking the Iraqi Shia politicians who led the regimes installed under the US occupation.

Soleimani went on to play a leading role in organizing the defeat of the Al Qaeda-linked militias that were unleashed against the government of Bashar al-Assad in the CIA-orchestrated war for regime change in Syria, and subsequently in rallying Shia militias to defeat Al Qaeda's offspring, ISIS, after it had overrun roughly one-third of Iraq, routing US-trained security forces.

To describe such a figure as a "terrorist" only means that any state official or military commander anywhere in the world who cuts across the interests of Washington and US banks and corporations can be labeled as such and targeted for murder. The attack at the Baghdad airport signals that the rules of engagement have changed. All "red lines" have been crossed. In the future, the target could be a general or even president in Russia, China or, indeed, any of the capitals of Washington's erstwhile allies.

After this publicly celebrated assassination -- openly claimed by a US president without even a pretense of deniability -- is there any head of state or prominent military figure in the world who can meet with US officials without having in the back of his mind that if things do not go well, he too might be murdered?

The killing of General Soleimani in Baghdad was compared by Die Zeit , one of Germany's newspapers of record, to the 1914 assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. As in the prior case, it stated, "the whole world is holding its breath and anxiously waiting for what may come."

This criminal act carries with it the threat of both world war and dictatorial repression within the borders of the United States. There is no reason to believe that a government that has adopted murder as an instrument of foreign policy will refrain from using the same methods against its domestic enemies.

The assassination of Soleimani is an expression of the extreme crisis and desperation of a capitalist system that threatens to hurl humanity into the abyss.

The answer to this danger lies in the international growth of the class struggle. The beginning of the third decade of the 21st century is witnessing not only the drive to war, but also the upsurge of millions of workers across the Middle East, Europe, the United States, Latin America, Asia and every corner of the globe in struggle against social inequality and the attacks on basic social and democratic rights.

This is the only social force upon which a genuine opposition to the war drive of the capitalist ruling elites can be based. The necessary response to the imperialist war danger is to unify these growing struggles of the working class through the construction of a united, international and socialist antiwar movement.

Bill Van Auken

[Jan 08, 2020] To the silly trolls on this thread, no Iran is not the number one terrorist supporter in the world. That would be Saudi Arabia, closely followed by Qatar.

Jan 08, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

nemo , Jan 6 2020 22:43 utc | 109

To the silly trolls on this thread, no Iran is not the number one terrorist supporter in the world. That would be Saudi Arabia, closely followed by Qatar. You know them don't you? Murica's main regional allies. The same countries that have armed and funded terrorists to over throw the Syrian state. The same terrorist groups given support by the murican intelligence community and propaganda outlets like the White helmets. The US is not a knight in shining armor. It is a vulgar, grasping, dying empire that will use any means at it's disposal to harm perceived rivals. The US establishment has a long history of using terrorists to further its goals, like in Afghanistan during the 80's, or in Chechnya...and of course in Syria. The list is not exhaustive... You know, in fact, Iran should look to execute the cult leader of the Mek. There is another bizzaro terrorist outfit beloved by fat ass Pompeo. That would be an outstanding shatter point that the US couldn't even respond to. Let him "suicide" himself like Le Mesurier...lol!

[Jan 08, 2020] Disruptive Assassinations Killing Qassem Soleimani – OffGuardian

Jan 08, 2020 | off-guardian.org

Search Jan 7, 2020 64 Disruptive Assassinations: Killing Qassem Soleimani Editor Binoy Kampmark

On the surface, it made not one iota of sense. The murder of a foreign military leader on his way from Baghdad airport, his diplomatic status assured by the local authorities, evidently deemed a target of irresistible richness.

"General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region."

The words from the Pentagon seemed to resemble the resentment shown by the Romans to barbarian chiefs who dared resist them.

"This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans. The United States will continue to take all necessary action to protect our people and our interests wherever they are around the world."

The killing of Major General Qassem Soleimani of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps-Quds Force in a drone strike on January 3, along with Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, deputy commander of Iraq's Popular Mobilisation Forces, or Hash a-Shaabi and PMF Kata'ib Hezbollah, was packaged and ribboned as a matter of military necessity.

Soleimani had been, according to the Pentagon, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American and coalition service members and the wounding of thousands more." He was behind a series of attacks on coalition forces in Iraq over the last several months including attacks on the US embassy in Baghdad on December 31, 2019.

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

A common thread running through the narrative was the certainty – unshakable, it would seem – that Soleimani was on the warpath against US interests.

The increased danger posed by the Quds Force commander were merely presumed, and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was happy to do so despite not being able to "talk too much about the nature of the threats. But the American people should know that the President's decision to remove Soleimani from the battlefield saved American lives."

(Pompeo goes on to insist that there was "active plotting" to "take big action" that would have endangered "hundreds of lives".) How broadly one defines the battlefield becomes relevant; the US imperium has decided that diplomatic niceties and sovereign protections for officials do not count. The battlefield is everywhere.

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

Whatever the views of US officialdom, seismic shifts in the Middle East were being promised.

Iraq's prime minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi demanded an emergency parliamentary session with the aim of taking "legislative steps and necessary provisions to safeguard Iraq's dignity, security and sovereignty."

On Sunday, the parliament did something which, ironically enough, has been a cornerstone of Iran's policy in Iraq: the removal of US troops from Iraq. While being a non-binding resolution, the parliament urged the prime minister to rescind the invitation extended to US forces when it was attacked by Islamic State forces in 2014.

Iranian Armed Forces' spokesman Brigadier General Abolfazl Shekarchi promised setting "up a plan, patiently, to respond to this terrorist act in a crushing and powerful manner" .

He also reiterated that it was the US, not Iran, who had "occupied Iraq in violation of all international rules and regulations without any coordination with the Iraqi government and without the Iraqi people's demands."

While the appeals to international law can seem feeble, the observation from the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions Agnès Callamard was hard to impeach.

"The targeted killings of Qassem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi Al-Humandis are most [likely] unlawful and violate international human rights law: Outside the context of active hostilities, the use of drones or other means for targeted killing is almost never likely to be legal."

To be deemed lawful , such targeting with lethal effect "can only be used where strictly necessary to protect against an imminent threat to life."

The balance sheet for this action, then, is not a good one.

As US presidential candidate Marianne Williamson observed with crisp accuracy, the attack on Soleimani and his companions had little to do with "whether [he] was a 'good man' any more than it was about whether Saddam was a good man. It's about smart versus stupid use of military power."

An intelligent use of military power is not in the offing, with Trump promising the targeting of 52 Iranian sites, each one representing an American hostage held in Iran at the US embassy in Tehran during November 1979.

But Twitter sprays and promises of this sort tend to lack substance and Trump is again proving to be the master of disruptive distraction rather than tangible action.

Even Israeli outlets such as Haaretz , while doffing the cap off to the idea of Soleimani as a shadowy, dangerous figure behind the slayings of Israelis "in terrorist attacks, and untold thousands of Syrians, Iraqis, Lebanese and others dispatched by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Quds Force," showed concern.

Daniel B. Shapiro even went so far as to express admiration for the operation, an "impressive" feat of logistics but found nothing of an evident strategy. Trump's own security advisers were caught off guard. A certain bloodlust had taken hold.

Within Congress, the scent of a strategy did not seem to come through, despite some ghoulish cheers from the GOP. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and chairman of the House Intelligence panel, failed to notice "some broad strategy at work".

Michigan Democrat Rep. Elissa Slotkin, previously acting assistant secretary of defence and CIA analyst, explained why neither Democratic or Republic presidents had ventured onto the treacherous terrain of targeting Soleimani. "Was the strike worth the likely retaliation, and the potential to pull us into protracted conflict?" The answer was always a resounding no.

By killing such a high ranking official of a sovereign power, the US has signalled a redrawing of accepted, and acceptable lines of engagement.

The justification was spurious, suggesting that assassination and killing in combat are not distinctions with any difference. But perhaps most significantly of all, the killing of Soleimani will usher in the very same attacks that this decision was meant to avert even as it assists Iranian policy in expelling any vestige of US influence in Iraq and the broader Middle East.

It also signalled to Iran that abiding by agreements of any sort, including the international nuclear deal of 2015 which the US has repudiated, will be paper tigers worth shredding without sorrow.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: [email protected] Facebook Twitter Reddit Pinterest WhatsApp vKontakte Email Filed under: empire watch , Iran , latest , United States Tagged with: Binoy Kampmark , Donald trump , Iran , Iraq , Israel , Middle East , Qassem Soleimani , USA can you spare $1.00 a month to support independent media

OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial backers. We are not funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only means of income. Even the smallest amount of support is hugely appreciated.

Connect with Connect with Subscribe newest oldest most voted Notify of

wardropper ,

Today's Washington doesn't even have a grasp of common English usage:
"This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans"
You don't deter plans. You deter people from making plans.
A deterrent is something which persuades people not to do something.
I know that "corporations are people today", but only in the sense that they are run by a bunch of people, so you can't deter a corporation either, although you can deter its CEO from doing something.
It's always a question of deterring people from , and not deterring things.
Washington should know better, but I don't know why I'm even addressing this issue concerning a rabid US government of ignorant basket cases. It must be because I'm a teacher, and some sort of alternative to chaos seems necessary

Brian Steere ,

"General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region."

Allegedly. But with no substance provided. Less than with Iraqi WMDs.
But this article takes Pompeo's bait and runs with it.

I have read that Soleimani was invited to a meeting seeking resolution of hostilities in Yemen – and perhaps other things. If that is true it could be that the war is being protected under cover story of averting war. That would make sense in the backwards mind of today's narrative identity. (Doublethink).

If that invitation was set up with the Trump administration – then that casts a darker light on the USa's willingness to openly deceive and openly assassinate – with apparent impunity. But there are always consequences.

However, Once such an act is executed, it would be very rare to not receive open support from the US establishment – whatever any private misgivings. And so it leaves me wondering what and who is involved in oversight and accountability. I don't have a sense of a real government – so much as a captured and corrupted or neutered shell of a government. Perhaps the act was a fait accompli by a coterie who wanted to provoke open war – and are willing to risk everything on getting one.

The 'globalist' idea uses the US as it uses everything. Does it 'use' Israel – and the International Jewish lobby? Or vice verse? Israeli policy is typical in pre-emptive de-personing and execution – and this pattern is spreading through the body politic

I don't know – but a lot of apparently 'national' interest is anything but – excepting for corporate cartels of mutual interest that effectively call the shots in a progressive (sic) deconstruction of the World order to an idea of global possession and control.

Insider dealing applies also to politics. We are not privy to decisions made that are then 'delivered' by all kinds of manipulative appearance.

When Trump threatened disproportionate retaliation – linking to the Iran hostage situation – the Iranians could counter with disclosure as the the weapons deal struck by Reagan camp to delay release until after Carter left office – and lost it in no small part to the failure to get the hostages home.

But it just isn't done. Governing politicians as a rule do not bring out such dirty washing.
People might lose faith in them

Charlotte Russe ,

Washington denied Zarif a visa to attend a scheduled meeting of the United Nations Security
Council and Mike Pompeo mocked Zarif's statement that Suleimani had gone to Baghdad on a diplomatic mission: "Is there any history that would indicate it was remotely possible that this kind gentleman, this diplomat of great order, Qassem Suleimani, traveled to Baghdad for the idea of conducting a peace mission?" he said."

Pompeo, the United States Secretary of State, conducts foreign policy by humiliating, censoring, and promoting lies about sovereign leaders. What's the purpose of the United Nations if leaders of nation-states are prohibited from speaking and stating their case. If the public is only permitted to hear "one" side of an issue, isn't that the definition of propaganda. Of course, Pompeo would deny that Suleimani was on a diplomatic mission, inasmuch, to admit otherwise would reveal the assassination of Suleimani as an especially despicable war crime.

It's unfortunate, that if a nation-state challenges US imperialism they're characterized as not a sovereign state but as a terrorist regime. And if military leaders from these nation-states ensure the stability of their country by destroying ISIS and Al-Qaeda these generals are deemed terrorists. We live in a world where reality has been turned on its end, and is upside down.

So far, the US is extremely lucky that Iran's retaliation for the murder of Sulaimani has been limited. Javad Zarif, Iran's Foreign Minister stated:
"Iran took and concluded proportionate measures in self-defense under Article 51 of UN Charter targeting base from which cowardly armed attack against our citizens & senior officials were launched Tuesday. We do not seek escalation or war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression."

Now the ball is the Buffoon's court of neoconservative screwballs–let's see if these warmongers can refrain from escalating this crisis, or will they continue to lead the US down the road to another military debacle. One that makes the Iraq War look like child's play.

Below is a link citing the anti-war demonstrations organized and held by Codepink On Thursday, January 9, at 5 p.m.
https://www.codepink.org/01

Tallis Marsh ,

Some people have touched on this subject in other articles/website forums, but can I ask a 'controversial' question? How many dual-passport military bigwigs occupy intelligence/foreign-policy/military positions in the USA/UK/France etc as well as Iran, Iraq etc? Is it anti-semitic now to ask these questions? It is okay to ask about 'Russians' so-called infiltration and subversion but not Israelis?

People here may have heard of Victor Ostrovsky and his books, By Way of Deception and The Other side of Deception – where he details on many aspects of subversion, co-option etc e.g.how the sayanim network that aids mossad infiltrates top powerful positions in Embassies, intelligence agencies, military policy-maker dept and even medicine/charity orgs etc?

David Macilwain ,

I think we may just be playing the Americans' game by discussing the legality of the assassination of the hero of the Resistance; it's like discussing whether water-boarding is a legitimate interrogation technique on a six-year old girl.
The point of the killing was nothing to do with what Soleimani had done or was about to do, but evidently the one thing that Israel and the US knew Iran must respond to, so as to provide a pretext for an attack on Iranian territory – and of course it now has launched such an attack, before another state does it for them.
We might imagine that the US and other forces illegally occupying bases in Iraq, and everywhere else in the region, will now feel unable to operate without threat of attack from multiple unidentified sources. The mere fact that the missiles actually hit the Ain al Asaad base could be a wake-up call, particularly if there is evidence US forces were hit.

But of course the killing of Soleimani was neither justifiable nor legitimate, so Iran's designation of the US army as a terrorist organisation is, and it is now open season.

https://resistancenews.org/2020/01/08/iran-strikes-us-bases-in-iraq-to-avenge-martyr-soleimani-threatens-to-target-israel-and-us-bases-in-the-region-al-manar/

nottheonly1 ,

Leaving religious, organized delusions aside – to which I count all major religions, especially Hypochristianity – Iran has excelled in reason and resolve.

Do not fuck around with Iran any longer.

Donald Trump and his sub-cogniscent advisers on the other hand need to go and fuck themselves. Using the same methods on each other they have used to destroy a free and independent Iran since the great People of Iran kicked the fascist western regimes out of Iran.

Like Lybia, Syria, Bolivia and Venezuela, the government is FOR the People, not against them. Anybody, or anyone with better ideas than those Iran has utilized since 1979? Anybody? I thought so. Because there are assholes – among them corrupt, rich Iranian maggots that prefer the Trump model – who complain about how the revolution took away the freedom to exploit and to corrupt, while it is them that have Julain Assange locked away like a Chimpanzee in a Nazi laboratory.

No, what happened – oddly though in conjunction with a prophecy by Edgar Casey – is, that the whole sane world can see that America has become a drug addicted cheap whore who will do anything to get her fix.

America needs mandatory psychoanalysis and not the reciting of the pledge of allegiance. In Teheran, millions – not one, or two, like in a 'Love Parade' – no, five million real Iranian People filling the streets. What a shame in the face of the fucking Trump regime assholes. Fuck them all. Impeach the entire heap of shit and bring them before a court of justice. In Teheran.

Iran – as the descendant of one of the greatest Empires ever to rule the region – proved itself worthy of its great history. It shlashed the Gordian knot today. The terroristic murder of Lt. General Soleimani has indeed changed everything. Everything. It is now out in the open that ISIS/Daesh was created and funded by wetsern fascist regimes under the lead of the U.S., Israel, SA et al. The people that killed innocent civilians, cut heads off before cameras, putting women and children in cages, destroying important cultural sites in the region were and still are paid for by the U.S. tax payer and that makes every U.S. et al citizen an accomplice in the 'WAR OF TERROR'. You paid for the murder of the one person that defeated the US TERROR GROUPS. He helped Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon to fend off the terroristic assault of the fascist western regimes.

ISIS'R'US.

So, leaving the general religious thing aside, Iran has torn down the wall of hypocrisy the west is surrounding itself with. Alliances will now be made and others will crumble and vanish. Saudi Arabia is looking at its last days. The Palestiniancaust and genocide in Yemen will not continue.

Iran has shown that it is capable of defending the truth against the fascist western regimes.

To those who do not want to stop killing innocent women, mothers and children, the elderly and defenseless:

Cease and desist your murderous activities in order not to get killed.

Long live Iran.

Bless its People who have shown the pathetic public in the west what UNITY really means. (Not to discredit the work of countless groups to change things to the better.) But the equivalent would be 300 million Americans weeping in the streets over the loss of their most beloved General.

Go Humanity! Now or never!

Frank Speaker ,

You touch on some valid points, but you ignore there's a huge difference between most Iranians and the fundamentalist nutjobs who rule over them. Similar to the USA in many respects.

andyoldlabour ,

The thing is Frank, I know only too well (from my relatives in Iran) how a lot of ordinary Iranians still feel about the Shah, about UK/US/French imperialism. They and Iraq have been attacked quite a few times over the past hundred years by US/UK (along with Russia). There is still raw evixdence of chemical weapons victims from the Iran Iraq war.
They area very proud people, 98% Shia, and will come together as one if attacked, just as they did back in 1980, when Saddam Hussein backed by the USA attacked them.

nottheonly1 ,

While I am certainly not a friend of any organized religion, to call them 'fundamental nutjobs' gives away the brainwashing program that has achieved this result.

Pence, Pompeo et evangelical al are the real 'fundamental nutjobs'. They kill Muslims by the thousands. And have no regard at all for anybody that does not match their christojudeo-fascist world view.

TFS ,

SpartUSA and its friends in low places, Saudi Arabia, Israel and its Western Allies love giving names to things when they 'Export Democracy ' around the World, like Operation Enduring Freedom.

Cannot the alternative Blogosphere come up with a similar banner as a push back to the Rogue State of SpartUSA?

How About:

1. Operation Jog On!

Harry Stotle ,

One of the avenues Iran could pursue is the legality of the assassination.

The likes of Agnes Callamard (UN rapporteur on extra judicial killings) says "activate Article 99 of the U.N. charter and establish an impartial inquiry into [the] lawfulness of Soleimani's killing and events leading up to it."
https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/UN-Expert-Demands-Official-Investigation-on-Soleimani-Killing-20200107-0008.html?fbclid=IwAR2jw0hmHo8-d3WXvWOQIFTMZusqWtpd0p4Iu4biWqz-kiIQs-MYdIgFEEk

It is high time the question of whether or not the US is above international law was finally confronted.
The extra-judicial murder of General Soleimani brings this issue to the heart of international affairs: if there is no legal redress for Iran then it more or less makes a mockery of the idea that justice is possible in a world dominated by terror states.

andyoldlabour ,

Whilst I agree with the core message of your post Harry, I would have to draw the conclusion that the US has put themselves above and out of the reach of international law.
Drone attacks and civilian deaths all over the World, 80 years of coups, assassinations and wars, shooting down civilian airliners (USS Vincennes and IranAir flight 655), torture.
Then you only have to Google "Hague Invasion Act"

https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-becomes-law

Frank Speaker ,

Andy you're right, but it now needs to be legally formally addressed at the UN and other courts every time the US violates international law. Time and again. Over years it might make an impact, at least to isolate the them.

andyoldlabour ,

Frank, unfortunately I believe that the UN is merely a New York based vassal of the US. How many sanctions have ever been placed on the US or it's little friend Israel for their obvious war crimes?
I have been saying for many years that the HQ of the UN should not be in the US.

BigB ,

It's a war crime, Harry! I notice Binoy, the UN Rapporteur Agnes Callamard, and you refrain from calling it out. Pre-crime violates every judicial principle known. There has to be a crime for a verdict – let alone an execution. This is the enactment of "Minority Report" Phildickian criminal injustice thinking.

Pre-emptive Justice has been American foreign policy since at least Bush the Lesser Evil. Along with R2P – which defecated on Westphalia Peace Treaty principles – this violated the London Agreement (Nuremberg Principles) which are supposedly the foundation of modern IHL.

So, let's take our pick for pre-emptive murder war crime, crime against the peace, or crime against humanity?

So Trump gets a rap from the Rapporteur: where do we try this most obvious of crimes? The ICC, ICJ, or a kangaroo UN Tribunal where precisely no American will ever show up because they are legally exempt and immune. Agnes' rap is not worth waiting for, I'm sorry to say. The UN is complicit and as toothless as the old imperialist League of Nations that carved up the Middle East to cause these problems.

On the rare occasion the UN has produced a truthful report – ie calling Israel an apartheid state – that report has been recalled and shredded before you can say "Try Netanyahu!". You know the score.

Iran has exacted the only Justice it can in this lawless Wild West Justice of the Gun international anti-diplomacy "free"market-power world. I'd love to share your sentiment, but that world was eclipsed when America turned its back on the ICC circa Nicaragua. If Agnes can pull it back, I'm with her all the way. Also, I'm not holding my breath!

Everything the Nazis did is now neoliberal foreign policy.

Guy ,

I hear you and I agree with the gist of what you are saying but let me suggest that even though the UN is toothless and the rogue US establishment continue with their cowboy rampage over any nation that does not kneel to it's demands ,it is especially important that the criminal actions of this out of control regime be documented for historical purposes . Lets face it it ,right now the United Nations is the best and only body of an international politic that we have to do so. This is what they are so scared about .The truth .

TFS ,

I see two options:

1. Make the relevant International Organisations do their job, although the UN, OPCW, ICC and the like are soemwhat neutered. And if not, stop paying for them, they are a PR exercise.

2. Act like a Democracy, where the people hold those in account to power. Boycott SpartUSA would be my choice.

As a Brexiteer, I partially understand why people jumped ship from Jeremy Corbyn, but Brexit was never about Brexit, it was about killing Jeremy. The EU feared Jeremy more than anything, and when we lost him, the country lost a counter to the Imperial machinations of SpartUSA, the EU and NATO and their friends in low places in the MiddleEast.

I would suggest a third option, Operation Patriot Resolve.

In it, the alternative blogosphere works with ex members of the UK Armed Forces, and forces the UK government to release all the supporting evidence of Article V (I think), which supported the invasion of Afghanistan. We can ask Lord Robertson for his substantial input into the evidence he held. It must be voluminous, given the Offical Report into 9/11; Offical Conspiracy Theory is so highly regarded.

TFS ,

There is a term for different legal treatment based on status, called Affluenza.

Maybe a new term needs to be used for the West selective interpreations of various laws. Maybe Rogue State/Regime will suffice.

noseBag ,

Harry, whilst wholeheartedly agreeing with your sentiment, I fear the definition of being under threat of 'imminent' attack is so broad and vague that the Yanks will be able to claim legality. However, The Saker makes for some very interesting reading regarding likely/possible fallout from this action, none of which looks good for the Yanks, or for that matter, anyone allied to them.

Harry Stotle ,

In answer to my own question, I think Iran has about as much chance of receiving justice for the murder of Qasem Soleimani as Julian Assange does for revealing war crimes.

In answer to BB – apologies for not being clear – yes, I think this is a war crime.
I was just alluding to the fact terror inflicted by Britain and the USA is never defined as such (in a court of law) – quite the opposite, many of the architects, such as Tony Blair grew rich on the back of the misery they authored.

This profound legal failing is one of the reasons the neocons keep getting away with it.
In theory Iran has a strong case, one that has been already backed up by the UN rapporteur on extra-judicial killings, but it will be hard for them to escape a sense of futility that pervades any attempt to investigate the machinations of the US deep state.

For example, and as most of us on Off-G already know, the American authorities have steadfastly refused to properly investigate what happened on 9/11, presumably because a meaningful investigation would reveal a long list of uncomfortable truths?

While in Britain we had the long-winded and expensive charade of Chilcot – many knew from the outset that it was a waste of time and money, and that no actor would have be held to account for the bloodbath that ensued in Iraq, even though the whole thing was built on a pack of lies and led to the mysterious death of Britains foremost weapons inspector.

GEOFF ,

And these dumbfucks in this country can't wait to be part of the evil empire, I would never knowingly buy anything from warmongering evil America, or Israel, I see hairy arse Johnson is making it illegal for councils to boycott the other evil country, Israel , I only wish I was younger , I would get out of this shithole tomorrow.

Francis Lee ,

The real dumbfucks are the Poles, Latvians, Lithuanians, Romanians, Estonians who are pro-US and EU fanatics. Oh and I forgot about another neoliberal EU basket case, Sweden. The US calls the shots in the EU, primarily through corralling in the Petainist riff-raff into NATO.

Dungroanin ,

And by the way ss we move into a hot war where exactly is our LauraKoftheCIA?
Not a peep since her splurge on 19th December topped of with:

'Right then twitter, that's it from me til next year – Happy Christmas one and all see you on the other side (follow
@BBCPolitics
and
@BBCNews
if you want to keep up, or sit on your sofa and eat Quality Street and come back in 2020)
Laura Kuenssberg
·
19 Dec 2019
Hard time of year for a lot of folks. Suicide Hotline 116 123 (Samaritans) A simple copy and paste might save someone's life.

Would 3 Twitter friends please copy this text and post under their own name? Pass it on

Laura Kuenssberg
·19 Dec 2019
-- -- -- -
My guess is at the same site as bozo as they were briefed on the next phase.
Their role for the Pathocracy and getting their stories rehearsed – I expect her to move into Downing Street as the official press officer!
Presumably they will have been getting their inoculation flu jab which has just been unleashed as zillions of chinese take to the air for their new year intermingling with the zillions of westerners sun seeking crisscrossing the planet.

This world war will not be fought with the outdated nuclear weapons – they have better plans to get rid of us pesky revolters, and shiny multicoloured tellytubby suits as demo'd in Salisbury to clear away the dead and take all our possessions.

How long before the internet shutdown?

Dungroanin ,

For these dumb yankee doodle yahoos and Brit donkeys who still don't understand the significance – imagine if General Washington had been assassinated by King George for having won in the revolution, how would the proto yanks have taken that then and still now 200 years later.

Also how great was the irani General?
– Off-G might want to publish this photo of Soleimani having a walkabout amongs US troops and tanks
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2020/01/06/censored-photo-shocker-general-soleimani-with-american-troops-in-iraq/

US can't claim they couldn't have got to him without using drones.
.
A Ukrainian Boeing Jet appears to have dropped out of the sky on fire after leaving Tehran
.
A new flu type seems to have kicked off in China just as zillions are traveling for newyear.
-- --

As a large percentage of middleclass westerners travel to sunny paradises of SE Asia and Caribbean at this time of year they may not be traveling back!

TFS ,

People need to be hit the general public with the OPCW chemical evidence whilst this is playing out as another example of the West lying to bomb another soveriegn country, and make sure people know that the impartiality of the OPCW and the UN has been neutered.

Of course, the next stage, a step on from awareness is to hit SpartUSA where it hurts them the most. They are kinda of attached to The Benjamins, and are fond of Sanctions, ask Madeliene Albright.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iFYaeoE3n4

Boycott SpartUSA

Tutisicecream ,

The people of Amerika need to remember that when they vote in the up-and-coming Presidential election they are voting for democracy! Not the kind of democracy that other countries have, such as Iraq who just voted for Amerika to leave their country. But the kind of democracy that has to be created by force. The type of none representative democracy which furthers economic exploitation. It comes as no surprise that Amerika has allies in waiting otherwise known as vassals. Just ask the Eaton Mess and his Galfriend – as Old Blighty soon to be renamed Cor-Blimey is about to be forced to nationalise the railways (shurely a socialist concept ed?). Also ask Macron as a national strike grips France. "No", you will hear the media shills shrill, "It's the international rules based democratic order".

MichaelK ,

I heard a journalist stating with some 'authority' that the US attack couldn't be defined as 'terrorism', because it was carried out by a democratic state. Apparently, the actions and leaders of 'democratic states' cannot be guilty of carrying out 'terrorism.'

Normally, after 'real terrorist' attacks occur, that is, violence directed against us and our interests and allies, if members of the public raise their fists and express joy and enthusiastic support for the 'evil terrorists', such feelings and utterances land them in extremly hot water with the authorities as vocal support for terrorist outrages is illegal and can easily lead to them being prosecuted under anti-terrorism legislation.

But things are different when 'we' are the ones using 'terrorism' against our enemies, then, suddenly, the laws are applied, or not applied, in a radicaly different way.

Dungroanin ,

Iran is a democratic state as much as any.

We have seen how our democracy is a sham with the postal vote rigging of the election and the referendum.

It stopped Corbyn by direct self admitted foreign government gauntlet and is delivering the hard brexit that ONLY benefits the ancient City and it's masters.

They are on the retreat and like the confederacy they are burning Atlanta

David Macilwain ,

While this is certainly true, it's difficult to think of a case where forces allied to the Resistance have actually been responsible for a terrorist attack. One might need to return to the time of the Palestinian Intifada, where suicide bombers certainly terrorised Israelis – even for a just cause. Any suggestions? Not only does the "war on terror" appear to be contrived and concocted, but its evident acts seem always to be false flags, and always serving the interests of those that the attacks are supposed to be against.

Guy ,

War on terror is an oxymoron. War is terror David as I am sure you already know . Leave it to the CIA and or neocons to come up with such a stupid slogan .
Cheers.

Guy ,

The Western media pundits are using mental contortions to rationalize the impossible and looking extremely foolish for doing so.It's kind of like digging your own grave .

richard le sarc ,

An awful lot of Judeofascists and other Zionist and Talmudic psychopaths seem very happy about this cowardly murder. But they are, after all, the world champions of cowardly murders of any who dare 'get in our way'. It is a religious observance, a mitzvah, after all.

George Mc ,

"Judeofascists"? Surely "Zionazis" is more appropriate?

MASTER OF UNIVE ,

Macroeconomic decoupling is occurring and Trump's gambit for irrational war management via threats & intimidation on an international/geopolitical level is not only an outright act of war but it is testament to the desperation that Trump finds himself in pre-election. Trump has already indicated that he will do anything to keep the DOW inflated irrationally at ever increasing nosebleed levels he can push it to even if it means meddling in Federal Reserve independence and undermining confidence in the central bank authority.

Trump is a one man central banking Military Industrial Complex war machine set on autopilot without vision outside of controlling everything from the interest rate benchmark set by central banks to the G7 trade deals and Russian Federation gas deals, and everything in between.

Trump has to be the center of attention every single day of the week & twice on Sundays. He twitterbombed Greta the climate teen to appropriate her limelight as the Davos elite rolled her out onstage.

Trump bombed strategically for the presidential plaudits that never materialized because he leapt to an erroneous conclusion & misperceived that everyone else in the world is not viewing it from an oval office desk like he is. Immediately following the outrage the rationalizations came forth from the White House that their target was for the good of the nation when in fact everyone knows it was for Trump's impression management.

Trump likely made the decision unilaterally and the world is just not being made aware of that. Fortunately, the Democrats see his departure from protocol as a war crime also. Trump is not experienced enough to stay the course any longer given that he must have acted unilaterally to cause the bombing assassination without due diligence from his advisers taking place. When the Democrats press the issue with Congress it will become an issue that Trump used the state to murder for purposes of leveraged deal making.

MOU

Francis Lee ,

"Trump is a one man central banking Military Industrial Complex war machine set on autopilot."

Pretty good! I like it.

Martin Usher ,

Its interesting to speculate about why these people were murdered. Pompero's explanations have a distinct yellowcake feel to them -- "We know what we're doing, trust us" sort of thing. The Administration has zero credibility except among the faithful here in the US. I suspect the real reason could be a combination of two factors. One is that whenever there's any danger of peace breaking out in the Middle East it gets spoiled and invariably there something or someone Israeli at the bottom of it. The leaders killed were particularly dangerous precisely because they're not hot heads, they develop policies in a rational manner and are instrumental in keeping wayward elements under control. This is the kind of ME leader that is feared by Israel -- they need a disorganized rabble without the gates (one that's preferably fighting among itself) so that they can keep their internal politics under control. The other factor is Trump is susceptible to anything that appeals to his vanity, especially if its one-up against Obama. There's already been the claim that this was a proper response, unlike Benghazi. (..and apparently ISIS is an Obama creation .) So I could see a situation where a back channel suggestion is whispered into an ear, orders are given, people are killed and we have to deal with the consequences.

I just hope that the Isranians and Iraqis are sophisticated enough to provide a measured response. I thought the Iraqi lawmakers' response was perfect -- the US has breached the terms of the agreement by which its supposed to be in that country so it should leave. (Trump's response is more typical of his responses -- bluster about sanctions and threaten the Iraqis with a bill for an airbase.)

lundiel ,

Strictly speaking, ISIS is a CIA creation under the Obama administration. I draw your attention to the shiploads of Libyan weapons delivered to international jihadists in Syria by way of Turkey. Along with John McCain's close association with Prince Bandar of KSA (Before he was chopped-up because Saudi finance became common knowledge and the beast got out of control). It's interesting to note that Obama, a democrat, used McCain, a neocon hawk as his middle east special envoy. Not that Trump has changed much, he can't, he's not in control.

Antonym ,

Correction: Strictly speaking, ISIS was a CIA creation under their Obama fig leaf

Guy ,

You gotta hand it to Trump for coming up with such stupid shit as ,we will not leave until you pay us for the costs of building a base in your country. LOL I almost busted a gut laughing at the stupidity of the guy saying this .
Consider that I break into your house and make a mess of things , help myself to the food in the fridge , not to mention your wife and daughters if I took a liking to them , leave all the dirty laundry lying around after a week or so and will not leave .In order to accept leaving the premises , you must pay me .Pay me whatever I ask .
This is how stupid and absurd this charade no minds is descending into .
Somebody stop the world ,I want to get off.

Antonym ,

Even JFK's assassination didn't upset the Anglo military – industrial complex's apple cart, and he was a good guy. QS wasn't and his death won't change much. Donald Trump's might turn out to be more disrupting

Perp all the same: T-Rex CIA, NOT the mossad mosquito however much Zionphobes wish it to.

richard le sarc ,

'QS' was a saint compared to the psychopathic butchers who run Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Israeli colony known as the USA.

andyoldlabour ,

How many deaths were Truman, LBJ, Nixon, Bush x 2, Clinton, Obama and Trump responsible for compared to QS?

Gezzah Potts ,

Multiple United States targets hit by missiles in Iraq, including Ayn Asad Airbase and Al Taji coalition base north of Baghdad.
No news on casualties yet. This response was expected, but the $64 million dollar question is how hard will the nutters in Washington respond? And what of the 6 B-52 bombers that have just been sent to Diego Garcia?
And news just in of a second wave of missiles directed at US targets.
Trump, Pompeo, Esper . You are reaping what You sowed. Total wackjobs.
This is deeply disturbing .

richard le sarc ,

Nothing would work better than closing Hormuz, and destroying Saudi oil installations. That would be a seismic shock to US economic hegemony.

Gezzah Potts ,

Very unconfirmed reports there may have been up to 80 United States personnel killed in the missile attacks on Ayn Assad Airbase today.
This could be fake news tho?
That's appeared on Vanessa Beeley's Facebook page as well as a guy called Laith Marouf, and Press TV has just been reported as 'breaking news' that "there were casualties".
Tellingly, no other independent sites have been reporting this (so far)
And Trumpf is tweeting 'all is well'.
Don't expect the truth from Team USA, or the retarded presstitutes.
Duh What a dumb thing to say. Of course not.
I still believe United States will respond to the Iranian missile strikes. Can you imagine Pompeo or Esper going 'okay, all good, we're all even now' after today.
I can't.
If things do take off, closing the Straits Of Hormuz would be one of the very first options for Iran. And then watch the panic in the 'civilised, democratic, freedom loving' West when the economy starts imploding.

RobG ,

The psychopaths who rule us will now try to close down the internet.

The attacks carried out by the Iranians today are peanuts compared to what's coming in the following days, most of which you won't be told about.

The biggest laugh is how they will try to excuse Donald Trump, who's the biggest joke there's ever been as an American President.

[Jan 08, 2020] 'Jesus, Do We Have To Explain Why We Do These Things'

Jan 08, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

This was the first question of the day, mind you. When asked about specific threats, they won't say, other to claim the threats were against "American diplomats, American military personnel, and American – facilities that house Americans" in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria. When asked if allies had been notified of these attacks, or what is meant by "imminent threats," officials said they couldn't elaborate because that would be revealing "sources and methods." When asked why there had been no information about the dead American contractor in the Dec.27 militia strike on the Iraqi base that touched this all off, one of the three state department officials said, "I haven't asked, and I don't know."

Their real imperiousness comes when a reporter presses officials to explain their repeated suggestions that the Jan. 3 strike against Soleimani was at once well-deserved after Iran's "violent and expansionist foreign policy," a response to the breach of the U.S. embassy last week, and a preemptive action to stop Soleimani's planned attacks, for which we still have no detailed information.

QUESTION: The decision to take him out wasn't necessarily a way of removing this – [Senior State Department Official One], the threat that you were talking about in these different countries and these different facilities – but it's a way to mitigate it in the future? I'm just --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL THREE: It slows it down. It makes it less --

QUESTION: Since we don't know what the threat is – okay, that's what I was --

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL THREE: It slows it down. It makes it less likely. It's shooting down Yamamoto in 1942. Jesus, do we have to explain why we do these things? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Ouch.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL THREE: Go look that up.

QUESTION: Yes, you do.

Most tellingly, the officials pushed back hard not only against the suggestion that this was an "assassination" of a government official, but that Iran is a legitimate country at all, protected by any international norms or laws:

We are, again, denying them the fiction that this is some Westphalian country that has, like, a conventional defense ministry and a standard president and a foreign minister. It's a regime with clerical and revolutionary oversight that seeks to dominate the Middle East and beyond. You've heard me say this is a kleptocratic theocracy. And you look at the people of Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon, are all rejecting the Iranian model at the same time.

So if the U.S. does not recognize your form of government -- does this include the Communist Party of China? -- you are fair game?

In its reporting this weekend, The Daily Beast found that the President was talking about a "big" response to events on the ground in Iraq with his inner circle at Mar-a-Lago five days before Soleimani's killing.

Those Mar-a-Lago guests received more warning about Thursday's attack than Senate staff did, and about as much clarity. A classified briefing on Friday, the first the administration gave to the Hill, featured broad claims about what the Iranians were planning and little evidence of planning to bring about the "de-escalation" the administration says it wants.

According to three sources either in the room or told about the discussion, briefers from the State Department, Pentagon, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence claimed that killing Soleimani was designed to block Iranian plans to kill "hundreds" or even thousands of Americans in the Mideast. That would be a massive escalation from the recent attack patterns of Iran and its regional proxies, who tend to kill Americans in small numbers at a time.

After this display, it is clear that the "trust us" argument is going to prevail until lawmakers start demanding more, including legal justification for the strikes. There was no hint of an answer, of course, in the state department briefing:

QUESTION: The Secretary talked about this as being wholly legal. I wonder if you can just explain the legal justification of the killing.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: You're going to have to talk to the lawyers.

No one expects satisfaction from these briefings but getting slapped around as the rest of the country is wondering if we are on the brink of war is the height of audacity, even for a government that has proven over the last 18 years that it cares nothing about whether the American people believe them or not.

kouroi • 3 days ago

So, Iran government is illegitimate, same as the Chinese government which is ruled by CCP. They would all be legitimate targets. Russian government is rather just nationalist and probably that is bad too.

It is likely that no direct attacks are carried against Chinese or Russian leaders because of retaliation. It is good that the new hyper-sonic Russian missiles can strike US in less than 30 minutes with great accuracy, being able to hit particular individuals. Let us hope that those missiles and Russian defense systems will start flooding the market... Will then US start using nukes?

Fran Macadam kouroi • 2 days ago
Maybe as soon as deployed in Ukraine where they can strike Moscow with only six minutes' warning, leaving no alternative but a retaliating revenge strike of "launch on warning."
cka2nd kouroi • 2 days ago
That's the only reason the North Korean government is still in place, because they can punch back. The Kim family learned that lesson from Iraq and Libya, and Syria has just reinforced it.

I wonder how many Europeans now realize the folly, the sheer stupidity, of supporting or just passively accepting US and NATO military intervention in the Middle East and North Africa, and that whatever refugee crisis has hit Europe originates from those wars of aggression? Probably the same proportion of Americans who realize that American policies in Latin America help "push" millions of Latin Americans to migrate to the U.S. illegally: too damn few.

Awake and Uttering a Song • 3 days ago
"'Jesus, Do We Have To Explain Why We Do These Things?'"

Jesus: "Why, yes. Yes, you do. If not now, you'll be explaining them later."

In the presence of Truth, we are not plaintiffs -- we are defendants.

Barry_D Awake and Uttering a Song • 2 days ago
Brad DeLong had the greatest and shortest comment about the Catholic scandals (and the same for all other churches): "Don't these people believe in God?".
WellRedMan • 3 days ago
If the media wish to question the transparency and accountability of government, then they need to be consistent in their efforts regardless of which party is in power. While certainly, media political bias has always underlain its motivations and guided its efforts, never has it so openly dominated their entire focus in the relentless pursuit of one overarching objective. This, in turn, has led it to be viewed as simply an organ of political propaganda for one particular political party and it is thereby no longer able to muster the public support required to demand that government, particularly the federal bureaucracy, be responsive to inquiries into policy development and implementation. It should then come as no surprise that the mainstream media has become a tool of manipulation and obfuscation for the government's continued campaign to dominate and figuratively disenfranchise the will of the People. The only outlier here is the Trump Administration and its failure to play the game. Once we have gotten past that, one way or another, it will be back to business as usual.
tz WellRedMan • 3 days ago
I strongly suspect that you need to diversify your assortment of media sources.
If you don't recognize that If Trump had his way, all media everywhere would kiss his butt and lie for him and sing his praises. That is what he demands of his associates and the GOP, and they do. Just look objectively at Lindsay Graham's conduct in the perspective of the past 20 years.
As a commenter on National Review posted yesterday. Be good to Trump, and he will be good too you. Please remind Michael Cohen, Manafort and the other convects who were good to Trump, and Trump was not so good to them in return.
cka2nd WellRedMan • 2 days ago
The mainstream media has been pro-intervention under Democratic and Republican presidents, and parrots the lies of the State Departments, no matter the party in the White House (see Venezuela under Bush, Obama and Trump, Honduras under Obama, and Bolivia under Trump).

In economic policy, the mainstream media is relentlessly pro-establishment, liberal pundits often as much or more so than conservative ones, from teachers unions (until rank-and-file teachers fought back, and forced a change in the narrative) to privatization and deregulation.

Social policy is the only area where the mainstream media is truly liberal, because that hits many journalists where they live, so to speak. And even there, at least until recently, they usually preach moderation and going slow, as veterans of the civil rights, feminist and LGBT movements could recount from the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's (and probably later, too, but I am less in tune with the modern movements).

The Trump ADMINISTRATION plays the game. The fact that its leader is so...Trumpian is the only reason his administration is an outlier.

Null • 3 days ago
The Yamamoto thing is funny, since he was actually against war with the US (he thought, correctly, that they couldn't win) and only plotted the Pearl Harbor attack when forced to by his superiors.
b2020 Null • 3 days ago
The Yamamoto thing is funny, since the US was actually in a declared state of war at the time of his "targeted killing". What is not funny is a US "press corpse" constitutionally - sic - unable to ask that simple question right away:

QUESTION: Are you saying the US is officially at war with Iran at this time?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL THREE: No.
QUESTION: You said: 'It's shooting down Yamamoto in 1942'. Is that just bullshit?

Fran Macadam • 3 days ago
What's overriding is the huge profits to be made through expanding wars, along with the policies being crafted for the United States in a highly influential Mideast country with collusion by Americans whose loyalties are not primarily American.
Fran Macadam • 3 days ago
Our leaders, across the board, are all almost exclusively become madmen, whether in matters of war or social policy.
sglover Fran Macadam • 2 days ago
What rubbish. It wasn't "our leaders" who launched this assassination -- it was *your* hero in the endless War Against The Deep State. Before that he trashed the JCPOA, which very much *was* the creation of some of "our leaders", and was a serious, adult attempt to steer away from the disaster that we're looking at now.
But it's no fun to look at actual history, actual events. It's much more satisfying to dabble in sweeping, vacuous claims, eh?
Fran Macadam sglover • 2 days ago
The reality, outside your TDS bubble, is that war with Iran is very much a bipartisan project. You have to realize that the Deep State's neocons largely defected to the Democrats last election when Trump was the only one who dared criticize the endless unwinnable wars. There isn't a President since 1988 who didn't start or expand never ending wars and who didn't lie knowingly about it. There is a small Mideast nation with outsized influence over policy in this country, with political leaders here who have dual loyalties or even primary loyalties to it, along with major billionaire donors to both parties. Both parties removed any restraint on action against Iran in the recent monster military bill they passed. All are beholden to the war industries which make unimaginable enormous profits from never ending warfare. So it appears that whatever war is chosen this year to be the "good war," as with Obama and Hillary about Libya, Syria and Afghanistan, and which the "bad", that the trajectory of war profits must increase. It was our leader Obama who extended the use of drones to execution from afar, "extrajudicial killing," creating the assassination by drone policy no longer considered controversial or immoral, with his "Kill Tuesday" sessions. Nor did he actually end torture or close Guantanamo.
kid_charlemagne2 • 3 days ago
Nothing conservative about war. Conservatives have lost every war. Big time. Not just politically but culturally. There were all sorts of stories about women becoming tramps during WWII. And look how it was used to advance feminism. We would not be in this degenerate state if not for US involvement in WWII.
Wallstreet Panic kid_charlemagne2 • 2 days ago
"All sorts of stories about women becoming tramps during WWII." I would like to hear some of these stories.
Jack • 3 days ago
It appears that Pompeo's pomposity has rubbed off on senior State Department officials.
Sid Finster Jack • 2 days ago
Personnel is policy.
tz • 3 days ago
War mongers seem to universally believe that they know how the war that they instigate will unfold. They are in fact delusional. Starting a war is rolling the dice in profoundly dangerous and wicked ways. The Iraq invasion and occupation is a great example.
Bob K. tz • 2 days ago • edited
George Bush made the 1st roll of the dice at the neo-cons instigation (Only Buchanan demurred) and then Barack Obama took his turn at the Middle East table. Now President Trump has the dice.

After him? Who knows?

Sid Finster • 2 days ago
The irony is that Trump is profoundly weak, a pathetic weakling.
Martin Ranger • 2 days ago
The legitimate government argument is one that the Trump administration should maybe not make. After all, it could be argued that he has not been elected in a democratic way, that he, his family and associates as well as parts of his cabinet have financially profited from being in power. Moreover, one could very well claim that the US are seeking to dominate the Middle East.
Joseph Waters Martin Ranger • 2 days ago
"The legitimate government argument is one that the Trump administration should maybe not make. After all, it could be argued that he has not been elected in a democratic way..."

Is the line of argumentation here to be that the election of a president into office by the electoral college, without having won the popular vote, should be deemed "not democratic?" Or, is it to be some allegation that the electoral college itself is "not democratic," and that only direct consultation of the electorate can be considered "truly" democratic?

anaisanesse • 2 days ago
The poor vulnerable US forces are not in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya or anywhere else to help the populations, and are now targets for any Iranian or Iraqi retaliation.
deliaruhe • 16 hours ago • edited
Seventeen intelligence agencies and these guys can't come up with even one shred of credible evidence in support of these "threats." Gawd help America.
H.P. Loathecraft • 3 hours ago
We are, again, denying them the fiction that this is some Westphalian country that has, like, a conventional defense ministry and a standard president and a foreign minister. It's a regime with clerical and revolutionary oversight that seeks to dominate the Middle East and beyond. You've heard me say this is a kleptocratic theocracy.

Ah, of course, you mean like Saudis and Israel, right?

[Jan 08, 2020] Russian reaction

Jan 08, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

grr , Jan 7 2020 0:43 utc | 141

Re PCR's latest linked article (post 133.
What PCR is insisting Putin do ("The easiest and cleanest way for Putin to do this is to announce that Iran is under Russia's protection.")Putin has already done so in a landmark speech last year when he unveiled five or six game-changing weapons, or was it 2018.
He declared back then to the evil empire that a nuclear attack on an ally would be considered an attack upon Russia. He made this crystal clear. Of course it wouldn't hurt for him to 'gently' remind them of this.

bjd , Jan 7 2020 0:47 utc | 142

You can read Lavrov's Press Releases here: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation .
bjd , Jan 7 2020 0:58 utc | 147

I do have to say, the silence from the Russians is odd. Even when you read the Russian Foreign Ministry's news releases.

For instance, there's this on January 4th:
" On January 4, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran Mohammad Javad Zarif, at the latter's initiative. " (italics mine).

So Lavrov talked to an Iranian official only on January 4th, and the call came from Iran (Zarif), not the other way around. This is odd, and even the explicit
mentioning of Zarif initiating the call --to me-- seems odd.
Hmm...

Sasha , Jan 7 2020 1:39 utc | 155
Why waiting for Putin?

Gerasimov almost never defrauds..

Ya vienen los Reyes Magos.... con el aguinaldo...

Russian high general repudiates US terrorism against Soleimani

[Jan 08, 2020] The lady doth protest too much

Jan 08, 2020 | www.unz.com

Robert Dolan , says: Show Comment January 7, 2020 at 5:31 am GMT

Zion Don is not just a fuckup ..he's a DANGEROUS fuckup.
Cloak And Dagger , says: Show Comment January 7, 2020 at 5:59 am GMT
The lady doth protest too much:

On Monday, as the meeting ended, several ministers transmitted Netanyahu's declaration distancing Israel from the Soleimani hit.

"The assassination of Soleimani isn't an Israeli event but an American event. We were not involved and should not be dragged into it," he said, according to Israeli news outlets.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/netanyahu-distances-from-soleimani-slaying-says-israel-shouldnt-be-dragged-into-it-report

Daniel Rich , says: Show Comment January 7, 2020 at 7:43 am GMT

Netanyahu backs away from Soleimani assassination, warns ministers to ' stay out' of purely 'American event

.'
Does the word 'backpedaling' ring a bell, Bibi?

You'll reap what you sow, oh grand Master of Conception. I sincerely hope it'll be an abundant and infinite harvest. And, of course, mazel tov, ol' boy. You're gonna need it by the bushel

[Jan 08, 2020] A huge amount of Iran's nuclear waste from the years of enriching uranium has been used to create depleted uranium warheads such as the U.S. uses on its Hellfire and other missiles. These are typically one-ton warheads, about 99% uranium, and ignite on contact (uranium is pyrophoric -- it burns) and burn at up to 6,000 C. They can penetrate a good thirty meters of prestressed concrete in less than a second and incinerate everything in the vicinity.

Jan 08, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

RJPJR , Jan 6 2020 23:29 utc | 127

On the previous thread, jared | Jan 6 2020 12:32 utc | 230, posted:
"Iran is already proclaiming it will proceed with unconstrained uranium enrichment - a act which is both pointless and counter productive."

A huge amount of Iran's nuclear waste from the years of enriching uranium has been used to create depleted uranium warheads such as the U.S. uses on its Hellfire and other missiles. These are typically one-ton warheads, about 99% uranium, and ignite on contact (uranium is pyrophoric -- it burns) and burn at up to 6,000°C. They can penetrate a good thirty meters of prestressed concrete in less than a second and incinerate everything in the vicinity.

The (depleted) uranium anti-tank rounds used in the 1991 war against Iraq were five kilograms (11 pounds) and could zip through two or three tanks. When the Americans went inside the tanks later on, they found the Iraqis' bodies turned to black dust. Occasionally, the bodies were intact, in position, but they crumbled to dust when touched. The American troops called them "crispy critters".

ALL the American military who entered those tanks or worked on them afterward became sick with all sorts of horrible illnesses triggered by radiation poisoning.

The one ton of uranium in a bunker buster results in one ton of powder, much of it microscopic. Inhaled, a single microscopic particle of 2.5 microns deposited in an alveol cavity of the lung contains come 210 billion uranium atoms. Uranium spits out alpha particles, which don't travel far (an inch at most, usually), but they are the most powerful force in our universe. That single particle irradiates, permanently, a sphere of up to 350 lung cells.

The military in Iraq were inhaling millions (billions!) of those particles. Those who haven't died yet are deathly ill.

Israel's anti-missile defenses are not what they are claimed to be. Just a few of those bunker busters delivered into Tel Aviv or West Jerusalem would contaminate it permanently.

Israel cannot afford the loss of such territory. (In the United States, the Jefferson Proving Ground where most of the testing was done, was offered to the National Park Service as a wild-life refuge to be off limits in order to protect its biodiversity. The offer was turned down. The site is now off limits, designated a national sacrifice zone...) And Iran has the missiles with the accuracy necessary to make such hits.

Thus, every suspected Iranian missile storage location must be hit simultaneously. Israel does not have the means to do that, hence the need to involve in United States in an all-out colossal attack. This was openly discussed under the George Walker Bush administration until the National Intelligence Estimate of December 2007 pulled the rung out from under the warmongers by openly declaring that Iran had no nuclear program.

Israel used such missiles on south Lebanon in August 2006, so, they know all about this. The bombing of south Lebanon stopped the day that the south-north wind reversed direction. The United Nations Environment Program that investigated the missile craters in south Lebanon found low enriched uranium, the result of mixing the depleted uranium with the enriched uranium from decommissioned Soviet missiles removed from Ukraine, in a failed attempt to restore the original isotopic ratio and make it pass for "natural" uranium that, if discovered, could then be claimed to have been in the ground and turned up by the bombing.

The entire assault on mountains and caves of Tora Bora in southeast Afghanistan in 2001-2002 was a bunker buster testing program. Canadian researchers found uranium-induced radioactivity all over, but they were silenced by death threats and some roughing up.

So, Iran does not need a nuclear arsenal, for it has developed an equally good deterrent on the cheap. Israel knows this, the various intelligence services know this, some people in the corporate media know this, but if one mentions it, one is immediately told that there is "no proof".

[Jan 08, 2020] Iraqi Journalist: Killing Soleimani "Ended An Era In Which Iran And The United States Coexisted In Iraq" by Tim Hains

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Now, he told "Democracy Now!", it will be hard for the Iraqi public to see the bases as anything but "a force that is driving them into a war between Iran and the United States." ..."
"... "Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. I mean, remember, Qassem Soleimani arrived in Baghdad airport, where half of it is an American base. Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. He took selfies. People took his pictures. That didn't happen in secret. Qassem Soleimani was not Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi hiding in a cave or moving stealthily through the country. He stayed in the Green Zone. So, all this happened because there was an understanding between the Americans and the Iranians. So, if the Americans wanted to keep their bases in Iraq, the Iranians would have the freedom to move. And with the killing of Soleimani, the rules of the game have totally changed," he said. ..."
Jan 06, 2020 | www.realclearpolitics.com

https://www.youtube.com/embed/TKvE-nIsj1Y?enablejsapi=1&origin=https:%2F%2Fwww.realclearpolitics.com

"The Guardian" journalist Ghaith Abdul-Ahad says that before the attack on Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad last week "there was an understanding between the Americans and the Iranians" that allowed officials from Iran and the U.S. to move freely within Iraq and maintained relative goodwill toward American bases.

"The killing of Qassem Soleimani ended an era in which both Iran and the United States coexisted in Iraq," he said.

Now, he told "Democracy Now!", it will be hard for the Iraqi public to see the bases as anything but "a force that is driving them into a war between Iran and the United States."

"Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. I mean, remember, Qassem Soleimani arrived in Baghdad airport, where half of it is an American base. Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. He took selfies. People took his pictures. That didn't happen in secret. Qassem Soleimani was not Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi hiding in a cave or moving stealthily through the country. He stayed in the Green Zone. So, all this happened because there was an understanding between the Americans and the Iranians. So, if the Americans wanted to keep their bases in Iraq, the Iranians would have the freedom to move. And with the killing of Soleimani, the rules of the game have totally changed," he said.

AMY GOODMAN: Ghaith, can you comment on this new information that's come to light about the timing of Soleimani's assassination Friday morning? Iraq's caretaker Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi has revealed he had plans to meet with Soleimani on the day he was killed to discuss a Saudi proposal to defuse tension in the region. Mahdi said, quote, "He came to deliver me a message from Iran responding to the message we delivered from Saudi Arabia to Iran" -- Saudi Arabia, obviously, a well-known enemy of Iran. Was he set up? Talk about the significance of this.

GHAITH ABDUL-AHAD: Well, it is very significant if it's actually General Qassem Soleimani came to Iraq to deliver this message, if it was actually there was a process of negotiations in the region. We know that Abdul-Mahdi and the Iraqi government, in general, over the last year had been trying to position Iraq as this middle power, as this power where both -- you know, as a country that has a relationship with both Iran and the United States. In that awkward place Iraq found itself in, Iraq has tried to maximize on this. So they started back in summer and fall, when there was an escalation between Iran and the United States, when Iran shot down an American drone. We've seen Adel Abdul-Mahdi fly to Iran, try to mediate. We've seen Adel Abdul-Mahdi open channels of communications with the Gulf, with Saudi Arabia.

So, if it actually, the killing of General Soleimani, ended that peace initiative, it will be kind of disastrous in the region, because, as Narges was saying earlier, it is -- you know, Pompeo is speaking about Iran being this ultimate evil in the region, as this crescent of Shias, as if they just arrived in the past 10 years in the region. The fact if we see Iran's reactions, it's always a reaction to an American provocation. You've seen the occupation of Iraq in 2003. You've seen Iran declared as an "axis of evil." So, if you see it from an Iranian perspective, it's always this existential threat coming from the United States. And I don't think there is a more existential threat than in past year. So, yes, I know -- I mean, I think Adel Abdul-Mahdi and the Iraqi government were trying to find this middle ground, which I think is totally lost, because even Adel Abdul-Mahdi, the person who was trying to find this middle ground, was the person who proposed this law yesterday in the Parliament to expel all American troops from the country.

And I would like to add like another thing. The killing of Qassem Soleimani ended an era in which both Iran and the United States coexisted in Iraq. So, from 2013, '14, we, as journalists, we've seen on the frontlines how the proxies of each power have been helping each other. So we've seen Iranian advisers helping the American-trained Iraqi Army unit or counterterrorism unit in the fight against ISIS. In the same sense, we've seen American airstrikes on threats to these -- kind of to ISIS when it was threatening these militias. That coexistence, it didn't only come from both having a -- sharing an enemy, which is ISIS, or Daesh, but also these were the rules of the game. These were the rules in which Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. I mean, remember, Qassem Soleimani arrived in Baghdad airport, where half of it is an American base. Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. He took selfies. People took his pictures. That didn't happen in secret. Qassem Soleimani was not Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi hiding in a cave or moving stealthily through the country. He stayed in the Green Zone. So, all this happened because there was an understanding between the Americans and the Iranians. So, if the Americans wanted to keep their bases in Iraq, the Iranians would have the freedom to move. And with the killing of Soleimani, I think the rules of the game have totally changed.

So now I think the first victim of the assassination will be the American bases in Iraq. I don't see any way where the Americans can keep their presence as they did before the assassination of Soleimani. And even the people in the streets, even the people who opposes Iran, who opposes the presence of Iranian militias in power and politics, the corruption of these pro-Iranian parties, even those people would look at these American bases now as not as a force that came to help them in the fight against ISIS, but a force that's dragging them into a war between Iran and the United States.

[Jan 08, 2020] Iran is warning that if there is retaliation for the two waves of attacks they launched their 3rd wave will destroy Dubai and Haifa

Jan 08, 2020 | caucus99percent.com

Interesting if true

"Iran is warning that if there is retaliation for the two waves of attacks they launched their 3rd wave will destroy Dubai and Haifa," tweeted NBC News Tehran Bureau chief. https://t.co/ydzIAfEpzk

-- Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) January 8, 2020

[Jan 08, 2020] The missiles last night is not the promised retribution, Iran is keeping focused on the primary goal to get the usa out

Jan 08, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

james , Jan 8 2020 17:32 utc | 136

thanks b.. it is really unfortunate about the loss of those on the plane.. it is a strange coincidence of timing and a tie in with ukraine is also rather odd...

here is how i look at this.. usa-israel hasn't faked its squeeze on iran which has been going on for what feels like forever.. usa-israel didn't fake taking out qassem s... the sanctions on iran continue.. this war on iran will continue.. how could it stop after all this time? what has changed? nothing has changed in the minds of these sick neo cons..

i share @ James j's comment which i quote here - "The missiles last night is not the promised retribution ...rather, Iran is keeping focused on the primary goal ...to get the usa out..." i don't see that it is going to work though...

It seems to me Iran works quite differently then US-Israel... they have provided a warning so that action last night looked fake and trumps response 'all is well' was fake as he knew they had been issued an advance warming... but the message is clear.. 'get the fuck out'..

i also share @ cynica's position in her earlier posts.. the shit here is real.. the world needs to find a way out of this mess and it won't come from western countries cowtowing to usa-israels warmonger agenda either...

i don't know what the doofus in command has said today.. it doesn't matter what he says... usa-israel will not back down.. they want war.. iran responded very diplomatically... i just don't believe usa-israel are interested in diplomacy, as opposed to war and prep for war.. as someone said last night - all that money to be made off prep for war, the MIC and etc. etc.. i wish this would end, but i can't see it..

[Jan 08, 2020] While symbolic and the USA were waned inadvance, Iran attacks means the end fo full spectrum dominance doctrine used bu the USA since 1991

Jan 08, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Taffyboy , Jan 7 2020 17:55 utc | 1

The blowback from Trump's assassination of Major General Qassem Soleimani and PMU leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis is increasing. A scandal is developing as one consequence of Trump's evil deed after Iraq's Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi revealed the gangster methods U.S. President Trump used in his attempts to steal Iraq's oil. ...and a very good essay by Michael Hudson as appeared on the Saker blog, a fine compliment to this work being done here by B.

http://thesaker.is/america-escalates-its-democratic-oil-war-in-the-near-east/

Likklemore , Jan 8 2020 13:47 utc | 31

As usual b, you excel.
Last evening the Iran Missile launch was an aperitif taunt. Just the first wave of the menu.

Iraqi Militia Leader Says Their Response to US Will Not be Lesser Than Iranian Retaliation - Reports

"The initial Iranian response to the assassination of the martyred commander Soleimani has happened. Now it is time for the initial response to the assassination of the martyred commander Muhandis. And because Iraqis are brave and zealous, their response will not be any less than that of Iran's. That is a promise", al-Khazali was quoted as saying.

I endorse this view from Shedlock:
Trump is caught bluffing again-Fortunately. Iran's measured response puts Trump in a no win Scenario

LINK

somebody , Jan 8 2020 13:54 utc | 36
Posted by: Dave | Jan 8 2020 13:24 utc | 23

It is difficult to do perception management in a globalized world. Neither the US nor Iran want full out war, but politically they have to convince their people that they "win", to justify the cost (and unite, though Trump seems to be incapable of this). Actually, Iran has an advantage here, because martyrdom or victory, psychologically they can win either way. They have demonstrated this by the huge - unifying - funerals. They also don't have this stupid Hollywood good guy bad guy thing or if you want to go into protestant religious psychology that god will make the good guys win in this world. It is a huge problem as the reverse perception is that if someone is successful he must be good.
Fact is that Iran has been the first country since WWII to challenge the US directly and not via proxy. They were rational to do it in a way that leaves the US an off ramp. By warning beforehand and not killing anybody (officially, I have my doubts about this Ukrainian plane), they also have the moral high ground.
They managed to make the US stop the escalation. It is quite impressive.

There will be a lot of diplomacy now.

Walter , Jan 8 2020 13:55 utc | 37
Interesting "tweet" Elijah J. Magnier Retweeted
Misión Verdad
‏ @Mision_Verdad
9m

La base de los Estados Unidos en Ayn al-Assad en Irak, bombardeada anoche por Irán, es la base donde despegaron los drones que asesinaron a Qassem Soleimani y Abu Mahdi al Muhandis. Así lo informó el corresponsal de guerra

MT> The US base at Ayn al-Assad in Iraq, bombed last night by Iran, is the base where the drones that killed Qassem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al Muhandis took off. This was reported by the war correspondent

Likklemore , Jan 8 2020 14:07 utc | 40
I caution Netiyahoo not to crow. His prison time is on the horizon.

China's Global Times has a piece noting Israel gave assistance.
And this editorial:
Has the US lost direction in Middle East?

"US national power is on the wane [;/]now considers China as its primary rival and wants to use its resources from Europe and the Middle East to contain China. If it is so, its presence in the Middle East will be surely diminished."[./]

After a US drone strike killed top Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani in Iraq, it was expected that Iran would retaliate. But the way it fought back - launching missiles against US bases in Iraq - was unexpected. Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps carried out the mission.

Since Iran did not target US soil, the move cannot be viewed as a declaration of war. Iran did aim at US troops, but the troops are stationed in Iraq. This showed Tehran is well aware how far it should go and has left some ground. Iran doesn't want a fierce clash or a war with the US. As Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif claimed on Wednesday morning after the attack, the country was taking measures in self-defense. "We do not seek escalation or war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression," he said. [.]

How should the US react, the White House must be deliberating, because what it does next may directly determine whether Washington and Tehran would reduce tensions or storm into a war. Currently, it is the lull before the storm.
US military killed Iran's most powerful military commander on Iraq's soil, which is an act of state terrorism although the US itself does not think so. [.]
https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1176167.shtml

The U.S. collapse is not one event. It is a slow, slow process and then the $250 trillion debt pile goes out with a bang.

moon , Jan 8 2020 14:08 utc | 41
"where Bannon found" correction: when Bannon founded his ...

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/01/07/how-iran-can-checkmate-trump/
Eric Zuesse to or via b.

take care ... LeaNder

/div> The reason the Qiam rocket, a derivation of the nazi A4, is built is that it is cheap and has the capability to be modified such that the "pay-load" comes in very fast and within 10 meters of zero-zero-zero. It's not an old rocket. But I assume the Persians used the oldest first. Inventory managements is vital to logistics and ammunition reliability. The cheap version is 500 meter accurate at range, but the range was not exteem, so probably < 500

Posted by: Walter , Jan 8 2020 14:31 utc | 45

The reason the Qiam rocket, a derivation of the nazi A4, is built is that it is cheap and has the capability to be modified such that the "pay-load" comes in very fast and within 10 meters of zero-zero-zero. It's not an old rocket. But I assume the Persians used the oldest first. Inventory managements is vital to logistics and ammunition reliability. The cheap version is 500 meter accurate at range, but the range was not exteem, so probably < 500

Posted by: Walter | Jan 8 2020 14:31 utc | 45

Annie , Jan 8 2020 14:35 utc | 46
B, great article. You and Elijah Marnier and a few others are my first go to's for information as to what is going on on the middle east.
One of my favorite reporters out of Syria said the US abandoned Deir Ezzor oil fields yesterday leaving the SDF there alone and totally open for Russian and Syrian forces to go in and to secure. If so this attack would have been well worth it. Obviously, I can't verify it but do trust the source.

Hezbollah is also well within reach of Israhell and can launch ballistic missiles upon it should the US attack Iran. People tend to forget that this was not just about Soleimani, but an entire resistance. His death has just made that resistance much stronger and unified.
The US will have to leave. And soon.

gadzooks , Jan 8 2020 15:29 utc | 69
walter@45,ghost_ship@47 believe Iran is using "old stocks".

I respectfully disagree. This is Iran's debut in showing off their technical prowess - they are trying to scare off the US from escalating the conflict.

IMHO they would make sure the US got the message that they pulled their punches and could have caused *much* more damage if they wanted to. Using older stock would make sense, but only after you establish your cred - otherwise, you are sending exactly the wrong message, the US could read the hit as "gosh, 500m is the best you can do?"

Cynica , Jan 8 2020 15:56 utc | 85
Following up on the end of #78, the point is that it seems very unlikely that the air defenses would be shut down even if the bases were evacuated. In that case, the success of the attack (however limited its objectives) shows Iran's ability to penetrate US air defenses and disable or destroy US air-supremacy infrastructure.

@PavewayIV #75

The US will ALWAYS try to spin this against Iran no matter what. Even if we hear the captain screaming that he can see the engine is tearing itself apart.

Indeed! If there's one thing the US does all the time, it's spin. But especially with last night's attack, they're starting to resemble the Talosians of Star Trek, whose seemingly incredible powers were all, well, illusory.

somebody , Jan 8 2020 16:34 utc | 108
Posted by: TheBAG | Jan 8 2020 16:20 utc | 98

Of course.

Ayatollah Khamenei: Iran's retaliation against US only 'a slap'

Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei says Iran's early Wednesday missile attack on US bases in Iraq following the American assassination of a top general was just "a slap".

"The talk of revenge and such debates are a different issue. For now, a slap was delivered on their face last night," Ayatollah Khamenei said in remarks broadcast live on national television Wednesday.

"What is important about confrontation is that the military action as such is not sufficient. What is important is that the seditious American presence in the region must end," he said to chants of "Death to America" by an audience in Tehran.

The threats on how to answer on new US attacks have been issued without a date of expiry.

It all depends now on Trump's reelection strategy: Will he run on bringing the troups home or will he run on another Middle East war.

omid , Jan 8 2020 17:33 utc | 138
„The Qiam missiles Iran launched are a derivative of the Soviet Scud type. They are liquid fueled with a warhead of about 700 kilogram. They have a range of some 800 kilometer. Iran has more capable and precise solid fueled missiles it could have used."

According to Fars news agency 2 of the missiles were of type Fateh313 (solid fueled – 500km range) the rest were a modified version of Ghiyam (multiple warheads - 800km range).

„No U.S. air or missile defense against the incoming projectiles was observed."

In spite of public and unofficial announcement by Iran about the attack even short time ahead, Yankee was not able to repel and defend their modern and costy military base. According to Fars news agency radar jamming technology were used in this attack.
The attack is over, Trump's reaction is published, but still no one is allowed to enter the military base.

Erlindur , Jan 8 2020 17:35 utc | 141
@ Fog of War | Jan 8 2020 17:12 utc | 127

You are missing the point. An airbase is a huge target with mostly empty space. The fact that the Iranians were able to target and hit specific buildings in it, is a truly nightmarish scenario. They actually told US that they have the capability to hit whatever they want. USA can send a drone and kill a general but US has generals too. It is easy to find where a general's house in Qatar base is for example and hit it with the same accuracy. How does that general sleeps at night from now on? How can you plan the typical US bombing campaign, when your enemy has the ability to strike back at you where it hurts?

Peter AU1 , Jan 8 2020 17:42 utc | 144
Magnier..
"#Iran informed #Iraq Prime Minister Adel Abdel Mahdi of its intention to bomb #US military bases in #Anbar and #Kurdistan before the attack.

Abdel Mahdi warned the Americans who took their precautions before the attack."

If this is true then there really is no hope for the Iraqi's. This is the clown that writes letters to the US saying US has been naughty and resigned when Trump puts some pressure on him, leaving Iraq gov parylized..

A P , Jan 8 2020 17:43 utc | 146
Iran was proving the reach and accuracy of their armaments, and the inadequacy of the US Patriot etc. anti-air-attack systems. Trumps Tomahawks fired at Syria either went wrong guidance-wise, were hacked or were shot down by Russian-made defenses. No comparison, Iran wins the "rockets that don't kill anyone" competition. Iran also has Russian-made air defense systems. Cheaper too... LOL!

I expect that the Iraqi gov't administration will quietly try to back-pedal from the Parliamentary vote to evict the US. Then the various militias will band together (maybe even Shia/Sunni alliances, the enemy of my enemy style) and keep US/ZATO troops mostly bottled up in their bases until the US actually withdraws. The Iraq administration will be forced to bend to the Parliament's and Iraqi peoples' will that the US/ZATO leaves. Pompeo and Trumpty Dumbdy won't be able to tap dance around this scenario, even in front of the US/ZATO public. Iran may not have to lift a finger in Iraq, but will find other ways to hurt the US AND ZATO that don't meet the threshold for US military retaliation.

The US/ZATO deserves to suffer millions of cuts, hopefully one cut for each person murdered by the US since 9/11.

MAGA Make America Go Away

omid , Jan 8 2020 18:01 utc | 154 Piotr Berman , Jan 8 2020 18:01 utc | 155
"Iran misjudged Trump's response/speech, Trump talked about peace and not escalation (he is lying of course), if Iran keep attacking US from now on, Iran will be framed as the threat and that Trump have the right to retaliate.

Aslong as no one was killed on the american side apparently Trump see no reason to use military means, meanwhile Iran is left with no kills which could make them more desperate."

Posted by: Zanon | Jan 8 2020 17:12 utc | 125

I typical post that misses the point. The goal is to remove all the NATO trash from Syria and Iraq. That has to be done by Iraqis, of which the bold ones are clobbered with air strikes and the timid are intimidated. It is utterly pointless how Americans perceive the situation, and even less germane what is the opinion of the vassals. The audience that matters is in Iraq.

So what USA did? Dissed Iraqis quite serially, including the murder at the main airport with no warning to the legal authorities of the place. Iran tries to be as un-American as possible, so duly notifies Iraqi PM about the strike, an hour in advance, and perhaps follows the suggestion to warn Americans directly. Giving the proper recognition of the rights of the allies takes precedence over expedience, even in the moment of extreme pain and grief. Mind you that Saudi, American or whoever has stooges in Iraq that villify it as a dominator taking advantage etc., and that was a major theme in recent riots. It seems that one block of rouble-risers is reconverted to anti-American solidarity, but those people have to be humored, not taken for granted.

Taking opinions of others seriously even if there is no perfect agreement, especially if the other party is not Israel, is the profound lack of Americans, and the rest of the West to to a lesser degree.

The other aspect is how Shia view religious leaders and how those leaders view themselves. There are rather high standards. This is not an operation under a local commander. Supreme Leader is personally engaged. Taking proper account of host country prerogatives is also good regard for Grand Ayatollah Sistani and other Iraqi marjah etc. Contrast with untrustworthy, arrogant and cowardly infidels has to be maintained.

Zanon , Jan 8 2020 18:10 utc | 162
Piotr Berman

US have not been asked to leave by the iraqis so how are they supposed to leave? Especially since they are not going to leave by themselves?

Esper: Iraqi government has not asked US troops to leave

Iraq's government has made no formal request that American forces leave its country, despite a nonbinding vote Sunday to expel U.S. and other troops after the Pentagon killed a top Iranian commander in Baghdad, Defense Secretary Mark Esper said Tuesday.

https://www.stripes.com/news/us/esper-iraqi-government-has-not-asked-us-troops-to-leave-1.613859

Same for Syria, you cant just tell americans to leave, you have to make them.


Margie , Jan 8 2020 18:13 utc | 165
Regarding warning the Swiss embassy of the attack. Also very strategic move. If there were loss of American life due to no warning, it would have been near impossible for Trump to not counter attack.

Furthermore, the US now thinks their enemy is weak or afraid. I feel kind of disappointed by you guys who also think that, honestly? Did you see the reaction of the millions who came to honor Souleimani? Do you really think the Iranian/Iraqi military and population are wimps?
c'mon! take heart guys!

[Jan 08, 2020] As Michael Flynn relates in his interview with Mehdi Hassan, once kicked out, the Obama Administration took steps that they knew would lead to the creation of ISIS in the region, and fired him as the head of the DIA after he had written them a memo warning them about this.

Jan 08, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

masoud , Jan 7 2020 0:50 utc | 143

@Dan

Iran was definitely involved in organizing, supplying, and even to some extent arming(with small arms) various Iraqi militias. But the best way we know that it wasn't directly involved in attacking US patrols, was that so few soldiers died. Iran has no need to improvise explosive devices, it manufactures landmines on a mass scale which are much more reliable and orders of magnitude more deadly, and operationally easier to use.

Most of the resistance to the US occupation in the Shia regions of Iraq were in the form of non violent demonstrations spearheaded by Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani(who btw is also Iranian).

The nonviolent demonstrators were routinely massacred for their trouble, by both the takfiri resistance and the occupation troops, but eventually succeeded in their demands for a democratic vote wherein they elected a government that demanded the US leave.

And as Michael Flynn relates in his interview with Mehdi Hassan, once kicked out, the Obama Administration took steps that they knew would lead to the creation of ISIS in the region, and fired him as the head of the DIA after he had written them a memo warning them about this.

Michael Flynn, who btw is rabidly anti Iranian, then became the first victim of the Russiagaters when Trump was elected into office.

[Jan 08, 2020] Iran has vowed "harsh retaliation": that would be stupid

Resumption of uranium enrichment is already an adequate retaliation.
Jan 08, 2020 | www.truthdig.com

A war with Iran would see it use its Chinese-supplied anti-ship missiles, mines and coastal artillery to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, which is the corridor for 20% of the world's oil supply. Oil prices would double, perhaps triple, devastating the global economy. The retaliatory strikes by Iran on Israel, as well as on American military installations in Iraq, would leave hundreds, maybe thousands, of dead. The Shiites in the region, from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan, would see an attack on Iran as a religious war against Shiism.

The 2 million Shiites in Saudi Arabia, concentrated in the oil-rich Eastern province, the Shiite majority in Iraq and the Shiite communities in Bahrain, Pakistan and Turkey would turn in fury on us and our dwindling allies.

There would be an increase in terrorist attacks, including on American soil, and widespread sabotage of oil production in the Persian Gulf. Hezbollah in southern Lebanon would renew attacks on northern Israel. War with Iran would trigger a long and widening regional conflict that, by the time it was done, would terminate the American Empire and leave in its wake mounds of corpses and smoldering ruins. Let us hope for a miracle to pull us back from this Dr. Strangelove self-immolation.

Iran, which has vowed "harsh retaliation," is already reeling under the crippling economic sanctions imposed by the Trump administration when it unilaterally withdrew in 2018 from the Iranian nuclear arms deal. Tensions in Iraq between the U.S. and the Shiite majority, at the same time, have been escalating. On Dec. 27 Katyusha rockets were fired at a military base in Kirkuk where U.S. forces are stationed. An American civilian contractor was killed and several U.S. military personnel were wounded.

The U.S. responded on Dec. 29 by bombing sites belonging to the Iranian-backed Kataib Hezbollah militia. Two days later Iranian-backed militias attacked the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, vandalizing and destroying parts of the building and causing its closure. But this attack will soon look like child's play.

Iraq after our 2003 invasion and occupation has been destroyed as a unified country. Its once-modern infrastructure is in ruins. Electrical and water services are, at best, erratic. There is high unemployment and discontent over widespread government corruption that has led to bloody street protests. Warring militias and ethnic factions have carved out competing and antagonistic enclaves. At the same time, the war in Afghanistan is lost, as the Afghanistan Papers published by The Washington Post detail. Libya is a failed state. Yemen after five years of unrelenting Saudi airstrikes and a blockade is enduring one of the world's worst humanitarian disasters. The "moderate" rebels we funded and armed in Syria at a cost of $500 million, after instigating a lawless reign of terror, have been beaten and driven out of the country. The monetary cost for this military folly, the greatest strategic blunder in American history, is between $5 trillion and $7 trillion.

So why go to war with Iran? Why walk away from a nuclear agreement that Iran did not violate? Why demonize a government that is the mortal enemy of the Taliban, along with other jihadist groups, including al-Qaida and Islamic State? Why shatter the de facto alliance we have with Iran in Iraq and Afghanistan? Why further destabilize a region already dangerously volatile?

The generals and politicians who launched and prosecuted these wars are not about to take the blame for the quagmires they created. They need a scapegoat. It is Iran. The hundreds of thousands of dead and maimed, including at least 200,000 civilians, and the millions driven from their homes into displacement and refugee camps cannot, they insist, be the result of our failed and misguided policies. The proliferation of radical jihadist groups and militias, many of which we initially trained and armed, along with the continued worldwide terrorist attacks, have to be someone else's fault. The generals, the CIA, the private contractors and weapons manufacturers who have grown rich off these conflicts, the politicians such as George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump, along with all the "experts" and celebrity pundits who serve as cheerleaders for endless war, have convinced themselves, and want to convince us, that Iran is responsible for our catastrophe.

The chaos and instability we unleashed in the Middle East, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan, left Iran as the dominant country in the region. Washington empowered its nemesis. It has no idea how to reverse its mistake other than to attack Iran.

[Jan 08, 2020] The victims of Iranian retaliation will be America's Arab proxies, be they nations such as Saudi Arabia and its allies, or military factions

Jan 08, 2020 | www.theguardian.com


[Jan 08, 2020] Iraq army says no Iraqi casualties as 22 missiles strike bases News Al Jazeera

Jan 08, 2020 | www.aljazeera.com

Iraq army says no Iraqi casualties as 22 missiles strike bases

Military says 17 missiles hit Ain al-Asad airbase while five others fell in Erbil.

2 hours ago
Iraqi security forces are seen at Ain al-Asad airbase in Anbar province [File: Thaier Al-Sudani/Reuters]
Iraqi security forces are seen at Ain al-Asad airbase in Anbar province [File: Thaier Al-Sudani/Reuters]
more on Soleimani assassination

A total of 22 missiles have hit two bases housing US troops in Iraq but there were no Iraqi casualties, according to Iraq's military.

The online statement came hours after Iranian state television said Iran had launched missiles at US targets in the early hours of Wednesday in retaliation for the United States 's killing last week of top military commander Qassem Soleimani .

More:

"Between 1:45am and 2:15am [22:45 GMT and 23:15 GM] Iraq was hit by 22 missiles, 17 on the Ain al-Asad airbase and ... five on the city of Erbil," the Iraqi military said.

"There were no victims among the Iraqi forces," it added, without mentioning whether or not there were casualties among foreign troops.

Following the strikes, US President Donald Trump said on Twitter that an "assessment of casualties & damages taking place now".

"So far, so good!" he wrote.

https://players.brightcove.net/665003303001/BkeSH5BDb_default/index.html?videoId=6120534310001&usrPersonaAds=0

Iran launches missile attacks on US forces in Iraq (16:15)

More than 5,000 US troops remain in Iraq along with other foreign forces as part of a coalition that has trained and backed up Iraqi security forces in the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS) armed group.

READ MORE Where did Iran attack US forces in Iraq?

Some 115 German soldiers are stationed in Erbil and all were fine, a spokesman for Bundeswehr operations said.

Denmark, which has about 130 soldiers in Iraq, said no Danish soldiers were wounded or killed in the attack on Ain al-Asad, the largest airbase where US-led coalition troops are based.

It was the first time Iran directly hit a US installation with ballistic missiles.

Soleimani, who headed Iran's Quds Force, the overseas arm of the elite Revolutionary Guards Corps, was buried after the missile attacks, Iranian state television said.

"His revenge was taken and now he can rest in peace," it said.

The missiles were launched at the same time of the day that Soleimani was killed on Friday near the international airport in Iraq's capital, Baghdad. He was buried in the "martyrs section" of a cemetery in his hometown of Kerman.

[Jan 08, 2020] At least two airbases housing US troops in Iraq have been hit by more than a dozen ballistic missiles, according to the US Department of Defence

Brave but useless, and probably damaging action from Iran. Mullahs became way too exited about this insident.
Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi labeled the missile strike that killed Soleimani as a "brazen violation of Iraq's sovereignty and a blatant attack on the nation's dignity".
Jan 08, 2020 | www.bbc.com

At least two airbases housing US troops in Iraq have been hit by more than a dozen ballistic missiles, according to the US Department of Defence.

Iranian state TV says the attack is a retaliation after the country's top commander Qasem Soleimani was killed in a drone strike in Baghdad, on the orders of US President Donald Trump.

The Pentagon says at least two sites were attacked, in Irbil and Al Asad.

It is unclear if there have been any casualties.

"We are aware of the reports of attacks on US facilities in Iraq. The president has been briefed and is monitoring the situation closely and consulting with his national security team," White House spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham said in a statement.

Iran's Revolutionary Guard said the attack was in retaliation for the death of Soleimani on Friday.

"We are warning all American allies, who gave their bases to its terrorist army, that any territory that is the starting point of aggressive acts against Iran will be targeted," it said via a statement carried by Iran's state-run IRNA news agency.

Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif later issued a statement on Twitter, claiming the attack was self-defence and denied seeking to escalate the situation into war.

Twitter post by @JZarif: Iran took & concluded proportionate measures in self-defense under Article 51 of UN Charter targeting base from which cowardly armed attack against our citizens & senior officials were launched.We do not seek escalation or war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression. Image Copyright @JZarif @JZarif Report
<figure> <span> <img alt="Twitter post by @JZarif: Iran took &amp; concluded proportionate measures in self-defense under Article 51 of UN Charter targeting base from which cowardly armed attack against our citizens &amp; senior officials were launched.We do not seek escalation or war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression." src="https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/socialembed/https://twitter.com/JZarif/status/1214736614217469953~/news/world-middle-east-51028954" width="465" height="323"> <span>Image Copyright @JZarif</span> <span aria-hidden="true">@JZarif</span> </span> <div><a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/contact-us/editorial" aria-label="Report Twitter post by @JZarif">Report</a></div> </figure>

President Trump tweeted shortly afterwards, insisting "all is well", while adding that they had not yet assessed possible casualties.

Twitter post by @realDonaldTrump: All is well! Missiles launched from Iran at two military bases located in Iraq. Assessment of casualties & damages taking place now. So far, so good! We have the most powerful and well equipped military anywhere in the world, by far! I will be making a statement tomorrow morning. Image Copyright @realDonaldTrump @realDonaldTrump Report
<figure> <span> <img alt="Twitter post by @realDonaldTrump: All is well! Missiles launched from Iran at two military bases located in Iraq. Assessment of casualties &amp; damages taking place now. So far, so good! We have the most powerful and well equipped military anywhere in the world, by far! I will be making a statement tomorrow morning." src="https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/socialembed/https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1214739853025394693~/news/world-middle-east-51028954" width="465" height="279"> <span>Image Copyright @realDonaldTrump</span> <span aria-hidden="true">@realDonaldTrump</span> </span> <div><a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/contact-us/editorial" aria-label="Report Twitter post by @realDonaldTrump">Report</a></div> </figure>
Presentational white space

The attacks took place hours after the burial of Soleimani. The second attack occurred in Irbil shortly after the first rockets hit Al Asad, Al Mayadeen TV said.

Map showing US military bases in Iraq
Presentational white space

Earlier in the day, President Trump said a US withdrawal of troops from Iraq would be the worst thing for the country.

His comments came in the wake of a letter, which the US military said had been sent in error , to Iraq's prime minister, apparently agreeing to a request by Iraqi MPs to pull troops out.

The US has around 5,000 troops in Iraq.

The UK foreign office told the BBC: "We are urgently working to establish the facts on the ground. Our first priority is the security of British personnel."

The UK has put the Royal Navy and military helicopters on standby amid rising tensions in the Middle East, Defence Secretary Ben Wallace said earlier.

How did we get here?

The assassination of Soleimani on January 3 was a major escalation in already deteriorating relations between Iran and the US.

The general - who controlled Iran's proxy forces across the Middle East - was regarded as a terrorist by the US government, which says he was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American troops and was plotting "imminent" attacks.

Iran vowed "severe revenge" for his death.

[Jan 08, 2020] Iran's assault on US bases in Iraq might satisfy both sides

Jan 08, 2020 | www.theguardian.com

The "severe revenge" Iran promised for the death of Qassem Suleimani was heralded on Wednesday morning by at least two waves of short-range missile attacks on bases in Iraq hosting US and coalition personnel.

The attacks will provide an opportunity for hawks inside the Donald Trump administration to ratchet up the conflict with Iran – but also potentially a pathway out of the crisis.

The Iranian strikes were heavy on symbolism. The missiles were launched around 1.30am in Iraq , roughly the same time as the drone strike that killed Suleimani on Friday morning. Top Iranian advisers and semi-official media outlets tweeted pictures of the country's flag during the attack, mirroring Donald Trump's tweet as the first reports of Suleimani's death were emerging. The Revolutionary Guards dubbed the operation "Martyr Suleimani". Videos of the missiles being launched were released to Iranian media outlets.

ss="rich-link"> Iran attacks two US airbases in Iraq in wake of Suleimani killing Read more

But in their immediate aftermath, the attacks appear to have been carefully calibrated to avoid US casualties – fired at bases that were already on high alert.

Iran's foreign minister has said the strikes have concluded and characterised them as self-defence within the boundaries of international law – not the first shots in a war.

Trump, in his first comments after the strikes, also sought to play them down.
Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)

All is well! Missiles launched from Iran at two military bases located in Iraq. Assessment of casualties & damages taking place now. So far, so good! We have the most powerful and well equipped military anywhere in the world, by far! I will be making a statement tomorrow morning.

January 8, 2020

If Trump's assessment of the damage holds, Wednesday's strikes might be an opportunity for both sides to de-escalate without losing face. Iran will be able to say it took violent revenge for Suleimani's death and pivot to a campaign of proxy warfare – with which it feels more comfortable, against a vastly more powerful adversary – and diplomatic pressure to eject American forces from Iraq.

The US can also step back, shrugging off the retaliation as being of no significant consequence. That is the best-case scenario, but it rests on two risky premises: that more than a dozen missiles struck bases hosting US military personnel without substantial damage or casualties; and that the White House will resist any urge to respond.

[Jan 08, 2020] Pretty sure Trump and Bibi are not unhappy about this since that's probably what they hoped for.

Trump is implementing the last leg of PNAC. https://www.wanttoknow.info/020907pnacprojectnewamericancentury Iraq, Libya, Afghan, Syria, Iran, China have all been targeted.
Jan 08, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
Pft , Jan 8 2020 1:07 utc | 151
Not sure whats true at this point. If Iran is indeed behind the missile attacks they will pay the price. Hoped they could restrain themselves and make it harder on the US to escalate. But then again, maybe they felt it was inevitable or militant factions from within demanded a response. Anyways, lesson being if you commit an act of war don't be surprised there is retaliation. Pretty sure Trump and Bibi are not unhappy about this since that's probably what they hoped for.

Grieved , Jan 8 2020 1:07 utc | 152

This is a brilliant response by Iran and Iraq.

If we're all alive by morning - and we may not be - subsequent analysis and events will show just how the US has been called out.

We've long said that the US had a big SLAP coming to it. This is it. Because the world has changed. No more bullying.

Walter , Jan 8 2020 1:08 utc | 153
ben | Jan 8 2020 1:02 utc | 143

They're Persians. They are the people that invented war. But you're right, the suits are delusional. Reality can be a real bitxh when one awakens from a delusion. That's a dangerous moment, when the suspension of disbelief goes "poof!"

Grieved , Jan 8 2020 1:34 utc | 177
"State media: Iranian Air Defense downs US Jet near Bandar Abbas on the Persian Gulf."
https://twitter.com/Brasco_Aad/status/1214721053341233158
Piotr Berman , Jan 8 2020 1:34 utc | 178
Arab armies aren't very good at conducting warfare.

Iranians aren't Arabs, they are a branch of Indo-European/Aryan, who historically have been very good at conducting warfare.
----------
This ignores history. For example, in recent decades Italians were much less militarily minded than their Roman ancestors. Similarly, Danes today are not similar to folks who conquered half of England 1100 years ago and the whole of England decades later, only to loose it to Frenchified Danes afterwards.

To provide examples from the Syrian war, 100% Arab Lebanese Hezbollah were reputed to be most effective, and getting less casualties that other units. By the way of contrast, units of Afghan volunteers assembled by Iran were so-so. And ISIS was most effective if you count their numbers, although with a lot of casualties. Syrian themselves had good elite units and many more mediocre units.

Ric G , Jan 8 2020 1:37 utc | 180
It is the monetary system which is the second battlefield as this carnage begins to unfold!

Perhaps the Comex gold warehousing swindle is about to blow up and hundreds of trillions of dollars in oil derivatives will destroy the banksters.

The Persian sword should also be aimed at the banking system!

Circe , Jan 8 2020 1:38 utc | 182
@163 Vasco da Gama

could you please look deep into your Crystal Ball and tell us all here what do you see?

I see bone-spurs Trump shitting his pants, and Netanyahoo and Lindsay peeing with glee.

***************************

@159 Perimetr

USS Abraham Lincoln is in the Arabian Sea and was kept out of Persian Gulf Strait of Hormuz not to be caught as sitting duck.

Unfortunately, here is what the U.S. military has prepared in the area to satisfy Trump's infantile obsession.

How U.S. prepared for the Worst

karlof1 , Jan 8 2020 1:39 utc | 183
Brent's already up 3.5% having broke $70.

USA just lost its first jet :

"State media: Iranian Air Defense downs US Jet near Bandar Abbas on the Persian Gulf."

The info is coming so fast it's crazy to try and keep pace, although it appears there's a break at present.

Piotr Berman , Jan 8 2020 1:44 utc | 185
a tweet (so not reliable)
#BREAKING: First video showing a Fateh-110 precision guided ballistic missile of #IRGC hitting the Ain al-Asad Air Base in #Iraq during Operation #Soleimani of #IRGCASF.#IRGC sources claim they have destroyed several #USArmy helicopters & drones & have killed 80 #US troops there!
Sasha , Jan 8 2020 2:00 utc | 203
Operation Inherent Resolve...

Via Mark Sleboda Twitter...

Hezbollah has said that if America attacks #Iran, it will attack Israel.

Houthis in Yemen have said if America attacks, it will attack US bases.

Some PMU units have said they will also attack US forces if the US attacks #Iran.

https://twitter.com/SinaToossi/status/1214717549419671552

Arioch , Jan 8 2020 2:00 utc | 205
I like BBC headlines

Is expecting Iran to de-escalate realistic?
Iran has a number of possible retaliation options following the US killing of an Iranian commander.

1h ago


Oh, well, whad'ya think.... In just an hour after this BBC masterpiece shit hit the fan.

--------------

NBC Ali Arouzi claims Iran demands USA not to retaliate, quoting Haifa and Dubai for "3rd wave".
Delicious if true. "Sand niggas" returning the "sole hyperpower" the favour. Didn't Pompeo or someone demanded "not to retaliate" just a day or two ago.
But i am not sure we can trust NBC or any other western propaganda office about what Iran did and dis not say.

Intel would not like loosing Haifa, they already loosing market to AMD last year....

---------

Trump got himself his Pearl Harbor 2.0 and "wartime president" status. Maybe will make him re-elected.

But also IRGC "pulled the hook". Due to American hubris they now just can not evacuate USArmy Iraqi garrisons to, say, Kuwait. And would have to infringe upon Iraq sovereignty and to be sitting ducks there. Wagging the dog.

--------

I still wonder about nukes.
I hope Russia and China would prohibit long-range and medium-range vehicles, citing M.A.D. concerns and protocols, so USA would be limited to short-range nuclear-wielding weapons. Which they shouls have much less.

I also hope Trump would get his re-election and stop short of using tactical nukes, but see no rational reasons for such a restrain for today USA.

--------

There was no news yet, however, about US Navy fleeing away from Iran ASMs range. So hopefully Pentagon does not see real threat of real war, not yet. And maybe it will still be contained as one more run of the mill American warlette. Hopefully...

Daniel , Jan 8 2020 2:24 utc | 228
Launching a ballistic missile attack against a US base in al-Anbar is smart from a 'limited escalation' perspective. It prevents the fight from expanding across the region unless the United States loses its mind completely and unleashes a full out attack on Iran. Additionally, targeting American occupation troops in Iraq plays well with ordinary Iraqis sick of American aggression on their soil and such a strike, as opposed to a targeted assassination or an attack outside of Iraq, gives Iran's enemies very little propaganda material to work with. It serves the ball back into the US court and makes Washington 100% responsible if it escalates this conflict into a regional war. Also, not waiting for weeks or months before retaliating makes it much more difficult for Israel or a US proxy to launch a false flag and try to blame it on Iran. Well played.
librul , Jan 8 2020 2:25 utc | 229
website is reporting (not with total confidence) that Iran says that as soon as the US strikes Iran
Iran will strike Israel

http://thesaker.is/according-to-the-site-colonel-cassad-the-irgc-has-declared-that-as-soon-as-the-us-strikes-iran-iran-will-strike-israel/

Clueless Joe , Jan 8 2020 2:32 utc | 232
Well, if it was a limited strike that was designed to look big and make some serious material damage, and not to kill a lot of US troops, then it's quite possible that Trump - assuming he doesn't go the heavy retaliation way - can soon, and definitely before elections, be able to order US to leave Iraq not because they don't want the US there but actually in a magnanimous act, "to make sure that poor country won't be bombed again by evil Iranians" - arguably with a mutual understanding with Iran that both will stick to a limited direct influence over Iraq. But that would be the best-case scenario, where Iran boots the US, the US still got hit, but no more deaths, cycle of reprisals ends, and Iraq is basically free at last.
I'll see how bad it actually is when I wake up...
uncle tungsten , Jan 8 2020 2:35 utc | 236
karlof1 #218

I am sure the morning awaits us and our chants and meditations. But the morning also brings a new sun upon the Saudis and if this process is planned as an extensive revenge (and I believe it is) then the Saudis can awake expecting it to rain stones for some time.

If this struggle to evict the USA is serious then Iran and its Persian army will emasculate the key arab pawn over the coming weeks and the Houthis will be given reprieve to bring them to victory in Yemen. My guess is that this way will give stability and a framework for peace in the region sufficient to counter the belligerence of the occupier of Palestine lands.

The region is subject to endless provocations and the 'gift of Golan' to Israel is just one the more recent grievous affronts that are unlikely to end unless there is a profound military rebuff to the lunacy of western private finance capital scheming.

The illegal occupation of Syrian oilfields could collapse immediately as well if it has not already commenced.

Each new day will tell but I will always wish for peace. Thank you your insights and may you and your wife greet the sun in peace each day.

Grieved , Jan 8 2020 2:41 utc | 241
But Zarif says this is all for now (my emphasis):
Iran took & concluded proportionate measures in self-defense under Article 51 of UN Charter targeting base from which cowardly armed attack against our citizens & senior officials were launched.

We do not seek escalation or war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression.
https://twitter.com/JZarif/status/1214736614217469953

~~

And so, karlof1 , we shall if the red flag comes down. Perhaps this was enough of a slap? But they must leave, that remains as an imperative that will smolder unceasingly now.

WJ , Jan 8 2020 3:39 utc | 270
James @265,

If Russia has disallowed the use of nukes, then there's not much the US military can do, no matter how bloodthirsty the Zionists are. As soon as the US hits Iran, Tel Aviv goes up in smoke. That's all there is to it. It's been this way for months and months now. The Israeli and US casualties required for a direct attack on Iran are just too high for Zionists to stomach. The use of nukes was the only viable play from the beginning (and I realize this is not really "viable" to any sane person, but Pompeo and Netanyahu are not sane.) If nukes are out, then the US cannot establish dominance over the skies quickly enough to prevent thousands upon thousands of Israeli and US casualties. It seems to me that everybody must know this is true, deep down.

[Jan 08, 2020] Do you really want to be a one term president? Pompeo can talk big now and then go back to Kansas to run for senator. Where will you be able to take refuge?

Highly recommended!
Iran has incentives to increase the chance of a Democrat administration, bearing in mind the great deal they got from the last one and the lack of anything they can expect from Trump Term Two.
Notable quotes:
"... Reflection, self criticism or self restraint are not exactly the big strengths of Trump. He prefers solo acts (Emergency! Emergency!) and dislikes advice (especially if longer than 4 pages) and the advice of the sort " You're sure? If you do that the the shit will fly in your face in an hour, Sir ". ..."
"... Trump can order attacks and I don't expect much protest from Mark Esper and it depends on the military (which likely will obey). ..."
"... These so called grownups have been replaced by (then still) happy Bolton (likely, even after being fired, still war happy) and applauders like Pompeo and his buddy Esper. ..."
"... As a thank you to Trump calling the Israel occupied Golan a part of Israel Netanyahu called an (iirc also illegal) new Golan settlement "Ramat Trump" ..."
"... I disagree. Trump maybe the only person who could sell a war with Iran. What he has cultivated is a rabid base that consists of sycophants on one extreme end and desperate nationalists on the other. His base must stick with him...who else do they have? ..."
"... The Left is indifferent to another war. Further depleting the quality stock of our military will aid there agenda of international integration. A weaker US military will force us to collaborate with the world community and not lead it is their thinking. ..."
"... Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. ..."
"... Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country. ..."
"... We have been so thoroughly indoctrinated with the idea that Iran and Russia are intrinsically and immutable evil and hostile that the thought of actual two sided diplomacy does not occur. IMO neither of these countries are what we collectively think them. So, we could actually give it a try rather than trying to beggar them and destroy their economies. If all fails than we have to be prepared to defend our forces. DOL ..."
Sep 18, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.com
  • You have just several thousand soldiers in Iraq and Syria. These countries have large proxy forces of Iran's allies in the form of Shia militias in Iraq and actual Iranian Quds Force troops in Syria. These forces will be used to attack and kill our soldiers.
  • The Iranians have significant numbers of ballistic missiles which they have already said will be used against our forces
  • The US Navy has many ships in the Gulf and the Arabian Sea. The Iranian Navy and the IRGC Navy will attack our naval vessels until the Iranian forces are utterly destroyed. In that process the US Navy will loose men and ships.
  • In direct air attacks on Iran we are bound to lose aircraft and air crew.
  • The IRGC and its Quds Force will carry out terrorist attacks across the world.

Do you really want to be a one term president? Pompeo can talk big now and then go back to Kansas to run for senator. Where will you be able to take refuge? Don't let the neocons like Pompeo sell you on war.

Make the intelligence people show you the evidence in detail. Make your own judgments. pl

Vegetius , 17 September 2019 at 08:37 PM

Whatever else he knows, Trump knows that he can't sell a war to the American people.
confusedponderer -> Vegetius... , 18 September 2019 at 03:51 AM
Vegetius,

re " Trump knows that he can't sell a war to the American people "

Are you sure? I am not.

Reflection, self criticism or self restraint are not exactly the big strengths of Trump. He prefers solo acts (Emergency! Emergency!) and dislikes advice (especially if longer than 4 pages) and the advice of the sort " You're sure? If you do that the the shit will fly in your face in an hour, Sir ".

A good number of the so called grownups who gave such advice were (gameshow style) fired, sometimes by twitter.

Trump can order attacks and I don't expect much protest from Mark Esper and it depends on the military (which likely will obey).

These so called grownups have been replaced by (then still) happy Bolton (likely, even after being fired, still war happy) and applauders like Pompeo and his buddy Esper.

Israel could, if politically just a tad more insane, bomb Iran and thus invite the inevitable retaliation. When that happens they'll cry for US aid, weapons and money because they alone ~~~

(a) cannot defeat Iran (short of going nuclear) and ...
(b) Holocaust! We want weapons and money from Germany, too! ...
(c) they know that ...
(d) which does not lead in any way to Netanyahu showing signgs of self restraint or reason.

Netanyahu just - it is (tight) election time - announced, in his sldedge hammer style subtlety, that (he) Israel will annect the palestinian west jordan territory, making the Plaestines an object in his election campaign.

IMO that idea is simply insane and invites more "troubles". But then, I didn't hear anything like, say, Trump gvt protests against that (and why expect that from the dudes who moved the US embassy to Jerusalem).

confusedponderer -> Vegetius... , 18 September 2019 at 07:28 AM
Vegetius,

as for Trump and Netanyahu ... policy debate ... I had that here in mind, which pretty speaks for itself. And I thought Trumo is just running for office in the US. Alas, it is a Netanyaho campaign poster from the current election:

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/a6e60efd3bde0befbcb8b0a95a42bf4c2624e017/57_296_5123_3074/master/5123.jpg?width=1920&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=1958b9e7cf24d7a3a7b024845de08f7e

As a thank you to Trump calling the Israel occupied Golan a part of Israel Netanyahu called an (iirc also illegal) new Golan settlement "Ramat Trump"

https://cdn.mdr.de/nachrichten/mdraktuell-golan-hoehen-trump-hights-100-resimage_v-variantSmall24x9_w-704.jpg?version=0964

I generously assume that things like that only happen because of the hard and hard ly work of Kushner on his somewhat elusive but of course GIGANTIC and INCREDIBLE Middle East peace plan.

Kushner is probably getting hard and hard ly supported by Ivanka who just said that she inherited her moral compass from her father. Well ... congatulations ... I assume.

Stueeeeeeee said in reply to Vegetius... , 18 September 2019 at 08:31 AM
I disagree. Trump maybe the only person who could sell a war with Iran. What he has cultivated is a rabid base that consists of sycophants on one extreme end and desperate nationalists on the other. His base must stick with him...who else do they have?

The Left is indifferent to another war. Further depleting the quality stock of our military will aid there agenda of international integration. A weaker US military will force us to collaborate with the world community and not lead it is their thinking.

The rest of the nation will follow.

prawnik said in reply to Vegetius... , 18 September 2019 at 10:36 AM
Need I trot out Goering's statement regarding selling a war once more?

Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.

Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.

Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

turcopolier , 17 September 2019 at 09:31 PM
jonst

We have been so thoroughly indoctrinated with the idea that Iran and Russia are intrinsically and immutable evil and hostile that the thought of actual two sided diplomacy does not occur. IMO neither of these countries are what we collectively think them. So, we could actually give it a try rather than trying to beggar them and destroy their economies. If all fails than we have to be prepared to defend our forces. DOL

Matt said in reply to turcopolier ... , 18 September 2019 at 12:54 AM
I agree with your reply 100%
  • Iranophobia goes back to 1979,
  • Russophobia goes back to at least 1917 if not further, especially in the UK,
  • Sinophobia for the US reaches back to the mid to late 1800's

these phobias are so entrenched now they're a huge obstacle to overcome,

Mark Twain: "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."

William Casey: "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false"

Christian Chuba , 18 September 2019 at 05:22 AM
The 'ivestigations are a formality. The Saudis (with U.S. backing) are already saying that the missiles were Iranian made and according to them, this proves that Iran fired them. The Saudis are using the more judicious phrase 'behind the attack' but Pompeo is running with the fired from Iran narrative.

How can we tell the difference between an actual Iranian manufactured missile vs one that was manufactured in Yemen based on Iranian designs? We only have a few pictures Iranian missiles unlike us, the Iranians don't toss them all over the place so we don't have any physical pieces to compare them to.

Perhaps honest investigators could make a determination but even if they do exist they will keep quiet while the bible thumping Pompeo brays and shamelessly lies as he is prone to do.

PRC90 said in reply to Christian Chuba... , 18 September 2019 at 10:36 AM
These kinds of munition will leave hundreds of bits scattered all over their targets. I'm waiting for the press conference with the best bits laid out on the tables.
I doubt that there will be any stencils saying 'Product of Iran', unless the paint smells fresh.
Nuff Sed , 18 September 2019 at 07:22 AM
1. I am still waiting to read some informed discussion concerning the *accuracy* of the projectiles hitting their targets with uncanny precision from hundreds of miles away. What does this say about the achievement of those pesky Eye-rainians? https://www.moonofalabama.org/images9/saudihit2.jpg

2. "The US Navy has many ships in the Gulf and the Arabian Sea. The Iranian Navy and the IRGC Navy will attack our naval vessels until the Iranian forces are utterly destroyed.: Ahem, Which forces are utterly destroyed? With respect colonel, you are not thinking straight. An army with supersonic land to sea missiles that are highly accurate will make minced meat of any fool's ship that dare attack it. The lesson of the last few months is that Iran is deadly serious about its position that if they cannot sell their oil, no one else will be able to either. And if the likes of the relatively broadminded colonel have not yet learned that lesson, then this can only mean that the escalation ladder will continue to be climbed, rung by rung. Next rung: deep sea port of Yanbu, or, less likely, Ra's Tanura. That's when the price of oil will really go through the roof and the Chinese (and possibly one or two of the Europoodles) will start crying Uncle Scam. Nuff Sed.

turcopolier , 18 September 2019 at 08:07 AM
nuff Sed

It sounds like you are getting a little "help" with this. You statement about the result of a naval confrontation in the Gulf reflects the 19th Century conception that "ships can't fight forts." that has been many times exploded. You have never seen the amount of firepower that would be unleashed on Iran from the air and sea. Would the US take casualties? Yes, but you will be destroyed.

Nuff Sed -> turcopolier ... , 18 September 2019 at 08:18 AM
We will have to agree to disagree. But unless I am quite mistaken, the majority view if not the consensus of informed up to date opinion holds that the surest sign that the US is getting ready to attack Iran is that it is withdrawing all of its naval power out of the Persian Gulf, where they would be sitting ducks.

Besides, I don't think it will ever come to that. Not to repeat myself, but taking out either deep sea ports of Ra's Tanura and/ or Yanbu (on the Red Sea side) will render Saudi oil exports null and void for the next six months. The havoc that will play with the price of oil and consequently on oil futures and derivatives will be enough for any president and army to have to worry about. But if the US would still be foolhardy enough to continue to want to wage war (i.e. continue its strangulation of Iran, which it has been doing more or less for the past 40 years), then the Yemeni siege would be broken and there would be a two-pronged attack from the south and the north, whereby al-Qatif, the Shi'a region of Saudi Arabia where all the oil and gas is located, will be liberated from their barbaric treatment at the hands of the takfiri Saudi scum, which of course is completely enabled and only made possible by the War Criminal Uncle Sam.

Go ahead, make my day: roll the dice.

scott s. said in reply to Nuff Sed ... , 18 September 2019 at 11:32 AM
AFAIK the only "US naval power" currently is the Abraham Lincoln CSG and I haven't seen any public info that it was in the Persian Gulf. Aside from the actual straits, I'm not sure of your "sitting ducks" assertion. First they wouldn't be sitting, and second you have the problem of a large volume of grey shipping that would complicate the targeting problem. Of course with a reduced time-of-flight, that also reduces target position uncertainty.
CK said in reply to turcopolier ... , 18 September 2019 at 09:55 AM
Forts are stationary.
Nothing I have read implies that Iran has a lot of investment in stationary forts.
Millennium Challenge 2002, only the game cannot be restarted once the enemy does not behave as one hopes. Unlike in scripted war simulations, Opfor can win.
I remember the amount of devastation that was unleashed on another "backwards nation" Linebackers 1 - 20, battleship salvos chemical defoliants, the Phoenix program, napalm for dessert.
And not to put to fine a point on it, but that benighted nation was oriental; Iran is a Caucasian nation full of Caucasian type peoples.
Nothing about this situation is of any benefit to the USA.
We do not need Saudi oil, we do not need Israel to come to the defense of the USA here in North America, we do not need to stick our dick into the hornet's nest and then wonder why they sting and it hurts. How many times does Dumb have to win?
Nuff Sed , 18 September 2019 at 08:07 AM
3. Also, I can't imagine this event as being a very welcome one for Israeli military observers, the significance of which is not lost on them, unlike their US counterparts. If Yemen/ Iran can put the Abqaiq processing plant out of commission for a few weeks, then obviusly Hezbollah can do the same for the giant petrochemical complex at Haifa, as well as Dimona, and the control tower at Ben Gurion Airport.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/239251

https://www.timesofisrael.com/haifa-municipal-workers-block-refinery-access-for-2nd-day/

These are the kinds of issues which are germane: the game has changed. What are the implications?

turcopolier , 18 September 2019 at 08:08 AM
nuff sed

I have said repeatedly that Hizbullah can destroy Israel. Nothing about that has changed.

turcopolier , 18 September 2019 at 08:17 AM
Yeah, right

It was late at night when I wrote this. Yeah, Right. the Iranians could send their massive ground force into Syria where it would be chewed up by US and Israeli air. Alternatively they could invade Saudi arabia.

Yeah, Right said in reply to turcopolier ... , 18 September 2019 at 08:38 AM
Thank you for the reply but actually I was thinking that an invasion of Afghanistan would be the more sensible ploy.

To my mind if the Iranian Army sits on its backside then the USAF and IAF will ignore it to roam the length and breadth of Iran destroying whatever ground targets are on their long-planned target-list.

Or that Iranian Army can launch itself into Afghanistan, at which point all of the USA plans for a methodical aerial pummelling of Iran's infrastructure goes out the window as the USAF scrambles to save the American forces in Afghanistan from being overrun.

Isn't that correct?

So what incentive is there for that Iranian Army to sit around doing nothing?

Iran will do what the USAF isn't expecting it to do, if for no other reason that it upsets the USA's own game-plan.

johnf , 18 September 2019 at 08:41 AM
There seems to be a bit of a hiatus in proceedings - not in these columns but on the ground in the ME.

Everyone seems to be waiting for something.

Could this "something" be the decisive word fron our commander in chief Binyamin Netanyahu?

The thing is he has just pretty much lost an election. Likud might form part of the next government of Israel but most likely not with him at its head.

Does anyone have any ideas on what the future policy of Israel is likely to be under Gantz or whoever? Will it be the same, worse or better?

turcopolier , 18 September 2019 at 08:51 AM
Yeah Right

The correct US move would be to ignore an Iranian invasion of Afghanistan and continue leaving the place. The Iranian Shia can then fight the Sunni jihadi tribesmen.

Yeah, Right said in reply to turcopolier ... , 18 September 2019 at 09:29 AM
Oh, I completely agree that if the Iranians launch an invasion of Afghanistan then the only sensible strategy would be for the US troops to pack up and get out as fast as possible.

But that is "cut and run", which many in Washington would view as a humiliation.

Do you really see the beltway warriors agreeing to that?

turcopolier , 18 September 2019 at 08:53 AM
Stueee

A flaw in your otherwise sound argument is that the US military has not been seriously engaged for several years and has been reconstituting itself with the money Trump has given them.

turcopolier , 18 September 2019 at 08:57 AM
Nuff Sed

Re-positioning of forces does not indicate that a presidential decision for war has been made. The navy will not want to fight you in the narrow, shallow waters of the Gulf.

Lars , 18 September 2019 at 09:53 AM
I would think that Mr. Trump would have a hard time sell a war with Iran over an attack on Saudi Arabia. The good question about how would that war end will soon be raised and I doubt there are many good answers.

The US should have gotten out of that part of the world a long time ago, just as they should have paid more attention to the warnings in President Eisenhower's farewell address.

turcopolier , 18 September 2019 at 10:12 AM
CK

The point was about shore based firepower, not forts. don't be so literal.

CK said in reply to turcopolier ... , 18 September 2019 at 10:34 AM
The Perfumed Fops in the DOD restarted Millennium Challenge 2002,because Gen Van Riper had used 19th and early 20th century tactics and shore based firepower to sink the Blue Teams carrier forces. There was a script, Van Riper did some adlibbing. Does the US DOD think that Iran will follow the US script? In a unipolar world maybe the USA could enforce a script, that world was severely wounded in 1975, took a sucking chest wound during operation Cakewalk in 2003 and died in Syria in 2015. Too many poles too many powers not enough diplomacy. It will not end well.
turcopolier , 18 September 2019 at 10:16 AM
lars

We would crush Iran at some cost to ourselves but the political cost to the anti-globalist coalition would catastrophic. BTW Trump's "base" isn't big enough to elect him so he cannot afford to alienate independents.

prawnik , 18 September 2019 at 10:32 AM
Even if Rouhani and the Iranian Parliament personally designed, assembled, targeted and launched the missiles (scarier sounding version of "drones"), then they should be congratulated, for the Saudi tyrant deserves every bad thing that he gets.
turcopolier , 18 September 2019 at 10:49 AM
prawnik (Sid) in this particular situation goering's glittering generalization does not apply. Trump needs a lot of doubting suburbanites to win and a war will not incline them to vote for him.
Bill Wade , 18 September 2019 at 10:53 AM
Looks like President Trump is walking it back, tweet: I have just instructed the Secretary of the Treasury to substantially increase Sanctions on the country of Iran!
PRC90 , 18 September 2019 at 11:34 AM
I doubt there will be armed conflict of any kind.
Everything Trump does from now (including sacking the Bolton millstone) will be directed at winning 2020, and that will not be aided by entering into some inconclusive low intensity attrition war.
Iran, on the other hand, will be doing everything it can to increase the chance of a Democrat administration, bearing in mind the great deal they got from the last one and the lack of anything they can expect from Trump Term Two.
This may be a useful tool for determining their next move, but the limit of their actions would be when some Democrats begin making the electorally damaging mistake of critising Trump for not retaliating against Iranian provocations.
Terence Gore , 18 September 2019 at 11:35 AM
Pros and cons of many options considered against Iran

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/06_iran_strategy.pdf

[Jan 08, 2020] Pompeo's Falsehood-Laden Briefing Echoed Uncritically by Media Outlets

Jan 08, 2020 | news.antiwar.com

Antiwar.com Regional News

Unbacked allegations and plain contradictions drive anti-Iran narrative Jason Ditz Posted on January 7, 2020 Categories News Tags Iran , Pompeo

As the Trump Administration continues to barrel toward a war with Iran, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo gave a press conference in which he once again claimed that every dubious accusation made by the administration was true, and the internally inconsistent comments among top officials are all somehow in agreement.

Pompeo's comments, even the ones that made no sense or were obviously untrue, were echoed across US media outlets as absolute facts following the briefing. Everyone was clearly more comfortable just reporting " Pompeo says " than analyzing it.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) was very critical of some of the worst claims Pompeo made , saying one would have to be brain-dead to believe them. He noted it made no sense to attack Iran to "preempt" attacks when the attack just made attacks even more likely.

Pompeo was largely dismissive of questions about the US attack, and rejected claims that Gen. Qassem Soleimani was working on Saudi diplomacy, saying nobody believed Soleimani was engaged in diplomacy and that Iranian FM was lying about that. In reality, Iraq's PM Adel Abdul Mahdi was the one who broke the story of why Soleimani was in Iraq. Instead of evidence to the contrary, Pompeo just denied.

On the question of the US barring Zarif from the UN in violation of the headquarters agreement, Pompeo said the US doesn't comment on why they deny people entrance, and insisted that the US always complies with the headquarters agreement, despite it flat out saying you can't block officials from speaking at the UN, and the US doing exactly that.

The closest anyone at the briefing came to calling Pompeo on his contradictions was on the matter of the US attacking cultural sites. President Trump threatened to attack Iranian cultural sites on Saturday, Pompeo said Trump never said that on Sunday, and Trump said it again on Sunday evening. Pompeo was asked to address this.

Pompeo said that what he said, that Trump never said there would be attacks on cultural sites, was "completely consistent with what the President has said," which repeatedly was that he intends to attack cultural sites. This was a bit too glaring, and one of the press said "No, but the President has -" before being interrupted by Pompeo.

At this point, Pompeo went off on a tangent claiming that the ayatollah is the "real threat" to Iranian culture. When asked if that meant US attacks on cultural sites are "ruled out," despite Trump's comments, Pompeo promptly ended the briefing and left.

Secretary of Defense Mark Esper also claimed on Tuesday that Soleimani was planning to attack Americans "within days" if the US hadn't killed him. As with Pompeo, his claim did not include any evidence, and ask with Pompeo's claims, the press is echoing it.

[Jan 08, 2020] Donald Trump presidency Chaos and surprises emerge as twin crises - CNNPolitics

Jan 08, 2020 | www.cnn.com

Washington (CNN) The increasingly chaotic aftermath of the US strike against Iran has left President Donald Trump's team scrambling to keep up with his unpredictable decisions and inflammatory pronouncements, and suggests dysfunction at the heart of the nation's critical national security process.

Top Trump aides are making frantic efforts to justify the killing of Qasem Soleimani , one of Iran's top leaders, and are bracing for a possible reprisal attack as the Islamic Republic moves around military hardware . But they are still refusing to publicly offer Americans details of the "imminent" attacks that they said the top general was planning. A farcical episode on Monday when at one point it seemed the military had announced it was pulling back troops from Iraq -- then said it made a mistake -- painted an unflattering picture of the administration's decision-making process. And t op officials have twice had to rule out Trump's warning that he could strike at "cultural" targets in Iran if it tries to avenge Soleimani's killing. Such action could amount to war crimes. The churn in Washington and growing questions over the rationale for an escalation that some fear could lead the US and Iran closer to war is complicating Trump's hopes of presenting a clean narrative that he acted decisively to eliminate a terrorist mastermind and to save the lives of hundreds of Americans.

[Jan 08, 2020] Is Trump that stupid and malleble? Yes, he is. Now MAGA should be read "Make the USA go away"

Notable quotes:
"... It is clear to me after watching that extraordinary video of Trump's ignorance and stupidity that he is the idiot piper leading the West into the abyss. There could be no better epitome of the neoliberal sociopathy that drives our collapsing phase of late-capitalism. Putin's wet dream: a narcissist half-wit driving the western bus. ..."
"... As for trying to put the blame on Pentagon staffers, even if they chose such weird options for Trump to choose, at the end of the day, it's the President himself who chose - as another one said decades ago, "the buck stops here" and the guy in the Oval Office has to bear the full responsibility. ..."
Jan 08, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

David G , Jan 6 2020 19:57 utc | 19

b writes:
The New York Times reported yesterday that Trump picked the 'wrong' item from a list of possible courses of action that the military had presented him. That sounded like bullshit invented to take blame away from Trump and to put it onto the military.
To me it looks more like the opposite: the Times's Pentagon sources pinning it on loose cannon Trump's going with the extreme option that the military hadn't intended him to. But whatever. The U.S. is facing the same harsh new reality regardless.

Patroklos , Jan 6 2020 20:03 utc | 21

The Times in London ran with a front page "We Will Kill UK Troops, warns Iran" ( here's the Guardian summary ). Despite initial reports that the UK and EU were distancing themselves from the assassination, the MSM have clearly been given their orders to begin banging the drum for war. The scramble for a casus belli reminds me of WMD, so I think a war of some scope is strongly desired and Boris Johnson has been brought on board. France will stay out and Germany will look first at Russia's position.

It is clear to me after watching that extraordinary video of Trump's ignorance and stupidity that he is the idiot piper leading the West into the abyss. There could be no better epitome of the neoliberal sociopathy that drives our collapsing phase of late-capitalism. Putin's wet dream: a narcissist half-wit driving the western bus.

lgfocus , Jan 6 2020 19:40 utc | 11

Moqtada Al-Sadr to Trump
"We are demanders of peace if you surrender and war if you fight. Do you threaten us? How dare you"

read from Elijah Magnier's thread on Al-Sadr's letter.

Zanon , Jan 6 2020 19:37 utc | 7
Trump is probably not stupid enough to launch such a war and certainly not during an election year.

During his campaign Trump said he wanted the U.S. military out of the Middle East. Iran and its allies will help him to keep that promise.

Hasnt Trump proved he is stupid enough by now? How much more evidence is needed to drop him? Trump start wars to get another election win, I think that is obvious? And allies keeping him back? Which allieshave even remotely criticized his threats and murder? People need to realize that there is nothing stopping Trump, he and Israel will keep bombing and unfortunately its not much Iran could do.

Clueless Joe , Jan 6 2020 19:37 utc | 8
Dan: The guy fought the Talibans and ISIS, and has always been opposed to them; that's good enough for me, and that's definitely more than any of the coward and treacherous Western leaders that pussy-foot instead of calling out the US for what tantamounts to a declaration of war on both Iraq and Iran.

As for trying to put the blame on Pentagon staffers, even if they chose such weird options for Trump to choose, at the end of the day, it's the President himself who chose - as another one said decades ago, "the buck stops here" and the guy in the Oval Office has to bear the full responsibility.

Col. Lang is once again warning that Trump trying to keep the troops in Iraq would be a terrible mistake with bad consequences, and that it's just not realistic. He probably prefers not to say it that way when stating it's a long road from Kuwait to Baghdad, but if shit hits the fan and Iraqis decide to go after the US troops, then those who can't evacuate fast enough will end up in a position similar to that of the British in Kabul, in the very first days of 1842.

Phryne's frock , Jan 6 2020 19:37 utc | 9
Aghast at your words, dan. I am an aging homemaker from usa midwest and I have yet to stop weeping for Qassem Soleimani, his poor widow, and the rest of his family. I feel I owe him a personal debt for fighting zionists/terrorists/imperialists, for if they are not defeated once and for all, my captive government will continue in perpetuity to serve their horridmurderousthieving agenda, enslaving my every descendent and robbing humanity of any chance for peace on this pretty garden harbor planet. May justice be done to give peace a chance.
Paul Bogdanich , Jan 6 2020 20:25 utc | 30
What I wonder is who is the genius in the chain of command who brought this "opportunity" to Trump's attention and who vetted the decision? Trump made a large error when he surrounded himself with neocons (Abrahams, Bolton, Pompeo, Haspel, Esper). Anyway it's a tangle and it's pretty clear he (Trump) is in over his head. When he paniks he talks tough and he's making threats. It's also no wonder he has not received any support on his decision to murder Soleimani. From anywhere. Not even Israel is publicly supporting the decision. I think that surprised him. For 350 years there has been an unwritten rule that you don't go after generals or ambassadors or visiting politicians unless they are actively engaged in a combat zone. Remember the outrage when the barbarian Libyans killed a mere station chief? How outraged we were? Well, Trump overtly and with malice of forethought broke the rule. If I were the Iranian's and I could get to any U.S. generals or high ranking officials (working or visiting overseas) that's what I would do. Create animus within his own military and cabinet departments. Get them at the supermarket, speaking engagements, on vacation, at home, wherever. Doesn't matter. Wherever you can get them. Shitty thing to do no doubt but he started it and something the American and other populations would instinctively understand. Blood for blood retribution. No need to explain it to people.
Alpi , Jan 6 2020 20:43 utc | 41
......." Trump is probably not stupid enough to launch such a war and certainly not during an election year."

b,

you are assuming that you are dealing with someone with a full deck of cards. If He was stupid enough to kill a sovereign nation's top general, he will be stupid enough to start a war. In fact that is his biggest wish. Elections be damned. Maybe the military would put on the breaks but not this stupid sick man.

Robert Snefjella , Jan 6 2020 21:49 utc | 75
Few points: (1) Thanks to Trump, Pompeo and Esper every American soldier everywhere now wears a bulls eye;
(2) Any soldier -including Americans - might find a great deal to admire in Soliemani, a guy with a humble background who accomplished an extraordinary track record, a legendary strategist';

(3) Has the US military's 'faith' in the sanity and competence of the civilian authority been stretched near to some breaking point?

Lurk , Jan 6 2020 22:00 utc | 89
Trump and Pence are dumb and dumber.

Pence claimed on twitter that Suleimani assisted the 12 9/11 hijackers, for which he was instantly ridiculed.

Trump wants billions payback for airbases in Iraq that were already fully transferred upon American withdrawal in december 2011.

BTW, the trolls are obvious trolls. Could be from Tel Aviv, but perhaps from London, too (Integrity Initiative) Brits must be banging their heads against the wall over orange utan dropping a monkey wrench into the gears of the imperial machine that they too depend on. You bet that they need to spin this hard.

Antigone , Jan 6 2020 22:02 utc | 91
"We have a very extraordinarily expensive air base that's there. It cost billions of dollars to build. Long before my time. We're not leaving unless they pay us back for it,"
Trump said

Paying us back?

Just ask the Iraqis - here is a reminder of what the bitter reality of economic violence looks like:

The Crimes of Neoliberal Rule in Occupied Iraq

The clearest statement of intent for the future of the Iraqi economy is contained in Order 39, which permitted full foreign ownership of Iraqi state-owned assets and decreed that over 200 state-owned enterprises, including electricity, telecommunications and the pharmaceuticals industry, could be dismantled. Order 39 also permitted 100 per cent foreign ownership of Iraqi banks, mines and factories; and allowed these firms to move their profits out of Iraq. It has been argued already in the British courts that Order 39 constitutes an act of ILLEGAL OCCUPATION under the terms of the Hague and Geneva treaties : The effect of Article 55 is to outlaw privatization of a country's assets whilst it is under occupation by a hostile military power."
The mandate of the CPA was clear: to meet the 'humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people', to meet the costs of 'reconstruction and repair of Iraq's infrastructure', to meet the costs of disarmament and the civil administration of the country and other purposes 'benefiting the people of Iraq'. The terms of UNSCR 1483 are unequivocal in this regard. It was this resolution that established the Development Fund for Iraq (DFI)
• DFI revenue, was available to the CPA immediately, in the form of $100,000 bundles of $100 bills, shrink-wrapped in $1.6 million 'cashpaks'. Pallets of cashpaks were flown into Baghdad direct from the US Federal Reserve Bank in New York. Some of this cash was held by the CPA in the basement of its premises in Baghdad Republican Palace. It has been reported that Paul Bremer controlled a personal slush fund of $600 million (Harriman 2005). One advantage of the use of cash payments and transfers was that the CPA transactions left no paper trail and therefore they remained relatively invisible
• The disbursal of Iraqi oil revenue by the CPA also has had profound implications for the future structure of the Iraqi economy. ..Spending (in excess of $20 billion, partly based upon projected income) had to be underwritten by US government loans .. (which) has effectively deepened the debt that was originally accumulated during the period of UN-enforced sanctions following the 1991 Gulf War (Alexander 2005).
• The right to self-determination and sovereign decision making over economic, social and cultural development is in international law a principle of jus cogens In this regard, the CPA clearly acted beyond its remit in terms of both the spirit and the letter of the international laws of conflict. It is the anti-democratic and pre-emptive nature of Anglo-American economic restructuring that most clearly demonstrates that the CPA regime was in violation of international law.
• Similar violations arise from the CPA's governance of Iraqi oil wealth. Article 49 of the Hague rules notes that 'money contributions' levied in the occupied territory 'shall only be for the needs of the army or of the administration of the territory in question'.
The political strategy was characteristically neo-liberal (evasion of 'red tape' and any obstacles that might hinder or limit the reallocation of wealth to the growing armies of private enterprises). This strategy was given momentum by the granting of formal LEGAL IMMUNITY to US personnel for activities related to the reconstruction economy. On the same day that the CPA was created by UNSCR 1483, George W. Bush signed Executive Order 13303, 2 The terms of the exemption provide immunity from prosecution for the theft or embezzlement of oil revenue, or incidentally, from any safety or environmental violations that might be committed in the course of producing Iraqi oil. Executive Order 13303 is therefore a guarantee of IMMUNITY from PROSECUTION for white-collar and corporate crimes that involve Iraqi oil. Two months later, in June 2003, Paul Bremer issued CPA Order 17. Bremer's decree guaranteed that members of the coalition military forces, the CPA, foreign missions and contractors -- and their personnel -- would remain immune from the Iraqi legal process. This carte blanche provision of immunity was extended again in June 2004.

What we are beginning to trace out here is a US government policy of suspending the normal rule of law in the US and Iraq (so much for respecting Iraqi sovereigntx...)

https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/47/2/177/519163
https://www.globalresearch.ca/neoliberalism-and-the-killing-for-profit-in-iraq/5699525

[Jan 08, 2020] Trump as a destoryer of the US empire: Unless the USA reinvades and reoccupies Iraq, the USA military forces will be gone from Syria, probably just after the election in November so Trump can say he stood up to the Iraqis

Jan 08, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Ghost Ship , Jan 6 2020 22:48 utc | 112

The three most important things for doing battle are logistics, logistics and logistics, and as Pat lang explains, the US forces in Syria are essentially fucked:
We have around 5,500 people there now spread across the country in little groups engaged in logistics, intelligence and training missions. They are extremely vulnerable. There are something like 150 marines in the embassy. There are also a small number of US combat forces in Syria east and north of the Euphrates river. These include a battalion of US Army National Guard mechanized troops "guarding" Syria's oil from Syria's own army and whatever devilment the Iranians might be able to arrange.

4. This is an untenable logistical situation. Supply and other functions require a major airfield close to Baghdad. We have Balad airbase and helicopter supply and air support from there into Baghdad is possible from there but may become hazardous. Iraq is a big country. It is a long and lonely drive from Kuwait for re-supply from there or evacuation through there. The same thing is true of the desert route to Jordan.

Unless it reinvades and reoccupies, the United States will be gone from Syria, probably just after the election in November so Trump can say he stood up to the Iraqis.

[Jan 08, 2020] Impeachment as a way out for the USa for create Trump Soliemani muder deadlock with Iran

Jan 08, 2020 | www.nytimes.com

Hineni47 NYC area 6h ago

"Unlike with North Korea, it's difficult to imagine any photo op or exchange of love letters defusing the crisis the president has created. " The only thing that might defuse this crisis would be the Senate convicting Trump and removing him from office. It would be a good idea if the House passes another article of impeachment accusing the president of committing an act of war without Congressional authorization.
Sirlar Jersey City 3h ago Times Pick
Threatening to destroy cultural sites of a country is the sign of a deranged madman. I can't believe a US president would dare say something like that. It goes against all the principles America stands for. Nothing will motivate the people of Iran to fight the US more than the threat of destruction to their cultural sites. If we go to war with Iran, this is a Republican war. They own it. When are decent Republicans going to stand up and do the right thing? If they don't, this could be very, very, bad.
PatMurphy77 Michigan 5h ago
The Defense department is already walking back Trump's tweet about bombing Iran culture sites. Unfortunately, it's too late because the damage to our reputation as the "shining light on the hill" has already been destroyed. I'm afraid more than now than I have ever been in my life. Who knows when or where the revenge will occur but I'm fairly certain it will happen and we'll be more isolated than ever before. It's taken centuries to build goodwill and our reputation as a beacon of democracy for the world. We gave the keys to the kingdom to a false prophet and we'll pay for his indiscretions for the rest of my lifetime. God help us all.
stan continople brooklyn 3h ago Times Pick
You've sure got it right with "rapture-mad", and the most frightening thing is that the religious zealotry of Pompeo, Pence, Mulvaney and Barr, inoculates them against any criticism, because they believe they are serving a "higher"power and any criticism is a testimony to their faith. In fact, by turning themselves into martyrs, they get to advance in line for the Rapture. It seems particularly ironic that Evangelicals who support Israel do so because they see God's plan unfolding there. The Jews, just happen to be sacrificial lambs in the grand scheme. so they must must be preserved until the time is ripe for their rightful annihilation, heralding the Second Coming. So, the problem of Pompeo, et al, is not Iran destroying Israel, it's just that they've determined the timing is off.
Eric Ashland 4h ago Times Pick
As for the "wag the dog" theory, sure, Trump sees no difference between his personal fortunes and national interests. But worse, the impeachment rests upon evidence that points to a personal criminality on an international scale, which is the landscape where we find ourselves. The president pardons convicts like Gallagher and Arpaio because they are cruel or bloodthirsty. He admires dictators and ignores the law whenever he can, both as a private individual and a president, and has obstructed a legal investigation into his corruption. Now, on the international stage, by bypassing Congress, he is ignoring the sovereignty of the American people, while incoherently threatening war crimes. Trump is fully blossoming into a man like those he admires, an unrestrained, unprincipled, heavy hitting international tyrant. I'm so disgusted with those whose job it is to check this man, and have abdicated their responsibility, because they want to be like him. Reply 230 Recommend Share
Aaron San Francisco 4h ago Times Pick
I was at a friend's house on election night ready to celebrate Clinton's victory. When the networks suddenly announced that Trump had won Florida, a professor of international relations who was with us ominously predicted, "we are going to war with Iran." And here we are.
PT Melbourne, FL 4h ago Times Pick
America has become a living nightmare. A global power perceived mostly as benevolent by the world is now a danger to all, including itself. Already having killed the Paris Agreement, and Iran Nuclear Treaty, not to mention walking away from a nuclear arms treaty with the Russians, Trump is now ready to wreak real havoc on the world - start a war. Boy will they forget about impeachment now!
Jonathan Baron Staunton, Virginia 5h ago
We haven't authorized the assassination of a military leader since the daring mission to kill Japanese Admiral Yamamoto in 1943. Although he'd been the architect of the Pearl Harbor attack, and we were at war with Japan, this was a departure so significant that it only proceeded after lengthy deliberation. And now, this. Your article fills in precisely how this was so very much not that. But one party is in so cult-deep into this president now that the lies won't stop. Thousands of Iranian have lost their lives in the past month trying to rid themselves of this regime. Not only were those deaths rendered in vain by the assassination of Suleimani, but the Iranian people are also even more yoked to a government they hate. And wasn't the idea of grassroots-driven change in regime a core strategy behind pulling out of the nuclear deal? And it's not okay because Suleimani is "evil." That's both subjective and never a justification for an assassination of a foreign military leader of a nation we're not at war with. As I noted, it was questionable when it was a military leader of nation we were at war with. But, most important, what did we gain from this? Following yet another disasterous military and foreign policy snap decision it only makes the importance of removing Trump from office more urgent. Come for the Constitutional crime but convict because the defendant is also manifestly unfit for the office. People are dying because of it and more will die if he stays. Reply 186 Recommend Share
Joe Portland, ME 3h ago Times Pick
What, then, for an effective response? Outrage is mere fuel: what is the engine? A full year seems too long. The Senate seems hopeless. What does that leave? Must we take to the streets to stop this disaster of a president? All this time spent wondering how this will end makes me feel like a victim of domestic abuse. What a waste. 1 Reply 180 Recommend Share
AnitaSmith New Jersey 4h ago Times Pick
The near silence of the countries frequently referred to as our allies -- before the age of Trump -- is deafening.

[Jan 08, 2020] The Nightmare Stage of Trump's Rule Is Here by Michelle Goldberg Michelle Goldberg

Jan 08, 2020 | www.nytimes.com

After three harrowing years, we've reached the point many of us feared from the moment Donald Trump was elected. His decision to kill Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, Iran's second most important official, made at Mar-a-Lago with little discernible deliberation , has brought the United States to the brink of a devastating new conflict in the Middle East.

We don't yet know how Iran will retaliate, or whether all-out war will be averted. But already, NATO has suspended its mission training Iraqi forces to fight ISIS . Iraq's Parliament has voted to expel American troops -- a longtime Iranian objective. (On Monday, U.S. forces sent a letter saying they were withdrawing from Iraq in response, only to then claim that it was a draft released in error .) On Sunday, Iran said it will no longer be bound by the remaining restrictions on its nuclear program in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the deal that Trump abandoned in 2018. Trump has been threatening to commit war crimes by destroying Iran's cultural sites and tried to use Twitter to notify Congress of his intention to respond to any Iranian reprisals with military escalation.

The administration has said that the killing of Suleimani was justified by an imminent threat to American lives, but there is no reason to believe this. One skeptical American official told The New York Times that the new intelligence indicated nothing but "a normal Monday in the Middle East," and Democrats briefed on it were unconvinced by the administration's case. The Washington Post reported that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo -- who last year agreed with a Christian Broadcasting Network interviewer that God might have sent Trump to save Israel from the "Iranian menace" -- has been pushing for a hit on Suleimani for months.

Rather than self-defense, the Suleimani killing seems like the dreadful result of several intersecting dynamics. There's the influence of rapture-mad Iran hawks like Pompeo and Vice President Mike Pence. Defense officials who might have stood up to Trump have all left the administration. According to Peter Bergen's book "Trump and His Generals," James Mattis, Trump's former secretary of defense, instructed his subordinates not to provide the president with options for a military showdown with Iran. But with Mattis gone, military officials, The Times reported, presented Trump with the possibility of killing Suleimani as the "most extreme" option on a menu of choices, and were "flabbergasted" when he picked it.

Trump likely had mixed motives. He was reportedly upset over TV images of militia supporters storming the American Embassy in Iraq. According to The Post, he also was frustrated by "negative coverage" of his decision last year to order and then call off strikes on Iran.

Beyond that, Trump, now impeached and facing trial in the Senate, has laid out his rationale over years of tweets. The president is a master of projection, and his accusations against others are a decent guide to how he himself will behave . He told us, over and over again , that he believed Barack Obama would start a war with Iran to "save face" and because his "poll numbers are in a tailspin" and he needed to "get re-elected." To Trump, a wag-the-dog war with Iran evidently seemed like a natural move for a president in trouble.

... ... ...

Even if Iran were to somehow decide not to strike back at the United States, it's still ramping up its nuclear program, and Trump has obliterated the possibility of a return to negotiations. "His maximum pressure policy has failed," Nasr said of Trump. "He has only produced a more dangerous Iran."

... ... ... Michelle Goldberg has been an Opinion columnist since 2017. She is the author of several books about politics, religion and women's rights, and was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize for public service in 2018 for reporting on workplace sexual harassment issues. @michelleinbklyn

[Jan 08, 2020] No war with Iran

Jan 08, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Noirette , Jan 8 2020 17:31 utc | 135

Trump tweet: All is Well!

Khamenei words: There won't be any war. (link)

Netanyahu: The killing of Soleimani is a U.S. event, not an Israeli event, and we should stay out of it.

-- -- -- --
If Netanyahu got cold feet, that would be very naive of him, completely out of character. No.

My pov re. Israel is that the US-uk and Isr. are in a symbiotic dependency relationship, with the US as the controlling party.

Pov. bashed by USA stalwarts who love to blame Israel, Zionazis, Jews, the Mossad, etc.. for "bad stuff" that the US does.

The most powerful country in the world is controlled by some evil hateful figures in a minuscule, depressing postage-stamp outpost (not..) plus and/or by infiltrating US Gvmt./ Media (more realistic..but was allowed, etc.)

Isr. only exists because of the support, international protection, huge stipends, offered by the Hegemon.
-- -- -- --

No war with Iran. I have said this for years (and hope I continue to be right) see also Petri at 21, others.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-iran-khamenei/irans-supreme-leader-says-there-will-be-no-war-with-us-idUSKCN1SK23T

[Jan 08, 2020] If the world would be a more secure place were Iran to have nuclear weapons

Jan 08, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Sasha , Jan 6 2020 22:25 utc | 101

For the USDoS minion who has asked if the world would be a more secure place were Iran to have nuclear weapons...

Absolutely yes, if Iran would have nuclear weapons right now, all this mamoneo would end asap. Definitely it will act as the best deterrent, but that will not happen because that is anti-Islamic and is forbidden by Ayatollah Khamenei.

I for one do not feel safe at all with the US and Israel having nuclear weapons, all the more when both countries have currently at the helms both mafia bosses of the caliber of Trump and Netanyahu.
On the contrary, that DPRK have nuclear weapons, as soon as I know very well that is for deterrence against US bullying, allows me to sleep a pierna suelta...the same for Russia and China..

[Jan 08, 2020] "Debt Wish 2020" Did Iran strike affects dollar status as the world reserve currency, because it is a clear sign the the period of the USA absolute hegemony after the dissolution of the USSR came the end?

Jan 08, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 , Jan 8 2020 0:02 utc | 110

psychohistorian @88--

What was your take on "Debt Wish 2020"?

Jezabeel @82--

"U.S. Economic Warfare and Likely Foreign Defenses" provides numerous methods besides simply the cessation of dollar use for international commercial transactions. Along with watching the "Debt Wish 2020" vid linked above, I also suggest reading/watching this program . And lastly, I suggest reading this analysis here , although it only tangentially deals with your question.

[Jan 08, 2020] Either the assassination was a drive-by on the way out, or Trump's war cabinet doesn't plan on having to leave Iraq.

Jan 08, 2020 | www.truthdig.com

Trump has from the beginning of his presidential campaign appealed to the worst and most fascistic elements in American political life. At a time when the US has no credible peer military rival, he added hundreds of billions of dollars to the Pentagon budget, and the pudgy old chicken hawk lionized war criminals. Up until now, however, Trump shrewdly calculated that his base was tired of wasting blood and treasure on fruitless Middle Eastern wars, and he avoided taking more than symbolic steps. He dropped a big missile on Afghanistan once, and fired some Tomahawk Cruise missiles at Syria. But he drew back from the brink of more extensive military engagements.

Now, by murdering Qasem Soleimani , the head of the Jerusalem (Qods) Brigade of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, Trump has brought the United States to the brink of war with Iran. Mind you, Iran's leadership is too shrewd to rush to the battlements at this moment, and will be prepared to play the long game. My guess is that they will encourage their allies among Iraqi Shiites to get up a massive protest at the US embassy and at bases housing US troops.

They will be aided in this task of mobilizing Iraqis by the simultaneous US assassination of Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis , the deputy head of the Popular Mobilization Forces. Al-Muhandis is a senior military figure in the Iraqi armed forces, not just a civilian militia figure. Moreover, the Kata'ib Hizbullah that he headed is part of a strong political bloc, al-Fath, which has 48 members in parliament and forms a key coalition partner for the current, caretaker prime minister, Adil Abdulmahdi. Parliament won't easily be able to let this outrage pass.

The US officer corps is confident that the American troops at the embassy and elsewhere in Baghdad are sufficient to fight off any militia invasion. I'm not sure they have taken into account the possibility of tens of thousands of civilian protesters invading the embassy, who can't simply be taken out and shot.

Trump may be counting on the unpopularity among the youth protesters in downtown Baghdad, Basra, Nasiriya and other cities of Soleimani and of al-Muhandis to blunt the Iraqi reaction to the murders. The thousands of youth protesters cheered on hearing the news of their deaths, since they were accused of plotting a violent repression of the rallies demanding an end to corruption.

Iraq, however, is a big, complex society, and there are enormous numbers of Iraqi Shiites who support the Popular Mobilization Forces and who view them as the forces that saved Iraq from the peril of the ISIL (ISIS) terrorist organization. The Shiite hard liners would not need all Iraqis to back them in confronting the American presence, only a few hundred thousand for direct crowd action.

You also have to wonder whether Trump and his coterie aren't planning a coup in Iraq. In the absence of a coup, the Iraqi parliament will almost certainly be forced, after this violation of Iraqi national sovereignty, to vote to expel American troops. This is foreseeable. So either the assassination was a drive-by on the way out, or Trump's war cabinet doesn't plan on having to leave Iraq.

Although Trump justified the murder of Soleimani by calling him a terrorist, that is nonsense in the terms of international law. The Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps is the equivalent of the US National Guard. What Trump did is the equivalent of some foreign country declaring the US military a terrorist organization (some have) and then assassinating General Joseph L. Lengyel, the 28th Chief of the National Guard Bureau (God forbid and may he have a long healthy life).

[Jan 08, 2020] If we assume that Pompeo persuaded Trump to order to kill a diplomatic envoy, Trump is now a dead man walking as after Iran responce Pelosi impeachment gambit now have legs

Highly recommended!
This is truly shocking: Trump assassinates diplomatic envoy he himself arranged for. . If the U.S. lured Soleimani to Iraq with a promise of negotiations with the Iraqis as mediators and then proceeded to kill him, surely that would be an impeachable offense. Particularly in view of the failure to brief Congress. If it was Saudi tricked Soleimani by getting Iraq to "mediate" (Iraq's prime minister was expecting a message by him on the mediation when he was assassinated), Saudi will get targeted.
The US changed the rules of engagement. They had decided to assassinate Soleimani when he was in Syria, having just returned from a short journey to Lebanon, before boarding a commercial flight from Damascus airport to Baghdad. The US killing machine was waiting for him to land in Baghdad and monitored his movements when he was picked up at the foot of the plane. The US hit the two cars, carrying Soleimani and the al-Muhandes protection team, when they were still inside the airport perimeter and were slowing down at the first check-point.
US forces will no longer be safe in Iraq outside protected areas inside the military bases where they are deployed. A potential danger or hit-man could be lurking at every corner; this will limit the free movement of US soldiers. Iran would be delighted were the Iraqi groups to decide to hit the American forces and hunt them wherever they are. This would rekindle memories of the first clashes between Jaish al-Mahdi and US forces in Najaf in 2004-2005.
Jan 06, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
Tom , Jan 5 2020 15:55 utc | 16
Impeachment with GOP support could be just around the corner. And who lost Iraq??? He would be a dead man walking in that case. I can't see the evangelical crowd saving him. President Pence. Might have to get use to that.

Here is a link to a twitter account with a good video of massive crowds on the streets of Mashhad awaiting the arrival of Qassem Suleimani. Very powerful.

https://twitter.com/sonofnariman/status/1213792565075550208

Piotr Berman , Jan 5 2020 16:02 utc | 17

There will be no draining of any swamps. Trump-Kushner just another Bibi lackey.

Posted by: Jerry | Jan 5 2020 15:48 utc | 13

1. Draining swamps was a marker of progress in the past. >>Wiki:But in the late 1960s and early 1970s, researchers found that marshes and swamps "were worth billions annually in wildlife production, groundwater recharge, and for flood, pollution, and erosion control." This motivated the passage of the 1972 federal Water Pollution Control Act.<<

2. To recognize this vital role, parties should adopt more acquatic symbols. Caymans are a bit too similar to alligators, but, say, Alligators vs Snapping Turtles?

Sasha , Jan 5 2020 16:02 utc | 18
A video which says it all...
Gen. #Soleimani, enemy of Daesh and Trump!

Trump has threatened #Iran with destroying its cultural sites but that is not his only similarity with Daesh, they both hated General Soleimani.

https://twitter.com/PressTV/status/1213804505537679362


Bemildred , Jan 5 2020 16:02 utc | 19
Posted by: Tom | Jan 5 2020 15:55 utc | 16

Yes, it might just be that this debacle provides the extra impulse to get him removed. Can't say I can even imagine what that would look like, but there would seem to be a good argument now that he must be restrained somehow. Somebody needs to tell Pompeous to stop digging the hole deeper (shutup) too.

[Jan 07, 2020] As long as Neocons and Christian Zionists run our foreign policy we're screwed.

Jan 07, 2020 | www.unz.com

Z-man , says: Show Comment January 7, 2020 at 1:27 pm GMT

Yes, as long as Neoco hens and Christian Zionists run our foreign policy we're screwed.
BTW, Mike Pompeo or as I affectionately call him; Lard face, Plump'eo, crazed CZ-zealot fat boy, etc., is now a legitimate target of the Iranians. May Allah provide justice to the family of Soleimani. (Grin) And look, I'm wishing 'ill will' on a zealot 'goy' (gentile) instead of a typical Neo-cohen snake, how ironic. (Another grin)
A positve spin:
With the 'incorrect' memo leaked by the Pentagon about an orderly exit from Iraq this can be the silver lining in all this mess. This assassination might actually accelerate the exiting of US forces from Iraq and the surrounding quagmires. Who knows, Trump might be a genius.
Again, NO MORE WARS FOR ZION, BDS NOW, ONE STATE SOLUTION-PALESTINE.
And to really stick it to Neo cohens (My apologies to Prof. Steven Cohen ), Trump-Putin Axis Da!! Destroy the Deep State and the CABAL .

[Jan 07, 2020] Chaos Pentagon Denies Poorly Worded Iraq Withdrawal Letter, Esper Says No Decision To Leave Iraq, Period

Jan 07, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Yesterday, Iraqi lawmakers voted to expel foreign troops from the country during an emergency parliamentary session. Interim Iraqi prime minister, Adil Abdul Mahdi, stressed during the session, that while the US government notified the Iraqi military of the planned strike on Soleimani, his government denied Washington permission to continue with the operation.

In a meeting Monday, Mahdi, a caretaker prime minister who said in November he would resign, told US Ambassador Matthew H. Tueller that the US and Iraq needed to cooperate "to implement the withdrawal of foreign forces in accordance with the decision of the Iraqi parliament," according to a statement from the PM's office that was cited by the Washington Post .

Though the Iraq war 'officially' ended in 2011, thousands of coalition troops stuck around. Their numbers increased following the rise of ISIS in the region.

Ending the US troop presence in Iraq has been a longtime goal of non-interventionists like Ron Paul and his son, Rand.

That said, even without troops in Iraq, the US will still have plenty of capacity to bully Iran, and other other regional powers.

[Jan 07, 2020] Lisa Monaco The Soleimani killing puts us in uncharted territory. Are we prepared - The Washington Post

Jan 07, 2020 | www.washingtonpost.com

Finally, in a scenario such as this, chaos is the starring player across the entire region. The strike on Soleimani makes even more fraught the position of U.S. troops in Iraq, where the parliament has now voted in favor of a non-binding resolution for the eviction of U.S. forces. The loss of U.S. presence in Iraq would strengthen Iran's hand there and compound the damage to our fight against the Islamic State from our abandonment of Kurdish partners last fall. While the Islamic State has been pushed out of much of the territory it once held, it has melted back into the population and seeks to capitalize on ungoverned space with insurgent attacks. Ungoverned space was oxygen for the Islamic State's rise in 2014. Whatever else Soleimani's death means, it is sure to add to chaos within Iraq and Syria, and that benefits the Islamic State.

[Jan 07, 2020] Fragmentation In 'The Axis Of Resistance' Led To Soleimani's Death

Jan 07, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

me name=

Skip to main content

https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=4777 Fragmentation In 'The Axis Of Resistance' Led To Soleimani's Death by Tyler Durden Mon, 01/06/2020 - 20:45 0 SHARES

Authored by Elijah Magnier via EJMagnier.com,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Was the leader of the "resistance axis" managing and running it?

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

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

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

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

https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=4879&num_ads=18&cf=1258.5.zerohedge%20190919 Show 200 Comments Login

ZeroHedge Search Today's Top Stories Loading... Contact Information Tips: [email protected]

General: [email protected]

Legal: [email protected]

Advertising: Click here

Abuse/Complaints: [email protected] Suggested Reading Make sure to read our "How To [Read/Tip Off] Zero Hedge Without Attracting The Interest Of [Human Resources/The Treasury/Black Helicopters]" Guide

It would be very wise of you to study our disclaimer , our privacy policy and our (non)policy on conflicts / full disclosure . Here's our Cookie Policy .

How to report offensive comments

Notice on Racial Discrimination .

Copyright ©2009-2020 ZeroHedge.com/ABC Media, LTD Want more of the news you won't get anywhere else? Thank you for subscribing! Something went wrong. Please refresh and try again. Sign up now and get a curated daily recap of the most popular and important stories delivered right to your inbox. Please enter a valid email

https://s.amazon-adsystem.com/iu3?cm3ppd=1&d=dtb-pub&csif=t&dl=rbd_oath_r1u

[Jan 07, 2020] Pompeo and his lies got us into this mess with Iran caucus99percent

Jan 07, 2020 | caucus99percent.com

gjohnsit on Mon, 01/06/2020 - 6:14pm Just a few days ago SoS Mike Pompeo said that we assassinated General Soleimani to stop an 'imminent attack' on Americans.
No evidence was presented to back up this claim. We are just supposed to believe it.

It turns out that Pompeo and VP Pence had pushed Trump hard to do this assassination.

[Jan 07, 2020] Why Was Soleimani Assassinated - Trump's Assassination Disaster

Jan 07, 2020 | ronpaulinstitute.org

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

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

"Soleimani did 9/11!" - Pence helpfully yet insanely chimed in.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meanwhile...will Iran avenge Soleimani's murder directly, or using asymmetrical means?

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

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

Sincerely yours,

Daniel McAdams
Executive Director
Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity

[Jan 07, 2020] Disproportionate and barbarous threat of instant retaliation is a part of "full spectrum dominance" doctrine. A significant part of masking tyranny under terror is the aggressively defended protection racket.

Jan 07, 2020 | off-guardian.org

I agree with the first part. Disproportionate and barbarous threat of instant retaliation is prt of terrorising and unsettling and even freezing the capacity to 'think'.
All thinking proceeds from presumptions, and one of the ways 'power' works deceit is in the ability to set it up so that the 'controlled' or 'leveraged' believe that their thinking is free while setting the fame of their perceived self-interest.

I just watched Corbett and Ryan Cristián of The Last American Vagabond on this issue, that touches on a little of the military political context – a key part of which is the 'Israeli' agenda – and its style of 'politics' by pre-emptive strike under aggressively defended narrative assertion.

As for what the US(a) CAN execute as all-out war is linked to the will to do so – along with the costs or consequences of doing so. Meanwhile broad spectrum dominance operates transnationally by stealth and deceit. The US(a) is wagged by its Corporate tails.

A significant part of masking tyranny under terror is the aggressively defended protection racket. For some this means believing the narrative they are given and for others it means they have to be seen to comply and conform to signal 'virtue' of allegiance under an enforced narrative dictate or lose their jobs, and reputation and incur penalties of social exclusion for the rest of their lives.

The act of state-endorsed murder without trial or evidences – that also kills others in the vicinity – aimed anywhere in the world – based in classified 'intelligence' that is without any oversight, accountability or challenge – is seeking to be as 'gods over men' – indeed a 'god' jealous of any and all rival as monopoly over life on earth – such as will survive under such a parasitic and destructive deceit. 7 0 Reply

[Jan 07, 2020] The Three Victories that Sealed Soleimani's Fate by Jefferson Morley

Jan 07, 2020 | www.counterpunch.org

Why Kill Soleimani?

Soleimani was not feared by U.S. (and Israeli and Saudi) policymakers because primarily he was a terrorist (though he sometimes used terror tactics) but mostly because he successful. According to journalist Yossi Mellman, Israeli intelligence assessed him as "a daring and talented commander , despite the considerable number of mistakes in his assessments and failed operations in the course of his career."

Whether you think Soleimani was "a deadly puppet master" or an "Islamic martyr," there's no disputing he helped the Islamic Republic achieve three significant goals.

First, Soleimani played a key role in driving U.S. occupation forces out of Iraq. As Al-Quds commander he presided over the creation of anti-American militias in 2003 that mounted deadly attacks on the U.S. forces seeking to establish a pro-American government. One Iraqi militia leader, Qais al-Khazali , who debriefed U.S. intelligence officers in 2008, said he had "a few meetings" with Soleimani and other Iranian officials of similar rank.

According to Khazali, Soleimani did not take part in the operational activities–providing weapons, training or cash. He left those tasks to deputies or intermediaries. Under Iranian tutelage, these militias specialized in using improvised explosive devices (IEDs) to kill upwards of 600 soldiers in the U.S. occupation forces, according to general David Petraeus.

Soleimani's attacks–along with the manifest failure of U.S. goals to reduce terrorism and spread democracy–contributed to President Obama's politically popular decision to withdraw of most U.S. troops in 2011. Forcing the U.S. out of Iraq was a priority for the government in Tehran, and Soleimani helped achieve it.

Nemesis of ISIS

Second, Soleimani played a key role in driving ISIS out of Iraq–a victory in which the United States ironically helped boost his reputation.

In this battle, Soleimani took advantage of U.S. vulnerability, not hubris. When ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi proclaimed an Islamic State in western Iraq six years ago, Tehran was just as alarmed as Washington. The Sunni fundamentalists of ISIS regard the Shia Muslims of Iran and Iraq as infidels, almost as contemptible as Americans and Israelis.

After the regular Iraqi armed forces collapsed, Iraqi Ayotollah Ali Sistani blessed the creation of Shia militias to save the country. Sistani's fatwa empowered Iran to mobilize and expanded Soleimani's militia network. The Iranian-sponsored fighters, along with the Kurdish pesh merga, proceeded to do most of the bloody street fighting that drove ISIS out of Mosul, Kirkuk and other Iraqi cities.

As Soleimani moved about openly in Iraq, U.S. commanders did not attack him because he did not attack them. Sometimes, pro-American and pro-Iranian soldiers even fought side by side. Thanks to this tacit U.S.-Iranian cooperation that neither country cared to publicly acknowledge, ISIS was expelled from Iraq into Syria by 2017.

In Iran, Soleimani emerged as a hero in the fight against the deadliest religious fanatics on the planet, especially after ISIS had carried out a terror attack in Tehran on June 2017 that killed 12 people.

In Iraq, the rout of ISIS enhanced the prestige of Soleimani and the Iranian-backed militias. Some of their leaders entered politics and business, drawing complaints about–and demonstrations against -- heavy-handed Iranian influence. Many Iraqis grew unhappy about Iran's new influence, but success made Soleimani an indispensable security partner for the embattled government in Baghdad. That's why he visited Iraq last week.

Besting the CIA

Third, Soleimani helped defeat ISIS and Al-Qaeda in Syria's civil war. In 2015, President Bashar al-Assad's armed forces were losing ground to Sunni fundamentalist forces funded by the CIA and the Persian Gulf oil monarchies. The CIA wanted to overthrow Assad. Iran feared losing its ally in Damascus to a hostile anti-Shia regime controlled by al-Qaeda. Obama feared another Iraq and refused to commit U.S. forces.

Soleimani brought in Iranian advisers and fighters from Hezbollah, the Shia militia of Lebanon which Iran has supported since the 1980s. With help from merciless Russian bombing and Syrian chemical attacks , the Iranian-trained ground forces helped Syria turn the tide on the jihadists. The CIA, under directors Leon Panetta, John Brennan and Mike Pompeo, spent $1 billion dollars to overthrow Assad. They had less influence on the outcome than Soleimani.

The net effect of Soleimani's three victories -- abetted by U.S. crimes and blunders -- was, for better or worse, to bolster Iranian influence across the region. From Afghanistan in the east to the Mediterranean in the West, Iran gained political ground, thanks to Soleimani. He perfected the art of asymmetric warfare, using local proxies, political alliances, deniable attacks, and selective terrorism to achieve the government's political goals.

(Soleimani, it is worth noting, had no record of attacking non-uniformed Americans. While Pompeo said that Soleimani "had inflicted so much suffering on Americans," it is a fact that not a single American civilian was killed in an Iranian-backed terror attack between 2001 to 2019.)

Iran's cumulative successes provoked dismay Washington (and Tel Aviv and Riyadh). In the course of the 21st century, Iran overcome international isolation and to actually gain, not lose, advantage to its regional rivals. He also became a media personality in the regime using selfies from the battlefield to promote an image of an accessible general who liked to rub shoulders with his men.

Along the way, Iran maintained a terrible record on human rights at home, persecuting journalists, bloggers, and women who spurn the hijab. Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security didn't kill Americans but it did take a number of hostages, including Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian . Across the region, Iran's ambitions stirred up widespread opposition from secular, feminist, and nationalist movements that reject the theory and practice of Iranian theocracy.

These non-violent movements, however, never advocated that the United States attack their country. They are not welcoming Soleimani's death, and they are unlikely to support the U.S. (or Israeli) attacks in the coming conflict. Quite the contrary. The anti-Iranian demonstrations in Iran and Iraq are over for the foreseeable future. Iranians and Iraqis who publicly supported the United States and opposed the mullahs, have been silenced. In death as in life, Soleimani had diminished the U.S. influence in the Middle East.

This article first appeared on Jefferson Morley's TheDeepStateBlog .

[Jan 07, 2020] a popular figure

Notable quotes:
"... Naturally, we learned soon after from the Iraqi PM himself that Soleimani was in Iraq as part of a diplomatic effort to de-escalate tensions. In other words, he was apparently lured to Baghdad under false pretenses so he'd be a sitting duck for a U.S. strike. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story. ..."
"... As you'd expect, some of the most ridiculous propaganda came from Mike Pompeo, a man who genuinely loves deception and considers it his craft.. For example: ..."
"... Moving on to the really big question: what does this assassination mean for the future role of the U.S. in the Middle East and American global hegemony generally? A few important things have already occurred. For starters, the Iraqi parliament passed a resolution calling for U.S. troops to leave. Even more important are the comments and actions of Muqtada al-Sadr. ..."
"... Unmentioned in the above tweet, but extremely significant, is the fact al-Sadr has been a vocal critic of both the American and Iranian presence in Iraq. He doesn't want either country meddling in the affairs of Iraqis, but the Soleimani assassination clearly pushed him to focus on the U.S. presence. This is a very big deal and ensures Iraq will be far more dangerous for U.S. troops than it already was. ..."
Jan 07, 2020 | twitter.com

Before discussing what happens next and the big picture implications, it's worth pointing out the incredible number of blatant lies and overall clownishness that emerged from U.S. officials in the assassination's aftermath. It started with claims from Trump that Soleimani was plotting imminent attacks on Americans and was caught in the act. Mass media did its job and uncritically parroted this line, which was quickly exposed as a complete falsehood.

CNN anchor uncritically repeating government lies.
This is what mass media does to get wars going. https://t.co/QK1JET7TIj

-- Michael Krieger (@LibertyBlitz) January 6, 2020

It's incredibly telling that CNN would swallow this fact-free claim with total credulity within weeks of discovering the extent of the lies told about Syrian chemical attacks and the Afghanistan war . Meanwhile, when a reporter asked a state department official for some clarification on what sorts of attacks were imminent, this is what transpired.

When asked by a reporter for details about what kinds of imminent attacks Soleimani was planning, the State Dept. responds with:

"Jesus, do we have to explain why we do these things?"

Totally normal. pic.twitter.com/FDWtpfItEp

-- Michael Krieger (@LibertyBlitz) January 6, 2020

Naturally, we learned soon after from the Iraqi PM himself that Soleimani was in Iraq as part of a diplomatic effort to de-escalate tensions. In other words, he was apparently lured to Baghdad under false pretenses so he'd be a sitting duck for a U.S. strike. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Iraqi Prime Minister AbdulMahdi accuses Trump of deceiving him in order to assassinate Suleimani. Trump, according to P.M. lied about wanting a diplomatic solution in order to get Suleimani on a plane to Baghdad in the open, where he was summarily executed. https://t.co/HKjyQqXNqP

-- Joshua Landis (@joshua_landis) January 5, 2020

As you'd expect, some of the most ridiculous propaganda came from Mike Pompeo, a man who genuinely loves deception and considers it his craft.. For example:

Pompeo on CNN says US has "every expectation" that people "in Iran will view the American action last night as giving them freedom."

-- Josh Lederman (@JoshNBCNews) January 3, 2020

Then there's what actually happened.

Absolutely massive crowds on the streets of Mashhad awaiting the arrival of Qassem Suleimani.

"We are ready for war." pic.twitter.com/ZK4O8KQB17

-- Sam (@sonofnariman) January 5, 2020

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Qassem Soleimani's daughter Zeinab were among the hundreds of thousands mourning Soleimani in Tehran today. Iranian state TV put the crowd size at 'millions,' though that number could not be verified. https://t.co/R6EbKh6Gow

-- CBC News Alerts (@CBCAlerts) January 6, 2020

Moving on to the really big question: what does this assassination mean for the future role of the U.S. in the Middle East and American global hegemony generally? A few important things have already occurred. For starters, the Iraqi parliament passed a resolution calling for U.S. troops to leave. Even more important are the comments and actions of Muqtada al-Sadr.

WOW,

Iraqi Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr orders the return of "Mahdi Army" in response the American strike that killed Suleimani.

Mahdi Army fought against the US troops during the invasion in 2003. Sadr disbanded the group in 2008.

-- Ragıp Soylu (@ragipsoylu) January 3, 2020

Unmentioned in the above tweet, but extremely significant, is the fact al-Sadr has been a vocal critic of both the American and Iranian presence in Iraq. He doesn't want either country meddling in the affairs of Iraqis, but the Soleimani assassination clearly pushed him to focus on the U.S. presence. This is a very big deal and ensures Iraq will be far more dangerous for U.S. troops than it already was.

Going forward, Iran's response will be influenced to a great degree by what's already transpired. There are three things worth noting. First, although many Trump supporters are cheering the assassination, Americans are certainly nowhere near united on this , with many including myself viewing it as a gigantic strategic blunder. Second, it ratcheted up anti-American sentiment in Iraq to a huge degree without Iran having to do anything, as highlighted above. Third, hardliners within Iran have been given an enormous gift. With one drone strike, the situation went from grumblings and protests on the ground to a scene where any sort of dissent in the air has been extinguished for the time being.

Exactly right, which is why Iran will go more hardline if anything and more united.
If China admitted to taking out Trump even Maddow wouldn't cheer. https://t.co/zqaEDIoWH1

-- Michael Krieger (@LibertyBlitz) January 6, 2020

Iranian leadership will see these developments as important victories in their own right and will likely craft a response taking stock of this much improved position. This means a total focus on making the experience of American troops in the region untenable, which will be far easier to achieve now.

If that's right, you can expect less shock and awe in the near-term, and more consolidation of the various parties that were on the fence but have since shifted to a more anti-American stance following Soleimani's death. Iran will start with the easy pickings, which consists of consolidating its stronger position in Iraq and making dissidents feel shameful at home. That said, Iran will have to publicly respond with some sort of a counterattack, but that event will be carefully considered with Iran's primary objective in mind -- getting U.S. troops out of the region.

This means no attacks on U.S. or European soil, and no attacks targeting civilians either. Such a move would be as strategically counterproductive as Assad gassing Syrian cities after he was winning the war (which is why many of us doubted the narrative) since it would merely inflame American public opinion and give an excuse to attack Iran in Iran. There is no way Iranian leadership is that stupid, so any such attack must be treated with the utmost skepticism.

[Jan 07, 2020] The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation has offered Iraq Tuesday the option to purchase the world's most advanced missile defense system S-400 to protect its airspace

Jan 07, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation has offered Iraq Tuesday the option to purchase the world's most advanced missile defense system to protect its airspace, reported RIA Novosti .

According to the report, the Iraqi Armed Forces could purchase the Russian S-400 Triumf air defense system, which RIA points out, can "ensure the country's sovereignty and reliable airspace protection."

"Iraq is a partner of Russia in the field of military-technical cooperation, and the Russian Federation can supply the necessary funds to ensure the sovereignty of the country and reliable protection of airspace, including the supply of S-400 missiles and other components of the air defense system, such as Buk-M3, Tor -M2 "and so on," said Igor Korotchenko, Russian Defense Ministry's Public Council member.

For the last several months, Iraq has considered purchasing Russian air defense and missile systems, including the S-400, however, it has been met with fierce pressure from the US.

But with a political crisis between the US and Iraq underway, thanks partly to the US assassination of Iran's Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, Russia could profit as Iraq attempts to decouple from the US.

Wow! I just suggested it yesterday! 😀 After Iraq kicks the US out, it would need protection from American/Israeli warplanes. And Russian S-400 can do the job https://t.co/KCz3v705l1

-- CaliCali2000 (@CaliCali2000) January 7, 2020

A recent U.S. intelligence assessment indicated that at least 13 countries had expressed interest in purchasing the S-400s.

The Palmetto Cynic , 24 minutes ago link

And therein lies the fatal flaw in the thinking of a moron like Trump and the packs of morons that still believe his ********:

They still believe that the US can do whatever the **** it wants without retaliation or reprisal.

The China trade war that Trump started and Xi just ended is one example.

And now these un-warranted attacks on Iran will be a second example.

Will the idiots learn or is a third time a charm? I have my doubts reading the comments from these dimwits daily.

africoman , 30 minutes ago link

Russia signaling Iraq to continue pushing out foreign troops from their territory with less fear they gonna be targeted just like exemplified Sulemani when they took out like that since Iraq can have S-400 and Russian protection if they wanted etc

well well this pesky Russian understands protections will boast their push of the great satan?

problem is the pm is going out

I need to see Iran got S-400 asa

francis scott falseflag , 37 minutes ago link

Imagine how many batteries of S-400 are already installed and operational in Iran

serotonindumptruck , 33 minutes ago link

And Trump is delusional enough to claim air superiority.

Those B52s are well within range of the Russian S400 missile system.

Dzerzhhinsky , 26 minutes ago link

None.

Russia offered the S-400 but Iran opted for the S-300, and then only a couple of batteries.

Russia was going to sell S-300's to Iran years ago, but Russia broke the deal because of US pressure.

So China who have reverse engineered the S-300, gave/sold Iran information, and some critical parts.

Iranian missiles went from 10 meter accuracy to 1 meter accuracy overnight.

What Iran should have is the Russian jamming equipment that makes American missiles fall from the sky.

BlindMonkey , 40 minutes ago link

S-400 is sovereignty in a box. The US erred bigly.

SickDollar , 40 minutes ago link

Well said

[Jan 07, 2020] The victims of Iranian retaliation will be America's Arab proxies, be they nations such as Saudi Arabia and its allies, or military factions

Jan 07, 2020 | www.theguardian.com


[Jan 07, 2020] Russia WON'T Intervene in Iran, the US Will LOSE a War Against Iran, This Is the Beginning of the End of the US Empire

Jan 07, 2020 | russia-insider.com

Will Russia intervene?

First things first. There are NO legal/formal obligations between Russia and Iran and last time I checked, no Iranians have volunteered to die for Russia. Next, yes, Iran is an important ally for Russia. But what most folks are missing is that Iran does not need (or want) a direct Russian intervention. There are lots of reasons (including historical ones) to this. But what most folks are completely misunderstanding is that the Iranians are confident that they can win without any Russian (or other) help . I am in touch with a lot of folks from the Middle-East (including Iran) and I can tell you that their mood is one of not only total determination, but one of quiet confidence. Nobody in the region doubts that it's now over for Uncle Shmuel. I know, this sounds incredible for folks living in the West, but that is the reality in the Middle-East.

From 'The Charge of the Light Brigade'

Besides, you can be sure that Russia will help Iran, but behind the scenes. First and foremost with intelligence: while the Iranian have an extremely sophisticated intelligence community, it is dwarfed by the much larger Russian one which, on top of being much bigger, also has technical means which Iran can only dream about. Russia can also help with early warning and targeting. We can't know what is really going behind the scenes, but I am getting reports that the Russians are on full alert (as they were during the first Gulf war, alas – Saddam Hussein did not listen to the Russian warnings).

6) Should Russia declare that Iran is now under Russian protection ? Absolutely not! Why? Think of what is taking place as if you were sitting in the Kremlin: the Empire is about to embark on its last war (yes, I mean that, see further below) and the Russian specialists all KNOW that the US will lose, and badly. Why in the world would you intervene when your "main foe" (KGB/SVR/FSB expression for "USA") is about to do something terminally stupid?

Besides, this is a cultural issue too. In the West, threats are constantly used. Not only to scare the enemy, but also to feel less terrified yourself. In Asia (and Russia is far more culturally Asian than European) threats are seen as a sign of weakness and lack of resolve. In this entire career, Putin used a threat only ONCE: to convince the Urkonazis that attacking during the World Cup would have "severe consequences for the Ukrainian statehood".

But you have to understand that from a Russian point of view, the Ukraine is militarily so weak as to be laughable as an enemy and nobody in his right mind will ever doubt the outcome of a Ukie war with Russia. This is an extreme and exceptional case. But look at the case of the Russian intervention in Syria: unlike their western counterparts, the Russians did not first spend weeks threatening ISIS or anybody else in Syria. When Putin took the decision, they simply moved in, so quietly that THE BEST military in the galaxy never detected the Russian move.

So, IF, and I don't think that this will happen, Russia ever decided to move in to protect Iran, the US will find out about it when US servicemen will die in large numbers. Until then, Russia will not be issuing threats. Again, in the West threats are a daily occurrence. In the East, they are a sign of weakness.

Now you know why US threats are totally ineffective.

7) US force levels in the Middle-East. The US maintains a large network of bases all around Iran and throughout the entire planet, really. The real numbers are secret, of course, but let us assume, for argument sake, that the US has about 100'000 soldiers more or less near Iran. The actual figure does not matter (and the Iranians know it anyway). What is crucial is this: this does NOT mean that the US has 100'000 soldiers ready to attack Iran. A lot of that personnel is not really combat capable (the ratio of combat ready vs support ranges from country to country and from war to war, but let's just say that most of these 100'000 are NOT combat soldiers). Not only that, but there is a big difference between, say, many companies and battalions in a region and a real armored division. For example, the 82nd AB is an INFANTRY force, not really mechanized, not capable of engaging say, an armored brigade.

Here is a historical sidebar: during the first Gulf war, the US also sent in the 82nd AB as the central force of the operation "Desert Shield". And here is where Saddam Hussein committed his WORST blunder of all. If he had sent in his armored divisions across the Saudi border he would have made minced meat of the 82nd. The US knew that. In fact, Cheney was once asked what the US would have done if the Iraqis has destroyed the 82nd. He replied that the first line of defense was airpower on USN aircraft carriers and cruise missiles. And if that failed, the US would have had to use tactical nukes to stop the Iraqi divisions. That would be one of those instances were using nukes WOULD make sense from a purely military point of view (nukes are great to deal with armor!), but from a political point of view it would have been a PR disaster ( vide supra ). The same is true today.

For the US to engage in any serious ground operation it would need many months to get the force levels high enough and you can be darn sure that Iran would NEVER allow that. Should Uncle Shmuel try to send in a real, big, force into the KSA you can be sure that the Iranians will strike with everything they have!

The bottom line is this: the US has more than enough assets in the region to strike/bomb Iran. The US has nowhere near the kind of force levels to envision a major ground operation even in Iraq, nevermind Iran!

8) What about the Strait of Hormuz? There is no doubt in my mind that Iran can close the Strait of Hormuz. In fact, all the Iranians need to do to close it is say that they reserve the right to destroy (by whatever means) any ship attempting passage. That will be enough to stop all traffic. Of course, if that happens the US will have no other option than to attack the southern cost of Iran and try to deal with that threat. And yes, I am sorry of I disappoint my Iranian friends, I do believe that the US could probably re-open the Strait of Hormuz, but that will require "boots on the ground" in southern Iran and that is something which might yield an initial success, but that will turn into a massive military disaster in the medium to long run because the Iranians will have not only have time on their side, but they will have a dream come true: finally the US GIs will be within reach, literally. So, typically, the US will prevail coming in, only to find itself in a trap.

9) Do the Iranians seek death? This is an important one (thanks to Larchmonter 445 for suggesting this!). The short answer is no. Not at all. Iranians want to live and they do not seek death. HOWEVER, they also know that death in defense of Islam or in defense of the oppressed is an act of "witness to God", which is what the Arabic word " shahid " is (and why the Greek work μάρτυς "martis" means). What does that mean? That means that while Muslim soldiers should not seek their death, and while they ought to do everything in their power to remain alive, they are NOT afraid of death in the least. To fully understand this mindset, you need only become aware of the most famous and crucial Shia slogan " Every Day Is Ashura and Every Land Is Karbala " (see explanation here ). If I had to translate this into a Christian frame of reference I would suggest this "every day is Good/Passion Friday and every land is the Golgotha". That is to say, " no matter were you are and no matter what time it is, you have to be willing to sacrifice your life for God and for the defense of the oppressed ". So no, Iranians are a joyful people (as are Arabs), and they don't seek death. But neither do they fear it and they accept, with gratitude, the possibility of having to sacrifice their lives in defense of justice and truth. This is one more reason why threats by terminal imbeciles like Pompeo or Trump have no effect whatsoever on Muslims.

10) So what is really happening now? Folks, this is the beginning of the end for the Empire . Yes, I know, this sounds incredible, yet this is exactly what we are seeing happening before our eyes. The very best which the US can hope for now is a quick and complete withdrawal from the Middle-East. For a long list of political reason, that does not seem a realistic scenario right now. So what next? A major war against Iran and against the entire "Shia crescent" ? Not a good option either. Not only will the US lose, but it would lose both politically and militarily. Limited strikes? Not good either, since we know that Iran will retaliate massively. A behind the scenes major concession to appease Iran? Nope, ain't gonna happen either since if the Iranians let the murder of Soleimani go unpunished, then Hassan Nasrallah, Bashar al-Assad and even Ayatollah Ali Khamenei will be the next ones to be murdered. A massive air campaign? Most likely, and initially this will feel good (lots of flagwaving in the USA), but soon this will turn into a massive disaster. Use nukes? Sure, and destroy your political image forever and not only in the Middle-East but worldwide.

As a perfect illustration, just check the latest stupid threat made by Trump : " If they do ask us to leave, if we don't do it in a very friendly basis, we will charge them sanctions like they've never seen before ever. It'll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame" . Folk, this is exactly the kind of stupid language which will deeply offend any Iraqi patriot. This is the kind of language which comes out of an empire in the late stages of agony.

Trump will go down in history as the man who thought he could scare the Iranian and Iraqi people with "tweets".

Pathetic indeed.

CONCLUSION

I hope that these pointers will be useful, especially when you are going to be hit with a massive Tsunami of US flagwaving propaganda (Trump "we are THE BEST"). Simply put: this is bullshit. Modern wars are first and foremost propaganda wars, and what you see as the output of US ruling elites are just that – "information operations". Let them wave their (Chinese made) flags, let them declare "United we stand" (for what exactly they stand is never specified) and let them repeat that the US military is the MOST FORMIDABLE FORCE IN THE GALAXY. These are nothing but desperate attempts to control the narrative, nothing else.

Oh, and one more irony: while the GOP controlled Senate is most unlikely to ever impeach Trump, is it not pathetically hilarious that Trump has now, indeed, committed acts ought to have him removed from office? Of course, in the real world, the US Neocon deep-state controls BOTH parties and BOTH parties fully support a war against Iran. Still, this is one of those ironies of history which should be mentioned.

I will resume my work tomorrow morning.

Until then, I wish you call a good nite/morning/day.

[Jan 07, 2020] The neocon foreign policy brings only bankruptcy moral and financial by Ron Paul

Jan 06, 2020 | www.unz.com

President Trump and his Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told us the US had to assassinate Maj. Gen. Qassim Soleimani last week because he was planning "Imminent attacks" on US citizens. I don't believe them.

Why not? Because Trump and the neocons – like Pompeo – have been lying about Iran for the past three years in an effort to whip up enough support for a US attack. From the phony justification to get out of the Iran nuclear deal, to blaming Yemen on Iran, to blaming Iran for an attack on Saudi oil facilities, the US Administration has fed us a steady stream of lies for three years because they are obsessed with Iran.

And before Trump's obsession with attacking Iran, the past four US Administrations lied ceaselessly to bring about wars on Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Serbia, Somalia, and the list goes on.

At some point, when we've been lied to constantly and consistently for decades about a "threat" that we must "take out" with a military attack, there comes a time where we must assume they are lying until they provide rock solid, irrefutable proof. Thus far they have provided nothing. So I don't believe them.

President Trump has warned that his administration has already targeted 52 sites important to Iran and Iranian culture and the US will attack them if Iran retaliates for the assassination of Gen. Soleimani. Because Iran has no capacity to attack the United States, Iran's retaliation if it comes will likely come against US troops or US government officials stationed or visiting the Middle East. I have a very easy solution for President Trump that will save the lives of American servicemembers and other US officials: just come home. There is absolutely no reason for US troops to be stationed throughout the Middle East to face increased risk of death for nothing.

In our Ron Paul Liberty Report program last week we observed that the US attack on a senior Iranian military officer on Iraqi soil – over the objection of the Iraq government – would serve to finally unite the Iraqi factions against the United States. And so it has: on Sunday the Iraqi parliament voted to expel US troops from Iraqi soil. It may have been a non-binding resolution, but there is no mistaking the sentiment. US troops are not wanted and they are increasingly in danger. So why not listen to the Iraqi parliament?

Bring our troops home, close the US Embassy in Baghdad – a symbol of our aggression – and let the people of the Middle East solve their own problems. Maintain a strong defense to protect the United States, but end this neocon pipe-dream of ruling the world from the barrel of a gun. It does not work. It makes us poorer and more vulnerable to attack. It makes the elites of Washington rich while leaving working and middle class America with the bill. It engenders hatred and a desire for revenge among those who have fallen victim to US interventionist foreign policy. And it results in millions of innocents being killed overseas.

There is no benefit to the United States to trying to run the world. Such a foreign policy brings only bankruptcy – moral and financial. Tell Congress and the Administration that for America's sake we demand the return of US troops from the Middle East! (Republished from The Ron Paul Institute by permission of author or representative)

[Jan 07, 2020] Impeachment as a way out for the USa for create Trump Soliemani muder deadlock with Iran

Jan 07, 2020 | www.nytimes.com

Hineni47 NYC area 6h ago

"Unlike with North Korea, it's difficult to imagine any photo op or exchange of love letters defusing the crisis the president has created. " The only thing that might defuse this crisis would be the Senate convicting Trump and removing him from office. It would be a good idea if the House passes another article of impeachment accusing the president of committing an act of war without Congressional authorization.
Sirlar Jersey City 3h ago Times Pick
Threatening to destroy cultural sites of a country is the sign of a deranged madman. I can't believe a US president would dare say something like that. It goes against all the principles America stands for. Nothing will motivate the people of Iran to fight the US more than the threat of destruction to their cultural sites. If we go to war with Iran, this is a Republican war. They own it. When are decent Republicans going to stand up and do the right thing? If they don't, this could be very, very, bad.
PatMurphy77 Michigan 5h ago
The Defense department is already walking back Trump's tweet about bombing Iran culture sites. Unfortunately, it's too late because the damage to our reputation as the "shining light on the hill" has already been destroyed. I'm afraid more than now than I have ever been in my life. Who knows when or where the revenge will occur but I'm fairly certain it will happen and we'll be more isolated than ever before. It's taken centuries to build goodwill and our reputation as a beacon of democracy for the world. We gave the keys to the kingdom to a false prophet and we'll pay for his indiscretions for the rest of my lifetime. God help us all.

[Jan 07, 2020] The Nightmare Stage of Trump's Rule Is Here by Michelle Goldberg Michelle Goldberg

Jan 07, 2020 | www.nytimes.com

After three harrowing years, we've reached the point many of us feared from the moment Donald Trump was elected. His decision to kill Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, Iran's second most important official, made at Mar-a-Lago with little discernible deliberation , has brought the United States to the brink of a devastating new conflict in the Middle East.

We don't yet know how Iran will retaliate, or whether all-out war will be averted. But already, NATO has suspended its mission training Iraqi forces to fight ISIS . Iraq's Parliament has voted to expel American troops -- a longtime Iranian objective. (On Monday, U.S. forces sent a letter saying they were withdrawing from Iraq in response, only to then claim that it was a draft released in error .) On Sunday, Iran said it will no longer be bound by the remaining restrictions on its nuclear program in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the deal that Trump abandoned in 2018. Trump has been threatening to commit war crimes by destroying Iran's cultural sites and tried to use Twitter to notify Congress of his intention to respond to any Iranian reprisals with military escalation.

The administration has said that the killing of Suleimani was justified by an imminent threat to American lives, but there is no reason to believe this. One skeptical American official told The New York Times that the new intelligence indicated nothing but "a normal Monday in the Middle East," and Democrats briefed on it were unconvinced by the administration's case. The Washington Post reported that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo -- who last year agreed with a Christian Broadcasting Network interviewer that God might have sent Trump to save Israel from the "Iranian menace" -- has been pushing for a hit on Suleimani for months.

[Jan 07, 2020] Trump is the kind of child leader that will throw temper tantrums in front of the world. Id impulses are running the world here and when id impulses run the world from the White House we are certain that whatever manifests will be destructive beyond imagination for most adults in the world.

Jan 07, 2020 | off-guardian.org

MASTER OF UNIVE American corporations will start falling into Chapter 11 bankruptcy in Q1 if the USA MIC cannot find new contracts to profit from via kinetic war. The USA's last war was Iraq post-911 and the USA MIC made good money & profit from that war. Without forever wars the USA Ponzi Corporatocracy will deflate. If the USA Ponzi Corporatocracy deflates due to recession it means the end of USA Imperialism.
If the hawks can generate forever wars the MIC suppliers may have a chance to stay in business, but if they don't get new contracts for new forever wars they all know implicitly that that is a Zero Sum game for the entire USA population.

BIG Chief Trump little penis has only one chance to stay in power at this juncture. He has ordered troupes to Iraq and approximately 2000 marines are on the way right now. In brief, 2000 marines were not ordered to Iraq to escort the base troupes out of Iraq safely. They were sent on a mission.

Impeachment, DOW Share Price, and no Trade Deal with China will put Trump on the defensive and he will start threatening everyone in the world if he does not get his way.

Trump is the kind of child leader that will throw temper tantrums in front of the world. Temper tantrums worked with his parents, and the Real Estate community in New York shitty.

Trump is a child of roughly 6 or 7 mentally & socially. Id impulses are running the world here and when id impulses run the world from the White House we are certain that whatever manifests will be destructive beyond imagination for most adults in the world.

Children with anger management issues & rage issues will understand Trump best.

[Jan 07, 2020] Trump's Biggest Gamble Yet May Set the Entire Middle East Alight by Martin Jay

It's all about the level of geopolitical control of oil-rich regions. In other words Carter doctrine.
Notable quotes:
"... Don't expect any American journalists to remind viewers that one of Soleimani's achievements was not only to command the entire Iraqi army's campaign against ISIS, but also to do that in cooperation with U.S. forces. ..."
"... Trump doesn't really read. Or even take solace from history. If he did, he would know that many U.S. presidents actually lost the vote at the crucial moment, because of their bungling in the Middle East and, in particular, in Iran. President Reagan for example won the White House in November 1980 after the failed rescue mission of U.S. hostages in April of that year in Iran went spectacularly wrong which gave a "landslide" victory to the former B-movie actor from Hollywood ..."
"... Trump's strike does ring of a president, struggling with an impeachment campaign gaining momentum, who may feel has nothing to lose other than to repeat history, which has doomed him, like Carter or Reagan (who never survived Iran-Contra). ..."
"... But his reckless folly in the Middle East is also a test of how far relations with the U.S. and the rest of the world can go, before something breaks. The assassination of the Iranian general could drive a huge divide between the U.S. and the EU in the next term, if Trump can secure re-election as it will be Europe which pays the real price when the region boils over. ..."
Jan 05, 2020 | www.strategic-culture.org
I personally do not think that the strike was a typically capricious move by Trump. I am more inclined to believe that it has been in the works for a long time and his advisers might well have offered it to him as a preferable retaliation option against the Iranian downing of a U.S. drone in June of last year – where Trump floundered and finally held back from launching a conventional military attack on Iranian forces, through fear of civilians being killed, or so he claims.

What we are witnessing is unprecedented in the region. It has caught everyone off guard, even the democrats in the U.S., who can barely believe the stupidity of the move, which arguably, is a measured one. Trump believes that he can come out the winner of a pseudo war – or a proxy one – in the region, even though the Iranians have demonstrated that they easily have the capability of shutting down Saudi Arabia's oil exports with a relatively minor salvo of ordinance.

In fact, Saudi Arabia might well, in my view, be part of this latest move. Much has been made of the petulant twitter goading of Tehran's Supreme leader to Trump directly, which may well have pushed him over a line. But in reality, there is something much deeper and nefarious at play which may well be the true basis of why the decision was taken for the assassination: to destroy any possibilities of Iran and Saudi Arabia patching up their differences and continuing in dialogue, to avoid further tensions.

There is ample evidence to show that since the oilfield attacks carried out by Iran, Saudi crown prince Mohamed bin Salman has softened his stance on Iran and was looking at ways, through intermediaries, to build a working relation. It was early days and progress was slow.

But the Soleimani hit will blow that idea right out of the water. In one fell swoop, the strike galvanises and polarises an anti-Iran front from Saudi Arabia and Israel, which, whilst doing wonders for U.S. arms procurement will cause more tension in the region as it places countries like Qatar, UAE, Turkey and Oman in a really awkward spot with regards to how it should continue to work with Tehran. It may well put back the Qatar blockade to its earlier position as 'rogue state' in the region, prompting it to possibly even go rogue and get more involved in the battle to take Tripoli (supporting Turkish forces, obviously, who are with the UN-recognised government).

In fact, there is an entire gamut of consequences to the move, beyond merely Iran seeking to take revenge against America's allies in the region. It is less about a declaration of war against Iran but more a declaration of anti-peace towards the entire Arab world, which was starting to unfold in the last six months since Trump stepped back from the region and stood down from a retaliation strike against Iran in the Straits of Hormuz. Trump is gambling that he can sustain Saudi Arabia's oil being disrupted and even body bags of U.S. soldiers in Syria and Iraq in return for a fresh wave of popularity from people too ignorant to understand or wish to comprehend the nuances of the Middle East and how so many U.S. presidents use the pretext of a war, or heightened tensions, as part of their chest-beating, shallow popularity campaign.

Don't expect any American journalists to remind viewers that one of Soleimani's achievements was not only to command the entire Iraqi army's campaign against ISIS, but also to do that in cooperation with U.S. forces.

Trump doesn't really read. Or even take solace from history. If he did, he would know that many U.S. presidents actually lost the vote at the crucial moment, because of their bungling in the Middle East and, in particular, in Iran. President Reagan for example won the White House in November 1980 after the failed rescue mission of U.S. hostages in April of that year in Iran went spectacularly wrong which gave a "landslide" victory to the former B-movie actor from Hollywood .

Reagan, in turn, carried on the great tradition of Middle East histrionics by his notably 'mad dog' Libya campaign, which ran concurrent to two devastating attacks on U.S. soldiers and embassy staff in Lebanon, while two different CIA teams worked against each other in trying to secure the release of U.S. hostages in Beirut – while all along he was selling illegal arms to the Iranians and using the cash to fund Contras in Nicaragua.

Trump's strike does ring of a president, struggling with an impeachment campaign gaining momentum, who may feel has nothing to lose other than to repeat history, which has doomed him, like Carter or Reagan (who never survived Iran-Contra).

But his reckless folly in the Middle East is also a test of how far relations with the U.S. and the rest of the world can go, before something breaks. The assassination of the Iranian general could drive a huge divide between the U.S. and the EU in the next term, if Trump can secure re-election as it will be Europe which pays the real price when the region boils over.

Martin Jay is an award -winning freelance journalist and political commentator

[Jan 07, 2020] Either the assassination was a drive-by on the way out, or Trump's war cabinet doesn't plan on having to leave Iraq.

Jan 07, 2020 | www.truthdig.com

Trump has from the beginning of his presidential campaign appealed to the worst and most fascistic elements in American political life. At a time when the US has no credible peer military rival, he added hundreds of billions of dollars to the Pentagon budget, and the pudgy old chicken hawk lionized war criminals. Up until now, however, Trump shrewdly calculated that his base was tired of wasting blood and treasure on fruitless Middle Eastern wars, and he avoided taking more than symbolic steps. He dropped a big missile on Afghanistan once, and fired some Tomahawk Cruise missiles at Syria. But he drew back from the brink of more extensive military engagements.

Now, by murdering Qasem Soleimani , the head of the Jerusalem (Qods) Brigade of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, Trump has brought the United States to the brink of war with Iran. Mind you, Iran's leadership is too shrewd to rush to the battlements at this moment, and will be prepared to play the long game. My guess is that they will encourage their allies among Iraqi Shiites to get up a massive protest at the US embassy and at bases housing US troops.

They will be aided in this task of mobilizing Iraqis by the simultaneous US assassination of Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis , the deputy head of the Popular Mobilization Forces. Al-Muhandis is a senior military figure in the Iraqi armed forces, not just a civilian militia figure. Moreover, the Kata'ib Hizbullah that he headed is part of a strong political bloc, al-Fath, which has 48 members in parliament and forms a key coalition partner for the current, caretaker prime minister, Adil Abdulmahdi. Parliament won't easily be able to let this outrage pass.

The US officer corps is confident that the American troops at the embassy and elsewhere in Baghdad are sufficient to fight off any militia invasion. I'm not sure they have taken into account the possibility of tens of thousands of civilian protesters invading the embassy, who can't simply be taken out and shot.

Trump may be counting on the unpopularity among the youth protesters in downtown Baghdad, Basra, Nasiriya and other cities of Soleimani and of al-Muhandis to blunt the Iraqi reaction to the murders. The thousands of youth protesters cheered on hearing the news of their deaths, since they were accused of plotting a violent repression of the rallies demanding an end to corruption.

Iraq, however, is a big, complex society, and there are enormous numbers of Iraqi Shiites who support the Popular Mobilization Forces and who view them as the forces that saved Iraq from the peril of the ISIL (ISIS) terrorist organization. The Shiite hard liners would not need all Iraqis to back them in confronting the American presence, only a few hundred thousand for direct crowd action.

You also have to wonder whether Trump and his coterie aren't planning a coup in Iraq. In the absence of a coup, the Iraqi parliament will almost certainly be forced, after this violation of Iraqi national sovereignty, to vote to expel American troops. This is foreseeable. So either the assassination was a drive-by on the way out, or Trump's war cabinet doesn't plan on having to leave Iraq.

[Jan 06, 2020] The most optimistic post on this thread.

Jan 06, 2020 | www.unz.com


AnonFromTN , says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 5, 2020 at 10:28 pm GMT

@Cloak And Dagger

Henry Kissinger Predicts 'In 10 Years, There Will Be No More Israel'

That's the most optimistic post on this thread.

[Jan 06, 2020] But they could always find an un-scorched Iranian passport in mint condition among the debris of the explosion.

Jan 06, 2020 | www.unz.com

Commentator Mike , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 9:08 pm GMT

@Bookish1

Not only Mossad but probably many others would like to see a suicide bomber blow himself up somewhere in the US killing alot of people. That makes it difficult to figure out who did it and maybe impossible to figure it out. It would be a mess.

But they could always find an un-scorched Iranian passport in mint condition among the debris of the explosion.

[Jan 06, 2020] One humble suggestion about resolving the crisis with Iran

Jan 06, 2020 | angrybearblog.com

SW , January 5, 2020 9:12 am

If they want revenge, in the interest of avoiding future bloodshed, I suggest that we give them Mike Pence.

[Jan 06, 2020] Diplomacy Trump-style. Al Capone probably would be allow himself to fall that low

Highly recommended!
Jan 06, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Fec , Jan 5 2020 15:23 utc | 3

"We have learned today from #Iraq Prime Minister AdilAbdl Mahdi how @realDonaldTrump uses diplomacy:
#US asked #Iraq to mediate with #Iran. Iraq PM asks #QassemSoleimani to come and talk to him and give him the answer of his mediation, Trump &co assassinate an envoy at the airport."

https://twitter.com/ejmalrai/status/1213833855754485762

[Jan 06, 2020] Whether he is eating ice cream or not, Trump appears to be on a rampage to recreate the end of The Godfather.

Jan 06, 2020 | www.unz.com

Cloak And Dagger , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:16 am GMT

Doubling down on stupid:

Whether he is eating ice cream or not, Trump appears to be on a rampage to recreate the end of The Godfather.

Less than 24 hours after a US drone shockingly killed the top Iranian military leader, Qasem Soleimani, resulting in equity markets groaning around the globe in fear over Iranian reprisals (and potentially, World War III), the US has gone for round two with Reuters and various other social media sources reporting that US air strikes targeting Iraq's Popular Mobilization Units umbrella grouping of Iran-backed Shi'ite militias near camp Taji north of Baghdad, have killed six people and critically wounded three, an Iraqi army source said late on Friday.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/round-two-us-drone-airstrikes-kill-six-pro-iran-militia-commanders

Gleimhart Mantooso , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:55 am GMT
Now would be the perfect time for the Mossad to do its false flag shtick. They wouldn't even have to try very hard to pin it on Iran. I'll bet that when the news came out that the Iranian guy had been killed, every neocon on the planet popped a boner that will last for days. Michael Ledeen is probably mazel tov-ing his ass off.

I don't care about the dead Muslim who got killed, since that's the only kind of "good Muslim" you're ever going to find, but I would still prefer for the U.S. to get out of the Middle East altogether. Let those two warring anti-Christ peoples kill each other to their hearts' content.

[Jan 06, 2020] Adam Schiff Demands Public Hearings on Soleimani Strike and suggested Secretary of State Mike Pompeo misrepresented intelligence indicating that killing Soleimani saved American lives.

Jan 06, 2020 | www.breitbart.com

"I think there should be open hearings on this subject," Schiff told the Washington Post in an interview published Monday. "The president has put us on a path where we may be at war with Iran. That requires the Congress to fully engage."

Asked for his thoughts on President Trump warning Iran that the U.S. will hit 52 sites, including cultural sites, if Tehran retaliates the California Democrat said: "None of that could come out of the Pentagon. Absolutely no way."

... ... ...

Schiff 's comments to the Post come after he suggested Secretary of State Mike Pompeo misrepresented intelligence indicating that killing Soleimani saved American lives.

"It was a reckless decision that increased the risk to America all around the world, not decreased it. When Secretary Pompeo says that this decision to take out Qasem Soleimani saved American lives, saved European lives, he is expressing a personal opinion, not an intelligence conclusion," he told CNN State of the Union host Jake Tapper. "I think it will increase the risk to Americans around the world. I have not seen the intelligence that taking out Soleimani was going to either stop the plotting that is going on or decrease other risks to the United States."

[Jan 06, 2020] The imminent threat was fake and was a production of the Pompeo-Ester neocon gang by Zachary Cohen

Now we know the composition of the neocon gang that fooled malleable, jingoistic and incompetent Trump: "Defense Secretary Mark Esper, Pompeo, National Security Adviser Robert O'Brien and Milley".
Notable quotes:
"... The administration has failed to connect the dots in a way that provides a clear picture of an imminent threat and that argument has been obscured by inconsistent messaging from US officials. ..."
"... Democrat Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland also told CNN that one of his representatives was at the Friday briefing and said "nothing that came out of the briefing changed my view that this was an unnecessary escalation of the situation in Iraq and Iran." ..."
"... Van Hollen went on to say: "While I can't tell you what was said, I can tell you, I have no additional information to support the administration's claim that this was an imminent attack on Americans." ..."
Jan 06, 2020 | cnn.com

See also

Washington (CNN) Top US national security officials continue to defend the Trump administration's claim that it killed Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani in response to an impending threat to American lives, but the lack of evidence provided to lawmakers and the public has fueled lingering skepticism about whether the strike was justified.

President Donald Trump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and top military officials have offered similar explanations for targeting Soleimani, citing an "imminent" threat from his plans to carry out what Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley called a "significant campaign of violence" against the US in the coming days, weeks or months.

"If you're an American in the region, days and weeks, this is not something that's relevant," Pompeo told CNN's Jake Tapper on "State of the Union" Sunday, dodging a question on the imminence of such Iranian attacks. "We have to prepare, we have to be ready, and we took a bad guy off the battlefield."

But questions have continued to swirl in recent days over the timing, whether the administration fully considered the fallout from such a strike against Soleimani, and if an appropriate legal basis was established for the presidential authorization of lethal force.

... ... ...

When Trump finally gets ready to act, they added, "you can't out escalate him." CNN has previously reported that there was internal debate over the decision and work behind the scenes to develop a legal argument before the operation was carried out.

After a meeting Sunday in Mar-a-Lago where President Donald Trump was briefed by senior members of his national security team on options regarding Iran, some officials emerged surprised the President chose to target Soleimani, according to a source familiar with the briefing.

The officials who briefed Trump included Defense Secretary Mark Esper, Pompeo, National Security Adviser Robert O'Brien and Milley.

The source said that some aides expected Trump to pick a less risky option, but once presented with the choice of targeting Soleimani he remained intent on going forward.

...The administration has failed to connect the dots in a way that provides a clear picture of an imminent threat and that argument has been obscured by inconsistent messaging from US officials.

Democrat Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland also told CNN that one of his representatives was at the Friday briefing and said "nothing that came out of the briefing changed my view that this was an unnecessary escalation of the situation in Iraq and Iran."

Van Hollen went on to say: "While I can't tell you what was said, I can tell you, I have no additional information to support the administration's claim that this was an imminent attack on Americans."

[Jan 06, 2020] Russian reaction

Jan 06, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

grr , Jan 7 2020 0:43 utc | 141

Re PCR's latest linked article (post 133.
What PCR is insisting Putin do ("The easiest and cleanest way for Putin to do this is to announce that Iran is under Russia's protection.")Putin has already done so in a landmark speech last year when he unveiled five or six game-changing weapons, or was it 2018.
He declared back then to the evil empire that a nuclear attack on an ally would be considered an attack upon Russia. He made this crystal clear. Of course it wouldn't hurt for him to 'gently' remind them of this.

bjd , Jan 7 2020 0:47 utc | 142

You can read Lavrov's Press Releases here: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation .
bjd , Jan 7 2020 0:58 utc | 147

I do have to say, the silence from the Russians is odd. Even when you read the Russian Foreign Ministry's news releases.

For instance, there's this on January 4th:
" On January 4, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran Mohammad Javad Zarif, at the latter's initiative. " (italics mine).

So Lavrov talked to an Iranian official only on January 4th, and the call came from Iran (Zarif), not the other way around. This is odd, and even the explicit
mentioning of Zarif initiating the call --to me-- seems odd.
Hmm...

[Jan 06, 2020] Warren Questions if Soleimani Strike Linked to Impeachment -- Look at the Timing Breitbart

Notable quotes:
"... Follow Pam Key On Twitter @pamkeyNEN ..."
Jan 06, 2020 | www.breitbart.com

On Sunday's broadcast of CNN's "State of the Union," 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) questioned if President Donald Trump's reasons for the Qasem Soleimani assassination was to distract from impeachment.

Warren said, "I think that the question that we ought to focus on is why now? Why not a month ago, and why not a month from now? And the answer from the administration seems to be that they can't keep their story straight on this. They pointed in all different directions. And you know, the last time that we watched them do this was the summer over Ukraine. As soon as people started asking about the conversations between Donald Trump and the president of Ukraine and why aid had been held up to Ukraine, the administration did the same thing. They pointed in all directions of what was going on. And of course, what emerged then is that this is Donald Trump just trying to advance Donald Trump's own political agenda. Not the agenda of the United States of America. So what happens right now? Next week, the president of the United States could be facing an impeachment trial in the Senate. We know that he is deeply upset about that. I think that people are reasonably asking why this moment? Why does he pick now to take this highly inflammatory, highly dangerous action that moves us closer to war? We have been at war for 20 years in the Middle East, and we need to stop the war this the Middle East and not expand it."

Tapper asked, "Are you suggesting that President Trump pulled the trigger and had Qasem Soleimani killed as a distraction from impeachment?"

Warren said, "Look, I think that people are reasonably asking about the timing and why it is that the administration seems to have all kinds of different answers. In the first 48 hours after this attack, what did we hear? Well, we heard it was for an imminent attack, and then we heard, no, no, it is to prevent any future attack, and then we heard that it is from the vice president himself and no, it is related to 9/11, and then we heard from president reports of people in the intelligence community saying that the whole, that the threat was overblown. You know, when the administration doesn't seem to have a coherent answer for taking a step like this. They have taken a step that moves us closer to war, a step that puts everyone at risk, and step that puts the military at risk and puts the diplomats in the region at risk. And we have already paid a huge price for this war. Thousands of American lives lost, and a cost that we have paid domestically and around the world. At the same time, look at what it has done in the Middle East, millions of people who have been killed, who have been injured, who have been displaced. So this is not a moment when the president should be escalating tensions and moving us to war. The job of the president is to keep us safe, and that means move back from the edge."

Tapper pressed, "Do you believe that President Trump pulled the trigger on this operation as a way to distract from impeachment? Is that what you think?"

Warren said, "I think it is a reasonable question to ask, particularly when the administration immediately after having taken this decision offers a bunch of contradictory explanations for what is going on."

She continued, "I think it is the right question to ask. We will get more information as we go forward but look at the timing on this. Look at what Donald Trump has said afterward and his administration. They have pointed in multiple directions. There is a reason that he chose this moment, not a month ago and not a month from now, not a less aggressive and less dangerous response. He had a whole range of responses that were presented to him. He didn't pick one of the other ones. He picked the most aggressive and the one that moves us closer to war. So what does everybody talk about today? Are we going to war? Are we going to have another five years, tens, ten years of war in the Middle East, and dragged in once again. Are we bringing another generation of young people into war? That is every bit of the conversation right now. Donald Trump has taken an extraordinarily reckless step, and we have seen it before, he is using foreign policy and uses whatever he can to advance the interests of Donald Trump."

Follow Pam Key On Twitter @pamkeyNEN

[Jan 06, 2020] Soleimani murder what could happen next by The Saker

Jan 06, 2020 | www.unz.com

https://staticxx.facebook.com/connect/xd_arbiter.php?version=45#channel=f1bd48e619c98fc&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.unz.com https://www.unz.com/tsaker/soleimani-murder-what-could-happen-next/ The Unz Review - Mobile The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media User Settings: Max Comment Length? Version? Social Media? Read Aloud w/ Show Word Counts No Video Autoplay No Infinite Scrolling
Save Cancel

← EXTREMELY Dangerous Development in the ... The US Is Now at War, de-Facto and de-J... → Blogview The Saker Archive Blogview The Saker Archive Soleimani Murder: What Could Happen Next? The Saker January 3, 2020 2,900 Words 357 Comments Reply Listen ॥ ■ ► RSS

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?app_id=&channel=https%3A%2F%2Fstaticxx.facebook.com%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter.php%3Fversion%3D45%23cb%3Df2a9166cd961e98%26domain%3Dwww.unz.com%26origin%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.unz.com%252Ff1bd48e619c98fc%26relation%3Dparent.parent&container_width=100&href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.unz.com%2Ftsaker%2Fsoleimani-murder-what-could-happen-next%2F&layout=button_count&locale=en_US&sdk=joey&share=true&size=small&width=90

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/share_button.php?app_id=&channel=https%3A%2F%2Fstaticxx.facebook.com%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter.php%3Fversion%3D45%23cb%3Df8941e156f9be8%26domain%3Dwww.unz.com%26origin%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.unz.com%252Ff1bd48e619c98fc%26relation%3Dparent.parent&container_width=0&href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.unz.com%2Ftsaker%2Fsoleimani-murder-what-could-happen-next%2F&locale=en_US&sdk=joey&type=button Email This Page to Someone
Remember My Information


=> List of Bookmarks A spiritual father kisses his beloved son
◄ ► Bookmark ◄ ► ▲ ▼ Toggle All ToC ▲ ▼ Add to Library Remove from Library B Show Comment Next New Comment Next New Reply Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period. Email Comment Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments Search Clear Cancel

First, a quick recap of the situation

We need to begin by quickly summarizing what just happened:

General Soleimani was in Baghdad on an official visit to attend the funeral of the Iraqis murdered by the US on the 29th The US has now officially claimed responsibility for this murder The Iranian Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has officially declared that " However, a severe retaliation awaits the criminals who painted their corrupt hands with his and his martyred companions' blood last night "

The US paints itself – and Iran – into a corner

The Iranians simply had no other choice than to declare that there will be a retaliation. There are a few core problems with what happens next. Let's look at them one by one:

First, it is quite obvious from the flagwaving claptrap in the US that Uncle Shmuel is "locked and loaded" for even more macho actions and reaction. In fact, Secretary Esper has basically painted the US into what I would call an "over-reaction corner" by declaring that " the game has changed " and that the US will take " preemptive action " whenever it feels threatened . Thus, the Iranians have to assume that the US will over-react to anything even remotely looking like an Iranian retaliation. No less alarming is that this creates the absolutely perfect conditions for a false flag à la " USS Liberty " . Right now, the Israelis have become at least as big a danger for US servicemen and facilities in the entire Middle-East as are the Iranians themselves. How? Simple! Fire a missile/torpedo/mine at any USN ship and blame Iran. We all know that if that happens the US political elites will do what they did the last time around: let US servicemen die and protect Israel at all costs (read up on the USS Liberty if you don't know about it) There is also a very real risk of "spontaneous retaliations" by other parties (not Iran or Iranian allies) . In fact, in his message, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has specifically declared that " Martyr Suleimani is an international face to the Resistance and all lovers of the Resistance share a demand in retaliation for his blood. All friends – as well as all enemies – must know the path of Fighting and Resistance will continue with double the will and the final victory is decidedly waiting for those who fight in this path. " He is right, Soleimani was loved and revered by many people all over the globe, some of whom might decided to avenge his death. This means that we might well see some kind of retaliation which, of course, will be blamed on Iran but which might not be the result of any Iranian actions at all. Finally, should the Iranians decide not to retaliate, then we can be absolutely sure that Uncle Shmuel will see that as a proof of his putative "invincibility" and take that as a license to engage in even more provocative actions. A spiritual father kisses his beloved son

If we look at these four factors together we would have to come to the conclusion that Iran HAS to retaliate and HAS to do so publicly .

Why?

Because whether the Iranian do retaliate or not, they are almost guaranteed another US attack in retaliation for anything looking like a retaliation, whether Iran is involved or not .

The dynamics of internal US politics

Next, let's look at the internal political dynamics in the US:

I have always claimed that Donald Trump is a "disposable President" for the Neocons . What do I mean by that? I mean that the Neocons have used Trump to do all sorts of truly fantastically dumb things (pretty much ALL his policy decisions towards Israel and/or Syria) for a very simple reason. If Trump does something extremely dumb and dangerous, he will either get away with it, in which case the Neocons will be happy, or he will either fail or the consequences of his decisions will be catastrophic, at which point the Neocons will jettison him and replace him by an even more subservient individual (say Pence or Pelosi). In other words, for the Neocons to have Trump do something both fantastically dangerous and fantastically stupid is a win-win situation !

Right now, the Dems (still the party favored by the Neocons) seem to be dead-set into committing political suicide with that ridiculous (and treacherous!) impeachment nonsense. Now think about this from the Neocon point of view. They might be able to get the US goyim to strike Iran AND get rid of Trump. I suppose that their thinking will go something like this:

Trump looks set to win 2020. We don't want that. However, we have been doing everything in our power to trigger a US attack on Iran since pretty much 1979. Let's have Trump do that. If he "wins" (by whatever definition – more about that further below), we win. If he loses, the Iranians will still be in a world of pain and we can always jettison him like a used condom (used to supposedly safely screw somebody with no risks to yourself). Furthermore, if the region explodes, this will help our beloved Bibi and unite US Jewry behind Israel. Finally, if Israel gets attacked, we will immediately demand (and, of course, obtain) a massive US attack on Iran, supported by the entire US political establishment and media. And, lastly, should Israel be hit hard, then we can always use our nukes and tell the goyim that "Iran wants to gas 6 million Jews and wipe the only democracy in the Middle-East off the face of the earth" or something equally insipid.

Ever since Trump made it into the White House, we saw him brown-nose the Israel Lobby with a delectation which is extreme even by US standards. I suppose that this calculation goes something along the lines of "with the Israel Lobby behind me, I am safe in the White House". He is obviously too stupidly narcissistic to realize that he has been used all along. To his (or one of his key advisor's) credit, he did NOT allow the Neocons to start a major war against Russia, China, the DPRK, Venezuela, Yemen, Syria, etc. However, Iran is a totally different case as it is the "number one" target the Neocons and Israel wanted strike and destroy. The Neocons even had this motto " boys go to Baghdad, real men go to Tehran ". Now that Uncle Shmuel has lost all this wars of choice, now that the US armed forces have no credibility left, now is the time to restore the "macho" self-image of Uncle Shmuel and, indeed, "go to Tehran" so to speak.

The Dems (Biden) are already saying that Trump just " tossed a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox ", as if they cared about anything except their own, petty, political goals and power. Still, I have to admit that Biden's metaphor is correct – that is exactly what Trump (and his real bosses) have done.

If we assume that I am correct in my evaluation that Trump is the Neocon's/Israeli's "disposable President", then we also have to accept the fact that the US armed forces the Neocon's/Israeli's "disposable armed forces" and that the US as a nation is also the Neocon's/Israeli's "disposable nation". This is very bad news indeed, as this means that from the Neocon/Israeli point of view, there are no real risks into throwing the US into a war with Iran .

In truth, the position of the Dems is a masterpiece of hypocrisy which can be summed up as follows: the assassination of Soleimani is a wonderful event, but Trump is a monster for making it happen .

A winner, no?

What would the likely outcome of a US war on Iran be?

I have written so often about this topic that I won't go into all the possible scenarios here. All I will say is the following:

    For the US, "winning" means achieving regime change or, failing that, destroying the Iranian economy. For Iran, "winning" simply means to survive the US onslaught.

This is a HUGE asymmetry which basically means that the US cannot win and Iran can only win.

And, not, the Iranians don't have to defeat CENTCOM/NATO! They don't need to engage in large scale military operations. All they need to do is: remain "standing" once the dust settles down.

ORDER IT NOW

Ho Chi Minh once told the French " You can kill ten of my men for every one I kill of yours, but even at those odds, you will lose and I will win ". This is exactly why Iran will eventually prevail, maybe at a huge cost (Amalek must be destroyed, right?), but that will still be a victory.

Now let's look at the two most basic types of war scenarios: outside Iran and inside Iran.

The Iranians, including General Soleimani himself, have publicly declared many times that by trying to surround Iran and the Middle-East with numerous forces and facilities the US have given Iran a long list of lucrative targets. The most obvious battlefield for a proxy war is clearly Iraq where there are plenty of pro and anti Iranian forces to provide the conditions for a long, bloody and protracted conflict (Moqtada al-Sadr has just declared that the Mahdi Army will be remobilized). But Iraq is far from being the only place where an explosion of violence can take place: the ENTIRE MIDDLE-EAST is well within Iranian "reach", be it by direct attack or by attack by sympathetic/allied forces. Next to Iraq, there is also Afghanistan and, potentially, Pakistan. In terms of a choice of instruments, the Iranian options range from missile attacks, to special forces direct action strikes, to sabotage and many, many more options. The only limitation here is the imagination of the Iranians and, believe me, they have plenty of that!

If such a retaliation happens, the US will have two basic options: strike at Iranian friends and allies outside Iran or, as Esper has now suggested, strike inside Iran. In the latter case, we can safely assume that any such attack will result in a massive Iranian retaliation on US forces and facilities all over the region and a closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

Keep in mind that the Neocon motto " boys go to Baghdad, real men go to Tehran " implicitly recognizes the fact that a war against Iran would be qualitatively (and even quantitatively) different war than a war against Iraq. And, this is true, if the US seriously plans to strike inside Iran they would be faced with an explosion which would make all the wars since WWII look minor in comparison. But the temptation to prove to the world that Trump and his minions are "real men" as opposed to "boys" might be too strong, especially for a president who does not understand that he is a disposable tool in the hands of the Neocons.

Now, let's quickly look at what will NOT happen

Russia and/or China will not get militarily involved in this one. Neither will the US use this crisis as a pretext to attack Russia and/or China. The Pentagon clearly has no stomach for a war (conventional or nuclear) against Russia and neither does Russia have any desire for a war against the US. The same goes for China. However, it is important to remember that Russia and China have other options, political and covert ones, to really hurt the US and help Iran. There is the UNSC where Russia and China will block any US resolution condemning Iran. Yes, I know, Uncle Shmuel does not give a damn about the UN or international law, but most of the rest of the world very much does. This asymmetry is further exacerbated by Uncle Shmuel's attention span (weeks at most) with the one of Russia and China (decades). Does that matter?

Absolutely!

If the Iraqis officially declare that the US is an occupation force (which it is), an occupation force which engages in acts of war against Iraq (which it does) and that the Iraqi people want Uncle Shmuel and his hypocritical talking points about "democracy" to pack and leave, what can our Uncle Shmuel do? He will try to resist it, of course, but once the tiny figleaf of "nation building" is gone, replaced by yet another ugly and brutal US occupation, the political pressure on the US to get the hell out will become extremely hard to manage, both outside and even inside the US.

In fact, Iranian state television called Trump's order to kill Soleimani " the biggest miscalculation by the U.S." since World War II. "The people of the region will no longer allow Americans to stay," it said.

Next, both Russia and China can help Iran militarily with intelligence, weapons systems, advisors and economically, in overt and covert ways.

Finally, both Russia and China have the means to, shall we say, "strongly suggest" to other targets on the US "country hit list" that now is the perfect time to strike at US interests (say, in Far East Asia).

So Russia and China can and will help, but they will do so with what the CIA likes to call "plausible deniability".

Back The Big Question: what can/will Iran do next?

The Iranians are far most sophisticated players than the mostly clueless Americans. So the first thing I would suggest is that the Iranians are unlikely to do something the US is expecting them to do. Either they will do something totally different, or they will act much later, once the US lowers its guard (as it always does after declaring "victory").

I asked a well-informed Iranian friend whether it was still possible to avoid war. Here is what he replied:

Yes I do believe fullscale war can be avoided. I believe that Iran can try to use its political influence to unite Iraqi political forces to officially ask for the removal of US troops in Iraq. Kicking the US out of Iraq will mean that they can no longer occupy eastern Syria either as their troops will be in danger between two hostile states. If the Americans leave Syria and Iraq, that will be the ultimate revenge for Iran without having fired a single shot.

I have to say that I concur with this idea: one of the most painful things Iran could do next would be to use this truly fantastically reckless event to kick the US out of Iraq first, and Syria next. That option, if it can be exercised, might also protect Iranian lives and the Iranian society from a direct US attack. Finally, such an outcome would give the murder of General Soleimani a very different and beautiful meaning: this martyr's blood liberated the Middle-East!

Finally, if that is indeed the strategy chosen by Iran, this does not at all mean that on a tactical level the Iranians will not extract a price from US forces in the region or even elsewhere on the planet. For example, there are some rather credible rumors that the destruction of PanAm 103 over Scotland was not a Libyan action, but an Iranian one in direct retaliation for the deliberate shooting down by the USN of IranAir 655 Airbus over the Persian Gulf. I am not saying that I know for a fact that this is what really happened, only that Iran does have retaliatory options not limited to the Middle-East.

Conclusion: we wait for Iran's next move

The Iraqi Parliament is scheduled to debate a resolution demanding the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. I will just say that while I do not believe that the US will gentlemanly agree to any such demands, it will place the conflict in the political realm. That is – by definition – much more desirable than any form of violence, however justified it might seem. So I strongly suggest to those who want peace that they pray that the Iraqi MPs show some honor and spine and tell Uncle Shmuel what every country out there always wanted from the US: Yankees, go home!

If that happens this will be a total victory for Iran and yet another abject defeat (self-defeat, really) by Uncle Shmuel. This is the best of all possible scenarios.

But if that does not happen, then all bets are off and the momentum triggered by this latest act of US terrorism will result in many more deaths.

As of right now (19:24 UTC) I still think that there is a roughly 80% chance of full scale war in the Middle-East and, again, will leave 20% of "unexpected events" (hopefully good ones).

PS: this is a text I wrote under great time pressure and it has not be edited for typos or other mistakes. I ask the self-appointed Grammar Gestapo to take a break and not protest again. Thank you

Harbinger , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 8:17 pm GMT

I'm just waiting for the usual suspects to come on here denying it had anything to do with Israel and Judaism.
Nicolás Palacios Navarro , says: Website Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 8:23 pm GMT
Scenarios 3 and 4 look the most likely in this no-win scenario for Iran at the moment. It would probably be advantageous to Iran to let proxies retaliate, although that would further provoke the blatant US aggression of scenario 4.

The best we can hope for, aside from Russia and China covertly assisting Iran with intelligence and materiel, is for the latter to possibly trigger a Suez Crisis-style scenario by threatening to dump its holdings of US sovereign debt. (The former country used to hold something like $160 billion in US bonds, but has since 2013 sold off all but approximately $15 billion.) However, I doubt the Chinese have the appetite for that -- they still depend vitally on the US market for their goods. And Japan, which holds about as much of that debt as China, will never follow suit. They willingly tanked their own economy to prop up the US with the Plaza Accord; and will likely continue to be a bootlick to American power to the bitter end.

Rich , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 8:36 pm GMT
The Iranians could not defeat the ragtag forces of Saddam Hussein, but they can defeat the United States? Preposterous. The Iranians will do nothing. Their dead general was a member of the military and a legitimate target. If they are foolish enough to attack the US, or its interests, they will suffer enormous losses. I understand that reality can sometimes conflict with a person's wishes, but the reality here is that as long as the US doesn't try to occupy Iran, they can cripple their military and destroy their infrastructure. Iran will do nothing,.
JimDandy , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 8:47 pm GMT
80%, eh?
Anonymous [607] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 8:51 pm GMT
@Rich I understand that reality can sometimes conflict with a person's wishes

Are you really sure about that? LOL!!

A123 , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 8:52 pm GMT

I have written so often about this topic that I won't go into all the possible scenarios here. All I will say is the following:

-- For the US, "winning" means achieving regime change or, failing that, destroying the Iranian economy.
-- For Iran, "winning" simply means to survive the US onslaught.

This is a HUGE asymmetry which basically means that the US cannot win and Iran can only win.

Apparently the author has forgotten what happened a couple months ago. The economic situation is so bad in Iran, people are rioting against the corrupt Ayatollah. (1). Thousands arrested and over a hundred dead.

All the U.S. has to do to win is hold the line. The situation is indeed assymetrical:

-- By refusing to put boots on the ground in Iran, there are few options open to Iran that will hurt the U.S.
-- The U.S. can freely strike against government elites like Soleimani if the Ayatollah tries to escalate.

Attacking the embassy was clearly Khameni's desperate effort to shore up personal weakness at home. Not only did he fail to keep the embassy, he also lost a key terrorist. The weak leader just became much weaker.

How long will the IRGC remain willing to die for a sociopathic Ayatollah?

One has to believe at some point, elements of the IRGC will dispatch Khameni to save their own lives. Iran under military rule is unlikely to become friendly with the U.S. However, for their own personal goals they will bring troops home and suspend funding to groups like al'Hezbollah and al'Hamas. These steps would do much to improve regional stability.

PEACE
_______

(1) https://iranian.com/2019/11/27/iran-arrests-7000-fuel-protesters-in-one-week/

Ilya G Poimandres , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 8:53 pm GMT
@Rich The Iranians were not trying to defeat the Iraqis, nor will they the US. They aim to survive the violent onslaught of aggressors, and damage them enough so they won't think to try again.

Soleimani was a legitimate target if Iran and the US were in a state of declared war. They are not.

Here, I know this is UK law, but it strikes the right tone: this action was pure terrorism.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/1

Eighthman , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 8:55 pm GMT
@Rich ragtag forces in Afghanistan ( even more rag tag than Iraq) have defeated the US.

The US must bomb and kill – apart from actually encountering another irregular war that they keep losing.

I can think of some Iranian responses. Hostage taking by allied but deniable groups of US personnel. Build out intercontinental missiles in quantity and shield them. Buy Russian weapons like S-400 in a few months.

TaintedCanker , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 8:56 pm GMT
There's a lot of meaningful content in this article. The only problem is that it is one-sided with more of a dislike of Israel and USA individually than Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, Yemen, UAE, Qatar combined.

Where Saker would lead us is to the same inaction of Ben Rhodes.

The problem is that Ben Rhodes would want to collaborate with Suleimani more than Republicans and conservatives or allies such as Israel, UK, Poland.

This leaves the Obama galaxy of superstar stateswomen and statesmen with an unrealistic vision of the world.

This turns into Gaddafi being killed because he is easy to kill, triggering a vacuum and pulling in ISIS and Iran, as well as turning loose 1M people to run try to sneak into Europe.

This same myopic worldview leads to pushing Russia to the breaking point by working with similar minded EU leaders to "flip" Ukraine. That turned out badly and now Obama's statesmen want to hide it.

Don't forget that Kerry is married into Iranian diplomats at the top level.

Paul holland , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 8:57 pm GMT
Best idea would be to murder a Trump Yahoo like Sheldon Aidelson or Alan Douchewitz.

Would humiliate trump personally but he could not react

bruce county , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 8:57 pm GMT
@Rich Wishful thinking
Thre are many other scenarios and players to consider. America will not be allowed to arbitrarily mass forces and engage their enemy at free will.
Ignatius , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 8:58 pm GMT
My take is that the timing of death of General Soleimani and the fact that President Trump is pending impeachment in the US Senate is not a mere coincidence. Part of me thinks that TPTB set Trump up to be impeached and gave him an ultimatum to facilitate a military conflict with Iran or lose his presidency by way of impeachment.

What seems more bogus, the pretense for impeachment or the pretense for war with Iran?

Tulip , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 9:01 pm GMT
There will be a war with Iran if Trump wants a war with Iran.

But its not clear that Trump wants a full-on war. He could have had one by now if he wanted it. He is more of a business man than a warlord at heart, and lacks the insecurity of a W. He doesn't need to pose in uniform on an aircraft carrier to feel virile, he can just bang Melania.

On the other hand, he won't allow himself to look weak, and he will retaliate. In addition, there is lots of evidence in the public record that Trump has a long-standing antipathy to Iran and its government. And Trump has many "friends" that would be thrilled by an Iran expedition.

Iran would be crazy to provoke Trump in a way that would likely lead to war. Iraq showed the U.S. can take down a government and leave the country wrecked. Sure, the U.S. won't "win" in Iraq, but that doesn't mean Saddam won or the Iraqi people. Iran would be messier, but I lack the Saker's "optimism". The Iranian government will want to survive, not gamble. [Ho Chi Mihn didn't actively seek an American invasion.] The question is whether Iran can de-escalate while saving face (and while other forces, who would love to see the U.S. invade Iran, do everything to escalate affairs).

Leaving aside "winning the war", it would look great on T.V. heading into the 2020 election even if it ends in disaster, and permit cheap attacks on the Democrats in the climate of jingoism sure to follow the first bombs. If Trump is any politician worth his salt, he is more interested in winning the next election than in America winning some long-term ME war.

Not Raul , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 9:06 pm GMT
Let's say the Saudis attack the USA again like they did on 9-11, Iran gets blamed (of course), and Trump responds by nuking Iran, killing half of the population within a few hours, and 95% within a year.

How exactly does Iran "win" after that?

JamesinNM , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 9:07 pm GMT
You must understand, Israel would surreptitiously nuke the U.S. if they believed it was needed to adequately control the U.S.
JamesinNM , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 9:10 pm GMT
@Harbinger Zionism, not Judaism. Two entirely separate things. Compare Romans 2:28-29 versus Revelation 2:9 and 3:9. Research the reader survey "Defense of True Israel" to identify today's true Israel.
journey80 , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 9:13 pm GMT
It doesn't matter whether Iran decides to retaliate – Israel will retaliate for them. Netanyahu will have his president-for-life, get-out-of-jail war. This could have been an Israeli strike that Trump was forced, or manipulated, into taking credit for. Nothing would be surprising, so long as that shabby little grifter controls U.S. foreign policy.
nokangaroos , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 9:19 pm GMT
If Russia and China had any itch to go in, they would have done so in Afghanistan at next to no cost to themselves (of course this only emboldened the Empire of Evil).
And with the exception of Mohammed Reza Shah (installed by coup in 1941 because his daddy, an old-school Kurdish brigand, was way too reasonable – something that is conveniently forgotten) Iran has always taken pains to hold both the Anglos and the Russians at arm´s length.

That much at least is going to change.

Desert Fox , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 9:20 pm GMT
Not only was the joint Israeli and ZUS attack on the USS Liberty a false flag, but even worse than that was the false flag joint Israeli and ZUS attack on the WTC on 911 , and since they have gotten away with these false flags, no doubt, they will do another to get the excuse to finish off Iran.

The only nation standing in the way of the attack on Iran is Russia, and Russia is not going to let Iran be destroyed as Russia threw down the gauntlet in Syria and Russia's top generals ie Gerasimov and Shoygu know that Russia is next and will not stand by and let Iran go down, even if Putin is reluctant to save Iran, which I believe Putin will also know Russia is next on the list.

Israel and the ZUS want a nuclear war with Russia and I believe they will cause a false flag to have it and they believe they can ride out a nuclear exchange in their DUMBS ie deep underground military bases which they have throughout the ZUS and ZEurope and Israel.

Israel and the ZUS are not content with destroying the middle east, they now want to destroy the world.

SeekerofthePresence , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 9:22 pm GMT
In a land of bravado
You can't get any dumber;
To history and morals
Mind and heart any number.
annamaria , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 9:28 pm GMT
@Rich "Their dead general was a member of the military and a legitimate target."

-- Let's name all Israeli generals, one by one, and call them legitimate targets.

Your puny theocratic state of Israel has been the cause of the ongoing mass slaughter in the Middle East. Each of Israeli citizens took a bath full of blood of innocent civilians of all ages, figuratively speaking.

Iran has not attacked any country. Israel has. It was the perfidious AIPAC of Israel-firsters that has been working non-stop on promoting the wars of aggression in the name of Eretz Israel. Iraq, Syria, Libya have been destroyed in accordance with Oded Yinon subhuman plan. Iran is the next.

The hapless Europeans and Americans are finally learning about the viciousness of Jewish sadists. Instead of "almost truthful" holobiz stories forged by Eli Wiesel and Anne Frank' dad, the schools should have been teaching the biographies of Jewish mega-criminals such as Lazar Kaganovich (Stalin's right hand and organizer of Holodomor in Ukraine), Naftali Frenkel (an inventor of "industrialized" death in the GULAG), and the despicable mass-murderess Rozalia Zalkind.

The State of Israel has been founded by self-proclaimed terrorists and remains the nest of terrorists. Even the zionized Wikipedia admits that the Jewish State sponsors terrorism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_state-sponsored_terrorism

In case you do not know what Baby Yar means, here a picture for you: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/rights-groups-demand-israel-stop-arming-neo-nazis-in-the-ukraine-1.6248727
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/babi-yar

Ilya G Poimandres , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 9:31 pm GMT
@A123

The economic situation is so bad in Iran, people are rioting against the corrupt Ayatollah.

The rapists strangle their victim and blame them for their lack of oxygen.

Attacking the embassy was clearly Khameni's desperate effort to shore up personal weakness at home. Not only did he fail to keep the embassy, he also lost a key terrorist. The weak leader just became much weaker.

All I can say is.. Wimp Lo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d696t3yALAY

Valley Forge Warrior , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 9:39 pm GMT
The Iranians won't do jack. If they try anything, Trump will exterminate the Iranians.
Harbinger , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 9:39 pm GMT
@JamesinNM Zionism is Judaism is communism.

Judaism is a cult, not a religion. It's the self worship of Jews, hatred of non Jews (racism) and supremacist beliefs over all other peoples on this earth. In effect, Judaism is the Jewish KKK/Black Panthers. It's perfectly ok to go around saying "we're god's chosen" (blatant supremacism and racism) and yet they go crazy when some white person puts up a poster saying "it's ok to be white" ? The former is ignored and worse, accepted by many idiots while the latter is vehemently attacked. Think about that for a moment?

Don't let the red herrings of "It's not Judaism, it's Zionism" or "it's not the real Jews, but the fake Ashkenazis" crap lead you astray from the situation. The problem IS what it always has been and always will be until people wake up and do something about it. That problem is Judaism. It's never changed.

Alfred , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 9:44 pm GMT
If the Americans leave Syria and Iraq, that will be the ultimate revenge for Iran without having fired a single shot

Correct.

And that is precisely the real objective of Trump. Trump is greatly underestimated. He gives the Zionists everything they want – which results in outcomes that are very much against their interests.

Agent76 , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 9:47 pm GMT
Jan 3, 2020 Iran has the 'right to retaliate' over US 'act of war'

Tehran University's Mohammed Marandi says the US' "murder" of a senior Iranian military commander is "definitely an act of war".

https://www.youtube.com/embed/_GxjPvShWsY?feature=oembed

Jul 4, 2019 Iran-Iraq-Syria rail link revived.

As imperial forces are defeated in the region but economic war continues, economic integration between Iran, Iraq and Syria becomes even more necessary, for a decent future.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/nQIIXQ7V2Dc?feature=oembed

Sep 11, 2011 General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned – Seven Countries In Five Years

"This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran." I said, "Is it classified?" He said, "Yes, sir." I said, "Well, don't show it to me." And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, "You remember that?" He said, "Sir, I didn't show you that memo! I didn't show it to you!"

https://www.youtube.com/embed/9RC1Mepk_Sw?feature=oembed

niteranger , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 9:53 pm GMT
@Nicolás Palacios Navarro You missed the boat .! This is about Israel and its control of Trump. Israel wants eternal war..they care not how many are killed because it will be Americans not Jews. The scenarios presented here are limited and simplistic. The real scenarios present much greater challenges for the US Intelligence Agencies. These include false flags by Israel and the Jewish controlled Congress for excuses to bomb Iran. But even a greater risk would be splinter Muslim groups around the world and especially in the US that will retaliate against Americans. The estimate of at least 20% of Muslims in the US are terrorists waiting to happen may come to fruition. Trump the idiot has just thrown a cigar into the punch bowl. Michael Scheuer former CIA put it this way:

"The crux of my argument is simply that America is in a war with militant Islamists that it cannot avoid; one that it cannot talk or appease its way out of; one in which our irreconcilable Islamist foes will have to be killed, an act which unavoidably will lead to innocent deaths; and one that is motivated in large measure by the impact of U.S. foreign policies in the Islamic world, one of which is unqualified U.S. support for Israel."

In his second book, Imperial Hubris, a New York Times bestseller, Scheuer writes that the Islamist threat to the United States is rooted in "how easy it is for Muslims to see, hear, experience, and hate the six U.S. policies bin Laden repeatedly refers to as anti-Muslim:

U.S. support for apostate, corrupt, and tyrannical Muslim governments.
U.S. and other Western troops on the Arabian Peninsula.
U.S. support for Israel that keeps Palestinians in the Israelis' thrall.
U.S. pressure on Arab energy producers to keep oil prices low.
U.S. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.
U.S. support for Russia, India, and China against their Muslim militants

The US will experience the wrath of these people over and over again because we keep doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

Trump is nothing more than figure head president under complete control of Israel. Civilization is doomed if Israel continues complete control of most the US government and most of the world. The American citizenry are nothing more than blind little animals waiting to be slaughter by Israel.

Igor Bundy , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 9:56 pm GMT
The gerbils of feeble minds are out in force to show their arrogance and illiteracy t seems. Throughout time, Iran has emboldened the oppressed to fight the imperialists. Just like the support they show the people of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and to an extent Yemen.. They wont destroy all that they have built unless the US uses some excuse to attack inside iran at which point all bets are off and so are all places in the ME with US military.. This blatant act of terrorism is the worst a civilised nation can do and the ultimate hypocrisy of calling itself run by the rule of law.. Almost all rules and laws were violated and so is the rules of war itself which is mostly non existent but even in war there are some things you do not do like taking out the leadership because the men will then have no choice but to keep fighting without anyone to order them to stand down.. Only imbeciles will do unthinkable things like this and such blatant violations of international laws in front of the entire world and then take credit for it..
Truth3 , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 9:59 pm GMT
@Rich

Their dead general was a member of the military and a legitimate target.

Spoken like a true hasbarite.

anonymous [178] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 9:59 pm GMT

Conclusion: we wait for Iran's next move

In this statement the most potent word is "wait."

Iran doing nothing = psychological torment.

Badly forged Warrior wrote:
The Iranians won't do jack. If they try anything, Trump will exterminate the Iranians.

maybe not on your timeline, forge, but someday . . .

Trump should maybe take Barron's college fund out of long-term investments.

anon [399] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 10:00 pm GMT
@Rich It's not the duty of Iran to rescue American from the hog nosed Zionist and from rotting cadaver ( rotting carcass) of the boar faced Adelshon .

That's American have to get done

nickels , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 10:01 pm GMT
Its pretty clear that the dem's impeachment scam was a collaboration with the neocons to corner Trump into having to obey McConnell, Graham and the rest of the criminals.
A few months back the great Orange King was going to pull out of Syria, right?
It is almost patently obvious Trump was handed the option of starting war with Iran or having the senate slowly turn against him (through a well orchestrated media campaign, of course), ending up with him in prison or worse.
Can't have that. Donny boy serves only Donny boy, and the country's arse isn't worth choosing over his own.
Anon [399] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 10:02 pm GMT
@Harbinger NPR now : Israel has been pushing America to confront Iran . But Israel doesn't want to be seen as the power behind the American aggression against Iran .
Alfred , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 10:07 pm GMT
there are some rather credible rumors that the destruction of PanAm 103 over Scotland was not a Libyan action, but an Iranian one in direct retaliation for the deliberate shooting down by the USN of IranAir 655 Airbus over the Persian Gulf

This was obviously the case. All the accusations against Libya were patently false. The Scottish court case was a scam from A to Z. All the "evidence" against Libya could have been concocted by a 12 year old. "Finding" a bit of clockwork in a field and claiming that someone bought a certain "suitcase" in Malta is a piece of cake.

Despite the destruction of Libya and access to all their files and bureaucrats, no effort was ever made to search their records and to substantiate the accusations against Libya. Lockerbie and Pan Am 103 simply disappeared from the media.

If Libya had been behind the explosion of Pan Am 103, they would have relished producing the evidence and a lot of Libyans would have been accused and put on trial. It would have helped their accusations that "Libya was a rogue state"

The only facts that everyone agrees on is that the Americans shot down an Iranian airliner on 3 July 1988 with 290 people on board. And that a US airliner with 259 people was blown up on 21 December 1988. Some coincidence!

Since PA103, no Iranian civilian aircraft of any sort has been attacked or threatened by the USA or any other country. I guess that is a strong hint as to what intelligence services believe the true story to be.

TG , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 10:09 pm GMT
The nerve of Donald Trump! I mean, who does he think he is, Hillary Clinton?
Anonymous [422] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 10:10 pm GMT
@Valley Forge Warrior "Valley Forge Warrior"

Sounds like one of the Christ-killer handles you see over at Hasbara Central (aka, Free Republic).

FReepers with handles like "ProudMarineMomEagleUSALibertyLoverArmyVetMAGAGalAirborneTexasFreedom" posting articles on inside baseball of Knesset politics.

Chet Roman , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 10:16 pm GMT
It's time for Iran to get insurance in the form of multiple nuclear warheads. I doubt Russia or China will sell them but Pakistan, a fellow Muslim country, or N. Korea might. All they need is a few nukes that would be include in a barrage of hundreds of missiles aimed at Tel Aviv. No Iron Dome (which is useless anyway) would stop the attack. Israel would never allow (since we know they control Congress and the President) an attack on Iran if there was even the slightest possibility of a nuke on Israel. Let's face it, the Israelis are only "brave" when they slaughter defenseless Palestinian women and children. They were driven out of Lebanon by a rag tag civilian militia.

Forget the Fatwa, get nukes!

Passer by , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 10:18 pm GMT
You are naive and poorly educated murican from declining Amerikanistan who lives in the past. The Unipolar era is over. The Iranians have the capacity to destroy all US bases in 2000km radius (in the Middle East) with ballistic missile salvos, it and its shia allied groups in the region have plenty of attack drones and long range cruise missiles too (and US land anti-air capability is poor), all US soldiers in Iraq will be killed by shia millitias, drones and long range missiles (unless the US would try to invade Iraq again and restart the occupation with 300 000 soldiers in Iraq, for which it no longer has the money, too much debt and shaky economy), Russia can supply the country with high tech anti-air systems, Iran can supply manpads and long range missiles to the Taliban which will lead to siege of US bases in Afghanistan and bombardment/capture of americans there, (taliban are already winning there without any help). Iran can also destroy most oil and gas infrastructure in the Middle East.

Estimation:
all US bases in the Middle East will be leveled.
US bases will be besieged in Afghanistan and Taliban will fully take over that country.
The biggest US embassy in the world – in Iraq, will be captured, together with the US diplomats in it.
Shia Millitia Proxies will attack and capture/destroy many US embassies in the region.
Oil price will reach 150 – 200 $ leading to global economic crisis.
Israel will be attacked by Hizbulla and many israeli cities will be damaged, keeping it busy.
No european country will support such attack and this will lead to the EU marginalising NATO and replacing it with its own independent european military pact, moving away from the US.
Whole world will condemn the US and will start moving away from dependency on that country, as no one wants such a war in the Gulf.
30 000 americans (almost all in the middle east) killed and all of their objects in the Middle East destroyed.
US companies infrastructure in the Middle East and in Iraq destroyed.
Big uprising against the US in Iraq.
US economy enters recession.
US is crippled by war debt.

For that large price to pay, the only US option will be US long range attacks via bombers, carriers and subs, who will not be very effective vs russian anti-air systems. It will take a long time for Iran to be destroyed if they have modern russian anti-air. Meanwhile the global economy will enter recession until the war is over. There will be massive anti-US protests all over the world blaming it for the resulting global economic crisis and recession.

In the long run, the US will be able to destroy most of Iran by conventional means, but the US itself will be crippled by debt and will lose its superpower status. In other words, it will be the Suez Moment for the US.

Ultimately though, there will be no large scale war because the US does not have the money for it. It is crippled by debt. Picture underestimates US debt by 10 % and already estimates hyperinflation by 2050 (10 % and growing annual budget deficits, which is a disaster).

Then there is the possibility for the US to use nuclear weapons to destroy Iran but then the US will be declared a rogue state by the world and every other state will get nukes too and NPT regime will be dead, leading to the end of US influence and capacity to wage war in the world.

Z-man , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 10:19 pm GMT
@Paul holland That's a good suggestion but I still think they should go after Pompeo. If you really want to keep it 'tit for tat' with even less retaliation then poor Gen. Milley should be splashed. (Evil grin)
Anon [209] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 10:25 pm GMT

For example, there are some rather credible rumors that the destruction of PanAm 103 over Scotland was not a Libyan action, but an Iranian one

Absolutely ridiculous. It was not a Libyan action. And it was not an Iranian one.

Z-man , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 10:27 pm GMT
@Harbinger Yes and the Jews follow the TALMUD not the Bible. The Talmud is a Jew Supremist manual.
Z-man , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 10:28 pm GMT
@Alfred From your keyboard to God's ears.
NTG , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 10:31 pm GMT
@bruce county Will not be allowed? then look what they did in this very moment. They already mass their forces in iraq and surounding bases. Their are considerable more Galaxy C17 traffic in Ramstein/Germany and the whole C17 (as far as you can identify them)look like a swarm of bees on the way to the middle east.
the grand wazoo , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 10:31 pm GMT
I have one wish for 2020, and it is this: That everyone stop referring to this group of bastards claiming to great American patriots and thinkers (both a flagrant lie) as 'neocons', and call them what they are; 99% are dual citizen Israeli firsters. Fostering the acronym neocon allows them to remain hidden behind a mask of their own design, and is a great disservice and a threat to every American. These traitors with their Israel first attitude, have but one job, and it is to dream up fake threats to America's security, (i.e. Iraq's WMD's), in order to insure America's defense budget remains huge, and US soldiers all over the ME making Israel feel safe and secure; not so much America. truth is they care nothing of America and have perfected the art of subterfuge, as evidenced by this quote by self described paleo-neoconservative Norman Podhertz in his work Breaking Ranks:

"An Israeli within the Jewish community, and an American on the public goy stage".

anon [183] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 10:33 pm GMT
Netanyahu, aka Benzion Mileikowsky is holed up in that land of his idle, "Hitler's Argentinian Patagonia"?

or,

Brave Sir Robin ran away.
("No!")
Bravely ran away away.
("I didn't!")
When danger reared it's ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
("I never!")

Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
("You're lying!")

Swiftly taking to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat.
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!

Songwriters: Adam Patrick Devlin / Edward Daniel Chester / Eric Idle / Graham Chapman / John Cleese / Mark James Morriss / Michael Palin / Neil Innes / Scott Edward Morriss / Terry Gilliam
Brave Sir Robin lyrics © Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC

Artist: Monty Python
Album: The Album of the Soundtrack of the Trailer of the Film of Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Released: 1975

sally , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 10:36 pm GMT
@Rich I think the Iranians have already won on this round ..Iran stepped back and gave notice that when you are up against a guy bigger than you are, you wait until something happens to even the odds.

The domestic deplorable don't understand bullet in the brain diplomacy.. What is in Iraq or Iran that Americans want <=nothing. absolutely nothing that I can tell. so for whom is all of this?

UninformedButCurious , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 10:36 pm GMT
"a president who does not understand that he is a disposable tool in the hands of the Neocons."

Can that possibly be true? I hope a lot of people who can support an opinion about that will reply.

John Chuckman , says: Website Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 10:36 pm GMT
Hard to know what Trump's thinking here is. War before an election does not seem a good idea, especially if you are a candidate who has failed so far to achieve anything of substance around past promises to reduce America's involvement in Mideast wars.

Remember that a crucial slice of the votes that put the man into office were not from his prime political base, the "pick-up truck and Jesus" set, but from those concerned with peace and better relations with Russia.

But prodding Iran to attack could allow Trump to play commander-in-chief defending the country. And Americans just instinctively support even the worst possible presidents at war. You might call it the George Bush Effect. The frightened puppy grabbing the nearest pantleg after a loud noise.

Of course, now when it comes to campaign contributions from American Oligarchs whose chief political concern is what Israel wants, Trump's coffers will be overflowing.

I suspect Iran will take its time and carefully plan a response, and that response may not be clear and unambiguous, and it might be multi-faceted and done over time.

The men running Iran are careful men, none of them impetuous. Chess players. The United States has more than forty years of bellowing, open hostility towards the country, and we have not seen Iran's leaders act foolishly in all that time despite many provocations.

I do not believe Iran will be driven to war – that would be playing the Israeli-American game with Israeli-American rules.

Clandestine and hybrid efforts, that is what Iran is best at. They have serious capabilities these days, and the United States, with all its bases abroad, has great vulnerabilities.

Of course, there's also the option of Iran's just leaving the nuclear agreement (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA) that Trump idiotically tore-up and proceeding quietly with weapons development. Iran, despite Israel's dishonest claims, never has pursued weapons development, only efficient use of nuclear power and legitimate scientific research. Perhaps it is time to reconsider that policy

Iran has substantial deposits of uranium, and the enriched-uranium bomb is simpler to build than the plutonium bomb. Maybe there is some possibility for covert assistance from North Korea, another country treated like crap by Trump's Washington Braintrust?

Rurik , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 10:39 pm GMT

4.Finally, should the Iranians decide not to retaliate, then we can be absolutely sure that Uncle Shmuel will see that as a proof of his putative "invincibility" and take that as a license to engage in even more provocative actions.

For what it's worth, I vote for 4.

Gandhi and MLK are household names because they used non-violent protest to bring attention to widespread injustice.

As long as Iran responds in a non-violent way, they retain the moral high ground. The world is watching, if Iran puts out a statement to the fact that the US is using assassinations to provoke Iran into an open (obviously one-sided) war, who on the planet won't sympathize with Iran?

We all know the ZUS is a murderous, war criminal rogue regime under occupation by Zionists. Duh.

We all know the ((neocons)) and Zionists have demanded the destruction of Iran for what, decades now. We all know of Bibi's unhinged frothing. It's more than obvious to the entire world.

What we don't need is bravado or chest thumping on the part of Iran. That is exactly what the fiend is hoping for. Praying for. It's hands rubbing together and hissing 'they can't ignore this one, we slaughtered their beloved general'.

If this were all being contained by the world's media and diplomatic channels, then it might be different.

But EVERYBODY knows the score. Everybody knows who is the aggressor and who is the victim.

Iran should assume the posture of a victim, and allow all the world's people to watch in disgust as it's menaced by the world's super-power coward, who NEVER picks on anyone it's own size, but always attacks nations far weaker than it is.

What an embarrassment to be an American today, in slavish obeisance to the world's most revolting den of snakes.

God bless and save the people of Iran.

It is with profound shame that I lament my nations depraved servility to a criminal regime.

Please, don't escalate the conflict. That is EXACTLY what ((they)) want you to do.

NTG , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 10:41 pm GMT
Funny how even you seems to forget that Trump KNOWN that he is a "tool" and that he have to play like one. But every play he did on behalf of the Neocons did he in such a worst way that he everytime reaches the excat opposite of what the neocons wanted to reach. North Stream 2 anyone? It's done, up runnig by now.
2% spending? how have done this yet?
buy exclusiv or also by US MIC company's? Hmm the turks buy now Russian AA.
India is also in shambles about the militray topic.

NOTHING, what the neocons want from him and he allegedly did seems to work really and not because he is a moron this is ON PURPOSE.
I strongly believe that he known what he does and that he does this exactly like he or the ones behind him wanted. Trmup isn't a neocon. He is a nationalist and plays a very dangerous doubbleplay with the Deep State and their neocons/Zionists.

NTG , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 10:44 pm GMT
@Passer by No war because of debt? what? as if the US gov has ever cared about debt.
War is the profitables solution to debt look in history.
the grand wazoo , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 10:53 pm GMT
I still think that there is a roughly 80% chance of full scale war in the Middle-East and, again, will leave 20% of "unexpected events"

I believe this estimate is rather correct. Personally, I believe the odds are 100% in favor of WAR. It has taken the Israelis 35 years, since the Iraq Iran war, to get America this close. They will not allow something as trivial as peace to interfer.

lysias , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 10:55 pm GMT
@Rurik Cyberattacks on U.S. infrastructure would be nonviolent.
Sean , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 10:56 pm GMT
Donald Trump is hardly a "disposable President" for Israel. The sky's the limit for Israel while Trump is in power and they will never get anyone quite like him again. The Neocons won't go against Israel.

The death of Soleimani was not long in coming after his masterminding of the successful attack on Saudi Arabian oil facilities, and him making the fatal error of ordering demonstrators in Baghdad to be shot. I think the combination of threatening Saudi Arabia at its weakest point and alienating the Shiite community in Iraq is why the US decided now was the perfect time to target Soleimani.

Kiza , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 10:58 pm GMT
@Not Raul Hmmm, nuke Iran . I wonder how US would feel if Russia justifiably nuked the Mexican drug cartels in Tijuana. Probably take it just as a friendly and helpful gesture in the war on drugs, right? Or Russia nukes those pesky Quebec secessionists not far from DC?

Obviously, there is no place on the planet with more cretins per head of population than US, lead by the Cretin in Chief. All itching to use those nukes just sitting there, collecting dust since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Why did cretins spend all that money on them when they cannot use them?

One totally unrelated question. ISIS has chopped off a large number of non-Sunni Muslim heads and a few heads of Westerners. Does anyone know even one example where an Israeli's head or head of a Western Jew has been chopped off?

USrael is like a tradesman who declares war on a screwdriver or hammer in his toolbox.

Lang Doniger , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:00 pm GMT
The purpose of the drone strike false flag was to coronate a new, massive trauma based mind control effort by the US Government aimed at her own domestic slaves. The CIA opinion makers are out in full force: Sjursen, Engelhardt, Bacevich, Hedges, Cole, NYT, WaPo, AI – you name it, all delivering the message of peace because they were trained for war. Quickly form all the public opinions to make sure the people are divided.

The voting class has given us 100% of the war, 100% of the inequality, 100% of the misery that the poor suffer daily. Accordingly, the CIA has to assassinate wrong thinking in the voting class before it threatens the status quo of war, inequality and suffering.

The only thing missing is a Pat Tillman character – a patriotic zombie athlete, tatted and geared up to kick ass for the right reasons as a hero until the sham that everyone knew all along – except for poor Pat – reveals itself.

Thim , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:03 pm GMT
@the grand wazoo Neocohens then.
the grand wazoo , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:05 pm GMT
@Ignatius I read this same theme at the VT site. Either Robert David Steel's piece or in a comment. Rather far fetched idea, but not so far out that the dual citizen cretins in DC wouldn't use.
Monty Ahwazi , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:06 pm GMT
Thanks Saker!
The officials in Tehran have been and will continue to be calm, calculating, rational and making decisions collectively! The Two Fat Guys and skinny dip" have been defeated by Iran in their Cold War with Iran for 4 decades! Iranians' mail goal is to force the US to run away from the ME region w/o confronting it! They would like to achieve their goal as the Vietnamese did in 1973 if anyone remembers that! So far they have been successful and their actions in the future will show their intentions more clearly!
With all due respect the Chinese and Russians would love to see the US humiliated so she's forced to leave and they don't mind using Iran as a front to achieve their goal without confronting the US!
anon [260] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:07 pm GMT
@Harbinger

I'm just waiting for the usual suspects to come on here denying it had anything to do with Israel and Judaism.

It's hard to make that claim when every chosenite from Benjamin Shapiro to Israeli citizen and fake "national conservative" Yoram Hazony is celebrating on Twitter.

Example:

To all the jerks saying Trump did this "for Israel":

1. No American should die for Israel.

2. If you can't feel shame when your country is shamed and want to act when your own people are killed, your problem isn't Israel. Your problem is you.

-- Yoram Hazony (@yhazony) January 3, 2020

Do these scum ever not lie? No American was killed by Iranians or Iranian-backed proxies before this incident, not for at least a decade. And Trump totally did this for Israel. His biggest donors have been demanding he do this for years and suddenly he does it. It's not hard to see the connection, especially amid all the Jews celebrating on Twitter today.

Further, he goes on to beat his chest as a fake patriotic American (while being an Israeli citizen); it's clear he's just celebrating an attack on his country's enemy, but wants you to think it has something to do with America.

You can be darned sure no in the world thinks seizing an American embassy is a genius tactical move right now. Not in Iran -- and not anywhere else.

-- Yoram Hazony (@yhazony) January 3, 2020

You can be damned sure no on in the world thinks this empire is anything but lawless and dangerous right now -- headed by an irrational imbecile beholden to the interests of a racist apartheid state. Not in Europe -- and not anywhere else.

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2020/01/03/donald-trumps-neocons-laud-assassination-of-qassem-soleimani-in-iraq/

Franklin Ryckaert , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:07 pm GMT
@Not Raul All your premises are wrong.
Franklin Ryckaert , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:11 pm GMT
@journey80 Israel has no president-for-life system.
eah , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:15 pm GMT
Such brazen bullshit: "decisive defensive action", "aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans"

IMMEDIATE RELEASE -- Statement by the Department of Defense -- JAN. 2, 2020

At the direction of the President, the U.S. military has taken decisive defensive action to protect U.S. personnel abroad by killing Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, a U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization.

General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region. General Soleimani and his Quds Force were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American and coalition service members and the wounding of thousands more. He had orchestrated attacks on coalition bases in Iraq over the last several months – including the attack on December 27th – culminating in the death and wounding of additional American and Iraqi personnel. General Soleimani also approved the attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad that took place this week.

This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans. The United States will continue to take all necessary action to protect our people and our interests wherever they are around the world.

Rich , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:15 pm GMT
@Rurik Gandhi drank his own urine and slept with prepubescent girls, MLK was a whoremonger and sodomite, you can have them both. Iran won't escalate because they tried, and lost a general. If they try anything else, they'll pay too steep a price.
Harold Smith , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:17 pm GMT
@nickels

"Its pretty clear that the dem's impeachment scam was a collaboration with the neocons to corner Trump into having to obey McConnell, Graham and the rest of the criminals."

No it's not. It's pretty clear that orange clown is enthusiastic about mass-murdering people and trying to start wars for his jewish-supremacist handlers.

"A few months back the great Orange King was going to pull out of Syria, right?"

No he wasn't; he was just posturing, as usual.

"It is almost patently obvious Trump was handed the option of starting war with Iran or having the senate slowly turn against him (through a well orchestrated media campaign, of course), ending up with him in prison or worse."

Or so you barely assert. But if that's the case why didn't "they" force Obama to start a war with Iran? For that matter why did "they" allow Obama to enter into the JCPOA agreement with Iran in the first place?

The more likely explanation is that the impeachment scam was an effort to determine whether or not orange clown had enough support to be re-elected. Perhaps our rulers wanted to see if the peasants would rally around their embattled MAGA "hero" if they could present him as the hapless victim of the even-more-evil "democrats." (And if so, his re-election "campaign strategy" could then be crafted around his apparent "victimhood" – since he has nothing else to campaign on).

If this is the case, then the experiment may now have come to an end, with the result that the favorite son-of-perdition would likely not be re-elected; thus he has one year to start the war on Iran, and he is wasting no time getting on with it.

Nicolás Palacios Navarro , says: Website Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:19 pm GMT
@Chet Roman

Pakistan, a fellow Muslim country, or N. Korea might

Very unlikely that this could occur. Pakistan itself is wary of incurring further unwanted attention from the US, which regularly violates its sovereignty anyway. If they indeed decided to pursue this route, the Ziofascists in Washington would simply and very happily open up a new front against Islamabad. (Although doing so would stand a better -- worse? -- chance of provoking some kind of Chinese reaction than the current US antagonizing of Tehran.)

The DPRK's stance against Washington is purely defensive and they clearly have no wish to engage in any action that could trigger the end of the Kim regime. China would also likely not back it up in such a scenario.

Iran is clearly the victim here, but has been cornered into an unenviable position from which it has no favorable options. Those hoping that Russia and China will somehow step in to prevent war will find themselves disappointed. The most likely best scenario is that this new war will seal the eventual financial bankruptcy of the US. However, the results of that would take years to unfold. But this new war will undoubtedly be a costly one and, in the not so long run, fiscally untenable.

anon [179] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:20 pm GMT
@Valley Forge Warrior

The Iranians won't do jack. If they try anything, Trump will exterminate the Iranians.

Lol. "Valley Forge Warrior". What an obvious Hasbara troll. He probably has only a vague knowledge of American history, so he picked something he stereotypically thinks an American patriot would call himself. Along with A123, these hacks have been clogging up the comments of every article on the subject trying to gin up the goyim for war on Iran. What "ally" does that kind of thing?

Passer by , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:21 pm GMT
@NTG When? When the rest of the world was destroyed and US was the only one standing, representing half the world's economy and industrial capacity? In current conditions this leads to hyperinflation and the rest of the world, which is growing faster than the US (now down to 15 % of the world economy in PPP) and is already quite self-sufficient from US industry abandoning the dollar. No one would take something that is printed in heavy amounts to liquidate 30 + trillions in debt. The end of dollar main reserve currency status, which leads to feedback loop and even greater hyperinflation in the US.
anonymous [103] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:25 pm GMT
Forcing the US out of the area seems to be a likely response. Perhaps they'll be able to gin up some popular riots and demonstrations throughout the Muslim world. Undermining the Saudi regime might be a real blow to the US; who really knows how stable it actually is? As opportunities present themselves the Iranians will avail themselves of them, avoiding direct confrontations and clashes. Remember, they live there so can drag this out over time.
Johnny Walker Read , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:28 pm GMT
I pick the action behind door number two Monty

No less alarming is that this creates the absolutely perfect conditions for a false flag à la "USS Liberty". Right now, the Israelis have become at least as big a danger for US servicemen and facilities in the entire Middle-East as are the Iranians themselves.

RowBuddy , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:28 pm GMT
@Harbinger The wankers Trump and Netanyahu have been planning this invasion for some time. Actually, given the level and history of U.S. hubris, the Neocons have not quite gotten over the fact that 50 years ago, the Iranian people kicked the murderous Shah (U.S. puppet) out of the country. The U.S. will continue to invade and wage wars against sovereigns who refuse to tow the U.S. line. Please dump Trump in 2020!
eah , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:32 pm GMT
@eah

The US constantly threatens to overthrow Iran's government, invades and occupies its neighboring countries, decimates it with sanctions, launches cyber-attacks on its infrastructure, and now assassinates its national leaders. But the propagandists tell you Iran is the "aggressor"

-- Michael Tracey (@mtracey) January 3, 2020

annamaria , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:32 pm GMT
@Valley Forge Warrior A Q for you and "Rich:" https://www.zerohedge.com/political/watch-live-trump-discusses-soleimani-killing-mar-lago
comment section:

How can the government on a moment's notice locate and drop a bomb on the head of a veteran military officer and yet not be able to find a measly whore (jizzlane) hiding out in Israel.

Are you familiar with the name of a Mossad agent "Madam" Ghislaine Maxwell? What about her father R. Maxwell, a mega-embezzler, thief and Mossad agent?

The fallen Iranian was an honest and honorable man, unlike the Jewish procuress of underage girls for wealthy pedophiles and the Jewish plunderer of pensions.

While Mirror Group shareholders were wiped out, arguably the biggest losers were the pensioners most pensioners had to accept a 50% cut in the value of their pensions.

No wonder Maxwell (known as "a great fraud") was feted by other prominent Jewish frauds.

Gizmo880 , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:33 pm GMT
It is very doubtful that Iran retaliates in any way that might lead to all out war with the U.S. unless they have assurances of total backing from either Russia or China, which I don't see happening at this time. Neither one of those countries is ready for WW III against the U.S. at the present.

If I were Iran, though, I would use the fact that they sit on some of the largest energy reserves in the world to help me acquire as many nukes as possible. That might truly be the only deterrent to their destruction, as Israel and her surrogate the U.S. are never going to give up in there intention of destroying that country.

Rurik , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:34 pm GMT
@lysias Yes, but it would piss off the sheople, and Iran doesn't need anymore of the American Bovinus demanding more belligerence. (for which they personally won't risk a fingernail).

44 seconds in until 2:55

https://www.youtube.com/embed/Lcu-YzJajN8?feature=oembed

And this was over 40 years ago.

Since then their consolidation over the media and federal government has been consummate. The only cracks in the iron bubble being the formerly free Internet, and they're very fast sealing off those few remaining cracks.

Now you'd have to be near brain-dead not to know that they control our foreign policy in absolute terms, and that Americans have been dying for the greater glory of their enemies in Israel for generations now.

What we need to do is allow the American people to decide if they want to send more of their children to kill and die for their enemies in Israel.

We all know Iran is nothing more than one more country Israel demands we destroy.

Iran simply needs to allow the rest of the world, to rise up in condemnation with all the nations of the planet, including the millions of patriotic Americans that are sick to death of our federal government's slavish fealty to Jewish supremacist shekels.

Don't react to the provocation. Allow all the nations and people of the world to become sympathetic to your cause. Perhaps, though some miracle even the Sunni nations of the world will side with Iran on this one.

We all know who the bully is, and who the victim is. Just look at what the ZUS did to Iraq and Libya and Syria and so many others

It's a global problem for so many, that we can't even count the victims of zio-criminality, from Donbas to Caracas, to Bolivia..

We need a global outrage, and a global demand to reign in the Zionist fiend.

By doing nothing, but speaking out, Iran's message of victimization is it's more powerful, moral weapon.

Iris , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:42 pm GMT
@JamesinNM

You must understand, Israel would surreptitiously nuke the U.S. if they believed it was needed to adequately control the U.S.

Please bear with my correcting you. Isreal has already nuked the USA: on 9/11, the WTC was brought down by underground nuclear detonations.

renfro , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:45 pm GMT
Israel Assassinations from 1950's to 2018
[MORE]
1950s

Date Place Country Target Description Action Killer
July 13, 1956 Gaza Strip Egypt Mustafa Hafez Egyptian Army Lieutenant-Colonel, responsible for recruiting refugees to carry out attacks in Israel. Parcel bomb[12] Israel Defense Forces operation directed by Yehoshafat Harkabi.
July 14, 1956 Amman Jordan Salah Mustafa Egyptian Military attache
1960s
Date Place Country Target Description Action Killer
September 11, 1962 Munich Germany Heinz Krug West German rocket scientist working for Egypt's missile program Abducted from his company offices on Munich's Schillerstrasse, his body was never found. Swiss police later arrested two Mossad agents for threatening the daughter of another scientist and found that they were responsible for the killing. Part of Operation Damocles. Mossad
November 28, 1962 Heluan Egypt 5 Egyptian factory workers Workers employed at Factory 333, an Egyptian rocket factory. Letter bomb sent bearing Hamburg post mark. Another such bomb disfigured and blinded a secretary. Part of Operation Damocles.
February 23, 1965 Montevideo Uruguay Herberts Cukurs Aviator who had been involved in the murders of Latvian Jews during the Holocaust[18] Lured to and killed in Montevideo by agents under the false pretense of starting an aviation business.

1970s

Date Place Country Target Description Action Killer
July 8, 1972 Beirut Lebanon Ghassan Kanafani Palestinian writer and a leading member of the PFLP, who had claimed responsibility for the Lod Airport massacre on behalf of the PFLP.[19] Killed by car bomb. Mossad[20][21][22][19][23][24][25]
July 25, 1972 Attempted killing of Bassam Abu Sharif Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine Information Office. He held a press conference with Ghassan Kanafani during the Dawson's Field hijackings justifying the PFLP's actions. He lost four fingers, and was left deaf in one ear and blind in one eye, after a book sent to him that was implanted with a bomb exploded in his hands.
October 16, 1972 Rome Italy Abdel Wael Zwaiter Libyan embassy employee, cousin of Yassir Arafat,[21] PLO representative, poet and multilingual translator, considered by Israel to be a terrorist for his alleged role in the Black September group and the Munich massacre,[27] though Aaron Klein states that 'uncorroborated and improperly cross-referenced intelligence information tied him to a support group' for Black September.[24] Shot 12 times by two Mossad gunmen as he waited for an elevator to his apartment near Piazza Avellino.[19][21]
December 8, 1972 Paris France Mahmoud Hamshari PLO representative in France and coordinator of the Munich Olympic Games massacre.[28] Killed by bomb concealed in his telephone.
January 24, 1973 Nicosia Cyprus Hussein Al Bashir a.k.a. Hussein Abu-Khair/Hussein Abad. Fatah representative in Nicosia, Cyprus and PLO liaison officer with the KGB.[24] Killed by bomb in his hotel room bed.
April 6, 1973 Paris France Basil Al-Kubaissi PFLP member and American University of Beirut Professor of International Law Killed on a street in Paris by two Mossad agents.[21]
April 9, 1973 Beirut Lebanon Kamal Adwan Black September commander and member of the Fatah central committee[29] Killed in his apartment in front of his children during Operation Spring of Youth, either shot 55 times or killed with a grenadeSayeret Matk al led by Ehud Barak
Muhammad Youssef Al-Najjar Black September Operations officer and PLO official Shot dead in his apartment together with his wife during Operation Spring of Youth.[31] Sayeret Matkal together with Mossad
Kamal Nasser Palestinian Christian poet, advocate of non-violence and PLO spokesman Shot dead in his apartment during Operation Spring of Youth. According to Palestinian sources his body was left as if hanging from a cross. A woman neighbour was shot dead when she opened her door during the operation. Sayeret Matkal
April 11, 1973 Athens Greece Zaiad Muchasi Fatah representative to Cyprus Killed in hotel room.[21] Mossad[32][33][34]
June 28, 1973 Paris France Mohammad Boudia Black September operations officer Killed by pressure-activated mine under his car seat.[21]
July 21, 1973 Lillehammer Norway Attempted killing of Ali Hassan Salameh High-ranked leader in the PLO and Black September who was behind the 1972 Munich Olympic Games massacre Shmed Bouchiki, an innocent waiter believed to be Ali Hassan Salameh, killed by gunmen. Known as the Lillehammer affair.
March 27, 1978 East Berlin East Germany Wadie Haddad PFLP commander, who masterminded several plane hijackings in the 1960s and 1970s.[36] He apparently died of cancer in an East Berlin hospital, reportedly untraced by Mossad.[37] Mossad never claimed responsibility. Aaron Klein states that Mossad passed on through a Palestinian contact a gift of chocolates laced with a slow poison, which effectively caused his death several months later.[36]
January 22, 1979 Beirut Lebanon Ali Hassan Salameh High-ranked leader in the PLO and Black September who was behind the 1972 Munich Olympic Games massacre[35] Killed by remote-controlled car bomb,[21] along with four bodyguards and four innocent bystanders.

1980s

Date Place Country Target Description Action Executor
June 13, 1980 Paris France Yehia El-Mashad Egyptian nuclear scientist, lecturer at Alexandria University Killed in his room at the Méridien Hotel in Operation Sphinx.[38][39]:23 Marie-Claude Magal, prostitute, client of El-Meshad, pushed under a car and killed in the Boulevard Saint-Germain. Mossad
September 1981 São Paulo Brazil José Alberto Albano do Amarante An Air Force lieutenant colonel, assassinated by the Israeli intelligence service to prevent Brazil from becoming a nuclear nation.He was contaminated by radioactive material. Samuel Giliad or Guesten Zang, a Mossad agent, an Israeli born in Poland.
August 21, 1983 Athens Greece Mamoun Meraish Senior PLO official Shot in his car from motorcycle. Mossad
June 9, 1986 Khalid Nazzal Secretary of the DFLP (Democratic Front for Liberation of Palestine) Killed in Athens by Mossad agents who entered Greece with fake passports, shot Nazzal while leaving his hotel, and fled the country. Mossad
October 21, 1986 Munther Abu Ghazaleh High-ranked leader in the PLO. Senior member of the National Palestinian Council, the Revolutionary Council of Al Fatah and the Supreme Military Council of the Revolutionary Palestinian Forces. Killed by car bomb Mossad
April 16, 1988 Tunis Tunisia Abu Jihad Second-in-command to Yassir Arafat Shot dead in front of his family in the Tunis Raid by Israeli commandos under the direction of Ehud Barak and Moshe Ya'alon, and condemned as a political assassination by the United States State Department.[9][44] Israel Defense Forces
July 14, 1989 Alexandria Egypt Said S. Bedair Egyptian scientist in electrical, electronic and microwave engineering and a colonel in the Egyptian army Fell to his death from the balcony of his brother's apartment in Camp Chezar, Alexandria, Egypt. His veins were found cut and a gas leak was detected in the apartment. Arabic and Egyptian sources claim that the Mossad assassinated him in a way that appears as a suicide.
1990s

Date Place Country Target Description Action Executor
March 20, 1990 Brussels Belgium Gerald Bull Canadian engineer and designer of the Project Babylon "supergun" for Saddam Husseins government Shot at door to his apartment Attributed to Mossad by several sources,[45] and widely believed to be a Mossad operation by intelligence experts,[46] Gordon Thomas states it was the work of Mossad's director Nahum Admoni.[47] Israel denied involvement at the time.[46] and several other countries had interests in seeing him dead.
February 16, 1992 Nabatieh Governorate Lebanon Abbas al-Musawi Secretary-General of Hezbollah After 3 IDF soldiers were killed by Palestinian militants of the PIJ during a training exercise at Gal'ed in Israel, Israel retaliated by killing Musawi in his car, together with his wife Sihan and 5-year-old child Hussein, with seven missiles launched from two Apache Israeli helicopters.[21] Hezbollah retaliated by the attacking Israel's embassy in Argentina.[48] Israel Defense Forces[49]
June 8, 1992 Paris France Atef Bseiso Palestinian official involved in Munich Massacre Shot several times in the head at point-blank range by 2 gunmen, in his hotel (Aaron Klein's "Striking Back") Mossad, with French complicity, according to the PLO, but French security sources suggested the hand of Abu Nidal.[50][51]
October 26, 1995 Sliema Malta Fathi Shaqaqi Head of Palestinian Islamic Jihad Shot and killed in front of Diplomat Hotel.[21] Mossad.[47]
January 6, 1996 Beit Lahia Gaza Strip Yahya Ayyash "The Engineer", Hamas bomb maker Head blown off by cell phone bomb in Osama Hamad's apartment, responding to a call from his father. Osama's father, Kamal Hamad, was a known collaborator with Israel, and it was bruited in Israel that he had betrayed his son's friend for $1 million, a fake passport and a U.S. visa. Covert Israeli operation[53]
September 25, 1997 Amman Jordan Khaled Mashaal (failed attempt) Hamas political leader Attempted poisoning. Israel provided antidote, after pressure by Clinton. Canada withdrew Ambassador. Two Mossad agents with Canadian passports arrested
2000s
2000, September 29-2001, April 25. According to Palestinian sources, the IDF assassinated 13 political activists in Area A under full Palestinian Authority, with 9 civilian casualties.[54]
2003 (August) The Israeli government authorized the killing of Hamas's entire political leadership in Gaza, 'without further notice,' in a method called 'the hunting season' in order to strengthen the position of moderates and Mahmoud Abbas.
2005 In February Israel announced a suspension of targeted killings, while reserving the right to kill allegedly 'ticking bombs'.[55]
Date Place Location Target Description Action Executor
November 9, 2000 Beit Sahur West Bank Hussein Mohammed Abayat (37); Abayat was a senior official of the Fatah faction Tanzim. Killed while driving his Mitsubishi by a Hellfire anti-tank missile fired from an Israeli Apache helicopter. Rahma She'ibat, (50); 'Aziza Dannoun Jobran (52), two local women, were killed by a second missile, and Nazhmi She'ibat and his wife were also injured. Accused of shooting at the Gilo settlement.[5][54][56] Israel Defense Forces[57]
November 22, 2000 Morag Gaza Strip Jamal Abdel Raziq (39), and Awni Dhuheir (38).[58] Senior official of the Fatah faction Tanzim Killed on the Rafah-Khan Yunis western road near the junction leading to Morag settlement while in a Honda Civic with the driver, Awni Dhuheir when their car was machine-gunned from two tanks at close range. The first version, they were about to attack Morag; the second version, Raziq was targeted after firing at IDF soldiers. His uncle was later sentenced to death for collaborating in his nephew's death by furnishing Israel with details.[54] Two bystanders in a taxi behind them also killed (Sami Abu Laban, 29, baker, and Na'el Shehdeh El-Leddawi, 25, student).[58][59]
November 23, 2000 Nablus West Bank Ibrahim 'Abd al-Karim Bani 'Odeh (34) Unknown. Had been jailed for 3 years by the PNA until two weeks before his death. Killed while driving a Subaru near Al-Salam mosque. Israeli version, he died from his own rudimentary bomb. Palestinian version: his cousin 'Allan Bani 'Oudeh confessed to collaborating with Israel in an assassination, and was convicted and shot in Jan 2001.[54] ?[57]
December 11, 2000 Nablus West Bank Anwar Mahmoud Hamran (28) A PIJ bombing suspect. Jailed for 2 years by PNA and released 6 weeks before his death. Targeted on a campus of Al-Quds Open University while waiting for a taxi-cab. Shot 19 times by a sniper at 500 yards. IDF version shot by soldiers in self-defence. Palestinian version, he died with books in his hand.Israel Defense Forces
December 12, 2000 al-Khader West Bank Yusef Ahmad Mahmoud Abu Sawi (28) Unknown Targeted and shot by a sniper at 200 metres, 17 bullets.[57]
December 13, 2000 Hebron West Bank 'Abbas 'Othman El-'Oweiwi(25) Hamas activist Targeted and shot 3 times in head and chest by a sniper while standing in front of his store in Wadi Al-Tuffah Street.[54][57]
December 14, 2000 Burin West Bank Saed Ibrahim Taha al-Kharuf (35) Targeted and shot dead.
rowspan=2|Israel Defense Forces.[57]

December 14, 2000 Junction of Salah el-Din near Deir al-Balah Gaza Strip Hani Hussein Abu Bakra Israeli version. Hamas activist shot as he tried to fire from a pistol. Driver of a Hyundai taxi van. Palestinian version: shot while reaching for his identity card which he was asked to produce when stopped. 4 of seven passengers wounded, one of whom, 'Abdullah 'Eissa Gannan, 40, died 10 days later.[54]
December 17, 2000 Qalandiyya West Bank Samih Malabi Tanzim officer.[60] Mobile phone bomb.
December 31, 2000 Tulkarem West Bank Thabat Ahmad Thabat Classed by Israel as head of Tanzim cell.[54] Dentist, lecturer on public health at Al Quds University, and Fatah Secretary-General on the West Bank.[60] Israeli Special Forces sniper shot him as he drove his car from his home in Ramin, classified as an apparent political assassination.[56] Israel Defense Forces
February 13, 2001 Gaza City[54] Gaza Strip Mas'oud Hussein 'Ayyad (50) Lieutenant-colonel in Force 17, an aide of Yasser Arafat held responsible for a failed mortar attack on a Jewish settlement in Gaza. The IDF also alleged, without providing evidence, that he intended to form a Hezbollah cell in the Gaza Strip.[5][56][61] Killed while driving a Hyundai in Jabalia Camp by a Cobra gunship launching 3rockets.[62] Israeli Air Force
February 19, 2001 Nablus West Bank Mahmoud Suleiman El-Madani (25) Hamas activist Shot by two men in plainclothes as he left a mosque. As they fled, according to the Palestinian version, covering fire was provided by an Israeli unit on Mount Gerizim.[54]
April 2, 2001 Al-Barazil neighborhood of Rafah Gaza Strip Mohammed 'Attwa 'Abdel-'Aal (26) PIJ Combat helicopters fired three rockets at his Peugeot Thunder, also hitting the taxi behind, whose occupants survived. Israeli Air Force[54]
April 5, 2001 Jenin West Bank Iyad Mohammed Hardan (26) Head of the PIJ in Jenin. IDF version. He was involved in the 1997 Mahane Yehuda Market Bombings Blown up in a public phone booth, when, reportedly, an Israeli helicopter was flying overhead.Baruch Kimmerling classifies it as an apparent political execution to provoke Palestinians.[60]
April 25, 2001 Rafah West Bank Ramadan Ismail 'Azzam (33); Samir Sabri Zo'rob (34); Sa'di Mohammed El-Dabbas (32); Yasser Hamdan El-Dabbas (18) Popular Resistance Committees members Blown up while examining a triangular object with flashing lights that had been reported as lying near the border earlier that day. Palestinians say the object exploded as an Israeli helicopter passed overhead.[54]
May 5, 2001 Bethlehem West Bank Ahmad Khalil 'Eissa Assad (38) PIJ activist Hit while leaving his house for work, reportedly from shots (15) fired from the Israeli military outpost at Tel Abu Zaid, 250 metres away. His niece, Ala, was also injured. Israel said the victim intended carrying out armed operations in the future inside Israel. Israel Defense Forces[63]
May 12, 2001 Jenin West Bank Mutassam Mohammed al-Sabagh (28) Fatah activist In a car with two Palestinian intelligence officers, who managed to escape on sighting an Apache helicopter, which struck it with three missiles. The two officers were also wounded. A fourth missile struck a Palestinian police car killing Sergeant Aalam al-Raziq al-Jaloudi and injuring Lieutenant Tariq Mohammed Amin al-Haj. Two bystanders also wounded. Israeli Army accused the three of plotting attacks on nearby settlers.[63] Israeli Air Force[63]
June 24, 2001 Nablus West Bank Osama Fatih al-Jawabra (Jawabiri) (29) al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade militant. His name was on an Israeli wanted list submitted to PNA. Bomb exploded as he picked up a phone in a public telephone booth. Two brothers, Malik Shabaro (2), and Amar Shabaro (4) injured. Alleged by PNA to be IDF,.[64] but denied by the Israeli government.[63]
July 17, 2001 Bethlehem West Bank Omar Ahmed Sa'adeh (45) Hamas leader Killed by two wire-guided missiles fired by two Israeli helicopter gunships at his garden hut, also killing Taha Aal-Arrouj (37). His brother Izhaq Ahmed Sa'adeh (51), a peace activist, and his cousin Hamad Saleh Sa'adeh (29), were killed by a further missile as they rushed towards the rubble. A dozen people nearby were wounded. Israel maintained that it was a preventive attack on a planner of a terrorist attack at the Maccabiah Games.[63][65] Israeli Air Force
July 23, 2001 'Anin, west of Jenin West Bank Mustafa Yusuf Hussein Yassin (26) ? Released from an Israeli prison earlier that day. According to his wife, he opened the door on hearing noises outside their home and was shot at point-blank range in front of his family. Israeli sources say he was planning to bomb Israeli targets. Israel Defense Forces[63]
July 25, 2001 Nablus West Bank Salah Nour al-Din Khalil Darwouza (38) Hamas Car hit while driving in Nablus. He evaded two missiles from an Apache helicopter, but the car was hit by a further 4. Israel claimed he planned bombing attacks on French Hill, and Netanya. Israeli Air Force[63]
July 31, 2001 Nablus West Bank Jamal Mansour (41); Jamal Salim Damouni (42) High-ranking official of Hamas' West Bank political wing Killed when office struck by helicopter-launched missiles[66] as Mansour was giving an interview to journalists in the Palestinian Centre for Studies and Media. 4 others killed in the room: Mohammed al-Bishawi (28); Othman Qathnani (25); Omar Mansour (28); Fahim Dawabsha, (32). Two children, aged 5 and 8, outside were also killed, and three more adults injured by shrapnel.[63] Eyal Weizman states its purpose was to derail peace talks. Israel Defense Forces[5]
August 5, 2001 Tulkarm West Bank Amer Mansour Habiri/Aamer Mansour al-Hudairy (22) Hamas Missiles fired at the car.
August 20, 2001 Hebron West Bank Imad Abu Sneneh Leader of Tanzim Shot and killed.[67] Israeli undercover team
August 27, 2001 Ramallah West Bank Abu Ali Mustafa (63) Head of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and senior executive leader of the PLO. Killed by laser-guided missiles fired from Apache helicopters while talking on the phone in his office.Baruch Kimmerling classifies it as an apparent political execution to provoke Palestinians.[60] Other sources say Shin Bet convinced the Israeli Cabinet he was connected to terrorism.[68] Israeli Air Force
September 6, 2001 Tulkarm West Bank 'Omar Mahmoud Dib Subuh (22); Mustafa 'Ahed Hassan 'Anbas (19). Unknown Targeted and killed by a helicopter missile in an attempt to assassinate 4 Palestinians, of whom 2 died. Israel Defense Forces[57]
October 14, 2001 Qalqiliya West Bank 'Abd a-Rahman Sa'id Hamed (33) Unknown Targeted by a sniper and shot at the entrance to his house.
October 15, 2001 Nablus West Bank Ahmad Hassan Marshud (29) Unknown Targeted killing by explosion. ?[57]
October 18, 2001 Beit Sahur West Bank Jamal 'Abdallah 'Abayiat (35); 'Issa 'Atef Khatib 'Abayiat (28); 'Atef Ahmad 'Abayiat (25). Unknown The three, all relatives were killed while driving a Jeep. Israel Defense Forces[57]
October 22, 2001 Nablus West Bank Ayman Halawah (26). Unknown Killed while riding in a car. ?[57]
31 October 2001 Hebron West Bank Jamil Jadallah al-Qawasmeh (25). Unknown Killed by a helicopter missile which struck his house. Israeli Air Force[57]
2 November 2001 Tulkarm West Bank Fahmi Abu 'Easheh (28); Yasser 'Asira (25) Unknown Killed by gunfire whole driving in a car. Israel Defense Forces[57]
23 November 2001 Far'a West Bank Mahmoud a-Shuli (Abu Hanud) (33); Maamun 'Awaisa (22); Ayman 'Awaisa (33). Unknown all three killed while riding in a taxi by a helicopter missile.
December 10, 2001 Hebron West Bank Burhan al-Haymuni (3); Shadi Ahmad 'Arfah (13) None Two brothers killed in a vehicle hit by a helicopter missile during a targeted killing of a person in a nearby car.
January 14, 2002 Tulkarem West Bank Raed (Muhammad Ra'if ) Karmi (28) Head of the Tanzim in Tulkarem He had planned the murders of two Israelis in Tulkarem and was behind a failed assassination attempt on the life of an Israeli Air Force colonel. After surviving an attempt to kill him by helicopter on September 6, 2001, he was persuaded by Arafat to desist from violence but killed twenty three days after a ceasefire[69] was in place because the Shin Bet was convinced they would never have the same operational opportunity to take him out. Killed from a bomb planted in a cemetery wall, set off by a UAV circling above when he passed by it on a visit to his mistress, to create the impression he had blown himself up accidentally.[70][71] Baruch Kimmerling classifies it as an apparent political execution to provoke Palestinians.[60] Eyal Weizman states its purpose was to derail peace talks.
January 22, 2002 Nablus West Bank Yusif Suragji West Bank head of Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades. Three other Hamas members also killed. Palestinian Authority claims it was an assassination.[72] Killed in a raid on an alleged explosives factory.[72] Israeli Defence Forces
January 24, 2002 Khan Yunis Gaza Strip Adli Hamadan (Bakr Hamdan) Senior Hamas member missile attack on car.[72] Israeli Air Force
February 4, 2002 Rafah Gaza Strip Ayman Bihdari DFLP member wanted for 25 August 2001 raid in which three Israeli soldiers were killed. missile attack on car. Four other DFLP members killed.[72]
February 16, 2002 Jenin West Bank Nazih Mahmoud Abu a-Saba' Second ranking Hamas officer in Jenin.[73] Killed by a bomb planted in his car, in a targeted killing.[74] Israel Defense Forces
March 5, 2002 al-Birah West Bank Mohammad(Diriyah Munir) Abu Halawa (23); Fawzi Murar (32); 'Omar Hussein Nimer Qadan (27). Wanted AMB member. Missile fired at car from helicopter, Murar and Qadan according to B'tselem were not combatants at the time.[57][75] Israeli Air Force
March 6, 2002 Gaza City Gaza Strip Abdel Rahman Ghadal Hamas member Missile attack on his home.[21]
March 9, 2002 Ramallah West Bank Samer Wajih Yunes 'Awis (29) Not a participant in hostilities at the time, according to B'tselem.[57] Killed by missile fired from a helicopter, which struck a car he was travelling in. Israel Defense Forces
March 14, 2002 Anabta West Bank Mutasen Hamad (Mu'atasem Mahmoud 'Abdallah Hammad) (28); 'Atef Subhi Balbisi (Balbiti) (25). Hamad was an Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade member and bomb maker. 3 missiles fired from an Israeli attack helicopter at Hamad's car, near a chicken farm. A Palestinian source say a bystander, a chicken farmer (Maher Balbiti) was also killed. An Israeli sources identify him as a terrorist.[21][76][77] Israeli Air Force
April 5, 2002 Tubas West Bank Qeis 'Adwan (25); Saed 'Awwad (25); Majdi Balasmeh (26); Ashraf Daraghmeh (29); Muhammad Kmeil (28); Munqez Sawafta (29) Qeis 'adwan was a Hamas activist and bomb maker to whom several suicide bomb attacks were attributed. Targeted in a combined drone, tank and special forces siege during Operation Defensive Shield. Given hospitality in his house by Munqez Sawafta. After hours of gunfire, and a refusal to surrender, a D-9 armored bulldozer crushed part of the house and the remaining 3 were shot.[57][78] Israel Defense Forces
April 22, 2002 Hebron West Bank Marwan Zaloum (59) and Samir Abu Rajoub. Tanzim Hebron leader and Force 17 member Killed by a helicopter missile while driving a car. Zaloum was on an Israeli wanted list, and thought responsible for shootings, including that Shalhevet Pass. Israeli helicopter strike.[21][57][79] Israeli Air Force
May 22, 2002 Balata refugee camp, Nablus West Bank Iyad Hamdan (22); 'Imad Khatib (25); Mahmoud 'Abdallah Sa'id Titi (30); Bashir Yaish (30) Unknown, the first three were targeted. All four killed by a shell shot from an Israeli tank. Yaish was not involved in hostilities at the time. Israel Defense Forces[57]
June 24, 2002 Rafah Gaza Strip Yasir Raziq, 'Amr Kufa. Izzeddln al-Qassam Brigades leaders. Missiles fired at two taxis, killing two other passengers (reportedly also Hamas activists),[80] the two drivers and injuring 13 bystanders.[21][81] Israeli Air Force
June 30, 2002 Nablus West Bank Muhaned Taher, Imad Draoza. Muhaned Taher, nom de guerre "Engineer 4", was a master Hamas bomber claimed by Israel to be responsible for both the Patt Junction Bus Bombing and the Dolphinarium discotheque suicide bombing. Died with a deputy in a shoot-out with Israeli raiding commandos.[21][80] Israel Defense Forces
June 17, 2002 al-Khader West Bank Walid Sbieh| ? Shot by an Israeli sniper in a targeted killing while in his car.[57]
July 4, 2002 Gaza City Gaza Strip Jihad Amerin/(Aqid) Jihad Amrain Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades Colonel. Killed in a car bomb.[21][82] Israel Security Forces.[83]
July 23, 2002 Gaza City Gaza Strip Salah Shahade (Shehadeh) Leader of Hamas Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades Killed by 2,205-pound explosive dropped by an F-16. The attack also killed fourteen other Palestinians including his wife and nine children. Yesh Gvul and Gush Shalom tried to have Dan Halutz indicted, but the case was dropped.[21][84][85][86] Killed on the eve of an announced unilateral cease-fire by Tanzim and Eyal Weizman states its purpose was to derail peace talks. Israeli Air Force. 27 reserve pilots undersigned a pilots' letter refusing to serve in IAF sorties over the West Bank and Gaza in protest.
August 6, 2002 Jaba, Jenin West Bank Ali Ajuri, Murad Marshud Classified as people not known to be involved in the fighting (B'tselem). Ajuri (21) was killed by an air-to-surface missile, during an attempt to arrest him. Murad Marshud (19) killed as bystander.[74]
August 14, 2002 Tubas West Bank Nassa Jarrar Senior member of Hamas's militant wing. Died crushed by rubble when an IDF bulldozer demolished his house. The IDF admitted it compelled at gunpoint Nidal Abu M'khisan (19) to act as a human shield and get the victim out of his house. Jarrar shot the youth, believing he was an IDF soldier. The victim was wheelchair bound. Israel suspected him of preparing a bomb an Israeli high-rise building.[87][88] Israel Defense Forces
August 31 Tubas West Bank Bahira Daraghmeh (6); Ousamah Daraghmeh (12); Raafat Daraghmeh (29); Yazid 'Abd al-Razaq Daraghmeh (17); Sari Mahmoud Subuh (17). Five victims who did not participate in hostilities when killed during a targeted killing, from a helicopter fired missile.[57] An eyewitness account was later provided by 'Aref Daraghmeh. "The helicopter fired a third missile towards a silver Mitsubishi, which had four people in it. The missile hit the trunk, and the car spun around its axle. I saw a man escaping the car and running away. He ran about 25 meters and then fell to the ground and died. The three other passengers remained inside. I saw an arm and an upper part of a skull flying out of the car. The car went up in flames, and I could see three bodies burning inside it. Three minutes later, after the Israeli helicopters left, I went out to the street and began to shout. I saw people lying on the ground. Among them was six-year-old Bahira . . She was dead . . I also saw Bahira's cousin, Osama . . I saw Osama's mother running towards Bahira, picking her up and heading towards the a-Shifa clinic, which is about 500 meters away."
October 13, 2002 Beit Jala West Bank Muhammad Ishteiwi 'Abayat (28) ? Killed in an explosion in a telephone booth, in a targeted killing.[57]
October 29, 2002 Tubas West Bank Assim Sawafta Age 19 Hamas Izzedine al Qassam military leader. Killed by an undercover army unit, after failing to surrender.[21][89] Israel Defense Forces
November 4, 2002 Nablus West Bank Hamed 'Omar a-Sader (36); Firas Abu Ghazala (27). Unknown Killed by a car-bomb. According to B'tselem, Firas Abu Ghazala was not engaged in hostilities at the time.[57]
November 26, 2002 Jenin West Bank Alah Sabbagh (26); Imad Nasrti/'Imad Nasharteh (22); Sabbagh reportedly an Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade member, Nasrti Hamas local leader. Killed in an Israeli airstrike on a house in the Jenin refugee camp by two missiles fired into a room.[21][90] Israeli Air Force
December 23, 2002 wadi Burqin near Jenin West Bank Shumann Hassan Subuh (29) and Mustafa Kash (26/30) Subah was a Hamas commander and bomb maker. Ambushed by IDF unit as Kash drove a tractor between Burqin and Al-Yamun.[21][57][91] Israel Defense Forces
January 30, 2003 Burqin West Bank Faiz al-Jabber (32) ? Targeted when Israeli forces opened fire at a Fatah group. He fled, was wounded, then shot dead at close range.[57] Israeli Border Police
March 8, 2003 Gaza City Gaza Strip Ibrahim al-Makadmeh Gaza Dentist. Second-in-Command of Hamas's Military Wing.[21] Hamas political leader. He and three of his aides killed by helicopter-fired missiles.[92] Israeli Air Force
March 18, 2003 Baqat al-Hatab West Bank Nasser Asida Hamas commander Shot while hiding in a cave, On Israel's most wanted list as alleged mastermind of attacks on Israeli settlements in the West Bank.[93] Israel Defense Forces's Kfir Brigade[94]
March 25, 2003 Bethlehem West Bank Mwafaq 'Abd a-Razaq Shhadeh Badawneh (40); 'Alaa Iyad (24); Nader Salameh Jawarish (25); Christine George S'adeh (11) ? Israeli Defence Forces version, agents were ambushed and shot dead 2 Palestinian gunmen, and a girl in a car that blundered into the battle, and was believed to be part of the ambush. The girl's parents and sister were wounded.[95] B'tselem reports that three of the 4 did not participate in hostilities at the time, but were killed during the targeted assassination by an undercover team of Nader Gawarish and Nader Salameh Jawarish[57]
April 8, 2003 Zeitoun, Gaza City Gaza Strip Said al-Arabid Hamas Israeli Air Force strike on his car followed by helicopter missiles. Seven Palestinians, ranging from 6 to 75, were killed, 47 wounded, 8 critically.[21] Israeli Air Force[96]
April 9, 2003 Gaza City Gaza Strip Mahmoud Zatma Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine Senior Commander, Bomb Maker[21] Apache helicopter hit the car he was driving in Gaza City, 10 bystanders injured.[97]
April 12, 2003 Tulkarm West Bank Jasser Hussein Ahmad 'Alumi (23) ? Killed by gunfire. Object of a targeted killing.[57] Israel Defense Forces
April 10, 2003 Tulkarm West Bank Yasser Alemi Fatah, Tanzim Shot and killed as a fugitive in Tulkarm. Israel Border Police[21]
April 29, 2003 Gaza Strip Nidal Salameh PFLP Killed when 4 helicopter missiles struck his car[21] Israeli Air Force
May 8, 2003 Gaza City Gaza Strip Iyad el-Bek (30) Aide of Salah Shehade, Hamas activist.[21][98] Killed by three helicopter missiles fired at a car.
June 11, 2003 Gaza City Gaza Strip Tito Massoud (35) and Soffil Abu Nahez (29) Massoud was a senior member of Hamas's military wing.[21] Retaliatory strike one hour after the Davidka Square bus bombing. 4 bystanders also killed[99]
June 12, 2003 Gaza City Gaza Strip Jihad Srour and Yasser Taha Hamas members[21] Killed by between 4 and 6 helicopter missiles while their car was caught in a traffic jam, near a cemetery where victims of the June 11 strike the day before were being buried. Collateral damage consisted of 6 other victims including Taha's wife and child. 25 others were injured by the blasts.[100]
June 12, 2003 Jenin West Bank Fadi Taisir Jaradat (21); Saleh Suliman Jaradat (31) Saleh Suliman Jaradat was an Islamic Jihad activist Both killed at the entrance of their home, the latter being the target. Fadi Jaradat did not participate in hostilities at the time, according to B'tselem.[57] Israel Defense Forces[57]
June 21, 2003 Hebron West Bank 'Abdallah 'Abd al-Qader Husseini al-Qawasmeh (41) Wanted by IDF Shot dead after getting out of a taxi before a mosque. Three vans approached, with a dozen Israelis disguised as Palestinian labourers, and he was shot in the leg, perhaps while fleeing to a nearby field, and then finished off.[101][102]
August 21, 2003 Gaza City Gaza Strip Ismail Abu Shanab (48) Engineer and high-ranking Hamas military commander.[103] High-ranking Hamas official[104] Missile strike, ending a cease-fire.[105][106] Israeli Air Force[21]
August 24, 2003 Gaza City Gaza Strip Walid el Hams, Ahmed Rashdi Eshtwi (24), Ahmed Abu Halala, Muhammad Abu Lubda Hamas members. Eshtwi was said by the IDF to be a Hamas liaison officer with West Bank cells.[107] Twin helicopter missile strike as the five were sitting in a vacant lot near a Force 17 base. Several bystanders were injured, and a further Hamas member critically wounded.[108]
August 26, 2003 Gaza City Gaza Strip Khaled Massoud brother of Tito Massoud, killed 3 months earlier. Hamas Qassam rocket designer, alleged to be involved in mortar strikes. Attempted assassination of Massoud, who was with two other Hamas activists, Wa'al Akilan and Massoud Abu Sahila, in a car. Alerted to the threat, the three men managed to escape from their car as 3 missiles struck it and killed a passing 65-year-old Jabaliya donkey driver Hassan Hemlawi, who was driving his cart. Two bystanders were also wounded, including four children.[107][109]
August 28, 2003 Khan Yunis Gaza Strip Hamdi Khalaq Izzedine al Qassam 3 missiles struck hit a donkey cart Khalaq was driving. Three Gazans nearby were wounded. The IDF said he was on his way to a mortar attack on an Israeli settlement in the Gaza Strip.[110] Israel Defense Forces[21]
August 30, 2003 On a road linking the Nusseirat and Bureij refugee camps Gaza Strip Abdullah Akel (37) and Farid Mayet (40) Hamas senior operatives, said to have fired mortar shells and Qassam rocks. Killed when 4 helicopter missiles struck their pickup truck. Seven others Palestinians were wounded by the fire.. IDF soldiers machine-gunned an 8-year-old girl Aya Fayad the same day in the Khan Yunis refugee camp, while, according to IDF reports, shooting at road-bomb militants detonating bombs on a patrol route.[111] 'Israeli strike kills two militants,'[112] Israeli Air Force[21]
September 1, 2003 Gaza City Gaza Strip Khader Houssre (36) Hamas member Killed when 4 helicopter missiles struck a car with 3 Hamas members, in a crowded side street. The second was critically wounded, while the other managed to flee. 25 bystanders were injured in the strike.[113]
October 28, 2003 Tulharm Refugee Camp West Bank Ibrahim 'Aref Ibrahim a-N'anish Wanted by IDF Shot dead, unarmed, as he drove his car to the entrance of the refugee camp.[57] Israel Defense Forces
December 25, 2003 Gaza City Gaza Strip Mustafa Sabah Senior Hamas bomb maker, thought behind explosions that blew up 3 Merkava tanks inside the Gaza Strip.[114] Killed when 3 helicopter missiles destroyed a Palestinian Authority compound where Sabah worked as a part-time guard.[114] Israeli Air Force[21]
December 25, 2003 Gaza Strip Gaza Strip Mekled Hameid PIJ military commander. Helicopter gunship attack on car, killing its occupants, including two PIJ members. Two bystanders were also reported killed and some 25 bystanders injured.[115]
February 2, 2004 Nablus West Bank Hashem Da'ud Ishteiwi Abu Hamdan (2); Muhammad Hasanein Mustafa Abu Hamdan (24); Nader Mahmoud 'Abd al-Hafiz Abu Leil (24); Na'el Ziad Husseini Hasanein (22). All four wanted by the IDF Killed in a car struck by a missile fired from a helicopter. Israel Defense Forces[57]
February 7, 2004 Gaza City Gaza Strip Aziz Mahmoud Shami Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine local field commander, claimed to be behind a 1995 double suicide bombing in Netanya. Missile strike incinerated his car while he drove down a crowded street, and a passing 12-year-old boy was killed, and 10 others wounded.[116] [21]
February 28, 2004 Jabaliya refugee camp Gaza Strip Amin Dahduh, Mahmoud Juda, Aiyman Dahduh. PIJ military commander Missiles hit his car as it travelled from Gaza city to the refugee camp. Two passengers are also killed and eleven bystanders wounded.[117][118] Israeli helicopters.
March 3, 2004 Gaza City Gaza Strip Tarad Jamal, Ibrahim Dayri and Ammar Hassan.[5] Senior Hamas members Missiles from helicopter fired at their car as it drove down a coastal road.[119] Helicopter strike.[21]
March 16, 2004 Gaza City Gaza Strip Nidal Salfiti and Shadi Muhana Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine Israeli missile strike.[21]
March 22, 2004 Gaza City Gaza Strip Ahmed Yassin Co-founder and leader of Hamas The purpose of the operation was to strengthen the position of Mahmoud Abbas. As Yassin left a mosque at dawn, he, 2 bodyguards, and 7 bystanders killed by Israeli Air Force AH-64 Apache-fired Hellfire missiles. 17 bystanders were wounded.[120][121] Israeli Air Force[21]
April 17, 2004 Gaza City Gaza Strip Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi Co-founder and leader of Hamas, and successor of Ahmed Yassin as leader of Hamas after his death The purpose of the operation was to strengthen the position of Mahmoud Abbas. al-Rantissi was killed by helicopter-fired missiles, along with his son and bodyguard. Several bystanders were injured.[122]
April 22, 2004 Talluza West Bank Yasser Ahmed Abu Laimun (32) Lecturer in hospital management at the Arab-American University in Jenin, mistaken for Imad Mohammed Janajra. IDF initially reported he was a Hamas member.[123] Initially reported shot after shooting, and then running away from an Israeli attack dog, trained to seize wanted individuals. His widow testified that he was shot, while in his garden, from a distance of 200 yards by gunfire from Israeli soldiers behind an oak tree. The IDF apologized.[124][125][126] Israel Defense Forces
May 5, 2004 Talluza West Bank Imad Mohammed Janajra (31)[21] Hamas leader Ambushed in an olive grove, after an earlier attempt, mistaking Abu Laimun for him. Said by IDF to be armed and approaching them.[126] Golani Brigade's elite Egoz unit.
May 30, 2004 Zeitoun Gaza Strip Wael Nassar[21] Hamas mastermind behind the mine that blew up an Israeli troop carrier raiding Gaza City, on May 11, killing 6 soldier. He was killed on his motorcycle, together with his aide, by a missile strike which also wounded 7 civilians, including a woman and two children. A second following missile killed another Hamas member nearby.[127] Helicopter strike
June 14, 2004 Nablus West Bank Khalil Mahmoud Zuhdi Marshud (24)[21][128]'Awad Hassan Ahmad Abu Zeid (24). Head of Al-Aqsa Brigades in Nablus Earlier targeted in a Nablus missile attack on a car on May 3, killing 3 Al Aqsa Brigade members. He was in a different vehicle. Killed when a missile hit a car outside the Balata refugee camp, also killing PIJ members Awad Abu Zeid e Mohammed Al Assi (Israeli version). Abu Zeid did not engage in hostilities when killed (B'tselem report).[57] Israeli Army radio said the decision to kill him followed on several failures to arrest him. The same day, an attempt to kill Zakaria Zubeidi, head of the Jenin al Aqsa Brigades, failed.[128][129] Israel Defense Forces
June 26, 2004 Nablus West Bank Nayef Abu Sharkh (40) Jafer el-Massari Fadi Bagit Sheikh Ibrahim and the others. Respectively Tanzim Hamas Nablus officer; Islamic Jihad officer.[21] Killed by IDF paratroopers together with six other men found huddled in a secret tunnel beneath a house in the old city of Nablus, after trailing a fugitive into the house.[130] Israeli paratroopers.
July 22, 2004 Gaza City Gaza Strip Hazem Rahim[21] Islamic Jihad in Palestine member Helicopter gunship missile strike on a car, killing Rahim and his deputy, Rauf Abu Asi. According to Israeli sources, Rahim had been seen on video two months earlier brandishing body parts of ambushed Israeli soldiers.[131][132] Israel Defense Forces
July 29, 2004 Near Rafah refugee camp Gaza Strip Amr Abu Suta, Zaki Abu Rakha[21] Abu al-Rish Brigades leader. In a car, together with bodyguard, incinerated by Israeli helicopter fire. Accused of involvement in the shooting of an IDF officer, and a 1992 killing in a Jewish settlement in the Gaza Strip.[133]
August 17, 2004 Gaza City Gaza Strip Five dead. Four Unidentified?[21] The target was a Hamas Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades leader, Ahmed al-Jabari. The five, included al-Jabari's 14-year-old son, his brother, his nephew and son-in-law, were killed in a drone missile strike on al-Jabari's home. About a dozen other Palestinians wounded. al-Jabari survived the attempt.[134][135] Israeli Air Force
September 13, 2004 Jenin West Bank Mahmoud Ass'ad Rajab Abu Khalifah (25),[21] Amjad Husseini 'Aref Abu Hassan, Yamen Feisal 'Abd al-Wahab Ayub Al-Aqsa Brigades leader, deputy to Zakariya Zubeidi. Killed together with two aides (Israeli version) when a helicopter missile struck his car in the city centre.[136] Amjad Hassan and Yamen Feisal 'Abd al-Wahab Ayub were not, according to B'tselem, involved in the fighting.[57]
September 20, 2004 Gaza City Gaza Strip Khaled Abu Shamiyeh (30) Hamas rocketry mechanic.[21][137] Car hit by missile Israel Defense Forces
September 21, 2004 Gaza City Gaza Strip Nabil al-Saedi (34), Rabah Zaqout[21] Hamas mid-ranking operatives. Killed when their Jeep was struck by a missile. 8 bystanders including 2 children were wounded.[138]
September 27, 2004 Damascus Syria Izz Eldine Subhi Sheik Khalil (42)[21] Hamas senior official. A Gazan deported by Israel in 1992. Blown up by a bomb hidden in his SUV when he answered a call on his mobile phone, triggering the explosion. Israel did not claim responsibility but Ariel Sharon's spokesman Raanin Gissin said:'Our longstanding policy has been that no terrorist will have any sanctuary and any immunity,' and Moshe Ya'alon commented that action should be adopted against "terror headquarters in Damascus" in the wake of the recent Beersheba bus bombings.[139]
September 27, 2004 Khan Yunis Gaza Strip Ali al-Shaeir (26)[21] Popular Resistance Committee member Killed while an Israeli helicopter gunship fired several missiles at a car in Abbassam, believed to hold their target, Muhammad Abu Nasira. The latter, with two others of the group sustained injuries, and al-Shair died.[140] Israeli helicopter strike
October 6, 2004 al-Shati refugee camp Gaza Strip Bashir Khalil al-Dabash, (38/42) and Zarif Yousef al-'Are'ir (30)[21] Head of Islamic Jihad's military wing, al-Quds Brigades. Both killed by helicopter missile fired at their Subaru in 'Izziddin al-Qassam Street in downtown Gaza. Three passers-by were wounded. One of three operations in Operation Days of Penitence that killed 5 other Palestinian militants.[141][142] Israeli Air Force[21]
October 21, 2004 Gaza City Gaza Strip Adnan al-Ghoul Imad al-Baas 2nd in command of Hamas, and Qassem rocket expert. Killed together with his aide Imad Abbas when their car was destroyed by a missile from an Apache helicopter. Four bystanders were wounded. .[5]
July 15, 2005 East of Salfit West Bank Samer Abdulhadi Dawhqa, Mohammad Ahmed Salameh Mar'i (20), Mohammad Yusef 'Abd al-Fatah A'yash (22) Alleged to be 'ticking bombs'.[55] Killed in an olive grove, or, according to B'tselem, in a cave where two were hiding. The first two died immediately in a missile and gunfire strike by Apache helicopters. The third was taken to Ramallah in critical condition, but then seized by Israeli forces and taken off in a military ambulance. He died later, and neither he nor Mar'i, according to B'tselem, were involved in the fighting.[57][143] Israel Defense Forces
July 16, 2005 Khan Yunis Gaza Strip Saeed Seam (Sayid Isa Jabar Tziam) (31). Hamas commander of Izzedine al Qassam. Allegedly involved in killing two settlers in 2002 and shooting at an Israeli army outpost in 2004.[21] Shot dead by Israeli sniper in a targeted killing as he stood outside his Gaza home, as he was going to water his garden, in Khan Yunis.[144][145]
July 16, 2005 Gaza City .[146] Gaza Strip 'Four Unidentified' (JVL)=Adel Mohammad Haniyya (29); A'asem Marwan Abu Ras (23); Saber Abu Aasi ( 24); Amjad Anwar Arafat,[147] one reportedly a nephew of Ismail Haniya.[21][148] Hamas operatives. Apache helicopter struck a van carrying the men and numerous Qassam rockets in Gaza city. Five civilians, including a child, were wounded in the attack.[144][149][150] Israeli Air Force[21][21][151][21][152][21][153][154][21][155][156][21][157]
September 25, 2005 Gaza City Gaza Strip Sheikh Mohammed Khalil (32) PIJ Alleged to have been involved in Hatuel family's murder near the Gush Qatif settlement bloc. Killed when his Mercedes was struck by 5 missiles launched from an Israeli aircraft.[158]
October 27, 2005 Jabalia Camp Gaza Strip Shadi Mehana/Shadi Muhana (25) PIJ Airstrike hitting car with four Palestinian militants north of Gaza City. Three civilians were also killed, including a 15-year-old boy (Rami Asef) and a 60-year-old man. One source stated 14 other Palestinians were wounded.[159][160]
November 1, 2005 Gaza City Gaza Strip Hassan Madhoun (33); Fawzi Abu Kara[161] Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades Allegedly planning an operation to strike the Eretz Crossing. Killed when his car was hit by an Israeli Apache helicopter missile. According to documents in the Palestine Papers Israel's Shaul Mofaz had proposed to the PA that Fatah execute him.[162]
December 7, 2005 Rafah Gaza Strip Mahmoud Arkan (29). Popular Resistance Committees field operative Airborne missile strike on a moving car in a residential area. 10 bystanders, including three children, were injured.[163][164]
December 8, 2005 Gaza Strip Iyad Nagar Ziyad Qaddas Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades Missile striking a house. A third militant, and several Palestinians nearby, including a young girl, suffered injuries.[165]
December 14, 2005 Gaza City Gaza Strip Four Unidentified Popular Resistance Committees Missile strike on a white sedan near the Karni crossing. Israeli sources say the car was packed with explosives. Three PRC members killed, a fourth is thought to have been an al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades member. One occupant survived, and two bystanders were injured.[166][167]
January 2, 2006 East of Jabaliya Gaza Strip Sayid Abu-Gadian (45); Akram Gadasas (43), third unknown. PIJ All three hit by IAF rocket while in a car close to a no-go zone declared by Israel in the northern Gaza Strip. Collateral damage, two bystanders were wounded.
February 5, 2006 Zeitoun Gaza Strip Adnan Bustan; Jihad al-Sawafiri Islamic Jihad in Palestine. Believed to have director of their engineering and manufacturing unit. Killed when 2 cars fired on by an IAF missile, the second en route to a retaliatory attack for an earlier Israeli helicopter strike that killed three people.
February 6, 2006 North of Jabalia Camp Gaza Strip[168] Hassan 'Asfour (25); Rami Hanouna (27)[169] al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade| Hit and killed when their car was struck by three missiles from an Israeli drone. Three bystanders also wounded.[168]
February 7, 2006 Gaza City Gaza Strip Mohammed Abu Shariya; Suheil Al Baqir Al Aqsa Brigades Their car was demolished by a missile.
March 6, 2006 Gaza City Gaza Strip Munir Mahmed Sukhar (30); Iyad Abu Shalouf Islamic Jihad field operative. Collateral damage, 3-8 passers-by wounded, including 17-year-old Ahmed Sousi, and an 8-year-old boy (Ra'ed al-Batch), both of whom later died.[170]
May 20, 2006 Gaza City Gaza Strip Mohammed Dahdoh PIJ Killed in car, held responsible for firing crude rockets into southern Israel. Palestinian version stated Muhanned Annen, 5; his mother, Amnah, 25; and Hannan Annen, 45, Muhanned's aunt, were collateral victims. Dahdoh was alone in the car (IDF version).
May 25, 2006 Sidon Lebanon Mahmoud al-Majzoub (Abu Hamze), Nidal al-Majzoub Commander of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad; the brother was a member also. Critically wounded in car bombing, when he turned on the ignition of his car, parked near the Abu Bakr mosque in Sidon,. He died the next day. Islamic Jihad blamed Israel, though Israel denied it.[171] An Israeli government spokesman denied knowledge of any Israeli involvement. (alleged)
June 5, 2006 Jabalia Camp Gaza Strip[172] Majdi Hamad (25); Imad Assaliya (27) Popular Resistance Committees Missile struck their car, targeting Hamad. Three bystanders were injured. Israeli Air Force[21][173][21][21][174][175]
June 8, 2006 Rafah Gaza Strip Jamal Abu Samhadana and three others Founder of the Popular Resistance Committees militant group, a former Fatah and Tanzim member, and number two on Israel's list of wanted terrorists. Had survived 4 assassination attempts.[176] Eyal Weizman states its purpose was to derail peace talks, as it coincided with a referendum vote on a political initiative by Mahmoud Abbas. Killed by Israeli airstrike on a training camp, along with at least three other PRC members.[177]
June 13, 2006 Gaza City Gaza Strip Hamoud Wadiya; Shawki Sayklia Wadiya was a PIJ rocket expert. Three militants in a van with a Grad rocket were driving down a main street when a missile struck nearby. They fled but were killed by a second missile, as people gathered. The second blast killed 11 Palestinian bystanders, including Ashraf Mughrabi (25) his son, Maher (8), and a relative Hisham (14), 4 ambulance drivers and hospital staff rushing to the incident, and three boys. Thirty-nine people were wounded.[178]
July 4, 2006 Beit Hanoun Gaza Strip Isamail Rateb Al-Masri (30)[179][180] Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades Killed by an IAF rocket.[181]
August 9, 2006 Jenin Gaza Strip Osama Attili (24); Mohammed Atik (26) Described by Israel as leaders of PIJ Killed when (2) helicopter(s) fired missiles into their house. PIJ leader Hussam Jaradat, another target escaped the strike, while his deputy Walid Ubeidi abu al-Kassam, was lightly wounded.[182]
October 12, 2006 'Abasan al-Kabirah neighbourhood Gaza Strip Three unidentified='Abd a-Rahman 'Abdallah Muhammad Qdeih (19); Na'el Fawzi Suliman Qdeih (22); Salah Rashad Shehdeh Qdeih (22); Hamas All three, armed, killed by a helicopter missile after one of the three fired at an IDF tank
October 12, 2006 Khan Yunis Gaza Strip Three militants of Kadiah family. Hamas Five members of Kadiah family killed, two, Adel Kadiah, 40, and his son, Sohaib, 13, being civilians
October 12, 2006 Gaza City Gaza Strip Ashraf Ferwana Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades Ashraf targeted in his home but he survived the drone missile strike which demolished his house. His brother Ayman Ferwana and a girl died, and 10 others injured.[174][183][184]
October 14, 2006 Jabalia Camp Gaza Strip Ahmad Hassan 'Abd al-Fatah Abu al-'Anin (19); Sakher Faiz Muhammad Abu Jabal (19); Rami 'Odeh Salem Abu Rashed (22); Faiz 'Ali Fadel al-'Ur (33); Suliman Hassan Fadel al-'Ur (30); Muhammad Faiz Mustafa Shaqurah (30); Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades Five killed while walking armed in the refugee camp, by a helicopter-launched missile.Awad Attatwa (18), not associated with group, also died.[175][185]
October 14, 2006 One Unidentified Al Aqsa Brigades Died when the car he was in was hit by a missile fired in an airstrike. A local commander also critically injured, and two bystanders wounded.[185]
November 7, 2006 Al-Yamun West Bank Salim Yousef Mahmoud Abu Al-Haija (24); Ala'a Jamil Khamaisa (24); Taher Abed Abahra (25); Mahmoud Rajah Abu Hassan (25). Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades The four militants were shot while sitting near the Al-Yamun bakery (Palestinian version), fled wounded and were killed in a local house. Aiman Suleiman Mahmoud Mustafa (31), a bakery worker came out to see what was happening and was shot dead. Salim Ahmed Awad (27), Ibrahim Mahmoud Nawahda (30), Salim Ahmed Awad (27) and Mohammed Yousef Abu Al-Haija (27) were also shot and taken prisoner.[186] Israel Defense Forces undercover squad.
November 20, 2006 Gaza City Gaza Strip Bassel Sha'aban Ubeid (22); Abdel Qader Habib (26) Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades Missile fired at a Mercedes containing both, parked outside the Ubeid family home. Collateral damage, 5 civilians, members of the Amen family, including Hanan Mohammed Amen, aged 3 months and Mo'men Hamdi Amen (2), injured by shrapnel.[186] Israeli Air Force[21]
May 17, 2007 Gaza City Gaza Strip Imad Muhammad Ahmad Shabaneh (33) Hamas Killed while travelling in a car hit by an Israeli helicopter missile. Israeli helicopters[21][175]
June 1, 2007 Khan Yunis Gaza Strip Fawzi (Fadi) Abu Mustafa PIJ/Al Quds Brigades senior member Killed by an IAF airforce missile while riding a motor bike. Israeli Air Force[21][187][21][187][188][188][21][189][21][190][21][191][21][192][21][193][194][21][195][188][21][187][188][21][187][196]
June 24, 2007 Gaza City Gaza Strip Hussein Khalil al-Hur=Hossam Khaled Harb (32) Hussein Harb Peugeot al-Quds Brigades local leader. Struck by a missile while driving a Peugeot through Gaza City
October 23, 2007 Gaza City (near) Gaza Strip Mubarak al-Hassanat (35) Popular Resistance Committees head and Director of military affairs in the Hamas Interior Ministry. Israeli airstrike (IAF) on his car.
December 17, 2007 Gaza City Gaza Strip Majed Harazin (Abu Muamen) PIJ. Senior Commander, West Bank, overseer of rocket operations. Killed together with two others in his car, reportedly packed with explosives.
December 17, 2007 Gaza City Gaza Strip Abdelkarim Dahdouh; Iman Al-Illa; Ahmad Dahdooh, Ammar al-Said; Jihad Zahar; Mohamman Karamsi PIJ. Missile strike from an aircraft on a car, combined with IDF undercover unit, on a PIJ cell preparing to launch rockets.
December 18, 2007 Khan Yunis Gaza Strip Hani Barhoum; Mohammed A-Sharif Hamas Strike on a Hamas security position.
January 13, 2008 Al-Shati Refugee Camp Gaza Strip Nidal Amudi; Mahir Mabhuh; third man unidentified al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades Senior operative The three were killed in a car driving through the refugee camp, struck by an IAF missile.
January 17, 2008 Beit Lahiya Gaza Strip One unidentified[21] =Raad Abu al-Ful (43) and his wife. PIJ rocket manufacturer They were killed by an IAF airstrike which fired missiles at their car.
January 20, 2008 Gaza City Gaza Strip Ahmad Abu Sharia Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades Commander Hit by an IAF missile as he walked in the streets. Two other Palestinians wounded.
February 4, 2008 Gaza City Gaza Strip Abu Said Qarmout Popular Resistance Committees member Killed by an IAF missile that struck his car. Three others were wounded, two seriously.
April 14, 2008 Gaza Strip Ibrahim Abu Olba DFLP Israeli Air Force.[21]
April 30, 2008 Near Shabura refugee camp, Rafah Gaza Strip Nafez Mansour (40) Hamas Killed in an IAF missile strike. Reportedly involved in Gilad Shalit abduction. Collateral damage. Three bystanders, one dying of his wounds. A further bystander and young girl also hurt.[21] Israeli Air Force/Shin Bet joint operation.[197]
June 17, 2008 al-Qararah, Rafah district Gaza Strip Mu'taz Muhammad Jum'ah Dughmosh (27); Musa Fawzi Salman al-'Adini (35); Mahmoud Muhammad Hassan a-Shanadi (25); Nidal Khaled Sa'id a-Sadudi (21)Muhammad 'Amer Muhammad 'Asaliyah (20).[175] Army of Islam Killed when their car was struck by an IAf missile. A further two people were wounded.[198] Israeli Air Force.[21]
August 1, 2008 Tartus Syria Muhammad Suleiman Syrian General. National Security Advisor. Presidential Advisor for Arms Procurement and Strategic Weapons. Killed by sniper fire to the head and neck. Israel denied responsibility for the killing, but was widely suspected of involvement. According to an NSA intercept published by wikileaks, the NSA defined it as the 'first known instance of Israel targeting a legitimate government official." [199][200][201] The U.S. Embassy in Damascus reported that Israelis were the 'most obvious suspect (alleged).'[202]
January 1, 2009 Jabalia Camp Gaza Strip Nizar Rayan (49) Top level Senior Hamas leader. Professor of Sharia law, Islamic University of Gaza. Among first 5 top Hamas decision makers, and field operative. Advocated suicide bombings inside Israel.[203][204] His house destroyed by an IAF bomb. along with his 4 wives and 6 of his 14 children. 30 others in the vicinity were wounded. According to Israel, secondary explosions from weapons in the building caused collateral damage. Rayan was not the target, rather, the strike aimed to destroy Hamas' central compound which included several buildings that served as storage sites for weapons. Israel further stated that phone warnings were delivered to the residents.[204][205] Israeli Air Force
January 3, 2009 Gaza City Gaza Strip Abu Zakaria al-Jamal Senior Hamas military wing commander of Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, and leader of Gaza City's rocket-launching squads[206] Killed in Israeli airstrike.[207]
January 15, 2009 Jabalia Gaza Strip Said Seyam Hamas Interior Minister Killed in Israeli airstrike with his brother, his son, and Hamas general security services officer. Salah Abu Shrakh.[208] Israeli Air Force
January 26, 2009 Bureij Refugee Camp Gaza Strip Issa Batran (failed. See 30 July 2010) Senior military commander of the Hamas military wing Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades Targeted at his home. The attempt to assassinate him failed, but the shell hit the balcony of their home and killed his wife Manal Sha'rawi, and five of their children: Bilal, Izz Ad-Din, Ihsan, Islam and Eyman. Batran and his child Abdul-Hadi survived.[209][210] Israel Defense Forces
March 4, 2009 Gaza Strip Khaled Shalan Senior Operative PIJ Killed in Israeli airstrike, together with 2/3 other militants, targeted after alleged involvement in rocket attacks on the Israeli city of Ashkelon. They jumped from their car but were critically wounded. 5 bystanders were also wounded.[211][212][213] Israeli Air Force

2010s
Date Place Location Target Description Action Executor
January 11, 2010 Deir al-Balah Gaza Strip Awad Abu Nasir Islamic Jihad Senior Field Commander Had escaped several assassination attempts. Reportedly involved in attempts to harm Israeli soldiers. Killed by a missile.[214][215] Israeli Air Force[21]
January 12, 2010 Tehran Iran Masoud Alimohammadi Iranian Physicist Killed in a car bomb. Majid Jamali Fashi reportedly confessed to an Iranian court he had been recruited by Mossad to carry out the execution, while the US State Department called the allegation "absurd". Mossad (alleged)[216]
January 19, 2010 Dubai United Arab Emirates Mahmoud al-Mabhouh Hamas senior military commander of Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, believed to have been involved in smuggling weapons and explosives into Gaza.[217] Widely reported to have been killed by Israeli intelligence members. Israel stated that there is no proof of its involvement, and neither confirmed nor denied the allegations of a Mossad role.[218][219] Dubai police report that Israeli agents used Australian, French, British, Irish, and Dutch passports.
July 30, 2010 Deserted area in the Nuseirat refugee camp Gaza Strip Issa Abdul-Hadi al-Batran (40) Hamas Senior military commander of Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades in central Gaza, who had survived 4 previous attempts on his life (26 Jan.2009). Thought to have been involved in manufacturing rockets. Killed by a missile in retaliation for earlier rocket attack on city of Ashkelon. A further 13 Palestinians were injured in the strike.[209][210] Israeli Air Force
November 3, 2010 Gaza Strip Mohammed Nimnim Allegedly al-Qaeda affiliated, Army of Islam commander[220] Car explosion, due to either a bomb planted by Israel or an Israeli airstrike.[221] Israeli Air Force, with Egyptian intelligence.
November 17, 2010 Gaza Strip Islam Yassin al-Qaeda affiliated, Army of Islam commander[222] Israeli airstrike on his car, killing him, his brother, and injuring four others.[223] Israeli Air Force
January 11, 2011 Gaza Strip Mohammed A-Najar Islamic Jihad operative. Suspected of planning attacks against civilians and launching rockets at Israel[224]
Attacked by the Israel Airforce while driving his motorcycle in the Gaza Strip.[224]

Israeli Air Force
April 2, 2011 Ismail Lubbad, Abdullah Lubbad, Muhammad al Dayah Hamas Allegedly aiming to kidnap Israeli tourists in Sinai over Passover. .[21]
April 9, 2011 Gaza Strip Tayseer Abu Snima Senior Hamas military commander of Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades Killed along with 2 of his bodyguards by the Israeli air force during a period of escalated rocket fire from Gaza. He was the most senior Hamas commander killed since 2009.[225] Israeli Air Force
July 23, 2011 Tehran Iran Darioush Rezaeinejad Iranian electrical engineer Killed by unknown gunmen on motorcycle. Rezaeinejad was involved in development of high-voltage switches, which are used in a key component of nuclear warheads. Such switches may also have civilian scientific applications.[226] The German Newspaper Der Spiegel claimed Mossad was behind the operation. He is the third Iranian nuclear scientist killed since 2010.[227] Mossad (alleged)
August 18, 2011 Gaza Strip Abu Oud al-Nirab; Khaled Shaath; Imad Hamed Popular Resistance Committees Commanders Killed hours after a terrorist attack killed 6 civilians and one soldier in southern Israel. 4 additional members of the group were killed in the strike.[228] Israeli Air Force, Shin Bet
August 24, 2011 Ismael al-Asmar PIJ Allegedly weapons smuggler and militant in Egypt's Sinai, killed just before shooting a Qassam rocket. [21]
September 6, 2011 Khaled Sahmoud Popular Resistance Committees Killed after allegedly firing 5 Qassam into Southern Israel [21]
October 29, 2011 Ahmed al-Sheikh Khalil PIJ Munitions expert Killed in retaliation for allegedly launching rockets into Israel earlier that day. [21]
November 12, 2011 Tehran Iran General Hassan Tehrani Moghaddam The main architect of the Iranian missile system and the founder/father of Iran's deterrent power ballistic missile forces.
He was also the chief of the "self-sufficiency" unit of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Killed along with 17 other members of the Revolutionary Guards known as Bid Kaneh explosion.
Those who died are known as the "Shahidan Ghadir".
Iranian officials said that the blast at the missile base was an accident, and ruled out any sabotage organized by Israel.
AGIR said that the explosion "had taken place in an arms depot when a new kind of munitions was being tested and moved".
However, TIME magazine cited a "unnamed western intelligence source" as saying that Mossad was behind the blast.
Israel neither confirmed nor denied its involvement.
[229] [230] [231]

Mossad (alleged)
December 9, 2011 Isam Subahi Isamil Batash Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades [21]
January 11, 2012 Tehran Iran Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan Iranian nuclear scientist The bomb that killed Ahmadi-Roshan at the Natanz uranium enrichment facility, and another unidentified person was a magnetic one and the same as the ones previously used for the assassination of the scientists, and the " work of the Zionists [Israelis]," deputy Tehran governor Safarali Baratloo said.[232]
[233][234]

Mossad (alleged)
March 9, 2012 Tel al-Hawa Gaza Strip Zuhir al-Qaisi; Mahmud Ahmed Hananni Qaisi was Secretary-General of the Popular Resistance Committees According to Israeli intelligence, he was planning an imminent attack in the Sinai.[235] Israeli Air Force
August 5, 2012 Tel al-Sultan Refugee Camp.[236] Gaza Strip Nadi Okhal (19); Ahmad Said Ismail (22) Popular Resistance Committee, Two senior operatives. IDF sources say they were associated with global jihadist movement. Killed while riding a motor bike. The other passenger was badly wounded. [21]
September 20, 2012 Gaza Strip Gaza Strip Anis Abu Mahmoud el-Anin (22); Ashraf Mahmoud Salah (38). Hamas security officers. Salah belonged to the Popular Resistance Committees Their car was shelled by aircraft overhead.[237] Israeli Air Force[21]
October 13, 2012 Jabaliya Gaza Strip Hisham Al-Saidni (Abu al-Walid al- Maqdisi) (43/47/53);[238] Ashraf al-Sabah.[239][240] Respectively Salafi-jihadist militant leader of al-Tawhid wa al-Jihad and the Mujahedeen Shura Council, and head of Ansar Al-Sunna. Israeli and one Salafi source say they had links with Al-Qaeda.[241][242] Killed by a drone-launched rocket while riding a motor bike in company with Jazar. Several civilians, including a 12-year-old boy, were wounded.[243]
October 13, 2012 Khan Yunis Gaza Strip Yasser Mohammad al-Atal (23) Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine Rocket strike while he was riding his motor bike. A second man was critically injured.[240][244]
October 14, 2012 Gaza City Gaza Strip Ezzedine Abu Nasira (23); Ahmad Fatayer (22)[240] Popular Resistance Committees Struck by a missile while riding in a tuk-tuk after firing rockets into Israel to avenge deaths resulting from two airstrikes the day before. Two others seriously wounded.[245] Israeli Air Force[21]
November 14, 2012 Gaza City Gaza Strip Ahmed Jaabari Top level Commander of Hamas' military wing Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades. Number 2 to Mohammed Deif. Killed in an airstrike at the start of Operation Pillar of Cloud. Led Hamas' 2007 takeover of the Gaza Strip and, according to Israel, was responsible for most attacks on Israel originating in Gaza from about 2006 to 2012, including the capture of Gilad Shalit.[246]
November 15–19, 2012 Gaza Strip Hab's Hassan Us Msamch
Ahmed Abu Jalal
Khaled Shaer
Osama Kadi
Muhammad Kalb
Ramz Harb
Yahiyah Abbayah Hab's Hassan Us Msamch, was a senior operative and Hamas Bombmaker.
Ahmed Abu Jalal, was a Senior Hamas commander of the Hamas central military wing in Al-Muazi.
Khaled Shaer, was a senior operative in the anti-tank operations.
Osama Kadi, was a senior operative in anti-tank operations.
Muhammad Kalb, was a senior operative in the aerial defense operations.
Ramz Harb, was an Islamic Jihad senior operative in propaganda in Gaza city.
Yahiyah Abbayah was a senior Hamas expert bomb maker and a military commander in central Gaza. All of them were killed by IAF airstrike inside their command bunker and weapon storage during Operation Pillar of Defense.
February 12, 2013 Damascus Syria Hassan Shateri Top IRGC General. Under the pseudonym Hussam Khoshnevis, He was a Head of Iranian IRGC special reconstruction project for Hezbollah infrastructure in southern Lebanon.
Israel air strike killed him during his traveling from Damascus to Beirut.
[247]

April 30, 2013 Gaza City Gaza Strip Hithem Ziad Ibrahim Masshal (24/25) and three others, one on the bike. Al Quds Brigades (Israel). Hamas security guard at Al-Shifa Hospital (Hamas version).[248] Defined by Israel as a Freelance Terror Consultant" and active in different Jihad Salafi terror organisations responsible for two rockets fired towards Eilat on 17 April, he was killed when a rocket hit him on his motorbike. The strike broke a fragile cease-fire agreement.[249]
December 4, 2013 Beirut Lebanon Hassan al-Laqqis Senior Hezbollah Military Commander. Chief of technology officer and in charge of the Arms Procurement and Strategic Weapons for the group. Shot and Killed by gunmen in the head with a silenced gun outside his home and car.
Israel never took responsibility, but it is widely suspected Mossad committed it.
[231]

Mossad
January 22, 2014 Beit Hanoun Gaza Strip Ahmad Zaanin; Mahmoud Yousef Zaanin PFLP;PIJ The relatives were held responsible for rocket attacks into southern Israel. Only Ahmed was admitted by PIJ to be a member. His cousin and he were killed sitting in a pickup truck parked outside their home.[250] Israeli Air Force[21]
February 9, 2014 Deir al-Balah Gaza Strip Abdullah Kharti Popular Resistance Committees member. Regarded by IDF as involved with rocket fire episodes. Hit and critically wounded, with a friend, while riding on a motorcycle.[251]
March 3, 2014 farmland near Beit Hanoun[252] Gaza Strip Mus'ab Musa Za'aneen (21); Sharif Nasser (31) PIJ (Israeli version):Had just fired homemade rocket landing in a field south of Ashkelon (Palestinian version): It was not known if either were militants. A child and a fourth person were wounded.[253]
June 11, 2014 Gaza Strip Mohammed Ahmed Alarur/Awar (30/33) of Beit Lahiya; Hamada Hassan, a Beit Lahia resident (25) was critically wounded.[254] Hamas policeman. Salafist cell leader (Israeli description) Described by IDF sources as a global jihad-affiliated terrorist planning attacks against Israel responsible for a rocket salvo on Sderot that interrupted the silence of a Passover holiday. Alarur was hit by a missile while riding a motorbike. A car nearby was also struck.[255] One report identifies a further victim, his 7 year old nephew, who was riding in the family care and who died of wounds on June 14, ascribing to the latter a role of 'human shield.'[256] Israel Air Force, Shin Bet.
June 27, 2014 al-Shati refugee camp Gaza Strip Muhammad al-Fasih and; Usama al-Hassumi Two Senior operatives. Al-Nasser Salah al-Din Brigades Struck by two helicopter-launched missiles while driving a black Kia vehicle. Two other people were wounded.[257] Israeli Air Force
July 5, 2014 Damascus Syria Mwafaq Badiyeh Samir Kuntar's right-hand man and the personal liaison officer between Samir Kuntar and Hezbollah. He was killed by an explosive device planted on his car by "Mossad agents." While driving on the main road between Quneitra and Damascus. The security source claim the assassination was a response to rockets fired from Syria to Israel in March, that the Syrian army and Hezbollah were responsible for. Mossad (alleged)
July 8, 2014 Gaza Strip Muhammad Shaaban Muhammad Shaaban is a head of Hamas Special Forces Naval Commando Unit in Gaza He was killed along with 2 passengers when his car was hit by IAF air strike followed by attempted infiltration by 5 Hamas Naval Frogmen inside Israel Beach in Gaza border.
[258]

Israeli Air Force
July 27, 2014 Gaza Strip Salah Abu Hassanein
Hafez Mohammad Hamad
Hussein Abd al-Qader Muheisin
Akram Sha'ar
Mahmoud Ziada
Osama al-Haya
Ahmad Sahmoud
Abdallah Allah'ras
Shaaban Dakhdoukh
Mahmoud Sinwar Salah Abu Hassanein leader and spokesperson of Islamic Jihad in Gaza.
Hafez Mohammad Hamad was Top level Hamas commander for Islamic Jihad in the Beit Hanoun (northern Gaza) area who is directly responsible for the rocket fire on Sderot during escalation leading up to Operation Protective Edge.
Hussein Abd al-Qader Muheisin was a Hamas commander for Islamic Jihad in Sheijaya.
Akram Sha'ar is a Hamas commander for Islamic Jihad in Khan Younis, who is directly responsible for both rocket fire and terror attacks in Israel.
Mahmoud Ziada was a Hamas commander for Islamic Jihad in Jabaliya, responsible for upgrading Hamas rocket arsenal and directing fighting against Israel during Operation Protective Edge.
Osama al-Hayya A Senior Hamas leader in Sheijaya, whose son is in Hamas's 'political wing' Khalil al-Hayya.
Ahmad Sahmoud was a Top level Hamas commander in Khan Younis.
Abdallah Allah'ras is a Senior commander in the Hamas's "military wing,""the Al-Qassam Brigades.
Shaaban Dakhdoukh was a commander of the forces in Zeitoun, who worked on burying long-range rockets and helped to smuggle weapons for his forces.
Mahmoud Sinwar a Hamas Military commander, who was involved in the creation of attack tunnels and the launching of rocket fire into Israeli territory and the raid in which Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit was captured. All of them were killed by IAF airstrike inside of their house along with their comrades and entire family and also inside their buried Gaza tunnels.
[258][259]

August 3, 2014 Jabalia Camp Gaza Strip Ahmad al-Mabhouh Nephew of slain Hamas commander Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in charge of engineering and destruction officer in Hamas.
Among other things, he was responsible for hiding rockets before they were launched at Israel, preparing complex explosive devices and planning armed attacks against Israeli targets. The IDF and Shin Bet attacked a building in Jabaliya on Saturday night, killing Hamas operative Ahmad al-Mabhouh, the nephew of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, who was inside.
[260]

Israeli Armed Forces, Shin Bet
August 19, 2014 Gaza City Gaza Strip Mohammed Deif (failed attempt) Chief of staff and Supreme Military Commander of Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades. The main architect of Hamas's tunnel system. Several IAF missiles struck Deif's 6 storey home. His wife Widad (27), 7 month old son Ali and daughter Sarah (3) were killed in the strike. Three other residents in the building were also killed. According to Fox News, anonymous Israeli intelligence sources claimed that Deif had been killed in the strike. Hamas denied the reports that Deif, who has survived five previous Israeli attempts to assassinate him, had died in the F-16 bombing of his home. In April 2015, Israel confirmed that Deif survived the assassination attempt.[261][262][263][264][265] Israeli Air Force
August 21, 2014 Rafah Gaza Strip Raed al Atar Rafah Division Senior commander.
Mohammed Abu Shmallah Rafah Division Senior commander.
Mohammed Barhoum Rafah Division Senior commander. 3 Hamas Senior Military commanders Struck by a pair of F-16 one-ton bombs guided through a window of the building where they had been located.[266][267]
January 18, 2015 al-Amal Farms, Quneitra District Syria Jihad Mughniyah
Mohammed Ahmed Issa
Abu Ali Reza Al Tabatabai
Mohammed Ali Allah Dadi
Ismail Al Ashhab
Abu Abbas Al Hijazi
Mohammed Ali Hassan Abu Al Hassan
Ghazi Ali Dhawi
Ali Hussein Ibrahim
Along with 6 other Iranian and Hezbollah high-ranking officers Jihad Mughniyah was a son of a slain Hezbollah supreme military commander Imad Mughniyah.
Mohammed Ahmed Issa was Head of Security and Operations. He was also a Senior Hezbollah Military Commander in Syria.
Ismail Al Ashhab was a Senior Hezbollah military commander and a top liaison officer with Iran in charge of training Hezbollah forces along the Golan heights frontier.
Abu Ali Reza Al Tabatabai was a Top Iranian IRGC General.
Mohammed Ali Allah Dadi was a Top Iranian IRGC General.
Abu Abbas Al Hijazi was a field commander and officer of Hezbollah in Syria.
Mohammed Ali Hassan Abu Al Hassan was also a field commander and officer of Hezbollah in Syria.
Ghazi Ali Dhawi was also a field commander and officer of Hezbollah in Syria.
Ali Hussein Ibrahim also a field commander and officer of Hezbollah in Syria. Struck and hit by Israel Air Force Nimrod/Hellfire missile Apache Helicopter during their reconnaissance and inspection mission along with Israeli–Syrian ceasefire line at the Golan Heights.
According to Israel Intelligence Security, they were planning for massive mega attack, including infiltration, shooting, assassinations, suicide bombing, anti-tank attack, and missile attack with the intention of kill and kidnap Israel soldiers and civilians community along with Quneitra and Galilee border.
And also help to establish the missile base inside Quneitra region.
Israel neither confirmed nor denied an air strike.
December 21, 2015 Damascus Syria Samir Kuntar
Farhan Issam Shaalan
Mohammed Riza Fahemi
Mir Ahmad Ahmadi
along with several high ranking IRGC commanders and Hezbollah members Samir Kuntar was a senior Hezbollah commander and also a convicted murderer of an Israeli family in 1979, held in Israeli prison for the next 30 years before released in a prisoner swap in 2008.

Mohammed Riza Fahemi and Mir Ahmad Ahmadi were two Iranian senior military officers of the IRGC Intelligence division. According to the Israeli defence establishment, they were meeting in order to plan the next round of Iran-sponsored terrorist operation against Israel from the Golan Heights areas recently secured by the Syrian military. Two Israeli planes allegedly destroyed a six-story residential building in Jaramana on the outskirts of Damascus. Kuntar's death was confirmed by his brother and Hezbollah. The explosion also killed eight Syrian nationals, among them Hezbollah commanders, and injured a number of other people.[268][269]
December 17, 2016 Sfax Tunisia Mohammed Al Zawari Mohammed Al Zawari was a Chief of Hamas drone program and an Aviation Engineer expert. He also worked on the development and production of Hezbollah drones. He was shot dead in the head 6 times by using guns equipped with silencer just in front of his house, who located in Sfax 270 km Southeast of Tunis. Hamas accused Mossad[270]
March 24, 2017 Gaza Strip Palestine Mazen Fuqaha Mazen Fuqaha was a Senior Hamas Operative. He was also a Senior commander of Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas Military wing. According to Hamas, he was shot dead 4 times in the head and chest by Israeli Special Forces by using silenced weapons guided by Shin Bet Agents and Gaza operatives. Israeli Special Forces/ Shin Bet[citation needed]
April 21, 2018 Kuala Lumpur Malaysia Fadi al-Batsh Batash was a Hamas-affiliated Palestinian engineer from the Gaza Strip. Shot dead by two people on a motorcycle when he was leaving a mosque after his morning prayers. Mossad is suspected.[271]

ANZ , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:46 pm GMT
@Rich A member of the military of a country we are not at war with is a legitimate target?

You really must try harder next time to earn the shekels you've been promised. That simply won't pass for quality propaganda.

annamaria , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:53 pm GMT
@Rich Your "most moral" nation of Epstein cannot survive without blackmailing and deceiving, and yet you are coming on the UNZ forum to lecture the readers about morals? This is ridiculous.
Time to realize that holobiz is over.
Rurik , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:53 pm GMT
@Rich

Gandhi drank his own urine

And you'd drink Bibi's, and he'd be only too happy to piss in your face, so it's one of the 'symbiotic relationships' the scientists tell us about.

Bibi pisses in Rich's face, and Rich obliges by not missing a drop.

You and Lindsey would make a fine team!

(with apologies for vulgar language, but it's hard to imagine anything more indecorous than Rich's efforts here).

Crazy Horse , says: Website Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:56 pm GMT
@Rich Spoken like a true Hasbera Clown. The Iranians actually defeated the "ragtag forces of Saddam Hussein" that were supplied with US biological and Chemical weapons since their objective was purely defensive. Just as those "ragtag forces" in Vietnam defeated the US by continuing to exist despite the genocidal bombing campaigns.

You should really improve your literacy level by actually reading a book instead of some Zionist Agitprop.

bluedog , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:57 pm GMT
@A123 And the troll pops up again,with his wish list,I guess someone forgot to tell him Santa's not filling any wish's this early in the year.!!!
Gizmo880 , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:59 pm GMT
@RowBuddy Are you so naive as to think that dumping Trump in 2020 will change anything? Israel owns both parties equally, and it is a fact that up to this point in his administration Donald Trump has the least amount of blood on his hands when compared to each of the last three Presidents.

If you think differently, then ask yourself how the Nobel Peace Prize winning Messiah and the Hilldebeast destroyed the #1 economic country in Africa and turned it into a total shit hole nightmare. That would be the country of Libya for those not paying attention or who worship at the feet of the equally corrupt Democrat party.

bruce county , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 11:59 pm GMT
@NTG Thats great then .. I havbe the popcorn ready should make for some good tv..
Tsar Nicholas , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:06 am GMT
@Franklin Ryckaert

Israel has no president-for-life system.

Netanyahoo is doing his best.

bluedog , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:10 am GMT
@Not Raul Well lets take this to its conclusion,Trump nukes Iran it drifts over into Russia killing a few hundred or thousands,now just what do you think Russia would do,do you think that Russia would take that as an act of war against them, and let those missile's programed to impact the White House and pentagon be on there way;!!!
plantman , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:11 am GMT
This just in

Richard Engel
‏Verified account @RichardEngel

Iraqi security official tells @nbcnews there has been anther US airstrike, this one north of Baghdad targeting Shiite militia leaders. Reports of 6 killed.
This right BEFORE a big Shiite protest tomorrow in Baghdad. It seems certain to provoke an escalation.

The attack has been confirmed by other sources.
It looks like the provocations will continue until Iran responds creating the pretext for a broader war.

anon [276] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:12 am GMT
@Alfred US is unique to indict people from opposite spectrums of the same crimes usually after one of the criminals are dealt with . 911 has been blamed on Iran. It has been approved by American court . Settlements have been reached without any participation of Iran . After Bin Laden was dealt with for crimes of 911, Saddam was pointed fi anger at with similar success story . Pakistan has been also accused directly and indirectly of the same crimes .

Pan Am had checkered history The intercepts of messages that seemingly originated from Libya was manufactured and relayed by Israeli agents of worst filthy zionist mindset to draw visceral wrath of America on Libya .

Now then Zio will be the first to blame it on Iran and who knows after that Pakistan.

Rurik , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:13 am GMT
@annamaria

The fallen Iranian was an honest and honorable man, unlike the Jewish procuress of underage girls for wealthy pedophiles and the Jewish plunderer of pensions.

I'd like to send this to every US military barracks in the world.

I'd like to see it on every soldier's locker and pasted on every Army recruitment center in America.

Young Americans have been slaughtering honorable Muslim men, women and children, thousands of miles away, so that repulsive pigs like Epstein or Weinstein

can rape their daughters while they're off fighting and dying.

It's an untenable situation, and one we should all try to stop.

bluedog , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:17 am GMT
@Valley Forge Warrior Strange how when one troll posts the other trolls all come in to agree with him/it/her.!!!
NoseytheDuke , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:26 am GMT
@Not Raul

Let's say the Saudis attack the USA again like they did on 9-11

The Unz Review already has some good comedy writers. I would suggest that you start with open mic nights in bars and coffee shops until you develop some basic skills.

nokangaroos , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:27 am GMT
@Rurik Not to worry the maneuver is too transparent.

1. Strategically, they accomplished zilch.
2. They made a first-rate martyr.

That they had no better idea can only mean:

1. They are losing.
2. They did it in hopes of provoking an overreaction (much like Heydrich had to die because he did more for the Czech worker than anyone before or after him).

And over the last four decades the Iranians have grown calloused to provocation

Cloak And Dagger , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:27 am GMT
@Rurik

By doing nothing, but speaking out, Iran's message of victimization is it's more powerful, moral weapon.

A noble sentiment, Rurik. Sadly, in the last few decades, morality has taken a back seat, and evil seems to consistently triumph. Consider the plight of the unarmed Palestinians protesting near the Israeli wall on their land. They have held the moral upper ground, while the Israelis have consistently mowed them down, women and children alike, with nary a protest from the rest of the world, least of all from their bought-and-paid-for Arab neighbors, like Egypt and Jordan (don't get me started on the KSA). Meanwhile, countries that have protested, like Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Iran, are considered terrorists.

I think that "turning the other cheek" was a shrewd jewish trick on christians. The only way to stop a bully is punch him in the nose.

Rich , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:34 am GMT
@annamaria In my world Epstein and his friends get the death penalty. My people have no semitic or Ashkenazi blood at all. But just because some deranged general dislikes Israel, doesn't make him a good guy. He was a leader of an army that engages in terrorism, as well as pursuing an agenda that is antithetical to freedom and basic human rights. I'm not here lecturing anyone, but if you consider the millionaire mullahs and their lackeys "heroes", I'd say you're confused, at the least.
Nicolás Palacios Navarro , says: Website Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:39 am GMT
@Rurik I believe a not insignificant amount -- perhaps even the majority -- of pro-war Americans know this to be true: That they and their progeny are mere cannon fodder for Zionist imperialism. But they simply don't care or are even proud of dying for so "worthy" a cause. Never underestimate the persistent and deeply-rooted hysterical adulation that Israel commands -- nor the utter foolishness of your average American.
Poco , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:47 am GMT
@JamesinNM I fully expect Israel to set off a nuke in the US and destroy some Southern or Midwestern city where the "deplorables" live. Then indisputable evidence will be found pinning it on Iran. Kills two birds with one stone.
They get the war they want, kill a bunch of those they hate in America. And those they hate in America clamor for the destruction of others they hate in Iran. The mother of all false flags. The one on 9/11 didn't completely get the 7 nations job done.
Desert Fox , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:48 am GMT
@Rich Soleimani was fighting AL CIADA aka ISIS a creation of the ZUS and Israel and ZBritain and NATO, and so they killed him as they could not let him continue to kill the terrorists created by the CIA and MOSSAD and MI6.
NTG , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:49 am GMT
@Passer by i said a "Profitable", not a good one. And i didn't mean the US economy as a nation economy.
The whole "western" system right now is driven by some very few (an NO they are NOT Jews, they are only rich, very rich). And only those will profit from it. Until someone stop them directly.
Those people don't care about live or nation. They only care about money, their own money.
Rurik , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:50 am GMT

And over the last four decades the Iranians have grown calloused to provocation

I hope so. It's so bloody obvious by now.

Like the way they've been trying to 'rope a dope' Putin into a wider war with Ukraine, but Putin's far too savvy to take the bait.

Just let the ZUS keep frothing like a rabid dog, (h/t Ron Unz) and the world will eventually tire of its antics, and put it down, by repudiating the dollar.

Shue Arie , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:53 am GMT
If Iran is threatened with an all out war they could easily close the Straight of Homes and destroy the Saudi oil fields with Chemical weapons that'll render extracting Saudi oil mute. Result would be loss of Western World economy crashing big time and the USA falling into civil war cause they cannot maintain their freebies to the population. Not to mention attacking every US base in the ME. After all if Iran was facing annihilation they would have nothing to lose but to bring everyone down with them.
RudyM , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:55 am GMT
@sally It's ultimately for some fucking Jews. What else is new?
Iris , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:55 am GMT
@Rich

Iran won't escalate because they tried, and lost a general. If they try anything else, they'll pay too steep a price.

They might have just killed a foremost general, but the ones who have just proved to the world that they are losing are the US/Israeli Zionists.

When engaged in a strategic survival fight against a historic, cohesive nation of 80 millions people, killing one of their generals won't make any difference. It just reveals that you have run out of more effective, long-term means and have reached a strategic dead-end.

It is like losing a dispute over land with a powerful neighbour, and throwing a stone at one of his windows to satisfy a tantrum. It won't change anything significant.

This is the end of the road for Zionist long-term strategy in the ME.

Iran will not retaliate militarily, but you will soon understand the law of unintended consequences:
– Soleimani was so popular in Iran that Iranians will rally around their government; so much for the social and economic undermining of the Islamic Republic that was Israel's best card.
– Iraqis will also rally around their institutions; the end of the US occupation has now been put on top of their priorities.
– Israel will have to face an even stronger and more cohesive Shia Crescent, as Iraq will join in.

Good luck, hasbara troll.

Poco , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:55 am GMT
I'm not necessarily a cheerleader for Iran but, were I a leader in Iran, every time the US attacked one of mine, some Israeli bigshot would bite the dust. Every time. Dual citizens would be my preferred target. It would be a favor to the world.
NoseytheDuke , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:57 am GMT
@Johnny Walker Read The murdered peacemaker John Lennon famously asked, "What if there was a war and nobody showed up?" Since Vietnam, any American who has joined the military is a fool. These fools have not only aided in the destruction of many non-threatening nations and the deaths of millions of innocents but they have also aided in the destruction of the USA itself, for the working American people that is.
Haxo Angmark , says: Website Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:01 am GMT
@anon this @ Unz is nothing, compared to

VoxDay and ZeroHedge where

the $2.39/per comment (((hasbara)))'s are swarming like gnats.

Rurik , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:02 am GMT
@Cloak And Dagger

the Israelis have consistently mowed them down, women and children alike, with nary a protest from the rest of the world, least of all from their bought-and-paid-for Arab neighbors, like Egypt and Jordan (don't get me started on the KSA).

yea, or the SJW in the US House or NYT. Where are 'the squad' when it comes to Palestine, or Iran, for that matter?

Counting shekels, that's where.

I think that "turning the other cheek" was a shrewd jewish trick on christians. The only way to stop a bully is punch him in the nose.

I wholeheartedly agree, in a fair contest.

But Iran is in no position to fight a war with the ZUS. It would be crushed, and the zios would be just as giddy over dead American goyim as they would dead Iranians, if not more so.

One thing I just can't understand, is how fellow Muslims can accommodate Zionism, as it's practiced these days. Like the KSA, as you mention.

So, yea, it's an awful situation, but I'd still counsel a non-violent protest posture, even as the fiend menaces and slaughters them. But if an Iranian or Iraqi, or God knows how many other people who've been so terribly wronged, were to strike out, and kill one or two goons in the service of zion, I know I couldn't begrudge them. Like the Afghans who occasionally kill their ZUS trainers/occupiers. It's perfectly understandable.

Shue Arie , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:03 am GMT
@Rich I challenge you to show just a single act of terrorism committed by General Soleimani and Iran, and I mean an act of terror not a retaliation. Iran has done nothing to the West to warrant the aggression against it. Her only problem is the vast resources it has that the West so desperately wants to control.
anonymous [178] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:04 am GMT
@plantman BAGHDAD -- A United States air strike targeted an Iraqi militia late on Friday on Taji road north of Baghdad, state TV said. It did not name the militia or provide further details.

"Air strikes targeting Iraq's Popular Mobilization Forces umbrella grouping of Iran-backed Shi'ite militias near camp Taji north of Baghdad have killed six people and critically wounded three, an Iraqi army source told Reuters late on Friday."
https://torontosun.com/news/world/second-u-s-air-strike-targets-iraqi-militia-north-of-baghdad-state-tv/wcm/a24f3976-686c-4342-8102-93abfca24962

Question #1: Do members of US military have right -- or obligation -- to refuse orders that violate international rules and conventions on military engagement, US Constitution, or basic morality?

Question #2: Thirty -- fifty -- seventy years from now, will an Iraqi court charge with war crimes and crimes against humanity the 82nd Airborne soldiers pictured above?

nokangaroos , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:04 am GMT
@Passer by All correct in the medium term just a bit wishful in the here and now

All excellent points why the US MUST hold onto the Gulf, Persian or not, with teeth and fingernails;
losing control over oil the US don´t need means they can force no one to trade actual value for green paper, which not only means cold turkey from all those dandy little wars but also groid uprising back home.

Sure, folding up and going home would be the best for all concerned –
but it will never happen :/

Crazy Horse , says: Website Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:08 am GMT
@Gizmo880 This is what the Clinton apologist with his head up his Duff "editor" over at Veterans Today thinks as well. As if O-bomb-em wasn't as bad or even worse than Cheney er I mean Bushwhacker Bush. I mean get real! These people are so deluded. If we just all close our eyes and vote Democrat and sing kumbaya we'll enter a world of hope and change.

Yeah whatever.

ivegotrythm , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:09 am GMT
@A123 A123 is asking how long the armed forces will remain willing to die for psychopaths? Good question.
Biff , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:12 am GMT
@Rich

He was a leader of an army that engages in terrorism, as well as pursuing an agenda that is antithetical to freedom and basic human rights

Quit picking on Colin Powell

Herald , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:12 am GMT
@Not Raul

Let's say the Saudis attack the USA again like they did on 9-11

Oh deary deary me, now tell us do you still believe in fairies? Well of course you do, so silly of me to ask.

Rurik , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:14 am GMT
@Nicolás Palacios Navarro

Never underestimate the persistent and deeply-rooted hysterical adulation that Israel commands -- nor the utter foolishness of your average American.

I'm somewhat more charitable of the Americanus Bovinus.

I suspect that he either knows of the 'special relationship, in which case he'd be reluctant to kill and die for his enemies in Israel, or he's just another duped fool.

Pat Tillman started off being a duped fool, but then he figured it out. They solved that 'problem' with three 5.56mm holes in a 'tight pattern' to Pat's forehead.

Adrian , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:17 am GMT
@Agent76 Were the neocons also inspired by Deuteronomy 7 which talks about the necessary destruction of 7 (seven!) nations?

Deuteronomy 7 New International Version (NIV)

Driving Out the Nations

7 When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations -- the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you -- 2 and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally.[a] Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. 3 Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4 for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods, and the Lord's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. 5 This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles[b] and burn their idols in the fire. 6 For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.

Priss Factor , says: Website Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:18 am GMT
Trump is acting out the American Paradox. Jews have such total power that the only way to ease the Jewish attack on you is to serve them even harder. Jews have done everything to disparage and defame Trump, and what does the 'tough guy' do? To ease the agony, he sucks up to Zion even more so that 'my Jews' will push back against the 'Jews who hate me'.

Jews are the gods of America. In the Bible, if the God clobbers you, your only hope of salvation is to serve Him with greater servitude. In America, if Jews kick your butt, your only option is to hope that they will kick you less hard by kissing their ass.

annamaria , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:23 am GMT
@Rurik Dear Rurik, the tribe is in a self-destruction mode -- they cannot help it. Zionists are consumed by ethnic hatred and the hatred is blinding and destroying them.

It is tragic that the psychopaths have murdered the great numbers of decent and innocent human beings.

What is truly appalling is the cowardice of American brass. While politicians are the natural persons of easy morals, the dishonorable and pussy-catting American commanders are a stunning phenomenon. From Rumsfeld to Brennan to the current "boss" (what's his name which he is busy dishonoring?), the US brass has learned how to stay comfortable (and profitably) on their knees serving the zionist masters.

ivegotrythm , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:25 am GMT
So Saker suspected that it was not Libya that was responsible for Lockerbie but Iran? Keep thinking. Cui bono might help.
Sunshine , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:30 am GMT
@Ilya G Poimandres Absolutely, couldn't have said it better myself. None of this is legal or acceptable and for a country that's so obsessed with giving foreigners "constitutional rights", it makes us look like a bunch of hypocrites. But of course we are. And they don't do it in my name and I want no part of any of it.
annamaria , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:33 am GMT
@ivegotrythm The Jewish State has become the epitome of the Banality of Evil.
Sunshine , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:35 am GMT
@Poco This is a very real worry of mine. Very plausible and actually, probable. I worry that it will be a biological weapon. That scares the crap out of me! And I wouldn't put it past them one bit. They love it when we suffer and die. The Bible was right about them.
Priss Factor , says: Website Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:38 am GMT
Actions like this make us question past US military actions. US paints itself as the good guy fighting the bad guys, but US has provoked so many nations and forced them to react, whereupon US employed its superior firepower to kill countless people.

Maybe the US was always evil.

Will the progs and Democrats hit Trump hard on this? Or will their response be muted because their Jewish masters actually like this side of treacherous Trump doing the bidding of Israel and Zion?

Jewish Power is utterly vile. Sacrifice any number of people for Zion. It's really a new form of human sacrifice. Jews make a big deal of how their religion forbade human sacrifice, but they sacrifice human lives by way of US foreign policy.

Well, Trump became John McCain. Meet McTrump.

Beefcake the Mighty , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:40 am GMT
@TaintedCanker The reason decent people dislike America and Israel more than Iran et al. is because America and Israel are the aggressors here. Why is that so hard to understand?
Cloak And Dagger , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:40 am GMT
@Rurik

But Iran is in no position to fight a war with the ZUS. It would be crushed, and the zios would be just as giddy over dead American goyim as they would dead Iranians, if not more so.

Yes, Iran would be crushed in a direct military confrontation, however, an asymmetric war is a different beast altogether. I referred in an earlier post to "death by a thousand cuts", and that is what Iran should do – directed assassinations by their allies, who are everywhere. What is good for the goose

Start by taking down a few zios like Pompeo, Bolton, Adelson, etc., and suddenly bullying isn't so cheap.

One thing I just can't understand, is how fellow Muslims can accommodate Zionism, as it's practiced these days. Like the KSA, as you mention.

I don't know that they do tolerate zionists – but they have been effectively muzzled by the tyrants we prop up to control them (e.g. MBS, Sisi, et al.). Look at our cousins in Europe, who are just as muzzled and jailed for raising a single dissenting voice against jews or Israel. Forget Europe, we, ourselves are on the threshold of something similar here. Unconstitutional laws go unchallenged. Note the recent laws forbidding protests against Israel on campus. A flood is imminent.

Where are 'the squad' when it comes to Palestine, or Iran, for that matter?

Like damning with faint praise, the fact that the Palestinian/Iranian cause is represented by the 'squad' does more damage to their plight than if they had kept their moths shut. The squad is easy to take down and their position on this issue is easily dismissed, and they fail to gain the support of people like me because their other issues are so ludicrous. Their flawed character (e.g incest, lies, etc.) hardly makes them good lawyers for anyone, leave alone Palestinians and Iranians.

Beefcake the Mighty , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:43 am GMT
@Valley Forge Warrior Will he use gas chambers?
MEexpert , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:45 am GMT
@A123 You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You take tidbits from the MSM and what the establishment says and regurgitate. You are a stooge of Natenyahu, the real sociapath. Trump is becoming one very fast as well.

The regional stability only requires that uncle Sam come home and stop shedding American blood as well as Middle Eastern blood.

Attacking the embassy was clearly Khameni's desperate effort to shore up personal weakness at home. Not only did he fail to keep the embassy, he also lost a key terrorist. The weak leader just became much weaker.

Here is a very good example of your ignorance. You have typical American problem. They think they know how the Iranian mind works. They don't know a thing about how Iranians think. Iran has ten more Sulemanis waiting in line to take his place and there are ten more Al-Mohandus in Iraq.

Does anyone remember what an American General said about ISIS? He said it will take 30 to 40 years to defeat of ISIS in Iraq. It took less three years for the Iraq militias, all volunteer group mobilzed as a result of a fatwa by Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, to defeat ISIS and ISIS was being supplied arms by the US. Al-Mohandus was one of that group.

Beefcake the Mighty , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:47 am GMT
@Anonymous His handle should be TakingItUpTheAssForIsrael.
Parfois1 , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:53 am GMT
@renfro Thank you for posting that list. Any just soul in this world should keep a copy of that list as a permanent reminder of the nature of the Jewish state and its sponsor/protector – insane criminals deserving the harshest of their own gods' revenge: total obliteration from the face of the earth for ever. They are the scourge of humanity; is anyone with a conscience safe in thie world?
lavoisier , says: Website Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 2:03 am GMT
@anonymous

Question #1: Do members of US military have right -- or obligation -- to refuse orders that violate international rules and conventions on military engagement, US Constitution, or basic morality?

These guys just follow orders. They are not taught to think about the morality of their actions, but to trust the wisdom of their leaders and the justice of the cause.

No thinking person could honestly serve in the American Military today. Their cause is not defense of any ideals or their own homeland, but to serve an unjust and evil government in thrall to Jewish supremacists.

I want to burn the American flag.

nsa , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 2:05 am GMT
The only hope for us sane people is to hunker down and crack open another delightful $1.39 plus tax 8.1% Hurricane 25 ouncer. Americans like to think of themselves as rugged individualists, when in reality they are pathetically superstitious and naturally subservient. Half the country every Sunday actually worships a mythical jew zombie and even routinely mutilates the genitals of their male offspring to demonstrate total fealty to their cock cutter cult overlords. The other half every Sunday worships giant muscular Africans in plastic hats and tight spandex groping each other in a simulated homoerotic orgy on their flat screen living room joo boxes. Oh, and it has been proven that guzzling fully synth swill like Ice House, Steel Reserve, and Hurricane is actually healthier than counter and designers beers as brews made from actual fermented real grains all contain the magic ingredient, RoundUp ..providing your liver and brain can withstand a steady diet of 8%to 10% high octane fuel.
Patrikios Stetsonis , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 2:08 am GMT
@Harbinger I keep saying it.
Bomb to dust these maaaa-humpers in that shithole south of Lebanon.
The World major problems will go away with the next 10 years
Agent76 , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 2:09 am GMT
@Adrian I am a born again Christian and reader of the Bible but I cannot qoute chapter and versues like yourself and many more who are able. Thanks for your reply and be blessed!
Ghan-buri-Ghan , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 2:15 am GMT
@Haxo Angmark I don't think all, or even most, of them are hasbarists. They are mostly brain-addled American boomer "conservatives" who blindly believe everything the Jews spoon-feed them. And really, 80% of (((ZeroHedge))) is also Jewish propaganda these days, so why shouldn't their commenters reflect that?

It's not so different from the moronic commentary found in the Steve Sailer section here at Unz, which seems to increasingly bleed out to the rest of the site.

Agent76 , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 2:18 am GMT
January 03, 2020 There can be no justification for this act of murder

"America's lawless arrogance has gone too far with the assassination of Iran's top military commander. The deadly airstrike against General Qasem Soleimani was carried out on the order of President Donald Trump.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/52797.htm

anon [276] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 2:26 am GMT
@Rich He was a leader of an army that engages in terrorism"
Israel is nation that survives on terrorism It was birthed by terrorism . It gets money everytime some guy makes threats to a desolate synagogue or storms on the headstones of some graveyard . The money helps the nation to survive get food water electricity and it uses the change for making bullets to hit at the eyes of the Palestinian boys.
Anthony Aaron , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 2:29 am GMT
@Rich I don't see where anyone is putting forth the idea that Iran can defeat the United States -- and they don't have to to, essentially, 'win'.

After all, look at the end results for We The People Of The United States as a result of the (false flag known as) 9/11 -- let's see, we've got the Patriot Act to destroy our individual rights; we've got the TSA folks to do likewise; we've got the NSA to spy on anyone and everyone; we've spent Trillion$ chasing phony WMDs (thanks to the 'intelligence' shoved at US by the israelis); we've spent heaven-only-knows how much modifying the cabins of our commercial aircraft to prevent 'terrorist' attacks; we've allowed folks to capitalize on the whole Twin Towers insurance scam.

All in all, we've been under the gun since 9/11 -- afraid of our own shadows -- bowing to the israeli bastards who know no limits to their evil -- and, thanks to President Trump, American blood will be spilled for them once again – and American freedoms will be lost for the once again.

anon [276] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 2:29 am GMT
@Nicolás Palacios Navarro America needs interfaith dialogue with Islam but without including the Jewish faith . It is for the forgiveness that we hope will be showed to and bestowed on our future generations . We need to include Buddhist as well.
Maiasta , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 2:32 am GMT
@Alfred A good summation. However, it gets even darker than this.

Journalist working at the outer limits of the mainstream (e.g. Robert Fisk) had long suspected an Iranian hand in Pan Am 103. And lawyers for the two Libyans prosecuted for the bombing identified 11 alleged members of the rather obscure Palestinian Popular Struggle Front (PPSF) as the men responsible. The Iranians did back this group, BUT numerous sources claim that the operation took place with the consent of US authorities.

Why would the US allow such an attack upon its citizens? According to former Congressional staffer and (former) CIA asset Susan Lindauer, the attack was directed at shutting down an investigation into a CIA-run drug-trafficking ring (codenamed "Operation Khourah") operating from Beirut. In her words:

"The Defence Intelligence Agency had gone into Lebanon and were gathering forensic evidence to prove the CIA's role in heroin trafficking.

"They boarded Pan Am flight 103 that morning and they were flying back to Washington to deliver their report, with heroin, cash and banking records."

The UK Guardian summarised the scenario thusly:

//Among the Lockerbie victims was a party of US intelligence specialists, led by Major Charles McKee of the DIA, returning from an aborted hostage-rescue mission in Lebanon. A variety of sources have claimed that McKee, who was fiercely anti-drugs, got wind of the CIA's deals and was returning to Washington to blow the whistle. A few months after Lockerbie, reports emerged from Lebanon that McKee's travel plans had been leaked to the bombers. The implication was that Flight 103 was targeted, in part, because he was on board. //

So extensive is the evidence of all this murk that even CNN has acknowledged it:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/pOmzEbRi30k?feature=oembed

Parfois1 , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 2:34 am GMT
@anonymous

Do members of US military have right -- or obligation -- to refuse orders that violate international rules and conventions on military engagement, US Constitution, or basic morality?

Yes, it's not only a right, it's an obligation. Following orders is not a defence for anyone knowingly involved in crimes of war and against humanity.

However, the plea of obedience to superior orders can be a mitigating circumstance and reduce the severity of punishment. A private soldier responsibility for a war crime would be the same as that of the general or commander-in-chief who made the order, but his punishment would be reduced or symbolic.

In this case, a properly constituted court would convict Trump and all others in the chain of command, down to the operators of the drone, for the assassination of Suleimani.

barr , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 2:35 am GMT
@JamesinNM Tell that to Perle,Kristol,Kagan Kaplan Lutti Abrams Feith Wolfowitz and Haim Saban , Sheldon Adeslhon , Singer and Marcus . Use loudspeaker to make it reach the settlers occupiers and Likudniks .

Who gives a toss to Bible ?

Castellio , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 2:54 am GMT
@renfro Thank you for this list.

Unfortunately it is partial, as it doesn't include Iraqis individually targeted and assassinated from 2003 on. Do you have access to that list as well?

denk , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 2:56 am GMT
The Muslim league were suckered into the Bosnia war,
Iranians and others were fighting under NATO and dying for the great satan against the Serbs.

Let this be the final waking up call, who's your real enemy.

Rich , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 3:01 am GMT
@anon Okay, I get it, you don't like Israel, but does your dislike of Israel mean the Iranians are hale and hearty fellows? Most of their leadership are corrupt millionaires who use a medieval religion to justify torturing and enslaving their populace. The Iranian leadership is full of evil people who are openly hostile to the United States and its interests. Sorry.

The fact that you, and many others on this site, are strongly hostile to Israel and feel affection for the defeated Palestinians, doesn't change the fact that Israel acts as an ally to the US in its dealings with various enemies. The argument over how much, if any, foreign aid should be given to foreign nations has nothing to do with the fact that Iran has chosen to be an enemy of the US. Had they not killed an American contractor and coordinated the attack on the US embassy in Iraq (as well as other terrorist attacks), General Soleimani, might still be alive to torture his enemies and plan terrorist attacks.

Colin Wright , says: Website Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 3:10 am GMT
'Soleimani Murder: What Could Happen Next?'

To be brief?

Short term: nothing good. Long-term: an end to the Zionist entity.

Colin Wright , says: Website Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 3:13 am GMT
Can't be too careful

'U.S. Airstrike Targets Iraqi Militia North of Baghdad, State TV Reports
Iraqi army sources say at least five killed in attack on Iran-backed militia convoy, which group says was carrying medical teams '

-- Haaretz

Obviously, we want to make certain Iran feels it necessary to respond.

bluedog , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 3:15 am GMT
@Rich Then I guess he would fit right into Washington with their deranged people that kill wedding parties and children,would put on illegal no fly zones killing 500,000 children,now just where do you think their freedoms were .Its people like you that are sick in the head all puffed up with the empire bullshit that everything on the planet belongs to us and was just put there for our taking,your a perfect example of a neocon hiding behind patriotism.the sick kind that will destroy the world if we let it.!!
anonymous [178] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 3:28 am GMT
@Cloak And Dagger TruNews is amazing.

Soleimani Assassination: Did the Pentagon Use Hypersonic Weapon?
https://www.trunews.com/stream/soleimani-assassination-did-the-pentagon-use-hypersonic-weapon

Their perspective on the assassination took several different angles than were presented even here on Unz. I disagree with their conclusion that Iran has only two options: all out war NOW -- Iran will be destroyed but so will Israel, and US bases will be eradicated; or sit on their hands and take the repeated hits that USPisrael intends to send. (the latter seems to be the case: another attack has already taken place).

But Rick Wiles and Doc Burkhart reported two more bits of information:
1. US press spokesman hinted that the PMU that was attacked by USA & lost 32 men, helped plan the attack on Suleimani; claim was Suleimani was 'going rogue' -- US is offering an "out" to Iran in that Iran Central was not directing the anti-American operation that Suleimani was planning.
The briefer said: "Iran has only two options: Come to the table and negotiate, or endure more attacks."

Because IRGC – Quds force had been declared a terrorist organization, killing Suleimani was hunkey-dorie.

Realize, tho, that Adam Schiff has proposed legislation that hate crimes be prosecuted as domestic terrorism, and the Monsey incident upped the ante on that, so that domestic terrorism would be prosecuted the same way as international terrorism. Knocking over a grave marker in a Jewish cemetery could possibly be turned into an act of international terrorism. Rick Wiles or any of us anonymous keyboard warriors that Fran Taubman is so eager to doxx could be named as Terrorist, and, presumably, be droned by our own government, in our own American home, at the behest of Israeli partisans.

2. Israeli newspapers quoted Netanyahu that he knew in advance about the assassination, likely was in on the planning (with Pompeo).
Also, a New York Times article wrote on Jan. 2 -- before the attack:

"What if the former commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, Qassem Suleimani, visits Baghdad for a meeting and you know the address? The temptations to use hypersonic missiles will be many."

What's a hypersonic missile? Who has them? How did NYTimes know this stuff?
Did US use hypersonic missiles? Was the NYTimes article, and the assassination of the Quds general, warnings to other world leaders?

Beefcake the Mighty , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 3:30 am GMT
@Rich Hard to believe Iranian millionaires are worse than dual-citizen billionaires in the US in terms of corruption.
Biff , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 3:40 am GMT
@Rich

Okay, I get it, you don't like Israel, but does your dislike of Israel mean the Iranians are hale and hearty fellows?

Like clockwork

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/12/27/opposing-interventionism-in-nation-x-means-you-love-nation-xs-government/

Every time you speak out against western imperialism in a given nation or question western propaganda narratives about that nation's government, you will inevitably be accused of loving that nation's government by anyone who argues with you.

When I say "inevitably", I am not exaggerating. If you speak in any public forum for any length of time expressing skepticism of what we're told to believe about a nation whose government has been targeted by the US-centralized empire, you will with absolute certainty eventually run into someone who accuses you of thinking that that government is awesome and pure and good.

Thales the Milesian , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 3:43 am GMT
What the Iranians will do?

A big fat nothing!

As Thucydides wrote over 2300 years ago:

"The strong will do whatever they can; the weak will suffer whatever they must."

Putin, a president of a stronger country than Iran, accepts this fact of history and kisses American a$$.

annamaria , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 3:47 am GMT
@Rich "Israel acts as an ally to the US in its dealings with various enemies."

-- This is a really poor joke. Israel is the worst enemy of the US. Israel is guilty of killing and maiming the servicemen on the USS Liberty.
Your filthy Pollard has created the worst spying episode in the history of the US (the goodies were sold by Israel to China).
Mossad and Mossad's deputies Epstein et al have contributed a huge amount of evilness to the US and beyond.
The ongoing mass slaughter for Eretz Israel on the US dime & limb has been the greatest achievement of sadistic Israel-firsters.
And only God knows the details of the zonists' involvement in 9/11.

If you want to talk about "corrupt millionaires and evil people" who "torture and enslave" and who are "openly hostile" to the United States -- and all other countries that are not totally zionized (like Russia and Iran) -- then your talk should be about zionists and the Jewish State.

By the way, were not you among the dancing Israelis celebrating the miraculous (controlled) demolition of the towers?

Anonymous [339] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 3:52 am GMT
And why is all this happening?

Mostly because White American Christians are generally afraid of the Jewish lobby.

So that lobby gets its way.

And America loses.

We probably don't care much about our country, do we?

redmudhooch , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 4:00 am GMT
Trump has already sent a letter via the Swiss to the Iranians begging them not to retaliate in exchange for lifting sanctions and "other incentives"

Sounds so cowardly and stoopid it must be true.

Committing a brazen act of war is always the best prelude to a letter begging for calm https://t.co/gGkQ7aglfm

-- Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) January 4, 2020

AnonFromTN , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 4:04 am GMT
@Colin Wright You are an optimist. You expect something good, at least long-term.
Hippopotamusdrome , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 4:04 am GMT
LOL, the (D) Joe Biden putting on the anti-war schtick when an (R) president bombs brown people in the Middle East. The did this to Bush (R) too.

A blast from the past when Obama (D) and Hillary (D) were bombing brown people in Libya:

Kadafi death: Joe Biden says 'NATO got it right' in Libya
"Whether he's alive or dead, he's gone. The people of Libya have gotten rid of a dictator," Biden said at an event in New Hampshire

"NATO got it right," he said. "In this case, America spent $2 billion and didn't lose a single life. This is more the prescription for how to deal with the world as we go forward "

barr , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 4:10 am GMT
@Maiasta Victor Ostrovsky, a Canadian former intelligence colonel with Israel's Mossad secret service and author of the bestseller By Way Of Deception (the title comes from the Mossad motto), will testify that it was Mossad commandos who set up the transmitter in Tripoli that generated a false signal about the "success" of the Berlin bomb – he has already given a detailed description of this daring operation in his second book, The Other Side Of Deception. Ostrovsky, who will testify by closed-circuit television from somewhere in North America – he fears that, if he comes to Holland, he may be "Vanunu-ed" (ie kidnapped and smuggled back to Israel) for breaking his secrets oath – will state that the Lockerbie intercept so resembles the La Belle intercept as to have probably the same provenance. This is what US lawyers call the "duck" argument: "If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and waddles, the preponderance of evidence is that it is a duck."
Ostrovsky's evidence would then put the onus on the Lord Advocate to prove that the Lockerbie intercept is genuine, not disinformation. Ostrovsky believes that, in both bombings, Israel implicated Libya to shield Iran, thereby encouraging Iran not to persecute its small Jewish community.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/apr/17/lockerbie
redmudhooch , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 4:11 am GMT
I wouldn't be surprised if the idiots "in charge" of this country decide to do a false flag "terrorist" attack here in America, killing civilians, if this goes further. They're already putting out articles indicating this. I don't believe the Iranians would target civilians here, but we all know who would. Operation Gladio
Kratoklastes , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 4:19 am GMT
@Kiza

Does anyone know even one example where an Israeli's head or head of a Western Jew has been chopped off?

Daniel Pearl was Jewish. His mother was an Iraqi Jew. As it happens his father was also Jewish, but that's irrelevant.

If you didn't know that the highest-profile beheading victim was Jewish, you haven't really been paying attention.

The Alarmist , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 4:23 am GMT
@Rich

Their dead general was a member of the military and a legitimate target.

By that logic, every member of the US military is a legitimate target, especially since the US just drew first blood.

Priss Factor , says: Website Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 4:30 am GMT
The best thing that the Iranians could do is blurt out the truth for all the world to hear. Especially if your side is militarily weaker, truth must be the main weapon. The Iranian leader should mock and shame Donald Trump as a cuck-stooge of not only Zionism but Jewish Supremacism that rules the US. He should point out how Jewish Zionist Power has been out to destroy Trump from day one, but the orange-man coward remains most servile to the very group that has done most to undermine his presidency. [MORE]
The current state of the world is so embarrassing. It's like goyim of all stripes are stuck in some gladiatorial ring under Jewish orchestration. Jews hate whites and Trump. Jews hate Iranians. Given that both groups have in common the rabid & virulent hostility of Jewish supremacists, the most natural thing would be for both sides to unite against the Jews. Whites and Iranians are natural allies. But what do they do? Trump the so-called 'white nationalist' sucks up to Jews and attacks Iran. And Iran feels compelled to denounce all of America when the real culprits are the freaking Jews. Goyim are the gladiators in SPARTACUS -- though slaves of Rome, they slaughter each other for the amusement of Roman elites. Though Jews are hostile to whites and Iranians, whites are willing to kill Iranians to win approval from their Jewish masters, and Iranians waste so much time denouncing all of the US. What the world needs is a Spartacus-like figure. Spartacus united the slaves and made them fight Rome than each other. Goyim need to unite to fight Jewish Supremacist Power. This is where China, Russia, and Iran are doing the right thing, but they are still loathe to Name the Jew. Current US belligerence is the direct outcome of Jewish domination.
Iranians should throw Trump's words right back in his face. In 2016, Trump said the Iraq War was a total disaster, and that the US should get out of the Middle East. He also said the US should work for world peace by working with Russia. But since then, Jewish supremacists and its cuck-minions in the Deep State have done everything to undermine Trump, and the weary beast has succumbed to Jewish machinations. Trump is more Sparky the running dog than Spartacus. But then, much of the blame must go to white American Conservatives. Their brand of idiotic Christianity, atomizing libertarianism, and anti-intellectualism led to all the elite institutions being taken over by Jews, progs, and cucky-wucks. It could be Putin is mute about Jewish power because the Russian economy is still substantially in Jewish hands. One might hope China will be bold in stating the truth, but the Chinese way is strategic than principled. Also, China has been pulled into US market imperialism. It's the US gambit as the sole superpower with a vast market. If old European Empires suppressed economic growth in their colonies, US encourages economic growth as dependence on US markets. Thus, all the economies that grew by selling to the US are deathly afraid of losing market access. As the religion of the US is now globo-homo-shlomo-afro, they dare not speak the truth that Jewish Power is behind the current rot of globalist cultural imperialism.

It is about time for Russia, Iran, and all nations to mock the US as a Jewish Supremacist empire, one where craven white cowards do little but crawl on their knees and pledge undying support for Jewish supremacists and Zion. Why? Because soulless US is only about one thing: Money and Idolatry. Jews got the money and idolized themselves as the supreme identity group that ALL other groups must serve. While Jewish elites rub their hands at the prospect of another Middle East War, it will be goyim , white American soldiers and countless Persians/Arabs/Muslims, who will do all the killing and dying. Jewish globalists went from Semites to Supremites, and now, so-called Anti-Semitism is Anti-Supremitism, which is more necessary than ever. And it's about time Russia addressed the J-Question. Vladimir Putin has been silent on this for too long, but it is time for truth. It is time to put down the gauntlet. No, no one one should make crazy neo-nazi talking points. They just need to speak the truth that Jews control the US, the lone superpower, and that the Jewish modus operandi is Jewish hegemony at any cost. Also, Zionism has turned into Yinon-ism based on the Yinon Plan.

We've all been duped by Jewish Power. There was a time when Jews assured goyim, "Stick with us, and you shall have true free speech", "Struggle with us against unfettered capitalist greed", and "Support our cause to expose the Deep State and to create a more open and transparent society." But Jews weren't really against Excessive Power & Privilege. They just wanted to bring down the old Wasp elites so that they, as the new elites, would have the power to curtail free speech, rake in all the profits, and use deep state apparatus to destroy rivals and critics. Jewish Power is the main source of many woes around the world, but because of the stigma of 'antisemitism', so many people will blame anyone but the Jews. When Alex Jones got deplatformed, whom did he blame? The Chinese. Trump is pushed against the rope, so whom does he shake his fist at? Iranians. John McCain and Mitt Romney were smeared and slimed by the Jew-run mass media(despite their total cuckery to Zion) in 2008 and 2012, but whom did they rag on? Trump and his supporters. What a sorry bunch. (Granted, morons like Richard Spencer and Neo-Nazi crew deserve their share of blame by sinking the promising dissident Alt Right label with what truly amounts to white supremacism and even neo-Nazism, thereby making it more difficult for Trump to address legitimate white interests.)

Anyway, imagine a scenario where Nazi Germany attacks Poland, France, Russia, and Great Britain but all those nations praise Hitler & Nazi Germany while taking their rage and frustration on each other. Such is the state of the world today. Jews torment and destroy so many nations and peoples, but entire nations are willing to war with one other while speaking and doing nothing about the Jewish Glob. Unless people understand the urgency of Naming the Jew, nothing will change. It's like a doctor won't cure cancer if he does EVERYTHING but name the cancer. If there's a dead rat decaying and stinking up the apartment, no amount of 'solutions' will fix the problem unless someone names the dead rat and remove it from the premises. After WWII, Jews got a grace period, well-deserved due to Shoah. But it's time to face facts about Jews of the Now. Pretending Jews are still Shoah victims is like pretending current China is still the 'Sick Man of Asia' of the 19th century. Times change, and Jews are the supreme rulers of the world, and this must be called out. But that worthless pile of shi* Trump only sucks up to Jews more even as they bugger his ass. And white Americans are truly retarded. Jewish Power is carrying out White Nakba in US, EU, Canada, and Australia -- as cuck-white elites in media, academia, and institutions are nothing but mental minions of Jewish Power, as in Jews lead, goyim follow -- , and whites are being turned into New Palestinians, but all these worthless white 'conservatives' are cheering Trump's anti-BDS law that violates the US constitution. How utterly pathetic.

annamaria , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 4:34 am GMT
@Anonymous "White American Christians are generally afraid of the Jewish lobby."

-- Agree. The US brass are cowards. The US government of cowards is for sale. The US media is owned by Israel-firsters who have been propagating lies upon lies. "Is this good for Jews?" has become the zionists' battle cry that scares Americans into submission.

The scared Americans need to process the fact of holobiz being over. The Jews are not victims -- the Jews are shameless aggressors and traitors busy with frightening and corrupting the western governments to the bones because allegedly "this is good for Jews:" https://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/

Let's be clear about what we just did–we assassinated two key military and political leaders on the sovereign territory of Iraq without the permission of the Iraqi Government. There is no evidence or valid intelligence that shows Soleimani directing Iraqi Shia militias to attack and kill US troops. None. But those facts do not matter.

Judging from the media reaction on cable news, there is a lot of whooping and celebrating the death of Soleimani as a decisive blow against terrorism. Boy we showed those Iranians who is boss. But that is not how the Iranians see it and that is not how a significant portion of the Iraqi Shia population see it. From their perspective this is the equivalent of the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor.

The zionized cowards in the US government made American servicemen into targets for retaliation in response to American crimes in Iraq -- crimes that were committed because "this is good for Jews" who want their Eretz Israel by any means, including a mass slaughter of the innocent in the Middle East.
Boy Jewish intelligence is terribly overrated. The zionists do believe that selecting and promoting cowards and profiteers on the positions of power in the US is "good for Jews." Idiots.

Marshal Marlow , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 4:35 am GMT
Iran will do politics while the US does war.

Iran will explain to Iraq that the US will fight to every last drop of Iraqi blood while Iran will do its best to support their fellow Shia. The Iraqi parliament, not wanting another war inside Iraq and hating the US for starting it, will vote to expel the US or maybe to simply refuse the US any air rights.

The US then either retreats out of Iraq or it become an occupying force. If the US retreats, it'll go down in history as a strategic defeat. If the US decides to occupy, it'll need to disband the Iraqi parliament (ie a democracy) and replace it with the inevitable transitional government who'll be fed with a steady stream of suitcases full of $100 bills. At the same time, the US will need to fight a bloody guerilla war which will ultimately end in a strategic defeat when the US population gets bored by the smart-bomb video footage.

Colin Wright , says: Website Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 4:36 am GMT
@Kratoklastes 'Daniel Pearl was Jewish. His mother was an Iraqi Jew. As it happens his father was also Jewish, but that's irrelevant.

'If you didn't know that the highest-profile beheading victim was Jewish, you haven't really been paying attention.'

Back when the war against ISIS was ginned up, two Western 'reporters' were beheaded. At least one of them was carrying an Israeli passport.

Colin Wright , says: Website Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 4:37 am GMT
@The Alarmist We've declared war. Morally, Iran can do whatever they please.

within the guidelines contained within the Quran, of course.

The Alarmist , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 4:41 am GMT
@NTG

Their are considerable more Galaxy C17 traffic in Ramstein/Germany and the whole C17 (as far as you can identify them)look like a swarm of bees on the way to the middle east.

Galaxy was the C-5; C-17 is the Globemaster. In addition to its role in Tactical and Strategic airlift, it also serves as MedEvac, often to Ramstein/Landstuhl.

Kratoklastes , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 4:50 am GMT
@Z-man

That's a good suggestion but I still think they should go after Pompeo. If you really want to keep it 'tit for tat' with even less retaliation then poor Gen. Milley should be splashed. (Evil grin)

Milley's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs: his 'same-store sales' equivalent would have been Hossein Salami.

Soleimani wasn't even head of the IRGC – that's also Hossein Salami.

If the US had "red-carded" Salami, today they would be cleaning up missile debris and human remains at US bases all over the Middle East, and "Iron Dome" would get definitive evidence that it's a joke.

Although Soleimani had genuine clout and a high profile, he was only the head of Quds Force, which is kinda MI (plus a bit of special operations/coordination of irregulars).

So I would guess that the appropriate tit-for-tat splash would be LtGen Scott Berrier (G2 – Intel).

Everyone's heard of that guy, right?

Plus, if they splashed Pompous, the resulting fatberg would burn for longer than the Springfield tyre fire. Nobody wants that.

Gleimhart Mantooso , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 4:55 am GMT
@Passer by During the lead-up to the Gulf War, I recall "experts" like you talking about how Hussein's "battle-hardened" "elite" Republican Guard was going to send those wet-behind-the-ears American soldiers running home with their tails tucked between their legs. They were all then as prescient as you are now. Spare me these countless internet military "experts" who always seem to know who can do what, and yet end up being wrong in every instance.
Gleimhart Mantooso , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 5:00 am GMT
@Colin Wright The Quran promotes a supremacist ideology for world domination. It is the Muslim equivalent of the Talmud. Neither the Muslims nor the zionists will get a moment's restful sleep until they know their place, but psychopathic anti-Christ peoples are full of the devil, making them a curse on humanity.
renfro , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 5:02 am GMT
@Castellio

Unfortunately it is partial, as it doesn't include Iraqis individually targeted and assassinated from 2003 on. Do you have access to that list as well?

No , but will try to find one when have the time.

Kratoklastes , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 5:05 am GMT
@Colin Wright I admit I stopped paying attention to beheadings after the first few.

It seemed pretty obvious that it was the worst possible advertisement for a cause. The only people who would think " Kewl !" were people already on their side. Plus it was guaranteed to horrify moderates. It also guaranteed a full-court hostile press in Western media (SWIDT? two uses of 'press' in the same word – genius!).

It struck me as the sort of thing that (ahem) plays into the hands of those who wanted to give pan-Arab nationalism a bad name. Almost as if that was the intention.

They should have hired Hill and Knowlton and done their PR properly.

.

Also, the aesthetics were awful .

The guys doing the beheadings had very white forearms – whiter than most Anglo military guys.

I'm sensitive like that: I found the beheaders' pasty skin off-putting.

The lack of struggle from the victims was also weird – evidence perhaps that they were sedated, which is good for them I guess.

Gleimhart Mantooso , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 5:08 am GMT
@John Chuckman North Koreans who are treated like crap are those in the communist-run prison camps in North Korea itself.
Anon [207] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 5:08 am GMT

For example, there are some rather credible rumors that the destruction of PanAm 103 over Scotland was not a Libyan action, but an Iranian one in direct retaliation for the deliberate shooting down by the USN of IranAir 655 Airbus over the Persian Gulf.

– The crash of the Pan Am 103 was, according to Ari Ben-Menashe, related to a fabricated claim on 5 CIA agents running drugs via their contacts in Frankfurt under CIA's Bill Casey.

– One less known point on the Pan Am 103 is the probable assassination by South Africa's apartheid government of United Nations Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson (according to Patrick Hasseldine).

– "Pik Botha and a South African delegation from Johannesburg, who was initially booked to travel to the Namibian independence ratification ceremony in New York on Pan Am Flight 103 from London. Instead, the booking was cancelled as he and six delegates took an earlier flight, thereby avoiding the fatal PAN AM 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland" (wiki, Pik Botha).

Robert Mueller's 30-year search for justice on Pan AM 103 led to nothing except the USual platitudes (unfounded accusations) on Iran and the PLO.

Rich , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 5:14 am GMT
@The Alarmist Well, yes, every member of every military is a legitimate target. Especially a general. If it sounds logical to you, that's because not only is it logical, it's common sense. As far as who drew first blood, that's a little more complicated. Some might argue that the Iranians drew first blood when the present group of radical medievalists overthrew the Shah and then seized the US embassy in 1979 or a whole load of other attacks by Iranians and their proxies. I really don't understand the outpouring of sympathy for a general in a foreign nation that is an outspoken enemy of the US. I get it, you guys hate Israel, but that doesn't absolve the Iranian mullahs or their henchmen. They are not your friends, they don't like you and their end game is the same end game they've had since the founding of their "religion", the violent spread of Islam throughout the world. Read the Koran first, before you throw your support behind these jihadists. If their own holy book doesn't open your eyes and you still believe the West is the "imperialist", find me Constantinople on the map.
renfro , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 5:15 am GMT
@Parfois1 Do keep a copy ..at the rate info exposing Israel's true nature is disappearing and being censored , its gotten harder and harder to find.
NoseytheDuke , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 5:23 am GMT
@Thales the Milesian A wise leader conserves his military strength. Sun Tzu
Maiasta , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 5:28 am GMT
@barr Thanks for the reminder. I'm familiar with Ostrovsky, of course, and i found the book you mentioned to be quite an eye-opener, albeit still written from a basically pro-Israel point-of-view.

re: "Israel implicated Libya to shield Iran." Yes, this is more than plausible, especially when we consider that Israel was largely responsible for arming Iran during the long war with Iraq in the 1980s. The latter may seem counter-intuitive to many, but it actually fell perfectly in line with the Oded Yinon plan for regional balkanisation. I think that as soon as the Iraqi Resistance movement was crushed back in 2008, Iran was considered no longer so useful to the Zionists, and they began the next phase of destabilisation. Obviously, all regional powers are to be taken out one-by-one, and that presents a problem when it comes to a regional alliance such as the so-called "Shia Crescent" of Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon (or Hezbollah).

I think it likely that the Qassem assassination though, is a significant miscalculation that will cost Trump and the US dearly.

Sol , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 5:41 am GMT
@anon Haven't been paying attention to Hazony recently. Thanks for the update.
anonymous [102] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 5:52 am GMT
@Rich I agree with the notion that Persian capabilities are consistently overstated on unz.com They look more capable than Arabs. That's not much. They haven't shown the ability to develop their own weapons. The rest of their industry sucks (e.g. cars).
Kratoklastes , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 5:57 am GMT
@Gleimhart Mantooso You're comparing apples with suppositories.

Rolling out of Kuwait across a plain is way easier than rolling up the Zagroz – especially when the other guy knows you're coming and has had 50 years to prepare, and the natives at your back want the other guy to win.

The Zagroz aren't as daunting as trying to go up the sides on AH76 in Parwan, which is some of the most inhospitable terrain on Earth. Invading Iran via Iraq (which is the US' only option) isn't even as hard (topographially) as trying to take Zürich by invading Switzerland starting from Milan.

Topography matters.

Safwan to Baghdad is flat freeway (and was, even in 1991); Baghdad to Hamedan, not so much. (Hamedan's the town on the other side of the Zagroz, on the only non-impossible route to Teheran).

For the average grunt, it would be like " Restrepo " from day 1, constantly, for the entire trip – but with no HESCO.

It would guarantee tens of thousands of cases of PTSD.

Armour and artillery really really really needs roads (or rail), and aerial reconnaissance is way easier on a sandy table top, than in mountains.

Castellio , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 6:00 am GMT
@renfro 1
The killing of Iraqi Academics: A War to Erase the Future and Culture of Iraqis
List of Iraqi academics assassinated in Iraq during the US-led occupation
Academics assassinated: 324
Updated: November 7, 2013
(Last case registered: No. 125)
Spanish Campaign against the Occupation and for the Sovereignty of Iraq
IraqSolidaridad 2005-2013
[MORE]
The following list of University academics assassinated in Iraq is updated with the information delivered by the Iraqi CEOSI sources inside Iraq. It presents all the data compiled in the previous IraqSolidaridad editions. This relation has been collated and completed with that elaborate by the Belgian organization 'BRussells Tribunal' [1]. This list only refers to the academic, institutional and research fields from Iraqi Universities, so that it does not include the staff that belongs to other fields and institutions, who has been targeting since the beginning of the occupation, such as directors of primary and secondary schools, high schools or health workers [2].

BAGHDAD
Baghdad University
1. Abbas al-Attar: PhD in humanities, lecturer at Baghdad University's College of Humanities. Date unknown.
2. Abdel Hussein Jabuk: PhD and lecturer at Baghdad University. Date unknown.
3. Abdel Salam Saba: PhD in sociology, lecturer at Baghdad University. Date unknown.
4. Abdel Razak al-Naas: Lecturer in information and international mass media at Baghdad University's College of Information Sciences. He was a regular analyst for Arabic satellite TV channels. He was killed in his car at Baghdad University 28 January 2005. His assassination led to confrontations between students and police, and journalists went on strike.
5. Ahmed Nassir al-Nassiri: PhD in education sciences, Baghdad University, assassinated in February 2005.
6. Ali Abdul-Hussein Kamil: PhD in physical sciences, lecturer in the Department of Physics, Baghdad University. Date unknown.
7. Amir al-Jazragi: PhD in medicine, lecturer at Baghdad University's College of Medicine, and consultant at the Iraqi Ministry of Health, assassinated on November 17, 2005.
2
8. Basil al-Karji: PhD in chemistry, lecturer at Baghdad University. Date unknown.
9. Essam Sharif Mohammed: PhD in history, professor in Department of History and head of the College of Humanities, Baghdad University. Dead October 25, 2003.
10. Faidhi al-Faidhi: PhD in education sciences, lecturer at Baghdad University and al- Munstansiriya University. He was also member of the Muslim Scientists Committee. Assassinated in 2005.
11. Fouad Abrahim Mohammed al-Bayaty: PhD in German philology, professor and head of College of Philology, Baghdad University. Killed Abril 19, 2005.
12. Haifa Alwan al-Hil: PhD in physics, lecturer at Baghdad University's College of Science for Women. Assassinated September 7, 2003.
13. Heikel Mohammed al-Musawi: PhD in medicine, lecturer at al-Kindi College of Medicine, Baghdad University. Assassinated November 17, 2005.
14. Hassan Abd Ali Dawood al-Rubai: PhD in stomatology, dean of the College of Stomatology, Baghdad University. Assassinated December 20, 2005.
15. Hazim Abdul Hadi: PhD in medicine, lecturer at the College of Medicine, Baghdad University.
16. Husain Ali al-Jumaily: Lecturer at Baghdad University's College of Political Sciences. He was assassinated in Bagdad on 16 July. [Source: BRussells Tribunal's university Iraqi sources, January 17, 2009].
17. Khalid Hassan Mahdi Nasrullah: Lecturer and Secretary of the Faculty of Political Sciences, Baghdad University. After four days of been kidnapped in Baghdad, his body was found with signs of torture on Mars 27, 2007. [Source: BRussells Tribunal's university Iraqi sources, January 17, 2009].
18. Khalel Ismail Abd al-Dahri: PhD in physical education, lecturer at the College of Physical Education, Baghdad University. Date unknown.
19. Khalil Ismail al-Hadithi: Lecturer at Baghdad University's College of Political Sciences. He was assassinated in Amman [Jordan] on April 23, 2006. [Source: BRussells Tribunal's university Iraqi sources, January 17, 2009].
20. Kilan Mahmoud Ramez: PhD and lecturer at Baghdad University. Date unknown.
21. Maha Abdel Kadira: PhD and lecturer at Baghdad University's College of Humanities. Date unknown.
22. Majed Nasser Hussein al-Maamoori: Professor of veterinary medicine at Baghdad University's College of Veterinary Medicine. Assassinated February 17, 2007.
23. Marwan al-Raawi: PhD in engineering and lecturer at Baghdad University. Date unknown.
24. Marwan Galeb Mudhir al-Hetti: PhD in chemical engineering and lecturer at the School of Engineering, Baghdad University. Killed March 16, 2004.
25. Majeed Hussein Ali: PhD in physical sciences and lecturer at the College of Sciences, Baghdad University. Date unknown.
3
26. Mehned al-Dulaimi: PhD in mechanical engineering, lecturer at Baghdad University. Date unknown.
27. Mohammed Falah al-Dulaimi: PhD in physical sciences, lecturer at Baghdad University. Date unknown.
28. Mohammed Tuki Hussein al-Talakani: PhD in physical sciences, nuclear scientist since 1984, and lecturer at Baghdad University. Assassinated September 4, 2004.
29. Mohammed al-Kissi: PhD and lecturer at Baghdad University. Date unknown.
30. Mohammed Abdallah al-Rawi: PhD in surgery, former president of Baghdad University, member of the Arab Council of Medicine and of the Iraqi Council of Medicine, president of the Iraqi Union of Doctors. Killed July 27, 2003.
31. Mohammed al-Jazairi: PhD in medicine and plastic surgeon, College of Medicine, Baghdad University. Assassinated 15 November 2005.
32. Mustafa al-Hity: PhD in medicine, pediatrician, College of Medicine, Baghdad University. Assassinated 14 November 2005.
33. Mustafa al-Mashadani: PhD in religious studies, lecturer in Baghdad University's College of Humanities. Date unknown.
34. Nafea Mahmmoud Jalaf: PhD in Arabic language, professor in Baghdad University's College of Humanities. Killed December 13, 2003.
35. Nawfal Ahmad: PhD, lecturer at Baghdad University's College of Fine Arts. She was assassinated at the front door of her house on 25 December 2005.
36. Nazar Abdul Amir al-Ubaidy: PhD and lecturer at Baghdad University. Date unknown.
37. Raad Shlash: PhD in biological sciences, head of Department of Biology at Baghdad University's College of Sciences. He was killed at the front door of his house on November 17, 2005.
38. Rafi Sarcisan Vancan: Bachelor of English language, lecturer at Baghdad University's College of Women's Studies. Assassinated June 9, 2003.
39. Saadi Dagher Morab: PhD in fine arts, lecturer at Baghdad University's College of Fine Arts. Killed July 23, 2004.
40. Sabri Mustafa al-Bayaty: PhD in geography, lecturer at Baghdad University's College of Humanities. Killed June 13, 2004.
41. Saad Yassin al-Ansari: PhD and lecturer at Baghdad University. He was killed in al-Saydiya neighborhood, Baghdad, 17 November 2005.
42. Wannas Abdulah al-Naddawi: PhD in education sciences, Baghdad University. Assassinated 18 February 2005.
43. Yassim al-Isawi: PhD in religious studies, Baghdad University's College of Arts. Assassinated 21 June 2005.
44. Zaki Jabar Laftah al-Saedi: Bachelor of veterinary medicine, lecturer at Baghdad University's College of Veterinary Medicine. Assassinated October 16, 2004.
45. Basem al-Modarres: PhD and lecturer at Baghdad University's College of Philosophy. [Source: al-Hayat, 28 February 2006].
46. Jasim Mohamed Achamri: Dean of College of Philosophy, Baghdad University. [Source: al-Hayat, 28 February 2006].
47. Hisham Charif: Head of Department of History and lecturer at Baghdad University. [Source: al-Hayat, 28 February 2006].
4
48. Qais Hussam al-Den Jumaa: Professor and Dean of College of Agriculture, Baghdad University. Killed 27 March 2006 by US soldiers in downtown Baghdad. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university source].
49. Mohammed Yaakoub al-Abidi: Baghdad University. Department and college unknown. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006].
50. Abdelatif Attai: Baghdad University. Department and college unknown. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006].
51. Ali al-Maliki: Baghdad University. Department and college unknown. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006].
52. Nafia Aboud: Baghdad University. Department and college unknown. [Source: Iraqi. Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006].
53. Abbas Kadem Alhachimi: Baghdad University. Department and college unknown. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006].
54. Mouloud Hasan Albardar Aturki: Lecturer in Hanafi Teology at al-Imam al-Aadam College of Theology, Baghdad University. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006].
55. Riadh Abbas Saleh: Lecturer at Baghdad University's Centre for International Studies. Killed 11 May 2006. [Source: CEOSI university source, 17 May 2006].
56. Abbas al-Amery: Professor and head of Department of Administration and Business, College of Administration and Economy, Baghdad University. Killed together with his son and one of his relatives at the main entrance to the College 16 May 2006. [Source: CEOSI university source, May 17, 2006].
57. Muthana Harith Jasim: Lecturer at Baghdad University's College of Engineering. Killed near his home in al-Mansur, 13 June 2006. [Source: CEOSI university source, 13 June 2006].
58. Hani Aref al-Dulaimy: Lecturer in the Department of Computer Engineering, Baghdad University's College of Engineering. He was killed, together with three of his students, 13 June 2006 on campus. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university source, 13 June 2006].
59. Hussain al-Sharifi: Professor of urinary surgery at Baghdad University's College of Medicine. Killed in May 2006. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 12 June 2006].
60. Hadi Muhammad Abub al-Obaidi: Lecturer in the Department of Surgery, Baghdad University's College of Medicine. Killed 19 June 2006. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university source, 20 June 2006].
61. Hamza Shenian: Professor of veterinary surgery at Baghdad University's College of Veterinary Medicine. Killed by armed men in his garden in a Baghdad neighborhood 21 June 2006. This was the first known case of a professor executed in the victim's home. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 21 June 2006].
62. Jassim Mohama al-Eesaui: Professor at College of Political Sciences, Baghdad University, and editor of al-Syada newspaper. He was 61 years old when killed in al-Shuala, 22 June 2006. [Source: UNAMI report, 1 May-30 June 2006].
5
63. Shukir Mahmoud As-Salam: dental surgeon at al-Yamuk Hospital, Baghdad. Killed near his home by armed men 6 September 2006. [Source: TV news, As-Sharquia channel, 7 September 2006, and CEOSI Iraqi sources].
64. Mahdi Nuseif Jasim: Professor in the Department of Petroleum Engineering at Baghdad University. Killed 13 September 2006 near the university. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university source].
65. Adil al-Mansuri: Maxillofacial surgeon and professor at the College of Medicine, Baghdad University. Kidnapped by uniformed men near Iban al-Nafis Hospital in Baghdad. He was found dead with torture signs and mutilation in Sadr City. He was killed during a wave of assassinations in which seven medical specialists were assassinated. Date unknown: July or August 2006 [Source: Iraqi health service sources, 24 September 2006].
66. Shukur Arsalan: Maxillofacial surgeon and professor at the College of Medicine, Baghdad University. Killed by armed men when leaving his clinic in Harziya neighborhood during a wave of assassinations in which seven specialists were assassinated. Date unknown: July or August 2006. [Source: Iraqi Health System sources, 24 September 2006].
67. Issam al-Rawi: Professor of geology at Baghdad University, president of the Association of University Professors of Iraq. Killed 30 October 2006 during an attack carried out by a group of armed men in which two more professors were seriously injured. [Sources: CEOSI sources, and Associated Press].
68. Yaqdan Sadun al-Dhalmi: Professor and lecturer in the College of Education, Baghdad University. Killed 16 October 2006. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi sources].
69. Jlid Ibrahim Mousa: Professor and lecturer at Baghdad University's College of Medicine. Killed by a group of armed men in September 2006. During August and September 2006, 6 professors of medicine were assassinated in Baghdad. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi sources].
70. Mohammed Jassim al-Assadi: Professor and dean of the College of Administration and Economy, Baghdad University. Killed 2 November 2006 by a group of armed men when he was driving to Baghdad University. Their son was also killed in the attack. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi sources and Time Magazine, 2 October 2006].
71. Jassim al-Assadi's wife (name unknown): Lecturer at College of Administration and Economy, Baghdad University [Source: CEOSI Iraqi sources and Time Magazine, 2 October 2006].
72. Mohammed Mehdi Saleh: Lecturer at Baghdad University (unknown position) and member of the Association of Muslim Scholars. Imam of Ahl al-Sufa Mosque in al-Shurta al-Jamisa neighborhood. Killed 14 November 2006 while driving in the neighborhood of al-Amal in central Baghdad. [Source: UMA, 14 November 2006].
73. Hedaib Majhol: Lecturer at College of Physical Education, Baghdad University, president of the Football University Club and member of the Iraqi Football Association. Kidnapped in Baghdad. His body was found three later in Baghdad morgue 3 December 2006. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 2 December 2006].
74. Al-Hareth Abdul Hamid: Professor of psychiatric medicine and head of the Department of Psychology at Baghdad University. Former
6
president of the Society of Parapsychological Investigations of Iraq. A renowned scientist, Abdul Hamid was shot dead in the neighborhood of al-Mansur, Baghdad, 6 December 2006 by unknown men. [Sources: CEOSI Iraqi sources, 6 December 2006, and Reuters, 30 January 2007].
75. Anwar Abdul Hussain: Lecturer at the College of Odontology, Baghdad University. Killed in Haifa Street in Baghdad in the third week of January 2007. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 23 January 2007].
76. Majed Nasser Hussain: PhD and lecturer at the College of Veterinary Medicine, Baghdad University. He was killed in front of his wife and daughter while leaving home in the third week of January 2007. Nasser Hussain had been kidnapped two years before and freed after paying a ransom. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 23 January 2007].
77. Khaled al-Hassan: Professor and deputy dean of the College of Political Sciences, Baghdad University. Killed in March 2007. [Source: Association of University Lecturers of Iraq, 7 April 2007].
78. Ali Mohammed Hamza: Professor of Islamic Studies at Baghdad University. Department and college unknown. Killed 17 April 2007. [Sources: TV channels As-Sharquia and al-Jazeera].
79. Abdulwahab Majed: Lecturer at Baghdad University's College of Education. Department and college unknown. Killed 2 May 2007. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 5 May 2007].
80. Sabah al-Taei: Deputy Dean of the College of Education, Baghdad University. Killed 7 May 2007. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources. 8 May 2007].
81. Nihad Mohammed al-Rawi: Professor of Civil Engineering and deputy president of Baghdad University. Shot dead 26 June 2007 in al-Jadria Bridge, a few meters away from the university campus, when exiting with his daughter Rana, whom he protected from the shots with his body. [Sources: BRussells Tribunal and CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 26-27 June 2007].
82. Muhammad Kasem al-Jaboori: Lecturer at the College of Agriculture, Baghdad University. Killed, together with his son and his brother-in-law, by paramilitary forces 22 June 2007. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 27 June 2007].
83. Samir [surname unknown]: Lecturer at Baghdad University's College of Administration and Economy. His body was found shot one day after being kidnapped in Kut where he was visiting family. Professor Samir lived in the Baghdad district of al-Sidiya. [Source: Voices of Iraq, http://www.iraqslogger.com , 29 June 2007].
84. Amin Abdul Aziz Sarhan: Lecturer at Baghdad University. Department and college unknown. He was kidnapped from his home in Basra by unidentified armed men 13 October 2007 and found dead on the morning of 15 October. [Source: Voices of Iraq, 15 October 2007].
85. Mohammed Kadhem al-Atabi: Head of Baghdad University's Department of Planning and Evaluation. He was kidnapped 18 October 2007 from his home in Baghdad by a group of armed men and found dead a few hours later in the area of Ur, near to Sadr City, which is under the control of Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 26 October 2007].
7
86. Munther Murhej Radhi: Dean of the College of Odontology, Baghdad University. He was found dead in his car 23 January 2008. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 24 January 2008].
87. Mundir Marhach: Dean of Faculty of Stomatology, Baghdad University. According to information provided by the Centre for Human Rights of Baghdad, he was killed in March [exact day unknown]. [Source: al-Basrah reported 12 March 2008].
88. Abdul Sattar Jeid al-Dulaimy, a Microbiologist and lecturer in the College of Veterinary Medicine and in other institutions in the University. He was killed in November 2003 by three gunmen in front of his wife and his four children. His three assassins were waiting the family return to Baghdad after have been visiting his parents in al-Ramadi city, west Baghdad. His wife was also sot in her head, but she survived. His 14 year old eldest child died of a heart problem a year later. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university source, 11 June 2008.]
*. Abdulkareem Shenein Mohammad: professor of Arabic Language in the College of Islamic Sciences, University of Baghdad, killed on 27 May 2010 by an assassin (an student, Baghdad police source informed) with a silencer gun in his personal office in the University. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university source upon media reports, 27 May 2010.] [Subsequent reports confirm that Professor Abdulkareem Shenein Mohammad survived the attack.]
89. Mudhafar Mahmoud: associated professor in the Geology Department in the College of Science, University of Baghdad. Dr Mahmoud was assassinated on 28 November 2010 near his house in Baghdad. [Source: Iraqi source to BRussells Tribunal on 1st December, 2010.]
90. Ali Shalash: professor of Poultry Diseases in the College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Baghdad, killed by assassins who broke into his house in Al-Khadraa area in Baghdad on 17 February, 2011. [Source: Iraqi source to CEOSI on 18 February, 2011.] 91. Ahmed Shakir was a specialist in cardio-vascular diseases and professor at the Faculty of Medicine in the University of Baghdad. According to security reports, Dr. Shakir was killed when a bomb planted in his car exploded in Zaafaraniyya, south of Baghdad, last Monday 1 July 2013. The report released by UNESCO can be read here [Source: UNESCO, July 3, 2013].
Al-Maamoon Faculty [private college, Baghdad]
92. Mohammed al-Miyahi: Dean of al-Maamoun Faculty in Baghdad. He was shot with a silencer-equipped gun in front of his house in al-Qadisiah district, southern Baghdad, as he stepped out of his car 14 December 2007. [Source CEOSI Iraqi source and Kuwait News Agency, reported 19 December 2007, IPS reported 19 December 2007, and al-Basrah, reported 12 March 2008].
Al-Mustansiriya University (Baghdad)
8
93. Aalim Abdul Hameed: PhD in preventive medicine, specialist in depleted uranium effects in Basra, dean of the College of Medicine, al-Mustansiriya University. Date unknown.
94. Abdul Latif al-Mayah: PhD in economics, lecturer and head of Department of Research, al-Mustansiriya University. Killed January 9, 2004.
95. Aki Thakir Alaany: PhD and lecturer at the College of Literature, al-Mustansiriya University. Date unknown.
96. Falah al-Dulaimi: PhD, professor and deputy dean of al-Mustansiriya University's College of Sciences. Date unknown.
97. Falah Ali Hussein: PhD in physics, lecturer and deputy dean of the College of Sciences, al-Mustansiriya University, killed May 2005.
98. Musa Saloum Addas: PhD, lecturer and deputy dean of the College of Educational Sciences, al-Mustansiriya University, killed 27 May 2005.
99. Hussam al-Din Ahmad Mahmmoud: PhD in education
sciences, lecturer and dean at College of Education Sciences, al-Mustansiriya University. Date unknown.
100. Jasim Abdul Kareem: PhD and lecturer at the College of the Education, al-Mustansiriya University. Date unknown.
101. Abdul As Satar Sabar al-Khazraji: PhD in history, al-Mustansiriya University, killed 19 June 2005. [A same name and surname lecturer in Engineering at the College of Computer Science Technology, al-Nahrein University was assassinated in March 2006.]
102. Samir Yield Gerges: PhD and lecturer at the College of Administration and Economy at al-Mustansiriya University, killed 28 August 2005.
103. Jasim al-Fahaidawi: PhD and lecturer in Arabic literature at the College of Humanities, al-Mustansiriya University. Assassinated at the university entrance. [Source: BBC News, 15 November 2005].
104. Kadhim Talal Hussein: Deputy Dean of the College of Education, al-Mustansiriya University. Killed November 23, 2005.
105. Mohammed Nayeb al-Qissi: PhD in geography, lecturer at Department of Research, al-Mustansiriya University. Assassinated June 20, 2003.
106. Sabah Mahmoud al-Rubaie: PhD in geography, lecturer and dean at College of Educational Sciences, al-Mustansiriya University. Date unknown.
107. Ali Hasan Muhawish: Dean and lecturer at the College of Engineering, al-Mustansiriya University. Killed March 12, 2006. [Source: Middle East Online, 13 March 2006].
108. Imad Naser Alfuadi: Lecturer at the College of Political Sciences, al-Mustansiriya University. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006].
109. Mohammed Ali Jawad Achami: President of the College of Law, al-Mustansiriya University. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006].
110. Husam Karyakus Tomas: Lecturer at the College of Medicine, al-Mustansiriya University. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006].
9
111. Basem Habib Salman: Lecturer at the College of Medicine at al-Mustansiriya University. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006].
112. Mohammed Abdul Rahman al-Ani: PhD in engineering, lecturer at the College of Law, al-Mustansiriya University. Kidnapped, together with his friend Akrem Mehdi, 26 April 2006, at his home in Palestine Street, Baghdad. Their bodies were found two days later. [CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 5 May 2006].
113. Jasim Fiadh al-Shammari: Lecturer in psychology at the College of Arts, al-Mustansiriya Baghdad University. Killed near campus 23 May 2006. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university source, 30 May 2006].
114. Saad Mehdi Shalash: PhD in history and lecturer in history at the College of Arts, al-Mustansiriya University, and editor of the newspaper Raya al-Arab. Shot dead at his home with his wife 26 October 2006. [Source: al-Quds al-Arabi, 27 October 2006].
115. Kamal Nassir: Professor of history and lecturer at al-Mustansiriya and Bufa Universities. Killed at his home in Baghdad in October 2006. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 2 November 2006].
116. Hasseb Aref al-Obaidi: Professor in the College of Political Sciences at al-Mustansiriya University. Since he was kidnapped 22 October 2006, his whereabouts is unknown. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources].
117. Najeeb [or Nadjat] al-Salihi: Lecturer in the College of Psychology at al-Mustansiriya University and head of the Scientific Committee of the Ministry of Higher Education of Iraq. Al-Salihi, 39 years old, was kidnapped close to campus and his body, shot dead, was found 20 days after his disappearance in Baghdad morgue. His family was able recover his body only after paying a significant amount of money, October 1, 2006. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources].
118. Dhia al-Deen Mahdi Hussein: Professor of international criminal law at the College of Law, al-Mustansiriya University. Missing since kidnapped from his home in the Baghdad neighborhood of Dhia in 4 November 2006 by a group of armed men driving police cars. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 5 November 2006].
119. Muntather al-Hamdani: Deputy Dean of the College of Law, al-Mustansiriya University. He was assassinated, together with Ali Hassam, lecturer at the same college, 20 December 2006. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 24 December 2006. The Iraqi police identified Ali Arnoosi as the deputy dean assassinated 21 December, and Mohammed Hamdani as another victim. It is unknown whether both [Muntather al-Hamdani and Mohammed Hamdani] are the same case or not].
120. Ali Hassam: Lecturer at the College of Law at al-Mustansiriya University. He was killed together with Muntather al-Hamdani, deputy dean of the college, 20 December 2006. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 24 December 2006. The Iraqi police identified Ali Arnoosi as the deputy dean assassinated 21 December, and Mohammed Hamdani as another victim. It is unknown whether both [Muntather al-Hamdani and Mohammed Hamdani] are the same case or not.
121. Dhia al-Mguter: Professor of economy at the College of Administration and Economy of al-Mustansiriya University. He was killed
10
23 January 2007 in Baghdad while driving. He was a prominent economist and president of the Consumer's Defense Association and the Iraqi Association of Economists. A commentator at for As-Sharquia television, he participated in the Maram Committee, being responsible for investigating irregularities occurring during the elections held in January 2006. Al-Mguter was part of a family with a long anti-colonialist tradition since the British occupation. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources and Az-Zaman newspaper, 24 January 2007].
122. Ridha Abdul al-Kuraishi: Deputy dean of the University of al-Mustansiriya's College of administration and economy. He was kidnapped 28 March 2007 and found dead the next day. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers, 7 April 2007. See the letter sent to CEOSI (Arabic)].
123. Zaid Abdulmonem Ali: professor at the Baghdad Cancer Research Center, institution associated to the Al-Mustansirya University in Baghdad. Dr. Abdulmomem Ali was killed in March 26, 2011 when an IED attached to his vehicle went off in al-Nusoor square, west of Baghdad. The explosion also left Ali's wife and two civilians others wounded. [Source: Aswat al-Iraq news agency, on March 26, 2011.]
124. Mohmamed Al-Alwan: Dean of the College of Medicine, Al-Mustansirya University in Baghdad. Dr Al-Alwan was assassinated in his clinic in Harithiyah, Baghdad, on April 29, 2011. He had been the Dean of Medical College for over 4 years. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, March 30, 2011 from Iraqi media and International Iraqi Medical Society.] 125. Naser Husein al Shahmani, professor at al-Mustansyria University was shot by some gunmen few days ago. They killed him on the spot. [Source: Ahmad al Farji's article (in Arabic), October 28, 2013.]
University of Technology [Baghdad]
126. Muhannad [or Mehned] al-Dulaimi: PhD in mechanical engineering, lecturer at the Baghdad University of Technology. Date unknown.
127. Muhey Hussein: PhD in aerodynamics, lecturer in the Department of Mechanical Engineering of the Baghdad University of Technology. Date unknown.
128. Qahtan Kadhim Hatim: Bachelor of sciences, lecturer in the College of Engineering of the Baghdad University of Technology. Assassinated May 30, 2004.
129. Sahira Mohammed Machhadani: Baghdad University of Technology. Department and college unknown. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers, March 2006].
130. Ahmed Ali Husein: Lecturer at the Baghdad University of Technology, specialist in applied mechanics. He was killed by a group of armed men in downtown Baghdad 22 May 2006. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 24 May 2006].
131. Name unknown: Lecturer at Baghdad University of Technology. Killed 27 June 2006 by a group of armed men. They were driving a vehicle in the Baghdad neighborhood of al-Mansur and shot him without
11
stopping. Next day, students and professors staged demonstrations in all universities across the country opposing the assassination and kidnapping of professors and lecturers. [Source: al-Jazeera and Jordan Times, 27 June 2006].
132. Ali Kadhim Ali: Professor at Baghdad University of Technology. Shot dead in November 2006 in the district of al-Yarmuk by a group of armed men. His wife, Dr Baida Obeid -- gynecologist -- was also killed in the attack. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi sources, 16 November 2006].
133. Mayed Jasim al-Janabi: Lecturer in physics at Baghdad University of Technology. Killed 23 May 2006. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, December 2006].
134. Khalel Enjad al-Jumaily: Lecturer at University of Technology. Department and college unknown. He was killed 22 December 2006 with his son, a physician, after being kidnapped. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 24 December 2006].
135. Abdul Sami al-Janabi: Deputy President of the Baghdad University of Technology. Missing after being kidnapped during the third week of January 2007. In 2004, Abdul Sami al-Janabi was dean of al-Mustansiriya University's College of Sciences in Baghdad. He resigned from this position after Shia paramilitary forces threatened to kill him. Such forces began then to occupy university centers in the capital. Transferred by the Ministry of Higher Education to a new position to preserve his security, Sami al-Janabi has almost certainly been assassinated. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 23 January 2007].
136. Ameer Mekki al-Zihairi: Lecturer at Baghdad University of Technology. He was killed in March 2007. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers, 7 April 2007. See pdf].
137. Saad Abd Alwahab Al-Shaaban: Former Dean of the College of Computer Engineering and Information Technology in the University of Technology. Killed on Thursday 14 October 2010 by plastic explosive implanted to his car in Adhamia district of Baghdad. Saad Abd Alwahab Al-Shaaban left Iraq in 2006 and returned back to Baghdad. He was lately working in the National Center for Computer Science, Ministry of Higher Education. (Source: [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources on Alane News Agency, , October 15, 2010.]
138. Saad Abdul Jabar: professor at the Technological University in Bagdad. Assassinated in Al-Siyada district, Southwest Baghdad, while driving his car by murderers using silenced guns on 26 February, 2011.[Source: Asuat Al-Iraq agency, 26 February, and Yaqen agency, February 27, 2010.]
Al-Nahrein University [Baghdad]
139. Akel Abdel Jabar al-Bahadili: Professor and deputy dean of al-Nahrein University's College of Medicine. Head of Adhamiya Hospital in Baghdad. He was a specialist in internal medicine, killed 2 December 2005.
140. Mohammed al-Khazairy: Lecturer at University College al-Kadhemiya Hospital, al- Nahrein University. He was a specialist in plastic surgery.
12
141. Laith Abdel Aziz: PhD and lecturer at the College of Sciences, al-Nahrein University. Date unknown. [Source: al-Hayat, 28 February 2006].
142. Abdul as-Satar Sabar al-Khazraji: Lecturer in engineering at the College of Computer Science Technology, al-Nahrein University. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006]. [A same name and surname PhD in history, lecturer at Al-Munstansiriya University was killed on 19 June 2005.]
143. Uday al-Beiruti: Professor at al-Nahrein University. Kidnapped in University College al-Kadhemiya Hospital's parking lot by armed men dressed in Interior Ministry uniforms. His body was found with sigs of torture in Sadr City. Date unknown: July/August 2006. His murder took place during a wave of assassinations in which seven of his colleagues were killed. [Source: Iraqi health service sources, 24 September 2006].
144. Khalel al-Khumaili: Professor at the College of Medicine, al-Nahrein University. He was found shot dead in December 2006 [exact date unknown] after being kidnapped at University College al-Kadhemiya Hospital, together with his son, Dr Anas al-Jomaili, lecturer at the same college. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 24 December 2006].
145. Anas al-Jumaili: Lecturer at the College of Medicine, al-Nahrein University. He was found shot dead in December [exact date unknown] with his father, Dr Jalil al-Jumaili, professor of medicine, after being kidnapped at University College al-Kadhemiya Hospital. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 24 December 2006].
146. Adnan Mohammed Saleh al-Aabid: Lecturer at the College of Law, al-Nahrein University. He was found dead 31 January 2007 after having been kidnapped from his home 28 January 2007 together with lecturers Abdul Mutaleb Abdulrazak al-Hashimi and Aamer Kasem al-Kaisy, and a student. All were found dead in Baghdad morgue. [Sources: CEOSI Iraqi university sources and al-Quds al-Arabi, 1 February 2007].
147. Abdul Mutaleb Abdulrazak al-Hashimi: Lecturer at the College of Law, al-Nahrein University. He was found dead 31 January 2007 after having been kidnapped 28 January 2007 on his way home, together with lecturers Adnan Mohammed Saleh al-Aabid and Aamer Kasem al-Kaisy, and a student. All were found dead in Baghdad morgue. [Sources: CEOSI Iraqi university sources and al-Quds al-Arabi, 1 February 2007].
148. Aamer Kasem al-Kaisy: Lecturer at the College of Law, al-Nahrein University. He was found dead 31 January 2007 after having been kidnapped on his way home 28 January 2007, together with a student and lecturers Abdul Mutaleb Abdulrazak al-Hashimi and Adnan Mohammed Saleh al-Aabid. All were found dead in Baghdad morgue. [Sources: CEOSI Iraqi university sources and al-Quds al-Arabi, 1 February 2007].
149. Khaled al-Naieb: Lecturer in microbiology and deputy dean of al-Nahrein University's College of Higher Studies in Medicine. Killed 30 March 2007 at the main entrance to the college. Having been threatened by the Mahdi Army, Moqtada as-Sadr's militia, Dr al- Naieb had moved to work in Irbil. During a brief visit to his family in Baghdad, and after recently becoming a father, he was killed at the main entrance
13
to the college on his way to collect some documents. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 4 April 2007. Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report dated April 7, 2007. See pdf].
150. Sami Sitrak: Professor of English and dean of al-Nahrein University's College of Law. Professor Sitrak was killed 29 March 2007. He had been appointed dean of the College after the former dean's resignation following an attempt to kill him along with three other College lecturers. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers, April 7, 2007. See pdf].
151. Thair Ahmed Jebr: Lecturer in the Department of Physics, College of Sciences, al- Nahrein University. Jebr was killed in the attack against satellite TV channel al-Baghdadiya April 5, 2007. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers, April 7, 2007. See pdf].
152. Iyad Hamza: PhD in chemistry, Baghdad University. He was the academic assistant of the President of al-Nahrein University. On May 4, 2008 he was killed near his home in Baghdad. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi source, May 6, 2008].
153. Khamal Abu Muhie: Professor at the College of Medicine, al-Nahrein University. Killed on 22 November 2009 at his home in the neighborhood of Adamiya, Baghdad. [Source: Al-Sharquia TV, November 22, 2009].
Islamic University [Baghdad]
154. Haizem al-Azawi: Lecturer at Baghdad Islamic University. Department and college unknown. He was 35 years old and married and was killed 13 February 2006 by armed men when he arriving home in the neighborhood of Habibiya. [Source: Asia Times, March 3, 2006].
155. Saadi Ahmad Zidaan al-Fahdawi: PhD in Islamic science, lecturer at the College of Islamic Science, Baghdad University. Killed March 26, 2006.
156. Abdel Aziz al-Jazem: Lecturer in Islamic theology at the College of Islamic Science, Baghdad University. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006].
157. Saad Jasim Mohammed: Lecturer at the Baghdad Islamic University. Department and college unknown. Killed, together with his brother Mohammed Jassim Mohammed, 11 May 2007 in the neighborhood of al-Mansur. The armed men who committed the crime where identified by the Association of Muslims Scholars as members of a death squad. [Sources: press release of the Association of Muslims Scholars, May 12, 2007, and CEOSI Iraqi University sources, May 13, 2007].
158. Qais Sabah al-Jabouri: Professor at the Baghdad Islamic University. Killed 7 June 2007 by a group of armed men who shot him from a car when he was leaving the university with the lecturers Alaa Jalel Essa and Saad Jalifa al-Ani, who were killed and seriously injured respectively. [Sources Association of Muslims Scholars press release, June 7, 2007, and CEOSI Iraqi university sources, June 9, 2007].
159. Alaa Jalel Essa: Professor at the Baghdad Islamic University. Killed 7 June 2007 by a group of armed men who shot him from a car when he was leaving the university with the lecturers Qais Sabah al-Jabouri and Saad Jalifa al-Ani, who were killed and seriously injured
14
respectively. [Sources: Association of Muslims Scholars press release, June 7, 2007, and CEOSI Iraqi university sources, June 9, 2007].
Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education [Baghdad]
Academics killed after a massive kidnapping occurred November 13, 2006:
160. Abdul Salam Suaidan al-Mashhadani: Lecturer in political sciences and head of the Scholarship section of the Ministry of Higher Education. He was kidnapped November13, 2006, in an assault on the Ministry. His body was found with signs of torture and mutilation 24 November 2006. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, November 26, 2006.]
161. Abdul Hamed al-Hadizi: Professor [specialty unknown]. He was kidnapped on November 13, 2006 in an assault on the Ministry. His body was found with signs of torture and mutilation, 24 November 2006. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, November 26, 2006].
162. Thamer Kamel Mohamed: Head of the Department of Human Right at the Ministry of Higher Education. Shot on 22 February 2010 on his way to work in one of main Baghdad streets [al-Qanat Street]. The assassins used silencers fitted in their guns. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, February 23, 2006 and Alernet].
Al-Mansour University [Baghdad]
163. Amal Maamlaji: IT professor at the al-Mansour University in Baghdad. She was born in Kerbala and got involved in human rights – particularly women's rights. She was shot dead in an ambush while driving her car [160 bullets were found in her car] according to her husband, Athir Haddad, to whom France24 interviewed by telephone. [Source: France24, July 4, 2008,].
Baghdad Institutes
164. Izi al-Deen al-Rawi: President of the Arabic University's Institute of Petroleum, Industry and Minerals. Al-Rawi was kidnapped and found dead November 20, 2006. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, November 20, 2006].
BABYLON Hilla University
165. Khaled M al-Khanabi: PhD in Islamic history, lecturer in Hilla University's School of Humanities. Date unknown.
166. Mohsin Suleiman al-Ajeely: PhD in agronomy, lecturer in the College of Agronomy, Hilla University. Killed on December 24, 2005.
167. Fleih al-Gharbawi: Lecturer in the College of Medicine. Killed in Hilla [capital of the province of Babylon, 100 kilometers south of Baghdad] 20 November 2006 by armed men. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi sources, 20 November 2006].
168. Ali al-Grari [or Garar]. Professor at Hilla University. He was shot dead November 20, 2006 by armed men in a vehicle on the freeway
15
between Hilla and Baghdad. [Source: Iraqi police sources cited by Reuters, November 20, 2006].
AT-TAMIM Kirkuk University
169. Ahmed Ithaldin Yahya: Lecturer in the College of Engineering, Kirkuk University. Killed by a car bomb in the vicinity of his home in Kirkuk, February 16, 2007. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, February 17, 2007].
170. Hussein Qader Omar: professor and Dean of Kirkuk University's College of Education Sciences. Killed in November 20, 2006 by shots made from a vehicle in the city center. An accompanying colleague was injured. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, November 21, 2006, and Iraqi Police Sources cited by Reuters, November 20, 2006].
171. Sabri Abdul Jabar Mohammed: Lecturer at the College of Education Sciences at Kirkuk University. Found dead November 1, 2007 in a street in Kirkuk one day after being kidnapped by a group of unidentified armed men [Source: Iraqi university sources to the BRussells Tribunal and CEOSI, November 2, 2007].
172. Abdel Sattar Tahir Sharif: Lecturer at Kirkuk University. Department and college unknown. 75-years-old, he was assassinated March 5, 2008 by armed men in the district of Shoraw, 10 kilometers northeast of Kirkuk. [Source: Aswat al-Iraq/Voices of Iraq, 5 March 2008].
173. Ibrahim Shaeer Jabbar Al-Jumaili: Pediatrician and professor of Medicine at Kirkuk University. Dr. Ibrahim S.J. Al-Jumaili, 55 years old, was murdered July 22, 2011, after he resisted attempts by four people to kidnap him, police said. [Source: AFP, July 22, 2011]. 174. Amer al-Doury: Dr. Amer al-Douri was the Dean of the Administration and Economic College in Kirkuk. He was first handcuffed and then executed in Hawija at protesters site, when Maliki's SWAT Security Forces raided the peaceful protesting site and killed 86, injured hundreds, and arrested more on Tuesday April 23, 2013. [Source Al Sharquiya TV News 20].
NINEVEH
Mosul University
175. Abdel Jabar al-Naimi: Dean of Mosul University's College of Humanities. Date unknown.
176. Abdul Jabar Mustafa: PhD in political sciences, dean of Mosul University's College of Political Sciences. Date unknown.
177. Abdul Aziz El-Atrachi: PhD in Plant Protection in the College of Agronomy and Forestry, Mosul University. He was killed by a loose bullet shot by and American soldier. Date unknown.
178. Eman Abd-Almonaom Yunis: PhD in translation, lecturer in the College of Humanities, Mosul University. Killed August 30, 2004.
179. Khaled Faisal Hamed al-Sheekho: PhD and lecturer in the College of Physical Education, Mosul University. Killed April 11, 2003.
180. Leila [or Lyla] Abdu Allah al-Saad: PhD in law, dean of Mosul University's College of Law. Assassinated in June 22, 2004.
16
181. Mahfud al-Kazzaz: PhD and lecturer at University Mosul. Department and college unknown. Killed November 20, 2004.
182. Mohammed Yunis Thanoon: Bachelor of sciences, lecturer in the College of Physical Education, Mosul University. Killed January 27. 2004.
183. Muneer al-Khiero: PhD in law and lecturer in the College of Law, Mosul University. Married to Dr Leila Abdu Allah al-Saad, also assassinated. Date unknown.
184. Muwafek Yahya Hamdun: Deputy Dean and professor at the College of Agronomy, Mosul University. [Source: al-Hayat, February 28, 2006].
185. Omar Miran: Baghdad University bachelor of law [1946]. PhD in history from Paris University [1952], professor of history at Mosul University, specialist in history of the Middle East. Killed, along with his wife and three of his sons, by armed men in February 2006 [exact date unknown].
186. Naif Sultan Saleh: Lecturer at the Technical Institute, Mosul University. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006].
187. Natek Sabri Hasan: Lecturer in the Department of Agricultural Mechanization and head of the College of Agronomy, Mosul University. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006].
188. Noel Petros Shammas Matti: Lecturer at the College of Medicine, Mosul University. Married and father of two daughters, was kidnapped and found dead August 4, 2006.
189. Noel Butrus S. Mathew: PhD, professor at the Health Institute of Mosul University. Date unknown.
190. Ahmad Hamid al-Tai: Professor and head of Department of Medicine, Mosul University. Killed 20 November 2006 when armed men intercepted his vehicle as he was heading home. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, November 20, 2006].
191. Kamel Abdul Hussain: Lecturer and deputy dean of the College of Law, Mosul University. Killed in January 11, 2007. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 23 January 2007].
192. Talal Younis: Professor and dean of the College of Political Sciences. Killed on the morning of April 16, 2007 at the main entrance to the college. Within less than half an hour Professor Jaafer Hassan Sadeq of the Department of History at Mosul University was assassinated at his home. [Sources: CEOSI Iraqi university sources and al-Mosul].
193. Jaafer Hassan Sadeq: Professor in the Department of History of Mosul University's College of Arts. Killed April 16, 2007 at home in the district of al-Kafaaat, northwest of Mosul. Within less than half an hour, Professor Talal Younis, dean of Mosul University's College of Political Sciences, was killed at the main entrance to the college. [Sources: CEOSI Iraqi university sources and al-Mosul].
194. Ismail Taleb Ahmed: Lecturer in the College of Education, Mosul University. Killed 2 May 2007 while on his way to college. [Source: al-Mosul, May 2, 2007].
195. Nidal al-Asadi: Professor in the Computer Sciences Department of Mosul University's College of Sciences. Shot dead by armed men in the district of al-Muhandiseen, according to police sources in Mosul.
17
[Sources: INA, May 2, 2007, and Iraqi sources to the BRussells Tribunal, May 3, 2007].
196. Abdul Kader Ali Abdullah: Lecturer in the Department of Arabic, College of Education Sciences, Mosul University. Found dead 25/26 August 2007 after being kidnapped five days before by a group of armed men. [Source: Iraqi sources to the BRussells Tribunal and CEOSI August 26-27, 2007].
197. Unknown: Lecturer at Mosul University killed in the explosion of two car bombs near campus, October 1, 2007. In this attack, six other people were injured, among them four students. [Source: KUNA, October 1, 2007].
198. Aziz Suleiman: Lecturer at Mosul University. Department and College are unknown. Killed in Mosul January 22, 2008. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, January 24, 2008].
199. Jalil Ibrahim Ahmed al-Naimi: Director of the Sharia Department [Islamic Law] at Mosul University. He was shot dead by armed men when he came back home [in Mosul] from University, 30 January 2008. [Sources: CEOSI and BRussells Tribunal University Iraqi sources, Heytnet and al-Quds al-Arabi, January 31, 2008].
200. Faris Younis: Lecturer at Agriculture College, Mosul University. Dr. Younis was killed June 2, 2008 as a result of a car bomb put in his car. Different sources reported that dozens of academics and students from Mosul University were arrested by Badr militias and Kurd pershmergas. These facts occurred at the end of May, 2008, when the city was taken over by US occupation and Iraqi forces [Source: CEOSI University Iraqui sources, June 3, 2008].
201. Walid Saad Allah al-Mouli, a university professor [Department unknown] was shot down on Sunday 15 June 2008 by unknown gunmen while he was on his way to work in Mosul's northern neighborhood of al-Hadbaa, 405 Km northern Baghdad, killing him on the spot. In the attack, two of his sons were seriously wounded and are in a critical condition. [Source: Aswat al-Iraq-Voices of Iraq-[VOI], June 16, 2008].
202. Ahmed Murad Shehab: professor of Mosul University's Faculty of Administration and Economics. Ahmed Murad Shehab was fatally shot in the neighborhood of al-Nur, on Mosul's left bank. [Source: Press TV, 21 de abril de 2009].
203. Unidentified female university professor: The professor of law was assassinated in front of her home in the al-Intissar district of western Mosul by unknown gunmen on Tuesday, the local police said. They declined to give her name. [Source: PressTV, April 21, 2009].
204. Unknown: lecturer at Mosul University. On May 24, 2009, gunmen ambushed killed a university teacher near his home in Al Andalus neighborhood, Mosul. [Source: The New York Times May 24, 2009].
205. Ibrahem Al-Kasab: professor in the College of Education, Mosul University. Dr. Al-Kasab was shot dead on 4th October, 2010. Unknown gang assassinated him in his home at the eastren part of Mosul. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources and Al-Sabah al-Yadid October 4, 2010].
206. Amer Selbi: professor at College of Islamic Science, Mosul University. Assassinated on his way to College by murderers using
18
silenced guns on 6th March 2011. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 10 March, 2011].
207. Yasser Ahmed Sheet: assistant Dean of the Fine Arts Faculty of the Mosul University. Gunmen opened fire on Yasser Ahmed Sheet in front of his house in al-Muthanna neighborhood, eastern Mosul, on April 9, 2011, a local security source told to Aswat al-Iraq news agency. [Source: Aswat al-Iraq news agency, on April 9, 2011.]
208. Mohammed Jasem al Jabouri: professor in the Faculty of Imam al-Adham, Mosul, province of Niniveh, was killed during the night last 2 July, 2012 by gunmen who shot him to death near his house. [Sources: Association of Muslim Scholars and Safaq News, 3 July, 2012]
QADISIYA
Diwaniya University
209. Hakim Malik al-Zayadi: PhD in Arabic philology, lecturer in Arabic literature at al-Qadisyia University. Dr al-Zayadi was born in Diwaniya, and was killed in Latifiya when he was traveling from Baghdad 24 July 2005].
210. Mayid Husein: Physician and lecturer at the College of Medicine, Diwaniya University. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006].
211. Saleh Abed Hassoun: al-Qadisiyah University's Dean of the School of Law. Salih Abed Hassoun was shot dead by a group of armed men when driving his car in downtown Baghdad on 7 July 2008. [Source:McClatchy, 8 July 2008.]
BASRA
Basra University
212. Abdel al-Munim Abdel Mayad: Bachelor and lecturer at Basra University. Date unknown.
213. Abdel Gani Assaadun: Bachelor and lecturer at Basra University. Date unknown.
214. Abdul Alah [or Abdullah] al-Fadhel: PhD, professor and deputy dean of Basra University's College of Medicine. Killed January 1, 2006.
215. Abdul-Hussein Nasir Jalaf: PhD in agronomy, lecturer at the College of Agronomy's Center of Research on Date Palm Trees, Basra University. Killed May 1, 2005.
216. Alaa Daoud: PhD in sciences, professor and chairman of Basra University [also reported as a lecturer in history]. Killed 20 July 2005.
217. Ali Ghalib Abd Ali: Bachelor of sciences, assistant professor at the School of Engineering, Basra University. Killed April 12, 2004.
218. Asaad Salem Shrieda: PhD in engineering, professor and dean of Basra University's School of Engineering. Killed Octobre 15, 2003.
219. Faysal al-Assadi: PhD in agronomy, professor at the College of Agronomy, Basra University. Date unknown.
220. Ghassab Jabber Attar: Bachelor of sciences, lecturer at the School of Engineering, Basra University. Assassinated June 8, 2003.
19
221. Haidar al-Baaj: PhD in surgery, head of the University College Basra Hospital. Date unknown.
222. Haidar Taher: PhD and professor at the College of Medicine, Basra University. Date unknown.
223. Hussein Yasin: PhD in physics, lecturer in sciences at Basra University Killed 18 February 2004 at his home and in front of his family.
224. Khaled Shrieda: PhD in engineering, dean of the School of Engineering, Basra University. Date unknown.
225. Khamhour al-Zargani: PhD in history, head of the Department of History at the College of Education, Basra University Killed 19 August 2005.
226. Kadim Mashut Awad: visiting professor at the Department of Soils, College of Agriculture, Basra University. Killed December 2005 [exact date unknown].
227. Karem Hassani: PhD and lecturer at the College of Medicine, Basra University. Date unknown.
228. Kefaia Hussein Saleh: PhD in English philology, lecturer in the College of Education Sciences, Basra University. Assassinated May 28, 2004.
229. Mohammed al-Hakim: PhD in pharmacy, professor and dean of Basra University's College of Pharmacy. Date unknown.
230. Mohammed Yassem Badr: PhD, professor and chairman of Basra University. Date unknown.
231. Omar Fakhri: PhD and lecturer in biology at the College of Sciences, Basra University. Date unknown.
232. Saad Alrubaiee: PhD and lecturer in biology at the College of Sciences, Basra University. Date unknown.
233. Yaddab al-Hajjam: PhD in education sciences and lecturer at the College of Education Sciences, Basra University. Date unknown.
234. Zanubia Abdel Husein: PhD in veterinary medicine, lecturer at the College of Veterinary Medicine, Basra University. Date unknown.
235. Jalil Ibrahim Almachari: Lecturer at Basra University. Department and college unknown. Killed 20 March 2006 after criticizing in a public lecture the situation in Iraq. [Arabic Source: al-Kader].
236. Abdullah Hamed al-Fadel: PhD in medicine, lecturer in surgery and deputy dean of the College of Medicine at Basra University. Killed in January 2006 [exact date unknown]. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources].
237. Fuad al-Dajan: PhD in medicine, lecturer in gynecology at the College of Medicine, Basra University. Killed at the beginning of March 2006 [exact date unknown]. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources].
238. Saad al-Shahin: PhD in medicine, lecturer in internal medicine at Basra University's College of Medicine. Killed at the beginning of March 2006 [exact date unknown]. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources].
239. Jamhoor Karem Khammas: Lecturer at the College of Arts, Basra University. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006].
240. Karem Mohsen: PhD and lecturer at Department of Agriculture, College of Agronomy, Basra University. Killed 10 April 2006. He worked in the field of honeybee production. Lecturers and students called for a
20
demonstration to protest for his assassination. [Source: al-Basrah, April 11, 2006].
241. Waled Kamel: Lecturer at the College of Arts at Basra University. Killed 8 May 2006. Other two lecturers were injured during the attack, one of them seriously. [Source: al-Quds al-Arabi, May 9, 2006].
242. Ahmad Abdul Kader Abdullah: Lecturer in the College of Sciences, Basra University. His body was found June 9, 2006. [Source: CEOSI university Iraqi sources, June 10, 2006].
243. Kasem Yusuf Yakub: Head of Department of Mechanical Engineering, Basra University. Killed 13 June 2006 at the university gate. [Sources: CEOSI university Iraqi sources, 14 June 2006 and al-Quds al-Arabi, June 16, 2006].
244. Ahmad Abdul Wadir Abdullah: Professor of the College of Chemistry, Basra University. Killed 10 June 2006. [Source: UNAMI report, May1 – June 30, 2006].
245. Kathum Mashhout: Lecturer in edaphology at the College of Agriculture, Basra University. Killed in Basra in December 2006 [exact date unknown]. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, 12 December 2006].
246. Mohammed Aziz Alwan: Lecturer in artistic design at the College of Fine Arts, Basra University. Killed by armed men 26 May 2007 while walking in the city. [Source: CEOSI university Iraqi sources, June 1, 2007].
247. Firas Abdul Zahra: Lecturer at the College of Physical Education, Basra University. Killed at home by armed men July18, 2007. His wife was injured in the attack. [Source: Iraqi university sources to the BRussells Tribunal, August 26, 2007].
248. Muayad Ahmad Jalaf: Lecturer at the College of Arts, Basra University. Kidnapped 10 September 2007 by a group of armed men that was driving three cars, one of them with a government license plate. He was found dead in a city suburb the next day. [Source: Iraqi university sources to the BRussells Tribunal, September 12, 2007].
249. Khaled Naser al-Miyahi: PhD in medicine, Professor of neurosurgery at Basra University. He was assassinated in March 2008 [exact date unknown]. His body was found after his being kidnapped by a group of armed men in the streets of Basra. There were no ransom demands, according to information provided by Baghdad's Center for Human Rights.[Source: al-Basrah, March 12, 2008].
250. Youssef Salman: PhD engineering professor at Basra University. He was shot dead in 2006 when driving home from the University with three other colleagues, who were spared, according to the information provided by her widow to France24, in an phone interview [Source: France24, July 4, 2008].
Technical Institute of Basra
251. Mohammed Kasem: PhD in engineering, lecturer at the Technical Institute of Basra. Killed on January 1, 2004.
252. Sabah Hachim Yaber: Lecturer at the Technical Institute of Basra. Date unknown.
21
253. Salah Abdelaziz Hashim: PhD and lecturer in fine arts at the Technical Institute of Basra. Kidnapped in 4 April 2006. He was found shot dead the next day. According to other sources, Dr Hashim was machine-gunned from a vehicle, injuring also a number of students. [Sources: CEOSI university Iraqi sources, April 6, 2006, Az-Zaman, April 6, 2006, and al-Quds al-Arabi, April 7, 2006].
TIKRIT
Tikrit University
254. Basem al-Mudares: PhD in chemical sciences and lecturer in the College of Sciences, Tikrit University. His body was found mutilated in the city of Samarra 21 July 2004.
255. Fathal Mosa Hussein Al Akili: PhD and professor at the College of Physical Education, Tikrit University. Assassinated June 27, 2004.
256. Mahmoud Ibrahim Hussein: PhD in biological sciences and lecturer at the College of Education Sciences, Tikrit University. Killed September 3, 2004.
257. Madloul Albazi Tikrit University. Department and college unknown. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006].
258. Mojbil Achaij Issa al-Jabouri: Lecturer in international law at the College of Law, Tikrit University. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006].
259. Damin Husein al-Abidi: Lecturer in international law at College of Law, Tikrit University. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006].
260. Harit Abdel Yabar As Samrai: PhD student at the College of Engineering, Tikrit University. [Source: Iraqi Association of University Lecturers report, March 2006].
261. Farhan Mahmud: Lecturer at the College of Theology, Tikrit University. Disappeared after being kidnapped 24 November 2006. [Source: CEOSI university Iraqi sources, November 26, 2006].
262. Mustafa Khudhr Qasim: Professor at Tikrit University. Department and college unknown. His body was found beheaded in al-Mulawatha, eastern Mosul, 21 November 2007. [Sources: al-Mosul, November 22, 2007, and Iraqi university sources to the BRussells Tribunal and CEOSI, November 22-25, 2007].
263. Taha AbdulRazak al-Ani: PhD in Islamic Studies, he was professor at Tikrit University. His body was found shot dead in a car on a highway near al-Adel, a Baghdad suburb. Also, the body of Sheikh Mahmoud Talb Latif al-Jumaily, member of the Commission of Muslim Scientists, was found dead in the same car last Thursday afternoon, May 15, 2008. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi sources May 21, 2008].
264. Aiad Ibrahem Mohamed Al-Jebory: Neurosurgeon specialist at the College of Medicine in Tikrit University. Picked up with his brother by military raid on his village in Al Haweja on the night of 6th March 2011. His body was delivered the following day to Tikrit Hospital. His brother fate is unknown. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university sources, March 10, 2011].
DIYALAH
22
Baquba University
265. Taleb Ibrahim al-Daher: PhD in physical sciences, professor and dean at the College of Sciences, Baquba University. Killed December 21, 2004.
266. Lez Mecchan: Professor at Baquba University. Department and college unknown. Killed 19 April 2006 with his wife and another colleague. [Sources: DPC and EFE, 19 April 2006].
267. Mis Mecchan: Lecturer at Baquba University. Department and college unknown. Wife of Professor Lez Mecchan, also assassinated. Both were killed with another colleague 19 April 2006. [Sources: DPC and EFE, 19 April 2006].
268. Salam Ali Husein: Taught at Baquba University. Department and college unknown. Killed 19 April 2006 with two other colleagues. [Sources: DPC and EFE, 19 April 2006].
269. Meshhin Hardan Madhlom al-Dulaimi: Professor at Baquba University. Department and college unknown. Killed at the end of April, according to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education. [Source: CEOSI university Iraqi sources, 10 May 2006].
270. Abdul Salam Ali al-Mehdawi: Professor at Baquba University. Department and college unknown. Killed at the end of April, according to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education. [Source: CEOSI university Iraqi sources, 10 May 2006].
271. Mais Ganem Mahmoud: Lecturer at Baquba University. Department and college unknown. Killed at the end of April, according to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education. [Source: CEOSI university Iraqi sources, 10 May 2006].
272. Satar Jabar Akool: Lecturer at Baquba University. Department and college unknown. Killed at the end of April, according to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education. [Source: CEOSI university Iraqi sources, 10 May 2006].
273. Mohammed Abdual Redah al-Tamemmi: Lecturer in the Department of Arabic Language and head of the College of Education, Baquba University. Killed 19 August 2006 together with Professor Kreem Slman al-Hamed al-Sadey, 70 years old, of the same Department. A third lecturer from the same department escaped the attack carried out by a group of four armed men Students and lecturers demonstrated against his and other lecturers' deaths. [Source: World Socialist, 12 September 2006, citing the Iraqi newspaper Az-Zaman, CEOSI university Iraqi sources, 25 December 2006].
274. Karim al-Saadi: Lecturer at Baquba University. Department and college unknown. Killed August 2006. Students and lecturers demonstrated against his and other lecturers' deaths. [Source: World Socialist, 12 September 2006, citing the Iraqi newspaper Az-Zaman].
275. Kreem Slman al-Hamed al-Sadey: Professor in the Department of Arabic Language at the College of Education, Baquba University. He was 70 years old when killed 19 August 2006. In the attack Mohammed Abdual Redah al-Tamemmi, head of Education Department was also killed. A third lecturer from the same department escaped the attack of a group of four armed men. [Source: CEOSI university Iraqi sources, 25 December 2006].
23
276. Hasan Ahmad: Lecturer in the College of Education, Baquba University. Killed December 8, 2006. [Source: CEOSI university Iraqi sources, December 2006].
277. Ahmed Mehawish Hasan: Lecturer in the Department of Arabic at the College of Education, Baquba University. Killed in December [exact date unknown]. [Source: CEOSI university Iraqi sources, 25 December 2006].
278. Walhan Hamid Fares al-Rubai: Dean of the College of Physical Education, Baquba University. Al-Rubai was shot by a group of armed men in his office 1 February 2007. According to some sources his son was also killed. [Source: Reuters and Islammemo, 1-3 February 2007 respectively, and CEOSI university Iraqi sources, 2 February 2007].
279. Abdul Ghabur al-Qasi: Lecturer in history at Baquba University. His body was found by the police 10 April 2007 in Diyalah River, which crosses the city, with 31 other bodies of kidnapped people. [Source: Az-Zaman, 11 April 2007].
280. Jamal Mustafa: Professor and head of the History Department, College of Education Sciences, Baquba University. Kidnapped at home in the city of Baquba 29 October 2007 by a group of armed men driving in three vehicles. [Source: Iraqi university sources to the BRussells Tribunal, 30 October 2007].
281. Ismail Khalil Al-Mahdawi: professor at Al-Assmai Faculty of Education, Diyalah University. Died after serious injuries sustained due to exposure to fire arms equipped with silencers on 4 June, 2011, while he was on his way back home in Katoun area, western Baquba (Diyalah Governorate) according to a security sources. Dr. Al-Mahdawi was released two months ago after five-year detention at the US forces in Iraq. He was rushed to Baquba General Hospital. [Sources: Baghdad TV; Aswat Al-Iraq, College of Education Al-Assmai, Al-Forat TV, on June 4 & 5, 2011.]
282. Abbas Fadhil al-Dulaimi: Pressident of Diyalah University has been injured when targeted by a landmine near an intersection of roads and bridges in Bakoabah, Diyalah, on Tursday, January 13, 2013. The explosion killed two and wounded three of his security and body guards [Source: CEOSI's Iraqi sources]
AL-ANBAR
Ramadi University
283. Abdel Karim Mejlef Saleh: PhD in philology, lecturer at the College of Education Sciences, al-Anbar University.
284. Abdel Majed Hamed al-Karboli: Lecturer at Ramadi University. Killed December 2005 [exact date unknown].
285. Ahmad Abdl Hadi al-Rawi: PhD in biology, professor in the School of Agronomy, al- Anbar University. Date unknown.
286. Ahmad Abdul Alrahman Hameid al-Khbissy: PhD in Medicine, Professor of College of Medicine, al-Anbar University. Date unknown.
287. Ahmed Abbas al-Weis: professor at Ramadi University, al-Anbar. The attackers were dressed in military outfit when they shot the professor near his home in al- Zeidan district on August 25, 2009. [Source: Khaleej Times Online, 25 August 2009].
24
288. Ahmed Saadi Zaidan: PhD in education sciences, Ramadi University. Killed February 2005 [exact date unknown].
289. Hamed Faisal Antar: Lecturer in the College of Law, Ramadi University. Killed December 2005 [exact date unknown].
290. Naser Abdel Karem Mejlef al-Dulaimi: Department of Physics, College of Education, Ramadi University. Killed December 2005 [exact date unknown].
291. Raad Okhssin al-Binow: PhD in surgery, lecturer at the College of Medicine, al-Anbar University. Date unknown.
292. Shakir Mahmmoud Jasim: PhD in agronomy, lecturer in the School of Agronomy, al- Anbar University. Date unknown.
293. Nabil Hujazi: Lecturer at the College of Medicine, Ramadi University. Killed in June 2006 [exact date unknown]. [Source: CEOSI university Iraqi sources, 20 June 2006, confirmed by Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education].
294. Nasar al-Fahdawi: Lecturer at Ramadi University. Department and college unknown. Killed 16 January 2006. [Source: CEOSI university Iraqi sources, December 2006].
295. Khaled Jubair al-Dulaimi: Lecturer at the College of Engineering, Ramadi University. Killed 27 April 2007. [Source: Iraqi sources to the BRussells Tribunal, 3 May 2007].
Fallujah University
296. Saad al-Mashhadani: University professor in Fallujah [Unknown Department]. Saad al-Mashhadani was critically wounded on 26 December, 2009 in an attack that killed his brother and wounded two of his security guards. [Source: The Washington Post, December 27, 2009].
297. Khalil Khalaf Jassim: Dean of Business and Economics College in Anbar University was assassinated in an armed attack last May 4, in al-Nazizah area, central Fallujah, according to a police source in Anbar province. Unidentified gunmen attacked his car, killing him on the spot Security forces cordoned off the crime scene and began an inspection in searching of militants, while the body was transferred to the Forensic Medicine Department. [Source, Shafaq News, May 4, 2013]
NAJAF
Kufa University
298. Khawla Mohammed Taqi Zwain: PhD in medicine, lecturer at College of Medicine, Kufa University. Killed May 12, 2006.
299. Shahlaa al-Nasrawi: Lecturer in the College of Law, Kufa University. Assassinated 22 August 2007 by members of a sectarian militia. [Source: CEOSI University Iraqi sources, 27 August 2007].
300. Adel Abdul Hadi: Professor of philosophy, Kufa University's College of Arts. Killed by a group of armed men 28 October 2007 when returning home from university. [Source: Iraqi University sources to the BRussells Tribunal, October 30, 2007].
SALAH AL-DEEN
University of Salah al-Deen
25
301. Sabah Bahaa Al-Deen: Dr. Sabah is a faculty member at Salah Aldeen University's College of Agriculture. He was killed by a car bomb stuck on his car last Wednesday Dec 12 when he was leaving the College. (Source: Aswat Al- Iraq).
KARBALA
University of Karbala
302. Kasem Mohammed Ad Dayni: Lecturer in the Department of Psychology, College of Pedagogy, Karbala University. Killed April 17, 2006. [Source: http://www.albadeeliraq.com] .
OPEN UNIVERSITY
303. Kareem Ahmed al-Timmi: Head of the Department of Arabic Language in the College of Education at the Open University. Killed in Baghdad, February 22, 2007.
COMMISSION OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION
[CTE is an academic body that belongs to the Higher Education Ministry. Its headquarters are located in al-Mansur, Baghdad neighborhood. Almost twenty Technical Superior Institutes, booth from the capital and Central and Southern provinces, are dependent on this body].
304. Aamir Ibrahim Hamza: Bachelor in electronic engineering, lecturer at the Technical Institute. Killed August 17, 2004.
305. Mohammed Abd al-Hussein Wahed: PhD in tourism, lecturer at the Institute of Administration. Assassinated January 9, 2004.
306. Mohammed Saleh Mahdi: Bachelor in sciences, lecturer at the Cancer Research Centre. Killed November 2005.
INSTITUTIONAL POSITIONS
307. Emad Sarsam: PhD in surgery and member of the Arab Council of Medicine. Date unknown.
308. Faiz Ghani Aziz: PhD in agronomy, director general of the Iraqi Company of Vegetable Oil. Killed September 2003.
309. Isam Said Abd al-Halim: Geologic consultant at the Ministry of Construction. Date unknown.
310. Kamal al-Jarrah: Degree in English philology, researcher and writer and director general at the Ministry of Education. Date unknown.
311. Raad Abdul-Latif al-Saadi: PhD in Arabic language, consultant in higher education and scientific research at the Ministry of Education. Killed April 28, 2005.
312. Shakier al-Khafayi: PhD in administration, head of the Department of Normalization and Quality at the Iraq Council. Date unknown.
313. Wajeeh Mahjoub: PhD in physical education, director general of physical education at the Ministry of Education. Killed Abril 9, 2003.
314. Wissam al-Hashimi: PhD in petrogeology, president of the Arab Union of Geologists, expert in Iraqi reservoirs, he worked for the Iraqi Ministry of Petroleum. Assassinated August 24, 2005.
26
UNIVERSITY AFFILIATION UNKNOWN
315. Amir Mizhir al-Dayni: Professor of telecommunication engineering. Date unknown.
316. Khaled Ibrahim Said: PhD in physics. Date unknown.
317. Mohammed al-Adramli: PhD in chemical sciences. Date unknown.
318. Mohammed Munim al-Izmerly: PhD in chemical sciences. He was tortured and killed by US troops. His body was sent to the Baghdad morgue. The cause of death was initially registered as ―brainstem compression‖. Date unknown.
319. Nafi [or Nafia] Aboud: Professor of Arabic literature. Date unknown.
320. Ali Zedan Al-Saigh: PhD in Medicine and lecturer on Oncological Surgery (unknown university). Ali Zedan Al-Saigh was assassinated at Al-Harthia district (Bagdad) on June 29, 2010 after returning recently to Iraq. [Source: CEOSI Iraqi university source, June 30, 2010]
321. Adnan Meki: Specialty and University unknown. According to police sources, his corpse was found on July 13, 2010 with signals of stabbing at his home in Al-Qaddisiya neighborhood, western Baghdad. [Source: Al-Rafadan website, July14, 2010].
322. Unknown Identity: Specialty and University unknown. On July 14, 2010, unidentified gunmen riding in a car shot a university professor dead as he was leaving his home in the University District, West Baghdad, according to the report of an official security source. [Source: AKnews, July 14, 2010].
323. Mohamed Ali El-Din (Al-Diin) Al-Heeti: Professor in Pharmacy, unknown University. Mohamed Ali El-Din Al-Heeti was killed the afternoon of the 14th August, 2010 in the area of Al-Numaniya (north of Al-Wasat governorate) in an attack by unknown armed men. The professor came back to Iraq a few months ago to Iraq after a period of studies in George Washington University in the USA. [Source: Association of Muslim Scholars, 15 August, 2010.]
OTHER CASES
324. Khalel al-Zahawi [or Khalil al-Zahawi]: Born in 1946, al-Zahawi was considered the most important calligraphist in Iraq and among the most important in the Arab-Muslim world. He worked as a lecturer in calligraphy in several Arab countries during the 1990s. He was killed 19 May 2007 in Baghdad by a group of armed men. He was buried in Diyalah, where he was born. [Source: BBC News, 22 May 2007. His biography is available on Wikipedia].

Kratoklastes , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 6:06 am GMT
@Rich

Some might argue that the Iranians drew first blood when the present group of radical medievalists overthrew the Shah and then seized the US embassy in 1979 or a whole load of other attacks by Iranians and their proxies.

Some might argue that the overthrow of the Shah was simply the unseating of a brutal US-imposed tyrant whose regime was about as merciless as that of Pinochet, the Sauds, or any of the other despots that the US has installed and supported over the years.

The difference between my 'some' and your 'some' is that mine would be closer to the truth.

If the Chinese imposed a brutal and oppressive puppet regime on Australia, I would go so far as to support the whackballs from the Westboro Baptists if they were the group capable of overthrowing the puppet regime.

If you wouldn't do the same for your own neck of the woods, I am sure that there is as perfectly good explanation.

The US does have a puppet regime (albeit one that doesn't register on the brutality scale yet) it's not Chinese, of course.

Not Raul , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 6:20 am GMT
@Herald How much are the Saudis paying you, cuck?
Not Raul , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 6:21 am GMT
@Franklin Ryckaert How so? Do you think that the Saudis and their friends would never use terrorists to attack us?
Colin Wright , says: Website Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 6:23 am GMT
@Rich 'Well, yes, every member of every military is a legitimate target. Especially a general. If it sounds logical to you, that's because not only is it logical, it's common sense '

That's why we were cool with Pearl Harbor. Just military personnel. No harm, no foul.

Not Raul , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 6:24 am GMT
@bluedog They used to test nukes in Nevada. Did the fallout kill millions of people thousands of miles away?
ivegotrythm , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 6:24 am GMT
So America, how does it feel to be the world's assassin? Gives the "War on Terror" a whole new meaning, doesn't it? At least you have one last true friend, a great "Haver," who will watch your back.
Colin Wright , says: Website Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 6:26 am GMT
@Rich ' Read the Koran first, before you throw your support behind these jihadists .'

We all know perfectly well you haven't read it yourself.

Reading snippets taken out of context on Islamophobic sites is not 'reading the Quran.'

BeenThereDunnit , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 6:47 am GMT
@Alfred This assessment of Trump's has been around for a while but how, specifically, would the US ever be made to leave Iraq and Syria? The only theoretical possibility would consist of a combined effort of the Iraqi government and people directed against the occupation force in that country. That would probably have to play out as a popular uprising against the Americans. But what if American troops, cheered on by Zionist circles back in the US, started to kill large numbers of Iraqis indiscriminately? Would the Iraqis have the stomach for that? And how could Trump declare victory and leave Iraq under such circumstances?

At the time of this writing, we have already seen the second round of killings of high-ranking Iranian and Iraqi commanders in Iraq, all of them Shiah. If the Shiah are said to be calculating, then these Shiah commanders have not been calculating this time, serving themselves on a platter to the Americans. The remaining commanders will have to wise up to the new reality quickly and switch over to full Hezbollah mode if they do not want to be wiped out altogether.

Aspects of the attack against the Aramco facility point to it having been an Israeli false flag at least in part. Pictures showed several dome-shaped oil tanks, all of them having a big, circular hole punched into them at zero deflection and precisely the same steep angle from precisely the same direction. This kind of damage cannot be achieved using GPS guided drones. Either the Iranians possess an unknown stealth capability, in which case the military equation in the Middle East changes drastically, or a false flag is left as the only remaining possibility. Israel would be the most likely culprit for that; the objective consists of duping Trump into war against Iran.

So, Trump may have been led to believe that Iran carried out the attack against the Aramco facility. Then somebody suggested to him to kill the Iranian general and several other Iranians partly as an act of revenge. Several Iraqi commanders also get slaughtered. Iraqi popular unrest boils over at the same time as more American troops are poured into the country, a massacre of Iraqi Shiah ensues and Iran is forced to react. That may be the calculation behind it all. The threat of impeachment and subsequent imprisonment does the rest to gird Trump along.

Right now, there are severe strains on the financial system with the Fed bailing out the repo market and also monetizing US debt at nearly 100%. The US is down to pure money printing; this mode of operation cannot go on for long before the whole house of card comes crashing down. The powers that be may be reckoning that the time for war against Iran is now or never.

So, the best course of action that heartland (Iran, Russia, China) may take may be to wait it out by doing as little as possible.

ivegotrythm , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 7:10 am GMT
@MEexpert He knows what he is talking about. He is just not very good at it.
ivegotrythm , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 7:26 am GMT
@Tulip It is not what "Trump wants."
Sean , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 7:46 am GMT
@Maiasta It remains to be seen if America will actually suffer a level of retaliation for the assassination that will surprise them. So far I think evidence suggests the miscalculation was Soleimani's. His Sept 2019 drone attacks on the main Saudi oil facilities were deliberately not very destructive, being intended as indication of what Iran can do, but America will not permit anyone to be a threat hanging over Saudi Arabia.

The Wikileaks cables show that US diplomats thought Soleimani was behind or at least supplying lethal assistance to attacks on US forces, and were willing to quietly negotiate with him. None of those putative hundreds of American deaths mattered all that much in the grand scheme of things. Masterminding the drone attack on Saudi oil was completely different, that was what made him a marked man.

Passer by , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 7:52 am GMT
@Gleimhart Mantooso https://www.albawaba.com/news/remembering-when-us-simulated-war-game-against-iran-1288001
ivegotrythm , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 8:05 am GMT
@Alfred Did you say there are credible rumors that Iran brought down PanAm 103 and Israel made it look like Libya in order to throw off suspicions from Iran? And, you say, the proof is that "Since PA103, no Iranian civilian aircraft of any sort has been attacked or threatened by the USA or any other country?" Are you some kind of Intelligence Analyst? This is deep. Or are you really saying there are credible rumors that Israel brought down PanAm 103 and made it look like Libya? Which, of course, is not so deep. And the proof is that
anno nimus , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 8:08 am GMT
Andrei, if as you say the Persians have imagination, why not imagine making peace with Israel? you also quoted before that politics is art of possible. well and good, peace is possible if there is realization and imagination that Israel is really not going anywhere. an eye for eye will make everyone blind. gandi?
btw, with all the mahdi stuff going on, how much rational are the Persian leaders?
what say the cyber warriors and armchair generals on drone warfare? is it ethical? moral? right? just? necessary? sane?
Alfred , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 9:03 am GMT
@nokangaroos Mohammed Reza Shah (installed by coup in 1941 because his daddy, an old-school Kurdish brigand

Actually, the father, Reza Shah was not a Kurd at all. His family was Persian from Mazandaran. He was in the Persian Cossack Brigade.

Reza Shah

Biff , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 11:06 am GMT
@Colin Wright

We all know perfectly well you haven't read it yourself.

Maybe we can start a go-fund-me page for Rich, and it can pay for his Koranic education, and then he can be shipped over to Tehran to tell them just how wrong they are – in his own kind of way. I'm sure they'll listen, and drop everything to worship at the holy altar of ((Rich)) . And then he can reply back with a big fat "I told you so!" .

Commentator Mike , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 11:16 am GMT
@Kratoklastes As if Afghanistan isn't inhospitable mountainous terrain? So somehow Iran's topography is worse is it? They invaded Afghanistan without even controlling any neighbouring countries. Now that they have already invaded Afghanistan and Iraq in preparation for the war on Iran, they could well roll in after a thorough aerial pounding. So if they suffer great losses so what? Did they ever care about their own soldiers or citizens that much anyway? If there's loot to be had they'll go for it.
Robert Magill , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 11:18 am GMT
This incident had one goal in mind and it was successful: Raising the price of crude by stirring up the Mid East. Raising the oil price will raise the US stock market and re-elect Trump. Expect more of the same prior to this year's elections. Same old, same old; people die, people win elections. Obama showed the way.
Astraea , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 11:31 am GMT
@Tulip Poor Melania!
9/11 Inside job , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 11:51 am GMT
"Mike Pence and Mike Pompeo belong to a doomsday cult and may be trying to bring on the Apocalypse " richardawkins.net
"Brought to Jesus the evangelical grip on the Trump administration" theguardian.com
It's scary that a lobbyist for a major arms manufacturer and a true believer in the Apocalypse are both advising a psychopath on US military action in the Middle East .
Robjil , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:04 pm GMT
@Adrian Yes, Wesley Clark spilled the beans. Seven nations to destroy is how the first Israel was formed.

Wesley said the nations that would be destroyed:

Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Iran.

Wesley says this is for nine eleven (false flag).

He said it would take 5 years to do so. 5 years was a guess since within 5 years is all it took to do WWI and WWII.

Iran is the only nation of the seven mentioned that has not been messed up by ZUS, its friends and its best friend Israel.

Nine eleven combo is a Kabbala theme. Nine is one less and eleven is one more than the Tree of Life number ten of Yahweh. Thus, this combo represents chaos and destruction.

The 911 number was created in 1968. WTC was being built around that time.

Nine Eleven date in the Jewish calendar is 12.23. 5761. Notice the 12th Jewish month of Elul and the 23th day of that month. The first Zion century began with the FED on 12. 23. 1913 of the Christian Calendar. This second Zion Century began on 12.23 on the Jewish Calendar.

12.23 in the Jewish Calendar is the date of the second dove coming back to Noah with an olive branch.

12.25 two days later is the date of the when God (Yahweh) created the world. Six days later man was created by Yahweh. That is the day of the Jewish New Year which celebrates Yahweh's creation of man. Thus, the 6 million game comes from that. 6 represents man.

On 12.25. 5761 ( 9.13.2001) all the planes were "allowed" to fly again in the US. It was a creation of "new" world after the end of the "flood of fear" like Yahweh did on that day in the Tanakh.

The games that our rulers play are sick.

9/11 Inside job , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:29 pm GMT
@BeenThereDunnit Beware the false flag attack , if American servicemen or citizens get killed by "Iranians",it won't take much to get the public behind a "decisive " attack on Iran , the objective would not be to defeat them but to create another failed state for the benefit of Israel , we are good at that, just look at Syria , Yemen, Libya , Afghanistan and Iraq .
"Israel made attack on Saudi oil fields" streetwisereports.com
ivegotrythm , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:34 pm GMT
@Not Raul Maybe not millions, but certainly thousands. Slowly. Don't you read the news?
Robjil , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:50 pm GMT
@Castellio Knowledge is power.

ZUS empire and its master Israel are into killing off the best goyim.

I noticed this in Donbass. Any leader with charisma is "assassinated".

Donbass leaders or rebels have not put any figure head to show off after this.

ZUS controlled Ukraine does the same thing to its out of box thinkers or politicians.

In the ZUS homeland, JFK, MLK, RJK, JFK Jr., Malcolm X are some of the most famous cut down for the ZUS empire and its best buddy Israel.

Any dissent of the ZUS empire is banished by our "free" press media such as Youtube, Amazon, Twitter and so on.

The best of the goyim are cut down with no voice by banning or assassination.

annamaria , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 12:54 pm GMT
@Gleimhart Mantooso Even if you are correct that Iranians do not have the capacity to defend themselves from the zionized US military (armed on the Fed Reserve banksters' money), the ongoing war in the Middle East will be more devastating for the US (and the EU) than for the natives who try to defend their families and their culture. The moral death of the US is within reach.

Who has been guiding the US policies while using the US might? -- Banksters, MIC and zionists. American veterans of the Wars for Israel in the Middle East suicide themselves every single day. https://www.mentalhealth.va.gov/docs/data-sheets/2019/2019_National_Veteran_Suicide_Prevention_Annual_Report_508.pdf

The Jewish State has been running the famous Milgram experiment (dubbed "Nazi experiment") on Palestinians for 70 years. https://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html
Whereas the Milgram experiment was terminated (due to its ugliness) in the US, the Milgram experiment has been at the heart of Israel for 70 years. They, Israelis, have managed to create a new kind of people -- the amoral hypocrites. Or perhaps, the ongoing Milgram study in Israel has exposed the true nature of Talmudism ("is this good for Jews?" -- then everything goes).

The Jewish Bolsheviks have been quite successful in the US. Along with the incessant and successful pushing for the wars of aggression for Eretz Israel, the zionists were successful in making the regime change in Ukraine and running the war against civilians in eastern Ukraine. The success of Ukrainian operation was achieved thanks to the tight collaboration of US/UK zionists with the local oligarchs (mostly Jewish) and with Banderites (the self-proclaimed neo-Nazi). Ukrainian neo-Nazi were armed and supported by American zionists and by the Jewish State. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/rights-groups-demand-israel-stop-arming-neo-nazis-in-the-ukraine-1.6248727
Meanwhile, the Jewish State was also arming and protecting the terrorist groups of jihadis on the territory of sovereign Syria. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-israel-just-admitted-arming-anti-assad-syrian-rebels-big-mistake-1.6894850

The perfidy of zionists has been unnoticeable for the zionized presstitutes and the cheerleaders for more large-scale Milgram experiments in the Middle East, such as the puny "intellectual" Kenneth Pollack, who is nothing more but an amoral hypocrite of war-profiteering variety: https://www.aei.org/foreign-and-defense-policy/middle-east/the-trump-administration-is-suddenly-all-in-on-iran-in-iraq/

If the Jewish Community at large does not arise against the war in Iran, then the Jews have deserved the fame of Leo Frank and should be called "Leo Frank people." https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-adl-in-american-society/

Ironically, the numerous holobiz museums have become the reminder of Jewish rapacious predation and amorality.

AZ , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:06 pm GMT
The impeachment proceedings of Trump pushed him to satisfy the deep state by making this idiotic move. Netanyahu is also under investigation and should have been in jail. A war with IRAN is a nice way out of the impasse.
annamaria , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:19 pm GMT
@Rich " the violent spread of Islam throughout the world"

-- Actually, there has been the violent spread of zioconism throughout the world, including the Wars for Israel in the Middle East (and the flooding of Europe with the dispossessed refugees and radicalized jihadies), the Jewish assault on the First Amendment in the US, the physical assault and imprisonment of honest researchers in WWII on behalf of zionists (zionists cannot tolerate factual information that does not agree with Elie Wiesel's inventions), the zionization of US military, the blackmailing of persons in a position of power by Mossad (see Epstein-Maxwell saga of underage prostitution), and a cherry on the top -- the casual attitude of zionist to all non-jews as subhumans (see Gaza Ghetto, the suicided American veterans of the Wars for Israel, and the murdered civilians in eastern Ukraine, courtesy the US-supported Banderites).

Who needs reading the Quaran when the Jewish State has been arming Ukrainian neo-Nazi and arming and saving fanatical jihadi terrorists (including the murderous "white helmets") in Syria? Your quetching tribe is nothing but a rapacious amoral predator working in cahoots with the worst scum among the mega-banksters and mega-war-profiteers. At least you have already erected the numerous monuments (the Holobiz Museums) to remind the non-Jews about Jewish depravity.

Mark of the Beast , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:23 pm GMT
Join the Zionist Crusade!
Join the U.S military and fight for Israel.
Seven Islamic countries need to be destroyed for Greater Israel Project.
1.Afghanistan- check
2.Iraq-check
3.Sudan-check
4.Libya-check
5.Somalia-check
6.Syria-In Progress
7.Iran-TBA

It's coming down to the final stages!
And how!

annamaria , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:28 pm GMT
@Commentator Mike "Did they ever care about their own soldiers or citizens that much anyway? If there's loot to be had they'll go for it."

-- Agree. The dual citizen and local Cheneys et al. care not about human life and such funny thing as patriotism.

Winter Watch , says: Website Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 2:10 pm GMT
The Van Riper Gambit: Iran Scores Against Expensive High-Tech US Gadgetry
https://www.winterwatch.net/2020/01/the-van-riper-gambit-iran-scores-against-expensive-high-tech-us-gadgetry/
Beefcake the Mighty , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 2:38 pm GMT
@Kratoklastes Those beheadings are fake, nothing more than cheap Hollywood stunts. All of the ISIS videos come from a single source, Rita Katz/SITE, who is known to have Mossad connections.
Realist , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 2:39 pm GMT
@Rich

Some might argue that the Iranians drew first blood when the present group of radical medievalists overthrew the Shah and then seized the US embassy in 1979 or a whole load of other attacks by Iranians and their proxies.

Of course those would be dumb bastards with no knowledge of history the CIA installed the Shah in a 1953 coup.

KenH , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 2:40 pm GMT
@Tulip Kim Jong Un just called Trump a dotard a few weeks ago is testing more nuclear missiles and is back to taunting the Trump Administration. That makes Trump look weak but because the N. Koreans have the ability to massively retaliate against U.S. forces and because they are a nuclear power Trump does nothing but tweet.

If Iran had short range nuclear missiles that could reach Israel and Saudi Arabia they would be getting far more respect and Trump would be treading lighter like he is with N. Korea.

Realist , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 2:44 pm GMT
@ivegotrythm

A123 is asking how long the armed forces will remain willing to die for psychopaths? Good question.

Yes, how long will the American people be willing to die for the US and Israeli governments.

Beefcake the Mighty , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 2:52 pm GMT
@Maiasta The interesting thing about Ostrovsky's book (and probably the real reason it generated controversy) is that he admits that the Mossad relies on diaspora Jews for intelligence gathering, cover, etc. for running its operations abroad.
Beefcake the Mighty , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 2:57 pm GMT
@Rich I'm too busy reading the Talmud.
Rich , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 3:01 pm GMT
@Colin Wright Anyone with even a limited knowledge of the laws of war knows that a military base is a legitimate target. That doesn't mean any nation that is attacked is going to be happy about it. For better or worse Pearl Harbor was a legitimate target and the US was negligent in its defenses there. Of course, I believe the Nips were sorry for that move in the end. Should've stuck to fighting poorly armed, divided Asian countries.
lauris71 , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 3:15 pm GMT
@Gleimhart Mantooso On the other hand, Saddam simply sat on his fat *ss and watched how US built up fighting force of 150 000 men, planes and whatnot.
If Iran has any strategic sense it simply does not allow this to happen. Sometimes pre-emptive strikes are the correct strategy. And then US is left only with carriers far from iranian shores and airbases in Jordan or even further away. Of course, it can still destroy most of Iran's infrastructure eventually – while simultaneously watching how his client states in Gulf will be levelled to ground. But bringing land forces to Iran without relying on friendly ports and airbases will be D-day scale operation – much, much larger than Desert Storm of Iraq Freedom.
vot tak , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 3:29 pm GMT
From saker's article:

"Iran HAS to retaliate and HAS to do so publicly."

That is exactly what zionazia wants Iran to do. Why does saker want the Iranians to do exactly what israel wants them to do?

"Right now, the Dems (still the party favored by the Neocons)"

Total nonsense. The neocons are overwhelmingly republicans, both leaders and followers. They got their real start in the republican reagan regime and have increased their influence in each republican regime since.

"Now think about this from the Neocon point of view. They might be able to get the US goyim to strike Iran AND get rid of Trump."

LOL, why kill the goose that lays the golden eggs? The neocon trump is 100% israel's boy. In fact, he should be considered an extension of the israeli likud political block, which is who backs and promotes neoconnery in the usa. The neocon american media such fox and the various conservative talk radio networks are neocon. They promote trump, demonize the democrats and are fanatical likud israeli loyalists.

"For example, there are some rather credible rumors that the destruction of PanAm 103 over Scotland was not a Libyan action, but an Iranian one in direct retaliation for the deliberate shooting down by the USN of IranAir 655 Airbus over the Persian Gulf. I am not saying that I know for a fact that this is what really happened, only that Iran does have retaliatory options not limited to the Middle-East."

Not credible, propaganda instead. The zionazis blamed Libya, Iran and Syria, depending on which served their psywar needs of the moment. One saw the same zionazi strategy used after the 9/11 wtc attack. As the zionazis attacked other countries, they justified it in their psywar as a response to that country's "involvement" in 9/11. The air liner was likely destroyed through an israeli/western security service falseflag act, like the later 9/11 falseflag.

This article posits some useful ideas, it also reinforces some zionazi policy goals and propaganda.

Colin Wright , says: Website Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 3:44 pm GMT
@Rich 'Anyone with even a limited knowledge of the laws of war knows that a military base is a legitimate target.'

You skip elegantly over the minor detail that we were not at war with Iran. Hey: let's bomb a military base in China!

What the hell? And if France feels like taking out the Pentagon -- well, who are we to complain?

Desert Fox , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 3:46 pm GMT
@redmudhooch They already have ie the attack on the WTC on 911, done by Israel and the ZUS.
Rich , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 3:52 pm GMT
@Realist Somewhat sad that your poor education has misinformed you about the origins of the Shah and the Pahlavi dynasty. The Pahlavis came to power in 1925 when Reza Khan overthrew the Qajar dynasty who had ruled the region since the late 18th century. The 1953 incident you refer to is the attempted communist takeover by Mossadegh which was almost successful but prevented by the US and UK who helped keep the Pahlavis in power. Is it a coup if there's an attempt to seize control of the government by communists but the king is able to hold onto power? I don't think so. Shame the Tsar wasn't able to stop the Bolsheviks and their reign of terror.
Wookie , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 4:27 pm GMT
@Not Raul You should have said Israel's 9-11 attack on the United States .
Beefcake the Mighty , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 4:34 pm GMT
@BeenThereDunnit Interesting speculation on the Aramco attack, but how do you explain Yemeni claims of responsibility?
nsa , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 4:39 pm GMT
@Rich "Somewhat sad your poor education blah blah blah"
Rich is a joo goblin pretending to be an aging boomerwaffen still fighting the big one from high atop his barstool lookout down at the VFW lounge. Have another $2 double, Rich, and tell us again how you kicked ass over there in 'Nam followed by your latest prostate troubles .
annamaria , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 4:45 pm GMT
@Beefcake the Mighty "the Mossad relies on diaspora Jews for intelligence gathering, cover, etc. for running its operations abroad."

-- The ongoing mass slaughter in the Middle East and the triumph of Banderites (neo-Nazis) in Ukraine are some of the glorious achievements of the Israel-firsters.

This is not the first time when the obnoxious tribe puts a lot of effort to cut a branch on which the tribe perches. The disloyal treacherous scum of the Mega Group-Epstein-Maxwell kind has been at the ZUSA wheel for some time already. The ziocons will not stop their bloody treachery until the US citizenry at large begins taking actions against the dreamers of Eretz Israel.

Russia and Germany are examples of what can happen to a sovereign state when the "most moral and victimized" are left to their ugly devices. The shameless AIPAC and 52 main Jewish American organizations bear the principle responsibility for the ongoing wars that are becoming more dangerous with each day.

MLK , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 4:54 pm GMT

Iran HAS to retaliate and HAS to do so publicly.

Is that what you thought when Turkey shot down a Russian fighter jet?

Look, I'll keep it short because this gaggle is locked into some seriously delusion thinking.

Solemani was commanding an operation to put Trump in the position Carter was in with the hostage crisis. Do you knuckleheads really think that Trump was going to fall for it?

Especially since it was so obvious. With the Ayatollah shouting that Trump "couldn't do a damn thing." And Senator Murphy teeing up what was soon to come by declaring the POTUS "impotent."

That is just the latest, most desperate provocation, by Iran in coordination with the Democrats.

So killing Soleimani, along with those in the second airstrike, was anything but an escalation. This is what Milley was signaling when he said "The ball is in Iran's court." Khamenei stupidly revealed beforehand that he had sanctioned this plot. That constitutes enormous risk not only to the Iranian regime but the Democrats colluding with them.

annamaria , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 4:55 pm GMT
@Rich Poor "Rich," we guess that you need to make a living, but do your superiors understand that your posts make more harm to "Jewish cause" than any jihadis' activities?

Though the Jewish State is, of course, one of the main sponsors of fanatical jihad (because this is good for Jews and bad for Syrians) and of the neo-nazi in Ukraine (because this is good for Jews and bad for Russians).
Keep posting. The exposure of the sick logic of Israelis is educational.

anarchyst , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 4:59 pm GMT
@Rurik Israel's favorite "war song is "Onward Christian Soldiers"
Assad al-islam , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 5:08 pm GMT
@vot tak

That is exactly what zionazia wants Iran to do. Why does saker want the Iranians to do exactly what israel wants them to do?

Iranians are very shrewd and they will never start a war with USA. At appropriate time Iran will annihilate Israel and USA will be scratching their heads. What will USA do, after the annihilation of Israel? Commit suicide for the sake of annihilated Israel?

Saker's Quote: "For example, there are some rather credible rumors that the destruction of PanAm 103 over Scotland was not a Libyan action, but an Iranian one in direct retaliation for the deliberate shooting down by the USN of IranAir 655 Airbus over the Persian Gulf. I am not saying that I know for a fact that this is what really happened, only that Iran does have retaliatory options not limited to the Middle-East."

Saker is showing his true colors, that he only cares for mother Russia. How can he post this stuff, while he very well knows that when Iraq used chemicals, Iran refused to do so in return. Russia like USA will intentionally kill civilians to achieve their goal, but Iran will NEVER intentionally kill innocent civilians. Saker has been smoking too much lately, and forgetting that it is NOT spiritual to kill innocent civilians. No, no and no, everything is not fair in war and love ..

Iran is ethical and has morals where as USSR and Russia seems to lack them .

Realist , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 5:11 pm GMT
@Rich

The 1953 incident you refer to is the attempted communist takeover by Mossadegh which was almost successful but prevented by the US and UK who helped keep the Pahlavis in power.

The US and UK were after Iranian oil. The Shah was their puppet plain and simple.

ivegotrythm , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 5:12 pm GMT
@Rich But Rich, almost all the Communists are Jews and Mossadegh was not Jewish. How could he be a Communist? All he did was nationalize the oil industry for Iranians instead of for the British. And you call Shiism Medievalist, but isn't Judaism a stone age religion? Do you put those little boxes with magic amulets on your head?
Anonymous [792] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 5:14 pm GMT
@Rurik "Uncle Shlomo wants YOU to die for Matzovania!"
RadicalCenter , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 5:24 pm GMT
@Rich You're certainly right, Rich, that any true Muslim is obligated to spread Islam by any means necessary, including violence and intimidation -- our Quality Commenter Talha's eloquent and shrewd apologia to the contrary notwithstanding. I wouldn't trust the people running Iran or any other Muslim country, and I'd not let any Muslims settle in our lands.

BUT the us gov does seem to be consistently lying and trying to pick a fight far from our shores. That dishonesty and belligerence is not obviated by the nature of the contrived opponent. And they do seem to be doing it at the behest of Israel and its powerful domestic lobby and media, often with no benefit to the American people, or affirmative harm to us.

Can't we both be realistic and not naive about Islam, AND not aggress or provoke a war?

RadicalCenter , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 5:29 pm GMT
@Colin Wright That's a fair point, but there are similar conclusions drawn by long, detailed analyses of the koran by ex-Muslims who are fluent in Arabic.

These are people who know both the Koran and the subsequent interpretive writings well. Doesn't mean they're necessarily all correct, just that the very fearful and critical view of Islam that many of us find persuasive, is NOT based only on selective or ill-informed readings of those texts.

turtle , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 5:33 pm GMT
@eah

decisive defensive action

Absolutely "weapons grade" pure horseshit.

RadicalCenter , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 5:39 pm GMT
@Robert Magill I don't doubt that the elites behind the us gov would cause tension, violence, even war to profit from it, through higher oil prices or otherwise.

As for the us stock market, though, how many of the 100 biggest, 500 biggest, or 5000 biggest publicly traded companies (by capitalization) would benefit from a spike in oil and nat gas prices?

Wouldn't modt publicly traded US companies be harmed by the higher fuel prices causing higher prices for groceries, clothes, and other goods that are shipped, flown, or trucked by vehicles burning fossil fuels?

Consumers wouldn't be able to afford to buy as much of those companies' goods and services after shelling out exorbitant prices to fuel their cars and heat / cool their homes, paying more for non-locally sourced groceries, etc. When the average American has to pay seven bucks for a gallon of gas, he will cut back on other spending and/or borrow (charge) more to survive. That means many fewer people spending on luxuries such as vacations and dining out and entertainment. More people postponing home renovation or repair, forgoing medical or dental care, and so on.

As for the states and localities of the USA, some might benefit on balance from higher oil and gas prices, but most definitely suffer from it. Much of Texas would benefit, including any state and local governments getting extraction taxes, but none of the nine million people in New Jersey, the 20 million people in Florida, and so on. I would wager that most US states are not net energy exporters but net energy consumers, but I'll check for stats on that.

SeekerofthePresence , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 5:48 pm GMT
@anarchyst Evangelicals can never cut their 'bilicals
To death and killing, to which they stick like barnacles.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/-NhHUZMufLA?feature=oembed

El Dato , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 5:50 pm GMT
@A123

elements of the IRGC will dispatch Khameni to save their own lives

Stop hitting opium pipes.

An Iranian "operation Valkyrie"?

Too much TV.

The Alarmist , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 6:11 pm GMT
@Rich US troops are only legitimate targets to the extent they are uninvited combatants in another country. Your reasoning on this is bizarre.

My comment had nothing to do with dissing Israel or defending Iran, but since you mention both, the US is entirely too subservient to the former since its inception and has been screwing in the internal affairs of the latter for the better part of a century. When I said the US drew first blood, I wasn't talking about last week.

pB , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 6:53 pm GMT
@Not Raul russia monitors all usa nukes, if they see any large scale nuclear attack they can not wait to make sure its heading just south of their border or just north of it.
any large scale nuclear launch by the usa would trigger mad.
and im sure the nuclear armed muslim power right next door will not particularly enjoy having to deal with the country smothered in fall out and the dead bodies of 80 million muslims.
A123 , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 7:05 pm GMT
@MLK You are 100% correct.

Solemani was commanding an operation to put Trump in the position Carter was in with the hostage crisis.

Trump's actions were proportionate and well considered. Instead of 'recapturing past glory', Khameni has another massive failure to his name. The weak leader is growing weaker as time goes by.

The strike also impacts the thinking of Iranian military leaders. They now understand that if the Ayatollah orders an irrational & unwinnable escalation, they may suffer personal consequences.

One thing could end this quickly and bloodlessly for all sides -- The IRGC removing the highly unpopular Khameni, thus protecting the people of Iran. This will not happen tomorrow, but Trump just took advantage of Khameni's errors to bring that day closer.
______

Of course, the paid Iranian shills posting here will decry this simple and obvious truth. Fortunately, no one believes them.

PEACE

Iris , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 7:19 pm GMT
@Beefcake the Mighty The September 2019 attacks occurred in the very special context of Aramco's Initial Public Offering (IPO). For the first time ever, Aramco, considered the largest company in the world in terms of valuation, was about to sell 1.5% of its shares on the stock market.

The attacks on the Aramco facilities at the time caused the total valuation to drop from an initial $2 trillion estimate to only 1,7 $trillion. So the attacks were extremely convenient for some international financial institutions who wanted to buy Aramco shares on the cheap .

The close relationship between such financial institutions and the Israeli government, who could have carried the attacks and blame it on Iran, is of course a complete coincidence. Or so we are told.

https://fortune.com/2019/11/17/saudi-aramco-1-7-trillion-valuation-ipo-undershooting-target/

BeenThereDunnit , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 7:22 pm GMT
@Beefcake the Mighty The only explanation would be that the Israelis got wind of the impending attack. Then they used it as a cover for their own attack. They may also have put themselves on alert, waiting for an attack having taking place. Then they struck the same target in near real-time, using ready-made plans. Both possibilities would certainly be far fetched. But they would not be completely illogical because oil installations being targeted could be expected after all the prior drone attacks carried out by the Yemenis. OTOH, a quick search on the Internet shows that GPS guidance has become considerably more precise in recent years. If the Iranians are able to make use of such technology after all, then a war in the Middle East would become an interesting proposition to say the least. The Americans can switch off GPS and they can jam GLONASS and the other GPSes that exist. But that's not possible over the entire Middle East. That would be too costly both in terms of the jamming itself and the losses incurred in the wider economy. GPS is terribly important in these days. Everything depends on it from oil tankers navigating to excavators being guided along.
Nicolás Palacios Navarro , says: Website Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 7:24 pm GMT
@A123 Thank Yahweh that your average, drooling, red-white-and-duh American is always ready to believe any simple and obvious lie conjured by paid Israeli shills such as yourself.

PEACE

BeenThereDunnit , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 7:28 pm GMT
@9/11 Inside job Yes, if the Aramco attack was not a false flag, then the time for a false flag would certainly be now.
Iris , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 7:31 pm GMT
@A123

The weak leader is growing weaker as time goes by.

I don't know about Khamenei, but your comments are definitely growing weaker and more grotesque by the hour. Take a break, Hasbara.

KenH , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 7:35 pm GMT
Iran is in a no-win situation. If they do nothing and bide their time then I believe the Trump admin will manufacture a casus belli for additional military action this time possibly striking targets inside Iran. Trump's window is between now and the November 2020 election and his re-election is far from a lock given the demographic changes in the electorate since 2016 which is why Iran may decide just wait things out.

The real question is if Russia will get involved to assist Iran or just sit on the sidelines and whine and wimper about American aggression and violations of international law?

Others saw Donald Trump as a Dr. Strangelove when he was running for president but I thought that was ridiculous since I saw Trump as more of a showman and entertainer but I now see that they were right and I was wrong.

Rich , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 7:35 pm GMT
@ivegotrythm I'm a Chrisrened and Confirmed Catholic and if those $99 DNA tests are accurate, I have no ashkenazi or semitic ancestors. Just Europeans and Neanderthals in my family line. Not sure what I've written that seems to trigger everyone into thinking I'm Jewish.

I will admit that growing up I did date a couple of secular Jewish gals and I did have a few Jews among my childhood friends. That being said, I also have secular Muslim associates who are decent enough people. I try to see things as clearly as I can and also from a patriotic American point of view. Guess that offends many here who only want to live in an echo chamber where everyone has the same opinions.

renfro , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 7:42 pm GMT
@Castellio You found it ..good work!
A123 , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 7:57 pm GMT
@Iris ROTFL

The fact that you respond with insults strengthens my case. I have obviously presented facts that you cannot counter.

Thank you for your admission.

PEACE

Skeptikal , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 8:27 pm GMT
"For example, there are some rather credible rumors that the destruction of PanAm 103 over Scotland"

Wasn't it PamAm whose slogan was "Fly the friendly skies . . ."?

I have relatives who fly a lot. I hope the skies remain friendly for American civilians . . .

Katherine

Skeptikal , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 8:39 pm GMT
@Anthony Aaron What if Russia started to declassify documents and info they must have in their possession on 9/11?
That would *really* cause "dissension" in the US of A.

Also, what if Russia put some kind of screws on Israel?

With the two "countries'" (scare quos meant for the Jewish National State) long and somewhat troubled association, there must be something the Russkies can do to scare the Zionists.

Actually, any 9/11 info would probably do both tricks at once.

Skeptikal , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 8:49 pm GMT
@Biff By the same token if you criticize those who are currently attacking Trump via the impeachment charade you will be accused of being a "Trump supporter/lover/apologist/kissing Trump's sphincter (yes, this is at Moon of Alabama, no less!).

This is the "Trump gotcha" equivalent of the MSM labeling anyone who advances a hypothesis besides the "official" narrative of events such as Dallas or 9/11 a conspiracy theory.

Based Inquisitor , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 9:05 pm GMT
@Paul holland Yes, Iran's best move would be to take out Bibi himself or one of Trump's bosses in the US, like Adelson. If Bibi himself is hit, Israel can't hide behind Trump's skirt any longer but will have to take the war to Iran itself.
MLK , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 9:12 pm GMT
@A123

Trump's actions were proportionate and well considered. Instead of 'recapturing past glory', Khameni has another massive failure to his name. The weak leader is growing weaker as time goes by.

Well, making himself part of the plot against Trump by shooting his mouth off ("You can't do a damn thing about it.") must be deeply unsettling within the Iranian regime about his leadership.

I've long given the Iranians their resistance due but it's becoming clear they're overrated. The W Bush and Obama administrations were gifts to Iran. It's impossible to overstate how thoroughly they overplayed their hand with Obama on JCPOA.

The strike also impacts the thinking of Iranian military leaders. They now understand that if the Ayatollah orders an irrational & unwinnable escalation, they may suffer personal consequences.

We have two fairly recent related analogues -- when Turkey shot down the Russian fighter and that lame US-backed coup against Erdogan. In the first case, unsurprisingly because Putin knows what he's doing, Russia extracted geopolitical gains for itself in return for letting Erdogan climb out of the tree. In the latter, Obama acted pretty much like the 11 year old girl that he was throughout his figurehead terms. Trump is still having to deal with the problem, all because Obama wouldn't give up the CIA Islamist living in PA, an entirely reasonable demand to put a period on things.

No doubt, the Iranians have already been told we can do this the easy way or the hard way. Trump LOVES making deals, particularly when he has the counter-party by the shorthairs.

anastasia , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 9:19 pm GMT
They are calling a celebrated General of the Iranian Army a "terrorist". It's like calling George W. Patton a terrorist.

They say that he was planning an imminent attack on American diplomats and soldiers.

Just how stupid do they think we are?

anastasia , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 9:20 pm GMT
If Israel asked Trump to eat dog poo-poo, I wonder if he would do it, with or without his phobia about germs.
BeenThereDunnit , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 9:21 pm GMT
The Saker forgets to mention the way this event went down. Trump walked into a room at the Mar-a-Lago where he was met by a bunch of Neocons including Kuchner. They told him of Soleimani presenting a target of opportunity and Trump ok'ed the attack. This paints a picture of Trump having lost every bit of control that might still have been in his hands. He was visibly agitated when he went on TV. Probably he had begun to realize what he has gotten himself into. The US then doubled down by striking a second time. You have to pause your breath to take in what has happened. The US have officially killed government officials of a country where they have stationed troops and that officially is an ally of the US. The US have also officially killed officials of another country that were on an official, diplomatic visit to their ally. Lots of uses of the word "official" here. But what it basically means is that all damns have broken. Total chaos is now the order of the day. The US have resorted to naked violence in their dealings with the rest of the world. Nobody is safe who cannot hold the US at gunpoint. It's the Wild West with nuclear weapons. It was true before but now the US have begun acting on it completely overtly. And the US congress is in the process of passing a bill that declares Russia a supporter of terrorism. You have to wonder what will happen once this bill has passed and some high-ranking Russian official makes his next visit to Kaliningrad via plane across the Baltic Sea.
Beefcake the Mighty , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 9:23 pm GMT
@Rich So you're just a cuck, then?
Gleimhart Mantooso , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 9:35 pm GMT
@Kratoklastes I put as much stock in your "expertise" as I do in that of all the other military geniuses on the internet, which is to say, none at all.
Gleimhart Mantooso , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 9:37 pm GMT
@Passer by I don't click on links that are substituted for comment.
Gleimhart Mantooso , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 9:39 pm GMT
@annamaria You're telling things I already know. I don't know what in my post would have lead you to believe I need your dissertation.
Rich , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 9:52 pm GMT
@RadicalCenter It is, of course, reasonable to wish to avoid another foreign adventure in a distant land. I'm of two minds on the prospect. On the one hand, I agree that the US should turn its back on the Middle East, let them settle their own differences. On the other hand, there is a legitimate argument that the day the US backs down from these foreign entanglements, we lose the dollar as the world's reserve currency and this results in extreme economic hardship in the US (as well as much of the rest of the world).

In the meantime, both major parties support our foreign entanglements, both firmly support Israel and no one who is anti-Israel or anti-MIC is anywhere close to being elected to any high office in the country. So, observing from that angle, the argument for withdrawal has no chance of winning, and the argument for preventing the expansion of a loudly anti-US country from increasing its influence is not without merit. If we're going to be there anyway, we might as well keep winning.

As far as the opinion that the US is acting at the behest of Israel, I think it's more a case of sharing mutual interests at this time. Jews are a very rich and powerful ethnic group in this country, and will continue to be for quite some time. Their support for Israel is not unlike the old Anglos who twice dragged America into unnecessary wars against Germany for the benefit of merry old England. I'd rather all Americans were more concerned with the future and security of the US, but that's not the way it is.

Desert Fox , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 10:03 pm GMT
@anastasia He would eat it and say it was the most beautiful piece of dog crap ever.
Gleimhart Mantooso , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 10:43 pm GMT
@anastasia That "celebrated" worthless general is only celebrated by inbred muslims.
Christine , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 10:47 pm GMT
What about the role Turkey might/will play? So far, it looks like a rather unprincipled loose cannon out for itself and therefore manipulable.
Based Inquisitor , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 10:49 pm GMT
@anonymous The US would not need hypersonic weapons when it has hundreds of armed drones constantly prowling the skies over Iraq.
Gleimhart Mantooso , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 10:52 pm GMT
@lauris71 Yay -- another military expert!
Rich , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 11:14 pm GMT
@Beefcake the Mighty Because I dated a Jewish girl ? I don't think you know what a cuck is. Ask that fellow who picks up your wife in the evening, then brings her home in the morning to explain the meaning of the word.
bruce county , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 11:22 pm GMT
@Passer by Two hundred and fifty million dollar exercise??? Wow and they got smoked in ten miunutes. Very telling. Suicide bombers in zodiacs crazy to think of that..

Thanks for that.
I want to see the one where the Toronto Maple Leafs win a Stanley Cup .My team and maybe our year.

Harbinger , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 11:54 pm GMT
@Z-man Yup.
Here's the insanity of it all. Here in Scotland and I presume the rest of the UK, there are certain branches of Christianity who go out at the weekend, going around bars, giving leaflets on Jesus and engaging in conversation with homosexuals. I've had a few debates with them, but they just make me laugh. I know their bible better than them. Last time I asked them "ever heard of the Talmud?" They looked at me goggle eyed. I told them, specifically what it stated about their Jesus and Mary and they said I was lying. They stated that Jews would never do such things.

This is what we're dealing with. We're dealing with an utterly ignorant Christian following who truly do believe the crap about Jews, because they're utterly indoctrinated. The biggest problem isn't so much Judaism, it's the morons who wilfully follow the Jews, as God's chosen, believing they do no wrong. Utterly and completely indoctrinated fools.

annamaria , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 12:03 am GMT
@Gleimhart Mantooso Qassem Soleimani was indeed a celebrated Iranian general. He was known as an honorable man and talented military commander.
As for 'Gleimhart Mantooso' -- never heard of her.
SeekerofthePresence , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 12:06 am GMT
@BeenThereDunnit Important point. Trump now threatens to hit 52 major Iranian sites if there is any retaliation for the Soleimani assassination. The Russians will observe this precipitous escalation and factor it into the next standoff between Russian and American forces. Russia will have to assume that 'Murka will escalate massively, and will therefore be on a hair-trigger for the use of nuclear weapons. Massive escalation is now the order of the day, and presages nuclear war.
Anonymous [406] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 12:11 am GMT
@The Saker

If Trump is the Neocon's/Israeli's "disposable President", and their goals require him out of the way, "at which point the Neocons will jettison him and replace him by an even more subservient individual (say Pence or Pelosi)"

Scary thought: The neocons/Israel/DeepState/MIC/media have been going all out to either control and/or get rid of Trump through Russiagate and now impeachment. Having succeeded in getting Trump to commit this huge mistake, could they now decide it's worth going further than just impeachment to get rid of him, in order to create a horrible false flag to pin on Iran, get Pence/Pelosi into power, and have the US destroy Iran for Israel with media-orchestrated US public support?

Really wish Trump had had the sense to say no to this when they presented their murderous plan to him.

hotrod31 , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 12:20 am GMT
@Rich Rich: You imply that "Their dead general was a member of the military and a legitimate target." How on earth could any s-a-n-e person arrive at your conclusion? Are you nucking futs??
This twisted thinking would imply that any member of a sovereign country's military, while visiting another country on a peace mission, from your perspective, is a 'legitimate target'? With people like you, it is little wonder that the world ends up with imbeciles like Trump.
Well help me doG
The Scalpel , says: Website Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 12:24 am GMT
@Rurik First comes the vote to expel the US forces, then when they don't leave, the constant pinprick attacks and , if available, taking out a high value US target and it all gets blamed on Iraq irregular forces
nickels , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 12:49 am GMT
Rethinking Trump as the antichrist.
I just always he would be smarter, more smooth.
Not just such a bombastic low iq idiot New Yorker
NoseytheDuke , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 1:07 am GMT
@Rich

I try to see things as clearly as I can and also from a patriotic American point of view.

Perhaps you should consider having your eyes and hearing checked by a specialist. Also, some additional education regarding the history of the United States of America starting with the Declaration of Independence would appear to be long overdue. (Hint: The clue is in the word independence and the efforts that patriots made to achieve it)

freedom-cat , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 1:14 am GMT

No less alarming is that this creates the absolutely perfect conditions for a false flag à la "USS Liberty". Right now, the Israelis have become at least as big a danger for US servicemen and facilities in the entire Middle-East as are the Iranians themselves. How? Simple! Fire a missile/torpedo/mine at any USN ship and blame Iran. We all know that if that happens the US political elites will do what they did the last time around: let US servicemen die and protect Israel at all costs (read up on the USS Liberty if you don't know about it)

I made a remark about the likelihood of a False Flag in another thread and was lumped in as "weak-minded" and "know-it-all Unz-ite". LOL. ( https://www.unz.com/estriker/the-line-in-the-sand/ ). My comment on how Trump is stupid and a great scapegoat was also targeted because the person said Trump is "playing a charade" and is all deep state. Well, I don't think so at all. Trump is a walking Ego stick and an excellent scapegoat if anything goes wrong.

But seriously, how can anyone not see the immense gravity of the situation? My god, they murdered a General, which is next to killing a President. This is a clear provocation and I agree 100% with the possibilities that Saker brings up.

I'll take it further as well. There could be a nuke used against Iran in the event a False Flag of massive proportions directed at civilians gets people onboard for a fight. They don't want to get bogged down in a long war with Iran. My guess is Israel wants them out of the picture for a long time or for good.

NoseytheDuke , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 1:17 am GMT
@Gleimhart Mantooso Well, annamaria is a much respected commenter here who often adds better information to those comments lacking much of anything substantial, such as your own. Consider it a favour to you and bear in mind also that a great many people read the comments without commenting themselves so they too are the beneficiaries of her well researched contributions. Have a nice day.
Alternate History , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 1:19 am GMT
All the options presented by Saker are viable and desirable. They don't even have to be limited to either/or. The political option of hitting exclusively IsraHell with salvos of missiles would be another option. Israel is, after all, the culprit behind the scenes.
Alternate History , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 1:25 am GMT
@Rich You are a brainwashed American. I'm sorry for the redundancy.
freedom-cat , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 1:34 am GMT
@Rich Imagine Iran taking out Amikam Norkin, the Commander of Israeli Air Force!! And maybe doing a Two-fer and get Bibi on the side.
Smith , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 1:46 am GMT
Member when Iran said they will level Israel in 30 minutes if US strikes Iran?

I wish a nigger would.

Z-man , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 2:08 am GMT
@Harbinger

Last time I asked them "ever heard of the Talmud?" They looked at me goggle eyed.

I too was ignorant of it until my later years.
An anecdotal story: Years ago at my 'office' Christmas party the one Jew in our group shared, with his goy coworkers , that he was struggling with The Talmud . You see he was a very secular ok kind of guy who liked to hang out with the 'un-chosen'. But he was now married to a very 'orthodox' woman and he had to learn about the Talmud. He confessed that the 'manual' was not too kind to gentiles. He was at a crossroad. I noticed the struggle he was going thru. I believe he stayed with his wife, I haven't seen him in years.
Thanks to him I became even more 'woke' to the truths of Judaism.

Kratoklastes , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 2:28 am GMT
@Commentator Mike

As if Afghanistan isn't inhospitable mountainous terrain? So somehow Iran's topography is worse is it? They invaded Afghanistan without even controlling any neighbouring countries.

Have you looked at where KOP is? By 2007 that was still a 'forward base'. It's only 100 miles from Kabul.

Also, while the US didn't explicitly 'control' Uzbekistan (which is where the initial force staged), Karimov was a US ally and there is no love lost between the Uzbeks and the Pashto.

Today, the US controls only those parts of Afghanistan that the Taliban haven't decided to take back yet. It's not clear why you would consider US strategy in Afghanistan as a good example – it's now widely-known to have been so bad that it required 17 years of official bullshit to cover its failure.

.

You've also missed about fifty key points of difference between Afghanistan and Iran.

The ones that most people don't need reminding about include –

① Afghanistan had no organised military to speak of;

② it had absolutely no air defence capabilities and limited airspace monitoring;

③ its disorganised military was having a hard time with Dostum, Massoud and Hekmatyar;

④ the initial US insertion was about 6 SAD guys whose main role was to meet up with the Northern Alliance; they, and the rest of TF Dagger arrived by helo from K-K in Uzbekistan (the US had always supported Karimov) – the TF Dagger insertion is now the record for the longest helo insertion in military history ;

⑤ Kandahar and Kabul had already fallen before FOB Rhino was established – in other words, the Northern Alliance plus US air power had done the job before ISAF even got its shit unpacked;

⑥ Notwithstanding the unseating of the Taliban, The US lost . They knew in 2001 that they were losing, and lied about it for 17 years.

On ⑥: when you're a superpower, if you fail to impose your Imperial Will on the place that is a LOSS .

.

Ordinarily, in these sort of situations it's left as an exercise to work out which of those points are critical in the new game (where the US tries to do the same thing in Iran).

But since most people are imbeciles, I'll put a thumb on the scales.

More below the fold. Read it or don't, but if you think of some counter-argument it's best to assume I've already thought of it, coz I'm good at this. (The folks at JWAC probably don't know my name any more, because the Yanks our crew helped train in the 90s have moved on since then).

[MORE]

In the case of Iran:

Re ①: Iran has a well-equipped professional military with an excellent senior staff. (That said: Afghanistan didn't have much by way of formal military, but it did have millions of people with battlefield experience against a technologically superior enemy about half of whom were on the Taliban side).

Re ⑤: Ain't gonna happen because ④ can't happen.

④ is made orders of magnitude harder by !{②,③} (! is the 'NOT' operator, indicating that {} is untrue in the Iranian case).

Dealing with !③ first: there is no domestic insurgency worth talking to in Iran – certainly not one that is remotely analogous to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan in 2001, which was basically a full-fledged opponent in a civil war (which the NA won, with the aid of US air power). Whoever crosses the threshold cannot rely on divided attention of the Iranian military.

OK, now !②. More convoluted – requires more space.

Insertion of the whole force by rotor is really hard if the adversary has any significant air defences. (At the time that the US invaded Afghanistan, the Taliban couldn't even rely on regularly-updated satellite imagery to detect movements in US naval assets: now you can do that from your phone, and if you're a government you have drones).

With a sophisticated enemy it's so hard to insert large numbers of boots by rotor, that it can be ruled out.

So if you want to get boots on the ground without everyone having to traverse a mountain range (exposing flanks and supply lines), you a need to get reliable control over a big lump of land that has an airport on it capable of landing troop transports (or being converted to same).

(The passel of land has to be on the 'enemy' side of the mountains – I put that in because some readers went to US schools and geography is not a strong point.)

Controlling an air base would require a battalion on the ground on the bad-guy side of the hills. You sure as fuck don't want to fight your way over the hills and then try to control an airbase.

Trying to get a battalion-sized presence in by rotorcraft would mean using MH-47s, which are slow and ( ahem ) not very stealthy (actually, they're very not stealthy) and the US would require more than a battalion on the ground.

Airdrop? Same problem: if the incoming aircraft is detected, you know everything about manpower disposition (troop size and position) before the men hit the ground.

Iran has the capability to see airborne things coming; it also has a range of solutions to make airborne things lose their airborne-ness.

For mobile overwatch, Iran has AWACS – 3 old Orions and some retroftted An-140s for maritime, and a bunch of unarmed drones (they've been cranking out UAVs as fast as possible). They also have JY-14 medium-long range radar, which is handy because their range means that they can be lit up earlier than short-range AA radar.

And if you don't think that they have an intel-sharing arrangement with Russia, you're not thinking hard enough.

As far as making flying things stop flying, they have a fuckton of SAMs. A genuine fuckton – especially relative to what the US has faced in any engagement since Korea.

They have a similar fuckton of MANPADs: even primitive RPGs are bad news for helos, and MANPADs are much more worser think of how badly " Hind vs Stinger " played out in the 80s, and you are on roughly the right page

They also have a little over 1500 AA batteries (most of those will be dead on first contact, but they're still a nuisance).

The Iranian Air Force itself – forget it, it's irrelevant.

The first sign things are kicking off will be a bunch of TLAMs fucking up every airbase in Iran. (Plus the obligatory US/NATO SOP war crime of targeting civilian infrastructure for electricity generation, water treatment, sewage treatment, and telecommunications)

This is why Iran has fuck-all air-superiority assets: and a little over a hundred 1980s-level offensive aircraft (about 150 of them: F14; Fulcrum; Su22, 24 and 25).

They learned from the experience of Iraq's Air Force in 1991: it was much much larger than Iran's is now, but a shitload of it was destroyed on the ground due to the regime's appalling lack of preparedness.

So from all that

⑥ is a foregone conclusion.

Some things that play no part in the conclusion:
ⓐ that I despise US* hypocritical bromides about freedom and 'democracy';
ⓑ that the US military is a bloated set of boondoggles run by grifters,with the mindset of a 20-something NPC who just watched '300';
ⓒ that the US has had its arse kicked by several sets of raggedy-ass peasants from 1968 onwards and has underperformed in every peer engagement since 1789. (inb4 WWI and WWII they were on the winning side , but others – e.g., the Soviets – did the actual winning )

.

" Topography matters " doesn't mean that topography is all that matters. The gap between combatants has to be extremely wide in order for technology and manpower to overcome terrain.

In fact it's hard to know how wide the gap needs to be fortech/power to win, because all of the 'invade without properly considering terrain disadvantages " has resulted in strategic losses for the superior force at all times since WWII.

We can say that the gap has to be wider than " Viet Cong vs US " or " Mujahedin vs USSR " or USC/SNA vs US/UNOSOM " or " Taliban vs US/ISAF ".

.

People who are interested in how shit works in modern warfare need to read William Lind, or John Robb or Arreguín-Toft.

Start with the short-ish paper (which is now a book):

Arreguín-Toft (2001) " How the Weak Win Wars: A Theory of Asymmetric Conflict " International Security , Vol. 26, No. 1 (Summer 2001), pp. 93–128

SeekerofthePresence , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 2:47 am GMT
What a US-Iran War Might Look Like

Skeptikal , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 2:50 am GMT
@Gleimhart Mantooso that should be
"would have LED you to believe . . ."

present tense: lead
past tense: led
present perfect: has led

Skeptikal , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 2:59 am GMT
@Anonymous I wonder whether, as you suggest, Trump hasn't just walked into a trap.
And has just figured out that this time, he's the patsy.

If such is the case, his best option might be to address the American people directly as to what has gone down with this murder and sack Pompeo and Kushner. (Turn the former over to Iran???? Just kidding . . . but depriving him of security would accomplish the same thing.)

The problem is that the vipers are within his own family: Ivanka and Jared Kushner. Stupidest thing he could have done, having those two on his "diplomatic" and "advisory" staff.

Is Trump being hung out to dry?

Beefcake the Mighty , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 3:13 am GMT
@Rich No, because you're shamelessly whoring for Jewish interests. Thanks for confirming.
By-tor , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 3:34 am GMT
@Gleimhart Mantooso Are they treated as Julian Assange is in the UK or as Maria Butina was for a year-and-a-half in a US jail forced to plead guilty for something she was not guilty of in the first place? Or as Manning is being held in solitary confinement because he will not lie for a get-out-of-jail card? Are the Koreans subjected to execution by black murderers while in their cells? Let us know when you have some evidence.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/inmates-escape-mississippi-penitentiary-amid-statewide-lockdown-prisoner/story?id=68069105&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fzen.yandex.com&dbr=1

Anonymous [375] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 3:52 am GMT
@the grand wazoo Also, there is a large faction within the Democratic party who will never go to war for Israel, because they simply don't like Jews. They may be fooled into hating Russia because they are white, but they'll side with an underdog Iran over a belligerent Israel every time.

If the Democrats get control, they will effectively control the USA indefinitely, because they seem perfectly happy to import all the Democratic voters they'll require to remain in power

The window for Jews to utilize the American state as their wrecking ball are limited. Trump might be the best chance they will ever get. America is on such shaky footing on so many levels, they may implode domestically before they can the job done.

Z-man , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 5:05 am GMT
@Kratoklastes

So I would guess that the appropriate tit-for-tat splash would be LtGen Scott Berrier (G2 – Intel).
Everyone's heard of that guy, right?

No I didn't know him but now we all do. Ok that would be tit for tat, but I would still go for a 4 Star. (Grin)

Plus, if they splashed Pompous, the resulting fatberg would burn for longer than the Springfield tyre fire. Nobody wants that.

LOL!!!
He is the most dispicable NEOCON stooge out there, even worse than 'Linda' Graham. Christian Zionists, the personification of OXY MORON .
Ok, not Plump'eo but we gotta give the Iranians one real Neo-cohen, to scare the be-Jesus out of them (the Jooz that is). (Grin)

animalogic , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 7:21 am GMT
@Desert Fox "Israel and the ZUS want a nuclear war with Russia "
A few years ago I would have LOL 'd at such a proposition. Today, I scratch my head.
Is the US so completely insane as to attack a peer or (indeed) stronger nuclear power such as Russia?
I don't think so but .
animalogic , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 7:59 am GMT
@UninformedButCurious Is Trump "disposable" ? Maybe. But unlikely.
Given that Tel Aviv is in charge (a synonym for "neocon") , & Trump has virtually tripped over his own tongue in his haste to lick their boots (& other bodily parts) it wouldn't appear that Trump has yet lost his value.
And in a more domestic sense -- Pence ! OMG, is there a political leader with less charisma? Pence makes Corbyn look like Ronald Reagan.(People greatly under rate charisma & other subjective leadership qualities)
So dumping Trump would have severe political repercussions.
animalogic , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 8:38 am GMT
@John Chuckman Iran will "carefully plan a response, and that response may not be clear and unambiguous, and it might be multi-faceted and done over time."
Agreed.
Hopefully Iran will respond largely through proxies. And also concentrate on non-military responses.
IE, putting maximum pressure on Iraq's parliament to force all US forces out of Iraq -- difficult, but that would be a huge win. Of course, they'll still get the blame -- but should a cat in Patagonia die in suspicious circumstances Iran would get the blame for that too .
As for any nuclear response by Iran, that truly would be "acting foolishly". Anything along nuclear lines would be a perfect provocative to Israel /the US.
Sean , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 8:55 am GMT
@Kratoklastes I think the Iranian leadership and populace would be more convinced of the effectiveness of the Iranian military if Soleimani had managed to keep himself alive.
BeenThereDunnit , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 9:13 am GMT
@SeekerofthePresence Not only that, he has even stated that among them are sites of great cultural importance. Do they want to attack mosques? Some of those Iranian mosques are not only holy sites as such, they are marvels of architecture. Attacking them would be a crime against the heritage of all mankind. That would be truly mad but we will see, sadly. It would enrage Muslims to a degree not seen in living memory. They might "just" attack sites commemorating the fallen of the war against Iraq. That would be nearly as bad.

Anyways, refraining from any more threats, as Trump has demanded, is a near impossibility. What is a threat and what not? Are red flags of revenge on display in Iran already a threat? The probability of war has to reckoned at near 100% now.

The Iranians should disperse their assets urgently. Nuclear assets that can be dispersed have to be at the top of the list. They should actually try to avoid making any more threats for now. Trump has conveniently laid out his strategy to them, allowing them to have the war started by the Americans at a point of time of their choosing. After a period of restraint, they should gradually start making slight threats again, placing the ball in the American court. The dust will have settled somewhat by then, world opinion will have realized how criminally the US have behaved by killing Iraqi and Iranian officials. The later the war starts, the better for the Iranians. That explains why the US are escalating so heavily right now.

If Iran really got hold of some Ukrainian nuclear warheads back when the Soviet Union dissolved, then the time for testing one of them would be now.

The big question has to be how China and Russia position themselves. The Americans and Israelis seem to think that Putin and Xi are weak enough internally to allow them to go through with it all. The true battlefield will be Russian and and Chinese public opinion. If Putin and Xi can convince their peoples that Iran has to be supported, then the equation would shift. They should at least start making weapon deliveries. Russia could even claim that it has to protect the nuclear site in Busher where Russians work, deploying S-400s manned by its own personnel. China could claim that war in the Persian Gulf would be too much of a threat to its economy. Both claims would be true.

anonymous [217] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 9:24 am GMT
@anonymous

Perhaps they'll be able to gin up some popular riots and demonstrations throughout the Muslim world.

That should be the best strategy for Iran to invoke the common heritage of the true monotheist faith we share, of which there is much.

On a personal level, even if I have reservations about Shi'sm, and what I see as clear deviancy, I, and I am sure many other true monotheist brothers, are still on the side of Iran, because my suspicion of Shi'sm is far less than my visceral hatred for Whitey/Joonist Imperialism. May the Almighty One's wrath befall the satanically evil pagan/godless Whitey/Joonist Imperialists, those avowed enemies of True Monotheism.

Iran should find ways to communicate with the Arab street directly using Whitey/Zionist Imperialist tools like Twitter and Facebook, as long as it will be allowed. The irony is not lost on me.

anonymous [217] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 9:50 am GMT
@Rich I don't know much about Soleimani, except for the bile spewed by western imperialist stooges in the fake media.

But, I know there has got to be some good and honourable in a person who fights satanic evil of Whitey & Joonist Imperialism.

May the Almighty One forgive his sins and grant him the rewards of a true monotheist martyr.

Priss Factor , says: Website Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 10:49 am GMT
@anonymous Long Live Iran. Death to America.
Priss Factor , says: Website Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 10:52 am GMT
@Anonymous

Also, there is a large faction within the Democratic party who will never go to war for Israel, because they simply don't like Jews.

They don't get to decide. The uppermost elites do. Lower-level Democrats are just rubber-stampers. They may not like Israel but must still serve it. Jewish Money and Media compel them to.

Tsar Nicholas , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 11:50 am GMT
@Nicolás Palacios Navarro

I believe a not insignificant amount -- perhaps even the majority -- of pro-war Americans know this to be true: That they and their progeny are mere cannon fodder for Zionist imperialism. But they simply don't care or are even proud of dying for so "worthy" a cause. Never underestimate the persistent and deeply-rooted hysterical adulation that Israel commands -- nor the utter foolishness of your average American.

This is so true. American Protestant Christianity – Evangelicalism in particular – has been warped and modified by Zionism. Whereas for 1800 years Christians believed and preached that God took on human form and that Jesus died for the sins of all humanity, the belief now seems to be that God is a real estate agent. I think that even if Evangelicals were to find out that the Talmud teaches that in the Millennium every Jew is to have 2,800 goyim as slaves, they would accept it.

Tsar Nicholas , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 12:01 pm GMT
@A123 Of course, the paid Iranian shills posting here will decry this simple and obvious truth. Fortunately, no one believes them.

I was out of work for forty seven years (due to my issues with women, and my extreme myopia, not to mention my body odour). So I was really happy to be offered a job as a cyber warrior by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Command under their blessed leader General Qasem Soleimani at what I thought was a really good rate of pay.

Imagine my disillusion when I discovered how few pounds I could get for my Rials, thanks to the continuing US economic sanctions. So, with a heavy heart I realised that I had no alternative other than to go to work for Mossad to finance my sex offending.

EoinW , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 1:23 pm GMT
People need to realize that the dynamic has changed completely. For Iran, patience is no longer an option. Israel/USA will continue to attack. Seriously, look at Trump's 52 target tweet. It sounds like the ranting of Hitler during his last days in the bunker. Not fighting back is the worst thing Iran can now do.

Regarding the court of public opinion: Iran had the sympathy of the majority of people in the world long before the new year. It counts for nothing when it comes to avoiding war. All that matters is the western media and the brainwashed western public. Iran can never win that PR fight. In fact, if you polled Americans and gave them the option of ending the Iran problem by nuking them that the majority would support this action. A large number of Canadians would also support this. More importantly, after such a nuclear attack and 80 million dead Iranians the main thing westerners will care about is getting back to business as usual. America will resort to a nuclear attack because it believes it can get away with it. What does Iran have to lose?

I hope the following happens Monday:

1) the Houthis strike and shut down all Saudi oil production.

2) a cyber attack in the USA. Maybe take down the power grid. We know how much Americans love war when they can sit in front of their tv and cheer on the US military. How much will they love it, or the people who brought them this war, when they're stuck in their unheated homes in the middle of January?

I also hope they are seriously considering the following:

3) hitting every US military target in the region that could be used to bomb Iran.

4) Hizbollah and Syria launching attacks against Israel. The Israeli's are the real provocateurs. If they pay no price they will continue to push for further aggression.

No matter what is done by Iran or its allies the retaliation by the US will be greater than what we've seen so far. Even if nothing is done Israel/USA will create another incident for an excuse to attack again. The war has started. One sure way for Iran to lose it is to not participate.

KindKaiser , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 1:49 pm GMT
@Rich World War I – fought on behalf of ZIONISTS who influenced Jews in Woodrow Wilson's cabinet (the "brain trust", and a certain Jewish man, STEPHEN WISE, known as the 'Red Rabbi' for his affinity for Communism!). This deal was in exchange for Britain giving Palestine to the Zionist Jews (even though it wasn't even Britain's to give at the time)! Surely you have heard of the BALFOUR DECLARATION, right? Quit spinning this disingenuous pseudo-history!

World War II – Franklin Delano Roosevelt's cabinet was ALSO chock-full of Zionists, and a certain Jewish man, now in his older years but still very influential, STEPHEN WISE yet again, was also one of his closest advisors. And Churchill, who ALSO was bought and paid for by Zionist interests, was in on this as well read Pat Buchanan's "Hitler, Churchill, and the Unnecessary War" for a pretty mainstream take on this subject. But basically World War II was ALSO fought for Zionists, and what was the result?

Britain: LOST THEIR EMPIRE
Zionists: CREATED THE COLONIALIST SETTLER STATE OF ISRAEL BY EVICTING PALESTINIANS THROUGH TERRORIST GROUPS LIKE THE IRGUN

So WHO was that really done on behalf of???
You lot really need to quit spinning this nonsense here; it's just not going to work with anyone who's educated and intelligent enough to research for themselves and it makes you and your cause look very foolish.

KindKaiser , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 1:57 pm GMT
@Rich Why don't you go to Iran and tell the millions mourning in the streets there for this man who symbolised the resistance to the evil Zionist World Order how 'wrong' they are
Or are all of them just horribly misguided and confused? Or maybe they're just 'evil' people who ought to be destroyed? And we need to 'bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran'? How convenient!

For the record, some of those mourning Soleimani's death the most are the ethnic Christian communities whom he so bravely defended from ISIS (who we now know were supported by Israel and the 'rebel' forces that Zionists in the West helped fund). But I am guessing your kind doesn't support the continued existence of some of the oldest Christian communities in existence that are in the Middle East, because you probably cheered when their homes got bulldozed by the Zionists in the Naqba–many of them still have the keys to their houses, by the way.

KindKaiser , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 1:59 pm GMT
@Gleimhart Mantooso I'm not a Muslim, nor am I inbred.
I honour Soleimani's sacrifice because he was one of the foremost defenders of Christians from ISIS, and the ancient Christian communities in the Middle East are some of those grieving his murder the most. Do you not care about them, or are you just that ignorant?
Hong Kong Hibernian , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 2:21 pm GMT
@anonymous "That should be the best strategy for Iran to invoke the common heritage of the true monotheist faith we share, of which there is much."

Yes! yes! This is the best strategem for the true monotheist brothers: invoke common heritage.

repeat it to yourself true brother: common heritage. common heritage. common heritage.

BTW, Iran can always use the cool new encrypted chat app. Do you know it? Islamachat. Very cool app.

There's only one problem my true monotheist brother allah used up 99 usernames as soon as he signed up.

But, you know, what can we do?

Momus , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 2:30 pm GMT
@Rich Spot on.

The Iranians have no good options.

If they attack US assets and kill personnel by missiling a base or sinking a warship Donny will destroy their nuclear program.

If they or their Hezbollah proxies missile Tel Aviv the Israelis will nuke them.

Momus , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 2:37 pm GMT
@animalogic Part of Trump's plan is to rid Iraq of it's Iranian influence. It will be the Iranians ejected not the US.

He has eliminated Soleimani, the leader of Iran's Iraqi proxy forces and killed, arrested or forced into hiding many other pro Iranian urgers.

The riots in the south of the country are largely about removing Iranian influence and the artificial Sunni/Shia sectarian differences. Expect this social movement to be energised in a pro US way.

Momus , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 2:43 pm GMT
@Alternate History What would hitting Israel with missile salvos achieve? Getting strategically nuked and your atomic program eliminated?
Quartermaster , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 3:58 pm GMT
More uninformed stupidity by Saker.

There will be no all out war in the middle east. No one in the ME is any position to deal in such a fashion with the US and it would be suicidal to try. Dear leader in Iran has only bad choices and even using proxies, he places his entire regime on a chopping block. Those 52 targets were selected in a way that Iran's economy will be crushed quickly.

So let the Imams go ahead and try to get their blood revenge. They are only digging their own graves.

By the by, Soleimani was not murdered. He was a terrorist leader and got what he had coming to him.

Commentator Mike , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 4:34 pm GMT
@Quartermaster No, it's not up to Iran if there will be a war, it is up to USA, and it wants the war, and there is nothing Iran can do to prevent it except make the yanks and their stooges in the region pay the biggest price possible given their own resources and resourcefulness. Did you people forget Iraq? After sanctions and years of the USAF bombing targets to enforce those "no fly" zones, one set up in the south specifically to protect the Shiites they're now turning on, they still went all out and invaded Iraq without Saddam having done anything to provoke them, and in fact being most cooperative and even allowing inspectors into the country to confirm that he had no WMDs. Unless of course you think Saddam brought down WTC on 911.
Jim Christian , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 5:02 pm GMT
Hey Saker!? You in touch with Andrei Martyanov to get a take? He's big on capabilities, be curious to hear his opinion on all this foolishness..
Rich , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 5:16 pm GMT
@Beefcake the Mighty You're supporting the policies of Nadler, Schiff and Schumer but I'm the cuck? Yeah right.
SeekerofthePresence , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 5:21 pm GMT
@BeenThereDunnit Persia, Russia, and China all have a gift for long-term survival (though Russia and China are capable of immediate and devastating action). As PCR has suggested, Russia will likely counsel Iran to bide it's time; why attack a dinosaur already frothing at the mouth and collapsing under its own weight?

And as you mention, there is much preparation Iran can do now. The battlespace has changed: Neocon Crazies (Pence, Pompeo) are now making command decisions (the Soleimani hit, decision on 52 major follow-up strikes) at the Pentagon.

Therefore Iran must be doubly cautious before moving. As Sun Tzu would say: If a stronger enemy goads you to fight, then hold back and wait for the proper moment. Never do what the enemy wants or expects.

Harbinger , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 5:22 pm GMT
@Z-man I found out about the talmud around 12 years ago now. I have to say I was shocked with what it stated within, but that was also because I was Jew ignorant. This opened up the door to Judaism and what it was all about.
I'm not religious. I do believe there was a man named Christ, a revolutionary and I struggle with the 'son of God' concept. The jury is out on that. However what annoyed me was the fact that this was the major teaching within Judaism and no one had ever heard about it. Were there anything remotely similar to this, about Jews or blacks, there'd be a public outcry and heads would roll, yet millions of Christians openly know about this and still support Judaism and see them as God's chosen. It just beggars belief.

"He confessed that the 'manual' was not too kind to gentiles."

There you go. From the very own horse's mouth. What more needs to be said? As stated, tell people to forget about the online talmuds. They've been conveniently changed to remove the 'bad parts' within. Jews doing what Jews do – deceive.

As for your former work colleague, who knows, he may end up becoming just like this former Jew.

turtle , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 5:52 pm GMT
@Kratoklastes I take it as axiomatic that the U.S. Military could not successfully occupy Iran, and is very well aware of that reality. Nor is there, as far as I can see, any overriding political reason to do so.
IMO, the primary objective of any U.S. attack on Iran would be:

To destroy Iran as a modern country, and foreclose, if possible, any chance Iran could become a modern country in the foreseeable future.

To that end, look for the destruction of civilian infrastructure and cultural monuments, as others here have postulated, and as was done in Iraq. The (unstated) aim would be to break the national will and destroy the cultural identity of the Iranian people, using the specious claim of "fighting terrorism."

Look for the Great Mosque of Isfahan:

to be high on the target list, along with the Iranian parliament building and countless other non-military objectives.

Is such an attack (by air power alone) likely to succeed?
A1. In the short term, yes.
A2. In the longer term, success is not guaranteed.
If experience in Europe, i.e. Germany, is any guide, I expect Iran could manage to rebuild itself in twenty years or so.

In the meantime, the U.S. will have completed its transformation to a full-on outlaw nation, having flagrantly violated the Nuremberg prohibition, which itself established, against "waging aggressive war," and become the groveling, depraved toady of a small, and otherwise insignificant, middle eastern "state" founded upon the theft of land and resources from the indigenous population by a thugocracy of European interlopers who claim some kind of "divine right of possession," or "land title from God," based on the assertion that some members of their tribe lived in that area thousands of years ago.

In short, the U.S is now the titular head of an Evil Empire.
Long live the Resistance.

Beefcake the Mighty , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 6:28 pm GMT
@Rich For amusement purposes, I'll ask: how am I supporting those guys?
Z-man , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 6:33 pm GMT
@Harbinger I too was uninformed of my Catholic religion and that's funny because I went to Catholic administered schools from grammar school to college. (Grin)

Were there anything remotely similar to this (The Talmud), about Jews or blacks, there'd be a public outcry and heads would roll, yet millions of Christians openly know about this and still support Judaism and see them as God's chosen. It just beggars belief.

Vatican II had a lot to do with this 'accepting' of Jews. Christian Zionists are the biggest culprits today.

forget about the online Talmuds. They've been conveniently changed to remove the 'bad parts' within. Jews doing what Jews do – deceive.

I'm sure.

I do believe there was a man named Christ, a revolutionary and I struggle with the 'son of God' concept.

You gotta have faith . See Brother Nathaniel, a converted Jew. A bit over the top when you first see him, on the net, but a man of faith and truth.

George , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 6:36 pm GMT
@Harbinger Alternative theory: Trump, like Nixon, is a genius.

Trump tweeted he wanted out of Syria. The military industrial complex said no. So Trump then said OK, I going to give the military industrial complex what it wants 'good and hard' to quote HL Mencken. This is kind of like how Nixon ended the US involvement in Vietnam, he forced to US military to confront North Vietnamese regular army and everybody, including the military industrial complex, involved objected to it, so the US had to leave.

Nixon takes all the fun out of being in the USAF:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Linebacker_II

Trump seems hell bent on getting the US tossed out of Iraq. Godspeed DJT.

Desert Fox , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 6:50 pm GMT
@Quartermaster Soleimani was fighting the terrorists who were created by the ZUS and Israel and Z-Britain and Z-NATO, these being AL CIADA aka ISIS aka ISIL aka Daesh etc..

The middle east wars were brought on by the joint attack on the WTC by Israel and the ZUS , to be blamed on the muslims , thus giving Israel and ZUS the excuse to destroy the middle east for the zionists greater Israel project.

Not Raul , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 7:05 pm GMT
@ivegotrythm Sure; but killing people slowly through pollution, radioactive or otherwise, generally hasn't started wars.

Nuclear fallout from the USA and Soviet Union has killed people in many countries over decades; but no country has gone to war over it.

Gleimhart Mantooso , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 7:11 pm GMT
@Assad al-islam Iranians are hardly shrewd. They ripped themselves a permanent asshole with us Americans in 1979 (and no, I don't need a lecture on the Shah, since that doesn't magically make their actions shrewd). And they have continued ever since by calling us "the great Satan" and chanting "death to America." They did themselves no favors by shooting down our drone a few months ago, and they were tempting fate last week when they arrogantly boasted "You (we Americans) can't do anything." It's like Michael Ledeen is their chief adviser. None of that is shrewd. It is damned foolish.

And yes, I know that American foreign policy is damned foolish, too (yet another thing I don't need anyone here to lecture me about). And I know that Israel is the major cause of Middle East problems. But acknowledging all that doesn't mean that Iran is a noble, virtuous, innocent party in the entire affair. So many people have the absurd mindset that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Muslims are ever bit as supremacist as Jews are. And as long as that remains the case, people are not going to be persuaded to pressure the American government to stop reading from the Neocon script. Venerating Iran and lionizing the dead general is going to be a deal breaker for a lot of people, and a big part of that dynamic is Iran's fault.

bluedog , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 8:09 pm GMT
@Not Raul Lol now I didn't know that Russia was hundreds,thousands of mile away from Iran,thank for the heads up those damnable Iranians have upped and moved their border again,tsk,tsk,tsk.!!!
bluedog , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 8:38 pm GMT
@Colin Wright One think you should know is that you can't talk sense to a fool,they resent it>!!!
bluedog , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 8:49 pm GMT
@Rich For Gods sake quit posting it only makes you out the fool.Now Iran elected a leader by means that we use ourselves the ballot box,now what's wrong we that? then the democratic elected president states that Iran's oil belongs to Iran and its people,you boys are out.

Now Churchill gets his undies in a twist whining but wait England's industry runs on CHEAP Iranian oil (25 cent a barrel oil),so he calls up the M15 tells them to join their partners in the C.I.A. and over throw that asshole who thinks that their oil belong to them,and as they say the rest is history,I trust its the real history not the revised history you spout,!!

Colin Wright , says: Website Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 8:54 pm GMT
'One think you should know is that you can't talk sense to a fool,they resent it!!!'

He's not necessarily a fool.

He's just attempting to defend the indefensible. That'll tend to make you sound foolish whether you are or not.

Rich , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 9:12 pm GMT
@Beefcake the Mighty They oppose the shooting of Soleimani, and so do you. If I'm a cuck because my support of killing terrorist Muslims also happens to be the same position as Bibi Netanyahu's , I guess following your logic, your support of the same position as the commie trio I named, makes you a cuck. In fact I guess you also kneel in front of AOC and that hijab wearing Ilhan Omar. Following your logic even further, you must be Al Sharpton's shoe shine boy and Maxine Waters wig washer, since they also opposed the shooting.

Or, could it be that we just have different viewpoints on an issue, and it's only a coincidence that some others share that opinion in this case? I don't check with the Israeli embassy before I make my mind up and I'm open to changing my mind if a convincing argument is made. Do you, since your opinion is exactly the same as theirs, check with the DNC before forming an opinion?

SeekerofthePresence , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 9:41 pm GMT
Epsteinistan murders the general,
Threatens we will pummel you with more strikes.
Pimps himself to glories ephemeral,
World domination the jackboot he licks.
Z-man , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 9:46 pm GMT
@George Lets hope you're right but the power of The Cabal is pervasive. (And perverse)
Passer by , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 10:58 pm GMT
@Quartermaster You are naive person. The US will have to fight the whole Shia world if it attacks Iran, including Iraq. You live in the past and never realised the decline of the US in the world. You were just kicked by Iraq. Legislation was accepted forcing the US to withdraw from Iraq and cease all kind of collaboration.

You can forget about US companies operating there too, China and Russia will move there instead. Its resources and arms market are lost to you. Americans are hated in the country and can't even leave the Embassy in safety.

We also learned today officialy from Iraq's Prime Minister Adil Abdul al Mahdi how Donald Trump uses diplomacy:

US asked Iraq to mediate with Iran. Iraq PM asks Qassem Soleimani to come and talk to him and give him the answer of his mediation, Trump &co assassinate an envoy at the airport.

No options for Iran? Let's hope "someone" doesn't provide manpads to the Taliban. You lost aganist them too, and soon will be kicked out from Afghanistan in humiliation.

Do you know who Muqtada Al Sadr is? The most influential person in Iraq, a country with huge oil and gas reserves and young combat ready population rising fast. The man who kicked the arse of the US occupation of Iraq. Muqtada Al Sadr demands the total removal of not only US troops, but the of US embassy and all US diplomats in Iraq as well. And an Axis Of Resistance against the US by all Shia groups all around the world.

This will cut off supply lines to your remnants in Syria and put the few US soldiers there under siege, hated by almost all sides. They won't make it in Syria for long.

Meanwhile, you managed to make the Turks hate you too. Just keep doing that.

Iran's FM said something interesting yeasterday: The end of Malign US Influence in West Asia has begun. The US will be gradually kicked out from the region.

The 2020s will be a time of great power transition where the rest of the world rises and the US declines, being kicked out from many places. You made a big mistake, making more and more enemies everywhere in the world.

Beefcake the Mighty , says: Show Comment January 6, 2020 at 12:10 am GMT
@Rich Wow. That was stupid even by your standards. Good job!
Scham , says: Show Comment January 6, 2020 at 12:28 am GMT
Iran, Russia and China should attacked the Achilles Hell of the US which is Gold. China should sell its US$1.2 Trillion of US Treasury bonds and keep buying Gold. That will send the Gold price soaring to US$10,000 an oz. Interest rates will spike and Wall St and the US$1.5 quadrillion Derivatives market will collapse, bankrupting all major US banks.
annamaria , says: Show Comment January 6, 2020 at 2:43 am GMT
@animalogic "Is the US so completely insane ?"

-- The visceral ethnic hatred of the real bosses and the fabled American incompetence of the profiteers-in–charge do not have a place for any rationality.

Smith , says: Show Comment January 6, 2020 at 2:50 am GMT
With the recent development. I must admit I'm a fool for having a slight hope for Trump NOT being a neocon jew shill. It's out in the open now.

Hats off to Iran, they have won without (directly) fighting, these people have read Sun Tzu. Complete master.

annamaria , says: Show Comment January 6, 2020 at 3:00 am GMT
@KindKaiser Poor "Rich," it is intolerable for a zionist to face the facts of Jewish "affinity" for bolshevism: https://www.unz.com/pub/jhr__the-jewish-role-in-the-bolshevik-revolution-and-russias-early-soviet-regime/

"Anyone who had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the Cheka," wrote Jewish historian Leonard Schapiro, "stood a very good chance of finding himself confronted with, and possibly shot by, a Jewish investigator."

In Ukraine, "Jews made up nearly 80 percent of the rank-and-file Cheka agents," reports W. Bruce Lincoln, an American professor of Russian history. Beginning as the Cheka, or Vecheka, the Soviet secret police was later known as the GPU, OGPU, NKVD, MVD and KGB. [Remember Holodomor in Ukraine? Add to the Kaganovich fame of mass murderer the fame of Nuland-Kagan, the collaborator with Ukrainian neo-nazi and promotor of the ongoing civil war in eastern Ukraine].

In light of all this, it should not be surprising that Yakov M. Yurovksy, the leader of the Bolshevik squad that carried out the murder of the Tsar and his family, was Jewish, as was Sverdlov, the Soviet chief who co-signed Lenin's execution order.

NoseytheDuke , says: Show Comment January 6, 2020 at 3:04 am GMT
@Rich Sadly, Ron Unz has been extremely negligent in omitting the inclusion of a MORON button. I really couldn't label you a TROLL as that would in fact be complimentary towards you.
annamaria , says: Show Comment January 6, 2020 at 3:08 am GMT
@Momus Tel Aviv is home to zionist cowards who hide behind the US skirt while parasitizing on the body of the US. Your attempt at presenting yourself as a brave warrior is ridiculous. After shooting the civilians (including children of all ages) on the occupied territories, Israelis have got a delusional idea of being the brave soldiers and military geniuses. Relax. Yours is an Epstein nation of Israel.
Skeptikal , says: Show Comment January 6, 2020 at 3:15 am GMT
@BeenThereDunnit "That explains why the US are escalating so heavily right now. "

The neocons probably want a spring war.
For themselves, and to do Bibi the most good.
Spring is the most convenient time for warmaking.
Nice weather.
If they are planning for this war, they are already well along in putting the logistics in place.
We are probably screwed.
I read somewhere fairly recently an analysis of why a spring war would "work" well for both the Dems and the Repugs. But I cannot recall the rationales.
So it seems like all sides are angling and wangling to move Trump in the direction of a spring attack on Iran.

As for ":Some of those Iranian mosques are not only holy sites as such, they are marvels of architecture. Attacking them would be a crime against the heritage of all mankind. That would be truly mad but we will see, sadly. It would enrage Muslims to a degree not seen in living memory."

It would make a LOT of people worldwide furious. Not just Muslims.
Bomb Isfahan? Shiraz? Tabriz? Our "leaders" are mad.

annamaria , says: Show Comment January 6, 2020 at 3:46 am GMT
@Quartermaster The gullible "Quartermaster" has sided with Nuland-Kagan and Banderites. Oops.

The gullible "Quartermaster" has sided with "white helmets." Oops.

The gullible "Quartermaster" has sided with Bibi. Ooops.

The gullible "Quartermaster" has been trusting wholeheartedly the presstitutes of MSM and even became the MSM's deputy on the Unz Forum to deliver the MSM lies. What's wrong with you?

Soleimani was extraordinarily effective when fighting the ISIS; hence the rabid hatred of Israelis and US war profiteers towards the honorable man.

Too many Oops on your part, gullible "Quartermaster"

Angel , says: Show Comment January 6, 2020 at 3:49 am GMT
@ Rich

Most Jew won't admit it but their god is Lucifer. Read about the "Hidden Tyranny" below:

https://archive.org/stream/TheHiddenTyranny-HaroldWallaceRosenthal/TheHiddenTyranny-HaroldWallaceRosenthal_djvu.txt

Hibernian , says: Show Comment January 6, 2020 at 3:58 am GMT
@Gleimhart Mantooso Saddam Hussein had to station the Republican Guard in the rear to shoot deserters.
old farta , says: Show Comment January 6, 2020 at 4:33 am GMT
If I thought that America was responsible for every dastardly dirty crime in the world, I would applaud the article. This article was written from the basis that America's involvement began with the death of a terrorist, where is the history propelling Trump to act?
old farta , says: Show Comment January 6, 2020 at 4:37 am GMT
I smell a coward writing this article. What action would the author have recommended following the death of a American contractor, send the killers more cash?
old farta , says: Show Comment January 6, 2020 at 4:41 am GMT
When Iran invaded the American embassy, did they not invade America? Are not embassies located of the soil of the occupying nation? Did any of the embassy employees attack Iran or it's citizens? Does an invasion constitute an act of war?
Smith , says: Show Comment January 6, 2020 at 4:44 am GMT
@old farta Trump doesn't even act.

Jews tell him to push a button and he did, he doesn't know who he has killed and he doesn't care because jews run the show.

old farta , says: Show Comment January 6, 2020 at 6:32 am GMT
@Smith Too say the "Jews" told him to do something without naming them is suspect. Support your argument with facts, like names, how communicated, when, and how you came by this info.
whattheduck , says: Show Comment January 6, 2020 at 6:35 am GMT
@animalogic The zionists hate Christians more than they hate any other religious group. If by launching a nuclear war, it is guaranteed that Christians will cease to exist, you can be sure they will start a nuclear war. It's not just me talking about, it's in their scriptures.

Zionists hate for Russia is purely because it's predominantly white and Christian nation.

BeenThereDunnit , says: Show Comment January 6, 2020 at 6:57 am GMT
@Skeptikal A spring war would give Iran plenty of time to prepare. It would also give Putin and Xi time to shore up public opinion and deploy assistance. The Russians could even send some of their super-quiet Diesel subs to the Gulf.

If this war goes through, Putin and Xi will come out very weak. Syria on a much grander scale but without Russia and China doing anything about it.

Momus , says: Show Comment January 6, 2020 at 7:51 am GMT
@annamaria Your point?
Mike G , says: Show Comment January 6, 2020 at 9:14 am GMT
It's all going to be a cakewalk, the Iranians will welcome the destruction of their country with open arms. The Iranians won't dare to confront the US or we'll just turn their country into glass. lol

What would Greta say? lol

Nero played his fiddle while Rome burned

Z-man , says: Show Comment January 6, 2020 at 1:30 pm GMT
@whattheduck Good but the Jews won't want complete destruction of the European races because then, no one will protect them. Ideally they'll destroy Christianity while having a polyglot atheist white race serving them.
As I've said many times before the Jew power structure hates Russia, and specifically Putin, because he re-established Orthodox Christianity to the Motherland which they tried to destroy in the communist revolution.

PS. When I started reading on these sites, years ago, I found it almost amusing when people attacked Vatican II. After all, I was indoctrinated as a youth that V-II was the best thing since sliced bread, 'the Church had to become modern .' Needles to say I've become a fan of the SSPX and beyond, like the good Bishop Williamson who said before he was excommunicated, "[T]he people who hold world-wide power today over politics and the media are people who want the godless New World Order, and" "they have fabricated a hugely false version of World War Two history to go with a complete fabricated religion to replace Christianity."

n44bbo , says: Show Comment January 6, 2020 at 1:55 pm GMT
@Rich " The Iranians could not defeat the ragtag forces of Saddam Hussein, but they can defeat the United States? Preposterous."

Actually, it is the other way around !
And .. Saddam, had the almighty USA behind him; so, I must assume that your initial paragraph and the entire comment, is pretty much a childish one.
By the way you articulated your comment, I wonder; what the heck are you reading these articles for, if you do not have neither the knowledge or the understanding of these geopolitical themes.
As a friendly advise, I would suggest, getting a hot water bottle, seat in your armchair and watch television.

Mike G , says: Show Comment January 6, 2020 at 2:35 pm GMT
Quartermaster Baiter is a funny guy

[Jan 06, 2020] Trump's Cartoon Imperialism and War Crimes by Daniel Larrison

Notable quotes:
"... Such a move could be considered a war crime under international laws, but Mr. Trump said Sunday that he was undeterred. ..."
Jan 06, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

he Iraqi parliament approved a measure that called for an end to the U.S. military presence in Iraq. The prime minister spoke in favor of a departure of U.S. forces, and it seems very likely that U.S. forces will be required to leave the country in the near future. The president's response to this was in keeping with his cartoon imperialist attitudes about other countries:

Trump threatens Iraq with sanctions if they expel US troops: "If they do ask us to leave, if we don't do it in a very friendly basis. We will charge them sanctions like they've never seen before ever. It'll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame."

-- Zeke Miller (@ZekeJMiller) January 6, 2020

Trump doesn't see other countries as genuinely sovereign, and he doesn't respect their decisions when they run counter to what he wants, so his first instinct when they choose something he dislikes is to punish them. Economic war has been his preferred method of punishment, and he has applied this in the form of tariffs or sanctions depending on the target. Iraq's government is sick of repeated U.S. violations of Iraqi sovereignty, and the U.S. strikes over the last week have strengthened the existing movement to remove U.S. forces from the country. One might think that Trump would jump at the chance to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq and Syria that the Iraqi parliament's action gives him. It would have been better to leave of our own accord before destroying the relationship with Baghdad, but it might be the only good thing to come out of this disaster. It is telling that Trump's reaction to this news is not to seize the opportunity but to threaten Iraq instead. Needless to say, there is absolutely no legitimate basis for imposing sanctions on Iraq, and if Trump did this it would be one more example of how the U.S. is flagrantly abusing its power to bully and attack smaller states.

In another instance of the president's crude cartoon imperialism, he repeated his threat to target Iran's cultural heritage sites:

President Trump on Sunday evening doubled down on his claim that he would target Iranian cultural sites if Iran retaliated for the targeted killing of one of its top generals, breaking with his secretary of state over the issue.

Aboard Air Force One on his way back from his holiday trip to Florida, Mr. Trump reiterated to reporters traveling with him the spirit of a Twitter post on Saturday, when he said that the United States government had identified 52 sites for retaliation against Iran if there were a response to Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani's death. Some, he tweeted, were of "cultural" significance.

Such a move could be considered a war crime under international laws, but Mr. Trump said Sunday that he was undeterred.

OrthoAnabaptist • 19 hours ago

When o when will this man leave the stage? Who oh who will stand up against him and save the world from this man? God have mercy on us all and deliver us from this anti-christ.
Brandon Falusi • 18 hours ago
Trump really really enjoyed telling his "Black Jack Pershing's bullets dipped in pig's blood" fairy tales during the campaign, and so did the rallygoers. He loves reveling in the amoral gutter, and his base loves him unconditionally. Ailes, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, and now Trump: their aggresive, barbaric, venal leaders and spokesmen. Whaddayagonnado? They can't help it. They follow the guy who calls the opposition within his own party "human scum." Takes one to know one, right? That's right. Trump is a visceral hedonist, so yes, he likes aggression.
Clyde Schechter • 17 hours ago
Bravo, Mr. Larison! Well said!

As reactions are emerging around the world, it seems pretty clear that the US will be almost completely isolated in this situation. Europe may finally be growing a spine.

Most interesting is the reaction from the UK. Dominic Raab initially made some "balanced" remarks pointing out that Soleimani was a bad actor but counseling restraint. The next day, presumably under directions from Boris Johnson, he retracted that and said that the UK is on the same page as the US. This is a portent of things to come. I think that most people who voted for Brexit did so because they wanted to take back their sovereignty from Brussels. But this weekend is probably the first step in the UK's march towards becoming, in practical terms, a US colony. The UK's economy and other influence are simply not large enough to stand alone against those of the US, the EU, and China. They will be in something of a beggars can't be choosers position when negotiating trade deals with these larger entities. They can expect the EU to do them no favors given their chaotic dealings with them. China will probably take a pragmatic approach to them. Their best hope for favorable treatment is with the United States, and Johnson has fawned over Trump enough to have reason to believe it might happen. But it also entails that the UK will not be free to dissent from US foreign policy in the slightest way. In fact, if we end up in a conventional war with Iran, I suspect that the UK will be the only nation in the world that sends troops there with us. (The UAE, Israel and the Saudis will, of course, cheer us on, even goad us, but will not risk any of their own blood.) I wonder how Brexit supporters will feel about that. At least Brussels never dragged them into any stupid wars.

Remember this date. It marks the date the UK began its journey from the frying pan into the fire.

SFBay1949 • 15 hours ago
At this point the question is, can Trump have even a vaguely normal conversation about anything? Certainly not foreign policy. Just how much of this manure can he spew before the Republican Party responds? My guess is they've gone so far past the point of normal that there's no coming back This is both sad and frightening.
Begemot • 15 hours ago
One common response to Trump's threat to attack Iranian cultural sites is that the military would not carry out such obviously illegal orders

I wouldn't put any hope in the US military disobeying such orders. It's not what they are really trained for. They may pay lip service to having respect for laws of war but they won't actually pay any attention to them. Respect for culture? Remember Dresden? The crude barbarism of Sherman and Sheridan is the spirit of the US military.

Daniel (not Larrison) • 9 hours ago
As a conservative (not a Republican, but certainly not a Democrat) who cannot abide thinking of any of the democratic candidates as President, I would love to see impeachment. Mike Pence would be infinitely preferable as President to this little psychopathic bully.

Seriously, the last few days should principled non-interventionists know that Trump is empjatically not one of us. He'd gladly sabotage the future of the United States on the alter of his own ego.

K squared • 8 hours ago
Vandal
Fran Macadam • 7 hours ago
"He sees war only in the crudest terms of plunder and atrocity."

It's a blunt but true observation. We spend most of our time justifying wars as noble and moral, using euphemism to disguise the reality to ourselves and others. Two cheers for being truthful.

I also note that destroying cultural monuments is claimed to be a war crime, while inevitable civilian deaths are just acceptable collateral damage.

Let's not pretend that the long history of the imperial coveting of either Iraq's or Iran's resources has ever been much more than plunder, often making use of atrocity. What doesn't qualify as that, is great game imperialist jockeying for geostrategic advantage against commercial rivals.

Of course "things" would be sacrosanct, while human lives are not, in the wholly materialist calculus of warmongering.o

FL_Cottonmouth • 7 hours ago
Attacking cultural-heritage sites, Pres. Trump? Like what the Taliban did to the Buddhas of Bamyan? Or what ISIS did to ancient art, architecture, and artifacts in Mosul, Palmyra, Raqqa, and more? What a barbarian!
Fuzzy • 6 hours ago
I think he has finally crossed the line. There really IS something wrong with him and he should be removed from office.
kouroi • 6 hours ago
Will Congress dare to eliminate funds for the occupation of Iraq and for attacking Iran? Will all those that would vote for continuation of funding will be removed from office through elections, in the very gerrymandered locales, in a FPTP system, with no ability to leave work early to go to vote, with so many disenfranchised? The system is fully rigged to be a dictatorship all but in name...
Daniel (not Larrison) • 6 hours ago
Another thing: Trump's decrying of the Iraqi war was merely a way he could rail at the other Republican candidates. If the establishment was for it, he was against it. That's how he works.

Maybe he fools himself into thinking he's got principles. Maybe he even thinks he has a coherent foreign policy (or policy of any kind). But no, he's just narcissism and id all the way down.

There's still no border wall. Still troops in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Planned Parenthood is still funded.

Oh, but he waves the flag, doesn't he? That makes up for everything...right?

[Jan 06, 2020] Was Suleimani a diplomatic envoy at the time of his killing?

Notable quotes:
"... How do you think Soleimani organized, sustained and coordinated his Resistance Militias in different countries turning them into a formidable military offensive resistance strategy? With strategic military and diplomatic savvy. Soleimani was sent as an envoy to Russia by Iran's Supreme Leader at a critical time in the Syrian war and also at Putin's request. If Soleimani was lured by the U.S. and Saudis on a pretext of peace to be assassinated by a U.S. drone this proves just how depraved Trump is. This strategy is right out of the Zionist dirty tricks playbook and Trump has proven in every way he is all in with Zionists and is one of them. ..."
"... I take the Iraqi Prime Minister at his word, and reassert the need for Trump and his administration to be impeached on treasonous grounds. ..."
Jan 06, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Circe , Jan 5 2020 19:42 utc | 93

@78 Jackrabbit

Suleimani was not a diplomat... Really? I'd say he was a great military leader and just as great a diplomat to accomplish what he did.

Soleimani unfurled the Syria Russia strategy in Moscow

How do you think Soleimani organized, sustained and coordinated his Resistance Militias in different countries turning them into a formidable military offensive resistance strategy? With strategic military and diplomatic savvy. Soleimani was sent as an envoy to Russia by Iran's Supreme Leader at a critical time in the Syrian war and also at Putin's request. If Soleimani was lured by the U.S. and Saudis on a pretext of peace to be assassinated by a U.S. drone this proves just how depraved Trump is. This strategy is right out of the Zionist dirty tricks playbook and Trump has proven in every way he is all in with Zionists and is one of them.

albagen , Jan 5 2020 19:43 utc | 94

Iraqi PM said so
juliania , Jan 5 2020 19:53 utc | 96
As reported by krollchem @ 67 and by b in this and the following post, the involvement of Trump directly in premeditated murder cannot be absolved, and the circumstances are abhorrent to any patriotic American citizen. May God have mercy on the souls of the peace makers, for they shall be called the sons of God.

I take the Iraqi Prime Minister at his word, and reassert the need for Trump and his administration to be impeached on treasonous grounds.

Where that will lead in terms of the rest of the US government I cannot say but VP Pence is also impeachable here, so it is difficult to see who is least culpable in this. It may mean that there is need for a provisional government to be put in place - not party organized. If impeachment proceeds apace as it should, behind the scenes such a people's approved peaceful citizens coalition needs to be considered. This cannot stand as official US government policy. It is heinous.

I too, as forward @ 24 has done, sent prayers for the souls of the departed Iran general as well as his friend from Iraq and their companions this morning in my home chapel. It is the Sunday before Christmas, old calendar. May the Lord bring them and so many others before them to a place where the just repose.

[Jan 06, 2020] Anti-War Conservatives Join Protests Against Trump's Iran Confrontation by Hunter DeRensis

Notable quotes:
"... "I think the more people who are prepared to stand up and say it [the assassination] is completely, not only inappropriate, not only illegal, not only unjust, but an act of war to do something like this, the better," said Nicole Rousseau with the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, which has been planning anti-war protests in D.C. since 2002. ..."
"... This is the moment, as Donald Trump embraces the neoconservative dream of war with Iran, that the Republican base must stand on their hind legs, lock arms with their progressive allies, and say no . ..."
"... Tucker Carlson Tonight ..."
Jan 06, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Now is the time for Republicans of conviction to stand together.

t speaks to the state of American politics when for three years the continued defense of Donald Trump's record has been: "well, he hasn't started any new wars." Last week, however, that may have finally changed.

In the most flagrant tit-for-tat since the United States initiated its economic war against Iran in the spring of 2018, the Trump administration assassinated Major General Qasem Soleimani, who for more than 20 years has led the Iranian Quds Force. The strategic mind behind Iran's operations in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and the rest of the Middle East, Soleimani's death via drone strike outside of Baghdad's airport is nothing short of a declaration of open warfare between American and Iranian-allied forces in Iraq.

While the world waits for the Islamic Republic's inevitable response, the reaction on the home front was organized in less than 36 hours. Saturday afternoon, almost 400 people gathered on the muddy grass outside the White House in Washington, D.C., joined in solidarity by simultaneous rallies in over 70 other U.S. cities.

The D.C. attendees and their co-demonstrators were expectedly progressive, but the organizers made clear they were happy to work across political barriers for the cause of peace.

"I think the more people who are prepared to stand up and say it [the assassination] is completely, not only inappropriate, not only illegal, not only unjust, but an act of war to do something like this, the better," said Nicole Rousseau with the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, which has been planning anti-war protests in D.C. since 2002.

Code Pink's Leonardo Flores, when asked what politicians he believed were on the side of the peace movement, named Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders and Republican Senator Rand Paul. "I don't think peace should be a left and right issue," he said. "I think it's an issue we can all rally around. It's very clear too much of our money is going to foreign wars that don't benefit the American people and we could be using that money in many different ways, giving it back to the American people, whether it's investing in social spending or giving direct tax cuts."

This is the moment, as Donald Trump embraces the neoconservative dream of war with Iran, that the Republican base must stand on their hind legs, lock arms with their progressive allies, and say no .

It's happened before. In 2013, when the Obama administration was ready for regime change in Syria, Americans, both left and right, made clear they didn't want to see their sons and daughters, fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters die so the American government could install the likes of Abu Mohammed al-Julani in Damascus.

Of course, it was much easier for Republicans to stand up to a Democratic president going to war. "It's been really unfortunate that so much of politics now is driven on a partisan basis," opined Eric Garris, director and co-founder of Antiwar.com, in an interview with TAC . "Whether you're for or against war and how strongly you might be against war is driven by partisan points of view."

When Barack Obama was elected in 2008, the movement that saw millions march against George W. Bush's war in Iraq disappeared overnight (excluding a handful of stalwart organizations like Code Pink). Non-interventionist Republicans can't repeat that mistake. They have to show that if an American president wants to start an unconstitutional, immoral war, it's the principle that matters, not the R or D next to their names.

Garris said the reason Antiwar.com was founded in 1995 was to bridge this partisan divide by putting people like Daniel Ellsberg and Pat Buchanan side by side for the same cause. "These coalitions are only effective if you try to bring in a broad coalition of people," he said. "I want to see rallies of thousands of people in Omaha, Nebraska, and things like that, where they're reaching out to middle America and to the people that are actually going to reach the unconverted."

The right is in the best position it's been in decades to accomplish this. "I don't know if you saw Tucker Carlson Tonight , but it was quite amazing to watch that kind of antiwar sentiment on Fox News," Garris said. "You would not have seen [that] in recent history. And certainly the emergence of The American Conservative magazine has been a really strong signal and leader in terms of bringing about the values of the Old Right like non-interventionism to a conservative audience."

This also includes the core antiwar members of Congress, all of whom are Republican , and new conservative veterans groups like Bring Our Troops Home .

It's the anti-war right, in the Republican tradition of La Follette, Taft, Paul, and Buchanan, that has the power to stop middle America from following Trump into a conflict with Iran. But it's both sides, working together as Americans, that can finally end the endless wars.

Hunter DeRensis is a reporter with The National Interest and a regular contributor to The American Conservative. Follow him on Twitter @HunterDeRensis .

[Jan 06, 2020] https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/national/iraq-strategic-framework-agreement.htm

Jan 06, 2020 | www.globalsecurity.org


I also recommend reading the SOFA with Iraq which is a masterpiece of semantic and legalistic deception- (and they have one year to actually get out after termination of the "agreement")

Talking about deception, James Corbett did a brilliant exposé of the "difficulties of crisis initiation" vs. Iran

https://www.corbettreport.com/iranfalseflag/

After watching this enlightening video, reading the transcript of the "special briefing on Iraq" by the State Dept. is like "stepping thru the looking glass" into a surreal world of self-delusion, ("believing six impossible things before breakfast"), here is an example: (SSD stands for senior state department official "One, Two or Three" (whose names apparently have to be kept secret )

QUESTION: Thank you. Could you take us through the – so you – could you take us through the diplomatic strategy for DE-ESCALATION? I mean, after the strike, what are the main elements of our diplomatic plan to --

SSD OFFICIAL ONE: [SSD official Three] can both talk about this.

SSD OFFICIAL THREE: Yeah, first of all, we're stressing that we want to stay on in Iraq. We have an important mission there, the coalition. We just spoke with most of the key coalition members this morning, making that message to them. They also took the – well, you need to de-escalate. We raised the point – and [SSD official One] can talk about this is more detail – that we are ready to talk with the Iranians. We've tried to do this in the past. That's on the table.

And again, the point I took with them, and I'll take it again here today: We cannot promise that we have BROKEN the circle of violence. What I can say from my experience with Qasem Soleimani is it is less likely that we will see this now than it was before, and if we do see an increase in violence, it probably will not be as devilishly ingenious. Other than Usama bin Ladin, he's the only guy – with Cafe Milano – a senior terrorist leader around the Middle East who has tried to seriously plot in detail a mass casualty event on American soil. Let him rest in peace.

(!)

https://www.state.gov/senior-state-department-officials-on-the-situation-in-iraq/

Is there a way to find out who this "official no. 3 is?

And finally regarding the "Big Picture" behind it all (from Vietnam to Iraq/Iran)

https://www.globalresearch.ca/how-america-spreads-global-chaos/5616345

"We did not wish to re-examine, condemn, and confront the violence in the extra-constitutional power structure that finally ascended to hegemony over our citizenry and over much of the world "

„I have never declared the covert actions of the U.S. intelligence agencies to be incompetent. They are almost invariably and unerringly competent in murdering, individually and massively, in defense of U.S. military dominance and empire."

(Vincent J. Salandria, author of The JFK Assassination: A False Mystery Concealing State Crimes )

These days the murdering takes place in "overt" action a barbaric act sold to the world as "self-defense"

A Final thought:

Is there a more cowardly , dastardly act (by the "best military in the world") than to tear apart a renowned military commander who fought the real war "on terror" (against ruthless imperialism), with a drone??

Posted by: Antigone | Jan 6 2020 22:12 utc | 95

[Jan 06, 2020] Trump moves to unite the Middle East! (irony)

Jan 06, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Trump-Tax-Reform-Bonuses

Teevee coverage of the recent events in the ME has been predictable. Those who hated Trump continue to hate him, etc.

A few observations:

1. I had hoped that Trump's decision to kill an Iranian general engaged in a diplomatic mission (among other things) while the man was on the soil of a supposed ally of the US was something Trump pulled out of his fundament either inspired by war movies or on the recommendation of "our greatest ally" but I am informed that in fact some idiot in the DoD included this option in the list of possibilities that was briefed to the CinC in Florida. The decision process in such matters requires that when options are demanded by the CinC the JCS prepares a list supported for each option by fully formulated documentation that enables the president to approve one (or none) and then sign the required operational order. Trump himself chose the death option. I would hold General Milley (CJCS) personally responsible for not striking this option from the list before it reached the CinC.

2. The Iranians are a subtle people. IMO they will bide their time whilst working out the "bestest" way to inflict some injury on the US and/or Israel. When the retaliation comes it will be imaginative and painful.

3. Trump is now threatening the Iraqis with severe sanctions if they try to enforce their parliamentary decree against the future presence of foreign (US mostly) troops on their soil. IMO a refusal to leave risks a substantial Shia (at least) uprising against the US forces in Iraq. We have around 5,500 people there now spread across the country in little groups engaged in logistics, intelligence and training missions. They are extremely vulnerable. There are something like 150 marines in the embassy. There are also a small number of US combat forces in Syria east and north of the Euphrates river. These include a battalion of US Army National Guard mechanized troops "guarding" Syria's oil from Syria's own army and whatever devilment the Iranians might be able to arrange.

4. This is an untenable logistical situation. Supply and other functions require a major airfield close to Baghdad. We have Balad airbase and helicopter supply and air support from there into Baghdad is possible from there but may become hazardous. Iraq is a big country. It is a long and lonely drive from Kuwait for re-supply from there or evacuation through there. The same thing is true of the desert route to Jordan.

5. Trump's strategery appears to be based on the concept that the Iraqis will submit to our imperial demands. "We will see." pl

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/iran-strike-live-updates/2020/01/06/3b5451f2-3024-11ea-9313-6cba89b1b9fb_story.html?rand=4

[Jan 06, 2020] Was assasination of Soleimani the USA attempt to derail Iran-Saudi reapproachment: what about Kushner, Netanyahu s agent in Oval Office? Or what about the siamesian creature Esper-Pompeo?

Jan 06, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Sasha , Jan 7 2020 1:07 utc | 149

@Posted by: Bruce | Jan 7 2020 0:50 utc | 144

What do you refer by FDD?

Apart from those you mention, what about Kushner, Netanyahu´s agent in Oval Office? Or what about the siamesian creature Esper-Pompeo? It seems Pompeo was bomabrding he Donald since months ago on Soleimani...One sees the face of Pompeo when graduating and WP and you immediately feel a chill in your spine...There it is a guy who will not stop at anything so as to go up...

Of course, I do not discard a master puppet behind him...but I would look for more in Herzliya of whatever the name is...I doubt the Rothschilds are beihn Pompeo, otherwise he would not look so ambitious, he already would show so calm and confident like Macron...

karlof1 , Jan 7 2020 1:09 utc | 150

Yes, it's Ben Norton and the Gray Zone providing more in-depth info about the peace mission Soleimani was conducting. Don't miss the NY Times extract provided at the linked tweet:

"Iraq's efforts at brokering peace talks between Saudi Arabia and Iran were going very smoothly... until the US empire blew it all to pieces by murdering a top Iranian general and Iraqi commander."

Very clearly to me at least, Iran's Hope proposal was beginning to be acted upon, and as I wrote two days ago, that couldn't be allowed to stand. Thus, how Iran responds is further complicated by the initial success of their initiative--provided the Saudi position was genuine and not a feint. Recall the HOPE proposal allowed for outside participation which back in September I wrote it would be wise for Trump to applaud and promote--IF--he genuinely desired Peace. Now the equation's been changed. The goal is now to completely oust the Evil Outlaw US Empire from the region, but that can still be accomplished through the HOPE proposal.

Now Zarif's been barred by the usual shitheads from attending the UNSC. IMO, the UNGA must reconsider Russia's request to relocate numerous UN activities as the Evil Outlaw US Empire has effectively ceded its position within the UN and clearly doesn't belong there.

[Jan 06, 2020] US Slams Russia, China For Blocking UN Statement On Baghdad Embassy Attack

Jan 06, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

US officials said the majority stood with Washington "in stark contrast to the United Nations Security Council's silence due to two permanent members – Russia and China – not allowing a statement to proceed."

This after Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told Secretary of State Mike Pompeo a day after Soleimani's death that the US had launched an "illegal power" move which should instead be based on dialogue with Tehran.

Forbes characterized Russian objections within the context of the UN further :

He [Lavrov] said that the actions of a UN member state to eliminate officials of another UN member state on the territory of a third sovereign state "flagrantly violate the principles of international law and deserve condemnation."

Similarly China has stood against Washington's unilateral military action, with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi saying the US must not "abuse force" and instead pursue mutual dialogue.

UN security council file image, via Irish Times.

"The dangerous US military operation violates the basic norms of international relations and will aggravate regional tensions and turbulence," Wang told Javad Zarif in a phone call days ago.

Diplomatically speaking, the US faces an uphill battle on the UN National Security Council, considering its already provoked the ire of two of its formidable members, who increasingly find themselves in close cooperation blocking US initiatives.

dogismycopilot , 6 minutes ago link

For ***** sake, didn't the US SEIZE two Russian Diplomatic buildings in the USA.

**** these guys at DoS have some chutzpah! Lavrov should have called them out on this ****.

bosoxfan1971 , 12 minutes ago link

Here's a nice find. Soleimani and the US fought side by side in 2001!! Oh, the irony. I wonder how Hasbara trolls can explain this one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_uprising_in_Herat

veritas semper vinces , 15 minutes ago link

When the Donald entered by force in Russian Consulates in Seattle and San Francisco, and expelled 60 Russian diplomats bc of

" Skripal poisoning" was that in accordance with diplomatic rules?

What proofs do we have that US fortress was attacked by Iran?

Did US find an intact passport there?

Good for Russia and China.

They must be suffering from TDS, oy vey!

I suffer not only from TDS, but ODS( Obama), CDS( Clinton), BDS( Bush(s)) and of an acute case of PDS ( PentagonDS).

And I'm in the final stages of FuwtsalDS : Fed-up-with-the-system-and- lies DS.

bosoxfan1971 , 16 minutes ago link

Interesting. Look what Iranian General fought alongside the Americans when fighting the Taliban. More and more convinced Israel owns the US and our foreign policy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_uprising_in_Herat

bosoxfan1971 , 13 minutes ago link

Hey jerkoff, look who a certain Iranian General fought alongside the US when fighting the Taliban. Your projection and deception have all the hallmarks of a dirty ***.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_uprising_in_Herat

Volkodav , 37 minutes ago link

Article: Trump was lied to

https://phibetaiota.net/2020/01/tehran-times-special-issue-on-assassination/

https://phibetaiota.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Tehran-Times-Special-Issue-on-Assassination.pdf

Robert David Steele PDF Page 11

believe or not guest Joel Skousen told same on Alex Jones last 15 min I am told, looking now

Trump is that weak gullible?

Alex Jones is getting educated after several days knee jerk as is normal. I am not fan.

Ruler , 23 minutes ago link

48 Laws of Power.

Mimir , 55 minutes ago link

blocking US initiatives.

Maybe, just maybe, China and Russia blocked the United Nations Security council statement because it accused Iran of having provoked the attack on the US embassy in Baghdad.

Of some reason or another ZH does not tell us what the declaration said.

enfield0916 , 58 minutes ago link

Never realized Iraq and Iran were part of the North American continent, well we have to spread Western values of peace and democracy there for sure!

Let's build an embassy that's larger than the Vatican and also send our troops to guard the oil fields and terrorize the locals.

DUMBEST ******* ideas that get implemented with no end in sight and at home people keep losing their civil liberties.

EternalAnusocracy , 1 hour ago link

What part of "We don't have the money to fight endless wars" doesn't the MIC understand?

Homeless people everywhere, bums outside every big box store parking lot, opiod epidemic in our towns, low wage "jobs" everywhere, schools where are children are sitting in trailers to study, tens of millions with no access to proper medication or health care, and the assholes traitors want to waste BILLIONS on useless chest thumping all over the word.

The situation is like an drunk, impotent man walking around threatening to rape ladies up and down the street.

Sad what has become of this one truly great nation.

Haboob , 50 minutes ago link

Haha kids are taught in portables

Homeless pan handling on every cross street

Americans working dead end jobs

Nationwide move to legalize cannabis to escape reality

Private and national debt soaring

Military ever growing

The bubble is about to burst!

schroedingersrat , 1 hour ago link

And the USA vetoes every Russian initiative. And know this: Russian initiatives are usually pretty good and balanced and would lead to peace.

The USA is always just interested in keeping the world in perpetual war and chaos.

Blanco Diablo , 1 hour ago link

The Neocons are not rational actors in any normal sense of the word. They would destroy and/or enslave every person on this planet if they thought they could pull it off and it would be to their benefit.

Moribundus , 1 hour ago link

It is exactly what Saker expected

https://www.unz.com/tsaker/soleimani-murder-what-could-happen-next/

[Jan 06, 2020] US justification for assassinating General Soleimani

Notable quotes:
"... According to the Western media, General Qasem Soleimani, commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' élite Al-Quods force, was preparing an operation intended to win back Iraqi public opinion ..."
"... The strategy attributed to General Soleimani is in no way consistent with his well-known modus operandi , nor with that of the Iranian secret services. Quite the contrary, it is strangely reminiscent of US Ambassador John Negroponte's rationale: foment an Iraqi civil war as a means of stifling the Iraqi Resistance. ..."
"... Other interpretations of the events are of course possible, starting with a US desire to seize on the mutual paralysis of the Iranian government forces and the Revolutionary Guards. ..."
Jan 06, 2020 | www.voltairenet.org

According to the Western media, General Qasem Soleimani, commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' élite Al-Quods force, was preparing an operation intended to win back Iraqi public opinion. [ 1 ]

In the midst of the Shiite community's escalating protests against Iranian influence over the Iraqi political class, attacks have been allegedly carried out against US interests, triggering a US response against Iraqi protesters, which in turn ignited Iraqi nationalism to the detriment of the ongoing revolt.

It was, purportedly, in order to frustrate this plot that, on 2 January 2020, the United States assassinated Qasem Soleimani and his loyal supporter Abu Mehdi al-Mouhandis. [ 2 ] According to the US, Iran had been forewarned through a statement delivered by US Defense Secretary Mark Esper. [ 3 ]

This narrative, even if logical, is hardly credible. The strategy attributed to General Soleimani is in no way consistent with his well-known modus operandi , nor with that of the Iranian secret services. Quite the contrary, it is strangely reminiscent of US Ambassador John Negroponte's rationale: foment an Iraqi civil war as a means of stifling the Iraqi Resistance.

Other interpretations of the events are of course possible, starting with a US desire to seize on the mutual paralysis of the Iranian government forces and the Revolutionary Guards.

[Jan 06, 2020] Gratitude for cooperation, Trump way

Jan 06, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Mischi , Jan 6 2020 19:25 utc | 3

In their descriptions of Qassem Soleimani U.S. media fail to mention that Soleimani and the U.S. fought on the same side. In 2001 Iran supported the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. It used its good relations with the Hazara Militia and the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance, which both the CIA and Iran had supplied for years, to support the U.S. operation. The Wikipedia entry for the 2001 uprising in Herat lists U.S. General Tommy Franks and General Qassem Soleimani as allied commanders.

The collaboration ended in 2002 after George W. Bush named Iran as a member of his " Axis of Evil ".

In 2015 the U.S. and Iran again collaborated. This time to defeat ISIS in Iraq. During the battle to liberate Tikrit the U.S. air force flew in support of General Soleimani's ground forces. Newsweek reported at that time:

While western nations, including the U.S., were slow to react to ISIS's march across northern Iraq, Soleimani was quick to play a more public role in Tehran's efforts to tackle the terror group. For example, the commander was seen in pictures with militiamen in the northern Iraqi town of Amerli when it was recaptured from ISIS last September.
...
Top U.S. general Martin Dempsey has said that the involvement of Iran in the fight against ISIS in Iraq could be a positive step, as long as the situation does not descend into sectarianism, because of fears surrounding how Shia militias may treat the remaining Sunni population of Tikrit if it is recaptured. The military chief also claimed that almost two thirds of the 30,000 offensive were Iranian-backed militiamen, meaning that without Iranian assistance and Soleimani's guidance, the offensive on Tikrit may not have been possible.

Iran is not responsible for the U.S. casualties in Iraq. George W. Bush is. What made Soleimani "bad" in the eyes of the U.S. was his support for the resistance against the Zionist occupation of Palestine. It was Israel that wanted him 'removed'. The media explanations for Trump's decision fail to explain that point.

Elias Magnier also reported in his latest tweet that Soleimani encouraged Muqtada El Sadr to cooperate with the Americans in order to achieve stability in Iraq. And the Americans (on the orders of the Israelis) kill him in the most violent fashion possible.

[Jan 06, 2020] FNC's Geraldo Rivera to Brian Kilmeade Don't Cheer Iran Strike -- You 'Never Met a War You Didn't Like!' Breitbart

Jan 06, 2020 | www.breitbart.com

On Friday's broadcast of Fox News Channel's "Fox & Friends," network contributor Geraldo Rivera clashed with show co-host Brian Kilmeade over Quds Force Supreme Commander Qasem Soleimani being killed in an airstrike directed by President Donald Trump.

"I fear the worst," Rivera said. "You're going to see the U.S. markets go crazy today. You're going to see the price of oil spiking today. This is a very, very big deal."

Kilmeade said, "I don't know if you heard. This isn't about his resumé of blood and death. It is about what was next. We stopped the next attack. That's what I think you're missing."

Rivera replied, "By what credible source can you predict what the next Iranian move would be?"

Kilmeade said, "The Secretary of State and American intelligence provided that material."

Rivera added, "Don't for a minute start cheering this on. What you have done, what we have done, we have unleashed -- "

Kilmeade insisted, "I will cheer it on. I will cheer it on. I am elated."

Rivera said, "Then you, like Lindsey Graham, have never met a war you didn't like!"

Kilmeade said, "That is not true. And don't even say that!"

[Jan 06, 2020] A statement broadcast on Iranian state TV said the country would no longer respect any limits laid down in the 2015 deal

Iraq will have to ask another country to provide air support. Iran can't do it. But Russia has those capabilities. I wonder if relations b/w Iran + Russia will warm in 2020.
Jan 06, 2020 | www.bbc.com

Iran has declared it will no longer abide by any of the restrictions imposed by the 2015 nuclear deal.

In a statement it said it would no longer observe limitations on its capacity for enrichment, the level of enrichment, the stock of enriched material, or research and development.

The statement came after a meeting of the Iranian cabinet in Tehran.

Tensions have been high over the killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani by the US in Baghdad.

Reports from Baghdad say the US embassy compound there was targeted in an attack on Sunday evening. A source told the BBC that four rounds of "indirect fire " had been launched in the direction of the embassy. There are no reports of casualties.

Hundreds of thousands turned out in Iran on Sunday to give Soleimani a hero's welcome ahead of his funeral on Tuesday.

Under the 2015 accord, Iran agreed to limit its sensitive nuclear activities and allow in international inspectors in return for the lifting of crippling economic sanctions.

US President Donald Trump abandoned it in 2018, saying he wanted to force Iran to negotiate a new deal that would place indefinite curbs on its nuclear programme and also halt its development of ballistic missiles.

Iran refused and had since been gradually rolling back its commitments under the agreement.

Earlier on Sunday, Iraqi MPs passed a non-binding resolution calling for foreign troops to leave the country after the killing of Soleimani in a drone strike at Baghdad airport on Friday.

About 5,000 US soldiers are in Iraq as part of the international coalition against the Islamic State (IS) group. The coalition paused operations against IS in Iraq just before Sunday's vote.

Mr Trump has again threatened Iran that the US will strike back in the event of retaliation for Soleimani's death, this time saying it could do so "perhaps in a disproportionate manner".

Twitter post by @realDonaldTrump: These Media Posts will serve as notification to the United States Congress that should Iran strike any U.S. person or target, the United States will quickly & fully strike back, & perhaps in a disproportionate manner. Such legal notice is not required, but is given nevertheless! Image Copyright @realDonaldTrump @realDonaldTrump Report
<figure> <span> <img alt="Twitter post by @realDonaldTrump: These Media Posts will serve as notification to the United States Congress that should Iran strike any U.S. person or target, the United States will quickly &amp; fully strike back, &amp; perhaps in a disproportionate manner. Such legal notice is not required, but is given nevertheless!" src="https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/socialembed/https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1213919480574812160~/news/world-middle-east-51001167" width="465" height="279"> <span>Image Copyright @realDonaldTrump</span> <span aria-hidden="true">@realDonaldTrump</span> </span> <div><a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/contact-us/editorial" aria-label="Report Twitter post by @realDonaldTrump">Report</a></div> </figure>
Presentational white space
Presentational grey line
Analysis box by Jonathan Marcus, defence correspondent

The 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran, on life support ever since the Trump administration abandoned it in May 2018, may now be in its final death throes.

Donald Trump, throughout his presidential campaign and then as president, has never failed to rail against what he calls his predecessor President Barack Obama's "bad deal". But all of its other signatories - the UK, France, Russia, China, Germany and the EU - believe that it still has merit.

The agreement, known as the JCPOA, constrained Iran's nuclear programme for a set period in a largely verifiable way but its greatest significance - even more so given the current crisis - is that it helped to avert an imminent war. Before its signature there was mounting concern about Tehran's nuclear activities and every chance that Israel (or possibly Israel and the US in tandem) might attack Iran's nuclear facilities.

Since the US withdrawal, Iran has successively been breaching some of the key constraints of the JCPOA. Now it appears to be throwing these constraints over altogether. What matters now is precisely what it decides to do. Will it up its level of uranium enrichment, for example, to 20%? This would reduce significantly the time it would take Tehran to obtain suitable material for a bomb. Will it continue to abide by enhanced international inspection measures?

We are now at the destination the Trump administration clearly hoped for in May 2018 but the major powers, while deeply unhappy about Iran's breaches of the deal, are also shocked at the controversial decision by Mr Trump to kill the head of Iran's Quds Force, a decision that has again brought the US and Iran to the brink of war.

Presentational grey line
What did Iran say?

Iran had been expected to announce its latest stance on the nuclear agreement this weekend, before news of Soleimani's death.

A statement broadcast on state TV said the country would no longer respect any limits laid down in the 2015 deal.

"Iran will continue its nuclear enrichment with no limitations and based on its technical needs," the statement said.

Enriched uranium can be used in nuclear weapons.

The statement did not, however, say that Iran was withdrawing from the agreement and it added that Iran would continue to co-operate with the UN's nuclear watchdog, the IAEA.

Media playback is unsupported on your device

https://emp.bbc.com/emp/SMPj/2.29.5/iframe.html

'Nothing off limits for US' Hezbollah warns US Exit player
Media caption 'Nothing off limits for US' Hezbollah warns US

The statement added that Iran was ready to return to its commitments once it enjoyed the benefits of the agreement.

Correspondents say this is a reference to its inability to sell oil and have access to its income under US sanctions.

Iran has always insisted that its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful.

Sanctions have caused Iran's oil exports to collapse and the value of its currency to plummet, and sent its inflation rate soaring.

How has the international community reacted?

The other parties to the 2015 deal - the UK, France, Germany, China and Russia - tried to keep the agreement alive after the US withdrew in 2018.

EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell has invited Iran's Foreign Minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, to visit Brussels to discuss both the nuclear deal and how to defuse the crisis over the Soleimani assassination.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has agreed with French President Emmanuel Macron and UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson to work towards de-escalation in the Middle East, a German government spokesman was quoted as saying by AFP news agency.

Mr Johnson said "we will not lament" the death of Soleimani , describing him as "a threat to all our interests".

[Jan 06, 2020] I am tired of giving Trump a free pass, just because Hillary would have been worse. Trump needs to go.

Highly recommended!
Jan 06, 2020 | www.unz.com

TG , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:07 am GMT

To some extent it is not relevant if Trump was lying during his campaign, or has been corrupted/coopted/fooled/pressured/played for a chump by the establishment. He said one thing and is doing another: that's the bottom line.

However: I note that after Barack Obama got elected, he immediately fired all of his populist advisors and hired Wall Streeters even before being sworn in. Obama was clearly lying up front.

Trump, however, initially did start moving in the direction he said he would, he kept his populist/nationalist advisors, and really did make actual moves to carry out his campaign promises. And the establishment went total nut job, he was a Russian agent, his populist advisers were targeted for legal actions, they were replaced with establishment advisors who hate him Trump was strong on stage berating a political opponent, but against establishment pressure he has turned out to be weak, caving in to "the Blob" at every turn.

Though again, a secondary point.

Cloak And Dagger , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 1:47 am GMT
@Gleimhart Mantooso

Had she been elected, Hillary would already have started the neocon wet dream of a war with Iran.

While that may be true, I am tired of giving Trump a free pass, just because Hillary would have been worse. Being relatively less evil, or a different incarnation of evil, is still evil.

Frankly, impeachment was just a distraction to divert attention from the real play. The dagger at his throat is from far more malevolent foes who can wield both blackmail or death as the circumstances demand to get their way. The jewish mafia is far more dangerous than the Sicilian boys could ever hope to be. The latter learned from the former.

[Jan 06, 2020] How To Avoid Swallowing War Propaganda by Nathan J. Robinson

Highly recommended!
Jan 05, 2020 | www.currentaffairs.org
The Trump administration has assassinated Iran's top military leader, Qassim Suleimani, and with the possibility of a serious escalation in violent conflict, it's a good time to think about how propaganda works and train ourselves to avoid accidentally swallowing it.

The Iraq War, the bloodiest and costliest U.S. foreign policy calamity of the 21 st century, happened in part because the population of the United States was insufficiently cynical about its government and got caught up in a wave of nationalistic fervor. The same thing happened with World War I and the Vietnam War. Since a U.S./Iran war would be a disaster, it is vital that everyone make sure they do not accidentally end up repeating the kinds of talking points that make war more likely.

Let us bear in mind, then, some of the basic lessons about war propaganda.

Things are not true because a government official says them.

I do not mean to treat you as stupid by making such a basic point, but plenty of journalists and opposition party politicians do not understand this point's implications, so it needs to be said over and over. What happens in the leadup to war is that government officials make claims about the enemy, and then those claims appear in newspapers ("U.S. officials say Saddam poses an imminent threat") and then in the public consciousness, the "U.S. officials say" part disappears, so that the claim is taken for reality without ever really being scrutinized. This happens because newspapers are incredibly irresponsible and believe that so long as you attach "Experts say" or "President says" to a claim, you are off the hook when people end up believing it, because all you did was relay the fact that a person said a thing, you didn't say it was true. This is the approach the New York Times took to Bush administration allegations in the leadup to the Iraq War, and it meant that false claims could become headline news just because a high-ranking U.S. official said them. [UPDATE: here's an example from Vox, today, of a questionable government claim being magically transformed into a certain fact.]

In the context of Iran, let us consider some things Mike Pence tweeted about Qassim Suleimani:

"[Suleimani] assisted in the clandestine travel to Afghanistan of 10 of the 12 terrorists who carried out the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States Soleimani was plotting imminent attacks on American diplomats and military personnel. The world is a safer place today because Soleimani is gone."

It is possible, given these tweets, to publish the headline: "Suleimani plotting imminent attacks on American diplomats, says Pence." That headline is technically true. But you should not publish that headline unless Pence provides some supporting evidence, because what will happen in the discourse is that people will link to your news story to prove that Suleimani was plotting imminent attacks.

To see how unsubstantiated claims get spread, let's think about the Afghanistan hijackers bit. David Harsanyi of the National Review defends Pence's claim about Suleimani helping the hijackers. Harsanyi cites the 9/11 Commission report, saying that the 9/11 commission report concluded Iran aided the hijackers. The report does indeed say that Iran allowed free travel to some of the men who went on to carry out the 9/11 attacks. (The sentence cut off at the bottom of Harsanyi's screenshot, however, rather crucially says : "We have no evidence that Iran or Hezbollah was aware of the planning for what later became the 9/11 attack.") Harsanyi admits that the report says absolutely nothing about Suleimani. But he argues that Pence was "mostly right," pointing out that Pence did not say Iran knew these men would be the hijackers, merely that it allowed them passage.

Let's think about what is going on here. Pence is trying to convince us that Suleimani deserved to die, that it was necessary for the U.S. to kill him, which will also mean that if Iran retaliates violently, that violence will be because Iran is an aggressive power rather than because the U.S. just committed an unprovoked atrocity against one of its leaders, dropping a bomb on a popular Iranian leader. So Pence wants to link Suleimani in your mind with 9/11, in order to get you blood boiling the same way you might have felt in 2001 as you watched the Twin Towers fall.

There is no evidence that either Iran or Suleimani tried to help these men do 9/11. Harsanyi says that Pence does not technically allege this. But he doesn't have to! What impression are people going to get from helped the hijackers? Pence hopes you'll conflate Suleimani and Iran as one entity, then assume that if Iran ever aided these men in any way, it basically did 9/11 even if it didn't have any clue that was what they were going to do.

This brings us to #2:

Do not be bullied into accepting simple-minded sloganeering

Let's say that, long before Ted Kaczynski began sending bombs through the mail, you once rented him an apartment. This was pure coincidence. Back then he was just a Berkeley professor, you did not know he would turn out to be the Unabomber. It is, however, possible, for me to say, and claim I am not technically lying, that you "housed and materially aided the Unabomber." (A friend of mine once sold his house to the guy who turned out to be the Green River Killer, so this kind of situation does happen.)

Of course, it is incredibly dishonest of me to characterize what you did that way. You rented an apartment to a stranger, yet I'm implying that you intentionally helped the Unabomber knowing he was the Unabomber. In sane times, people would see me as the duplicitous one. But the leadup to war is often not a sane time, and these distinctions can get lost. In the Pence claim about Afghanistan, for it to have any relevance to Suleimani, it would be critical to know (assuming the 9/11 commission report is accurate) whether Iran actually could have known what the men it allowed to pass would ultimately do, and whether Suleimani was involved. But that would involve thinking, and War Fever thrives on emotion rather than thought.

There are all kinds of ways in which you can bully people into accepting idiocy. Consider, for example, the statement "Nathan Robinson thinks it's good to help terrorists who murder civilians." There is a way in which this is actually sort of true: I think lawyers who aid those accused of terrible crimes do important work. If we are simple-minded and manipulative, we can call that "thinking it's good to help terrorists," and during periods of War Fever, that's exactly what it will be called. There is a kind of cheap sophistry that becomes ubiquitous:

  • I don't think Osama bin Laden should have been killed without an attempt to apprehend him. -- > So you think it's good that Osama bin Laden was alive?
  • I think Iraqis were justified in resisting the U.S. invasion with force. -- > So you're saying it's good when U.S. soldiers die?
  • I do not believe killing other countries' generals during peacetime is acceptable. -- > So you believe terrorists should be allowed to operate with impunity.

I remember all this bullshit from my high school years. Opposing the invasion of Iraq meant loving Saddam Hussein and hating America. Thinking 9/11 was the predictable consequence of U.S. actions meant believing 9/11 was justified. Of course, rational discussion can expose these as completely unfair mischaracterizations, but every time war fever whips up, rational discussion becomes almost impossible. In World War I, if you opposed the draft you were undermining your country in a time of war. During Vietnam, if you believed the North Vietnamese had the more just case, you were a Communist traitor who endorsed every atrocity committed in the name of Ho Chi Minh, and if you thought John McCain shouldn't have been bombing civilians in the first place then clearly you believed he should have been tortured and you hated America.

"If you oppose assassinating Suleimani you must love terrorists" will be repeated on Fox News (and probably even on MSNBC). Nationalism advocate Yoram Hazony says there is something wrong with those who do not "feel shame when our country is shamed" -- presumably those who do not feel wounded pride when America is emasculated by our enemies are weak and pitiful. We should refuse to put up with these kind of cheap slurs, or even to let those who deploy them place the burden of proof on us to refute them. (In 2004, Democrats worried that they did appear unpatriotic, and so they ran a decorated war veteran, John Kerry, for president. That didn't work.)

Scrutinize the arguments

Here's Mike Pence again:

"[Suleimani] provided advanced deadly explosively formed projectiles, advanced weaponry, training, and guidance to Iraqi insurgents used to conduct attacks on U.S. and coalition forces; directly responsible for the death of 603 U.S. service members, along with thousands of wounded."

I am going to say something that is going to sound controversial if you buy into the kind of simple-minded logic we just discussed: Saying that someone was "responsible for the deaths of U.S. service members" does not, in and of itself, tell us anything about whether what they did was right or wrong. In order to believe it did, we would have to believe that the United States is automatically right, and that countries opposing the United States are automatically wrong. That is indeed the logic that many nationalists in this country follow; remember that when the U.S. shot down an Iranian civilian airliner, causing hundreds of deaths, George H.W. Bush said that he would never apologize for America, no matter what the facts were. What if America did something wrong? That was irrelevant, or rather impossible, because to Bush, a thing was right because America did it, even if that thing was the mass murder of Iranian civilians.

One of the major justifications for murdering Suleimani is that he "caused the deaths of U.S. soldiers." He was thus an aggressor, and could/should have been killed. That is where people like Pence want you to end your inquiry. But let us remember where those soldiers were. Were they in Miami? No. They were in Iraq. Why were they in Iraq? Because we illegally invaded and seized a country. Now, we can debate whether (1) there is actually sufficient evidence of Suleimani's direct involvement and (2) whether these acts of violence can be justified, but to say that Suleimani has "American blood on his hands" is to say nothing at all without an examination of whether the United States was in the right.

We have to think clearly in examining the arguments that are being made. Here 's the Atlantic 's George Packer on the execution:

"There was a case for killing Major General Qassem Soleimani. For two decades, as the commander of the Revolutionary Guards' Quds Force, he executed Iran's long game of strategic depth in the Middle East -- arming and guiding proxy militias in Lebanon and Iraq that became stronger than either state, giving Bashar al-Assad essential support to win the Syrian civil war at the cost of half a million lives, waging a proxy war in Yemen against the hated Saudis, and repeatedly testing America and its allies with military actions around the region for which Iran never seemed to pay a military price."

The article goes on to discuss whether this case is outweighed by the pragmatic case against killing him. But wait. Let's dwell on this. Does this constitute a case for killing him? He assisted Bashar al-Assad. Okay, but presumably then killing Assad would have been justified too? Is the rule here that our government is allowed unilaterally to execute the officials of other governments who are responsible for many deaths? Are we the only ones who can do this? Can any government claim the right?

He assisted Yemen in its fight against "the hated Saudis." But is Saudi Arabia being hated for good reason? It is not enough to say that someone committed violence without analyzing the underlying justice of the parties' relative claims.

Moreover, assumptions are made that if you can prove somebody committed a heinous act, what Trump did is justified. But that doesn't follow: Unless we throw all law out the window, and extrajudicial punishment is suddenly acceptable, showing that Suleimani was a war criminal doesn't prove that you can unilaterally kill him with a drone. Henry Kissinger is a war criminal. So is George W. Bush. But they should be captured and tried in a court, not bombed from the sky. The argument that Suleimani was planning imminent attacks is relevant to whether you can stop him with violence (and requires persuasive proof), but mere allegations of murderous past acts do not show that extrajudicial killings are legitimate.

It's very easy to come up with superficially persuasive arguments that can justify just about anything. The job of an intelligent populace is to see whether those arguments can actually withstand scrutiny.

Keep the focus on what matters

"The main question about the strike isn't moral or even legal -- it's strategic." -- The Atlantic

"The real question to ask about the American drone attack that killed Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani was not whether it was justified, but whether it was wise" -- The New York Times

"I think that the question that we ought to focus on is why now? Why not a month ago and why not a month from now?" -- Elizabeth Warren

They're going to try to define the debate for you. Leaving aside the moral questions, is this good strategy? And then you find yourself arguing on those terms: No, it was bad strategy, it will put "our personnel" in harms way, without noticing that you are implicitly accepting the sociopathic logic that says "America's interests" are the only ones in the world that matters. This is how debates about Vietnam went: They were rarely about whether our actions were good for Vietnamese people, but about whether they were good or bad for us , whether we were squandering U.S. resources and troops in a "fruitless" "mistake." The people of this country still do not understand the kind of carnage we inflicted on Vietnam because our debates tend to be about whether things we do are "strategically prudent" rather than whether they are just. The Atlantic calls the strike a "blunder," shifting the discussion to be about the wisdom of the killing rather than whether it is a choice our country is even permitted to make. "Blunder" essentially assumes that we are allowed to do these things and the only question is whether it's good for us.

There will be plenty of attempts to distract you with irrelevant issues. We will spent more time talking about whether Trump followed the right process for war, whether he handled the rollout correctly, and less about whether the underlying action itself is correct. People like Ben Shapiro will say things like :

"Barack Obama routinely droned terrorists abroad -- including American citizens -- who presented far less of a threat to Americans and American interests than Soleimani. So spare me the hysterics about 'assassination."

In order for this to have any bearing on anything, you have to be someone who defends what Obama did. If you are, on the other hand, someone who belives that Obama, too, assassinated people without due process (which he did), then Shapiro has proved exactly nothing about whether Trump's actions were legitimate. (Note, too, the presumption that threatening "America's interests" can get you killed, a standard we would not want any other country using but are happy to use ourselves.)

Emphasis matters

Consider three statements:

  • "The top priority of a Commander-in-Chief must be to protect Americans and our national security interests. There is no question that Qassim Suleimani was a threat to that safety and security, and that he masterminded threats and attacks on Americans and our allies, leading to hundreds of deaths. But there are serious questions about how this decision was made and whether we are prepared for the consequences."
  • "Suleimani was a murderer, responsible for the deaths of thousands, including hundreds of Americans. But this reckless move escalates the situation with Iran and increases the likelihood of more deaths and new Middle East conflict. Our priority must be to avoid another costly war."
  • "When I voted against the war in Iraq in 2002, I feared it would lead to greater destabilization of the country and the region. Today, 17 years later, that fear has unfortunately turned out to be true. The United States has lost approximately 4,500 brave troops, tens of thousands have been wounded, and we've spent trillions on this war. Trump's dangerous escalation brings us closer to another disastrous war in the Middle East that could cost countless lives and trillions more dollars. Trump promised to end endless wars, but this action puts us on the path to another one."

These are statements made by Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders, respectively. Note that each of them is consistent with believing Trump's decision was the wrong one, but their emphasis is different. Buttigieg says Suleimani was a "threat" but that there are "questions," Warren says Suleimani was a "murderer" but that this was "reckless," and Sanders says this was a "dangerous escalation." It could be that none of these three would have done the same thing themselves, but the emphasis is vastly different. Buttigieg and Warren lead with condemnation of the dead man, in ways that imply that there was nothing that unjust about what happened. Sanders does not dwell on Suleimani but instead talks about the dangers of new wars.

We have to be clear and emphatic in our messaging, because so much effort is made to make what should be clear issues appear murky. If, for example, you gave a speech in 2002 opposing the Iraq War, but the first half was simply a discussion of what a bad and threatening person Saddam Hussein was, people might actually get the opposite of the impression you want them to get. Buttigieg and Warren, while they appear to question the president, have the effect of making his action seem reasonable. After all, they admit that he got rid of a threatening murderer! Sanders admits nothing of the kind: The only thing he says is that Trump has made the world worse. He puts the emphasis where it matters.

I do not fully like Sanders' statement, because it still talks a bit more about what war means for our people , but it does mention destabilization and the total number of lives that can be lost. It is a far more morally clear and powerful antiwar statement. Buttigieg's is exactly what you'd expect of a Consultant President and it should give us absolutely no confidence that he would be a powerful voice against a war, should one happen. Warren confirms that she is not an effective advocate for peace. In a time when there will be pressure for a violent conflict, we need to make sure that our statements are not watery and do not make needless concessions to the hawks' propaganda.

Imagine how everything would sound if the other side said it.

If you're going to understand the world clearly, you have to kill your nationalistic emotions. An excellent way to do this is to try to imagine if all the facts were reversed. If Iraq had invaded the United States, and U.S. militias violently resisted, would it constitute "aggression" for those militias to kill Iraqi soldiers? If Britain funded those U.S. militias, and Iraq killed the head of the British military with a drone strike, would this constitute "stopping a terrorist"? Of course, in that situation, the Iraqi government would certainly spin it that way, because governments call everyone who opposes them terrorists. But rationality requires us not just to examine whether violence has been committed (e.g., whether Suleimani ordered attacks) but what the full historical context of that violence is, and who truly deserves the "terrorist" label.

Is there anything Suleimani did that hasn't also been done by the CIA? Remember that we actually engineered the overthrow of the Iranian government, within living people's lifetimes . Would an Iranian have been justified in assassinating the head of the CIA? I doubt there are many Americans who think they would. I think most Americans would consider this terrorism. But this is because terrorism is a word that, by definition, cannot apply to things we do, and only applies to the things others do. When you start to actually reverse the situations in your mind, and see how things look from the other side, you start to fully grasp just how crude and irrational so much propaganda is.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/hPOy-LutJQg?feature=oembed

Watch out for euphemisms

  • "It was not an assassination." -- Noah Rothman, conservative commentator
  • "That's an outrageous thing to say. Nobody that I know of would think that we did something wrong in getting the general." -- Michael Bloomberg, on Bernie Sanders' claim that this was an "assassination"

Our access to much of the world is through language alone. We only see our tiny sliver of the world with our own eyes, much of the rest of it has to be described in words or shown to us through images. That means it's very easy to manipulate our perceptions. If you control the flow of information, you can completely alter someone's understanding of the things that they can't see firsthand.

Euphemistic language is always used to cover atrocities. Even the Nazis did not say they were "mass murdering innocent civilians." They said they were defending themselves from subversive elements, guaranteeing sufficient living space for their people, purifying their culture, etc. When the United States commits murder, it does not say it is committing murder. It says it is engaging in a stabilization program and restoring democratic rule. We saw during the recent Bolivian coup how easy it is to portray the seizure of power as "democracy" and democracy as tyranny. Euphemistic language has been one of the key tools of murderous regimes. In fact, many of them probably believe their own language; their specialized vocabulary allows them to inhabit a world of their own invention where they are good people punishing evil.

Assassination sounds bad. It sounds like something illegitimate, something that would call into question the goodness of the United States, even if the person being assassinated can be argued to have "deserved it." Thus Rothman and Bloomberg will not even admit that what the U.S. did here was an assassination, even though we literally targeted a high official from a sovereign country and dropped a bomb on him. Instead, this is " neutralization ." (Read this fascinatingly feeble attempt by the Associated Press to explain why it isn't calling an obvious assassination an assassination, just as the media declined to call torture torture when Bush did it.)

Those of us who want to resist marches to war need to insist on calling things exactly what they are and refuse to allow the country to slide into the use of language that conceals the reality of our actions.

Remember what people were saying five minutes ago

Five minutes ago, hardly anybody was talking about Suleimani. Now they all speak as if he was Public Enemy #1. Remember how much you hated that guy? Remember how much damage he did? No, I do not remember, because people like Ben Shapiro only just discovered their hatred for Suleimani once they had to justify his murder.

During the buildup to a war there is a constant effort to make you forget what things were like a few minutes ago. Before World War I, Americans lived relatively harmoniously with Germans in their midst. The same thing with Japanese people before World War II. Then, immediately, they began to hate and fear people who had recently been their neighbors.

Let us say Iran responds to this extrajudicial murder with a colossal act of violent reprisal, after the killing unifies the country around a demand for vengeance. They kill a high-ranking American official, or wage an attack that kills our civilians. Perhaps it will attack some of the soldiers that are now being moved into the Middle East. The Trump administration will then want you to forget that it promised this assassination was to " stop a war ." It will then want you to focus solely on Iran's most recent act, to see that as the initial aggression. If the attack is particularly bad, with family members of victims crying on TV and begging for vengeance, you will be told to look into the face of Iranian evil, and those of us who are anti-war will be branded as not caring about the victims. Nobody wants you to remember the history of U.S./Iran relations, the civilians we killed of theirs or the time we destabilized their whole country and got rid of its democracy. They want you to have a two-second memory, to become a blind and unthinking patriot whose sole thought is the avenging of American blood. Resisting propaganda requires having a memory, looking back on how things were before and not accepting war as the "new normal."

Listen to the Chomsky on your shoulder.

"It is perfectly insane to suggest the U.S. was the aggressor here." -- Ben Shapiro

They are going to try to convince you that you are insane for asking questions, or for not accepting what the government tells you. They will put you in topsy-turvy land, where thinking that assassinating foreign officials is "aggression" is not just wrong, but sheer madness. You will have to try your best to remember what things are, because it is not easy, when everyone says the emperor has clothes, or that Line A is longer than Line B, or that shocking people to death is fine, to have confidence in your independent judgment.

This is why I keep a little imaginary Noam Chomsky sitting on my shoulder at all times. Chomsky helps keep me sane, by cutting through lies and euphemisms and showing things as they really are. I recommend reading his books, especially during times of war. He never swallowed Johnson's nonsense about Vietnam or Bush's nonsense about Iraq. And of course they called him insane, anti-American, terrorist-loving, anti-Semitic, blah blah blah.

What I really mean here though is: Listen to the dissidents. They will not appear on television. They will be smeared and treated as lunatics. But you need them if you are going to be able to resist the absolute barrage of misinformation, or to hear yourself think over the pounding war drums. Times of War Fever can be wearying, because there is just so much aggression against dissent that your resistance wears down. This is why a community is so necessary. You may watch people who previously seemed reasonable develop a pathological bloodlust (mild-mannered moderate types like Thomas Friedman and Brian Williams going suck on our missiles ). Find the people who see clearly and stick close to them.

Someday peace will prevail. If you enjoyed this article, please consider subscribing to our magnificent print edition or making a donation . Current Affairs is 100% reader-supported. Nathan J. Robinson

[Jan 06, 2020] Pompeo's Petty Decision to Bar Zarif

Jan 06, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Pompeo's Petty Decision to Bar Zarif European External Action Service/Flickr

January 6, 2020

|

8:43 pm

Daniel Larison Colum Lynch and Robbie Gramer report on the Trump administration's decision to refuse a visa to Iran's foreign minister. Barring Zarif from the U.S. is a blatant violation of U.S. obligations as the host of U.N. headquarters:

"Any foreign minister is entitled to address the Security Council at any time and the United States is obligated to provide access to the U.N. headquarters district," said Larry Johnson, a former U.N. assistant secretary-general. Under the terms of the U.S. agreement with the United Nations, "they are absolutely obligated to let him in."

Johnson, who currently serves as an adjunct professor at Columbia University Law School, noted that the U.S. Congress, however, passed legislation in August 1947, the so-called Public Law 80-357, that granted the U.S. government the authority to bar foreign individuals invited by the United Nations to attend meetings at its New York City headquarters if they are deemed to pose a threat to U.S. national security. But Johnson said the U.S. law would require the individual be "expected to commit some act against the U.S. national security interest while here in the United States."

Refusing to admit Zarif is another foolish mistake on the administration's part. Preventing him from coming to the U.N. not only breaches our government's agreement with the U.N., but it also closes off a possible channel of communication and demonstrates to the world that the U.S. has no interest in a diplomatic resolution of the current crisis. Far from conveying the "toughness" that Pompeo imagines he is showing, keeping Zarif out reeks of weakness and insecurity. Zarif is a capable diplomat, but is the Trump administration really so afraid of what he would say while he is here that they would ignore U.S. obligations to block him?

By barring Zarif, the Trump administration has given him and his government another opportunity to score an easy propaganda win. They have squandered an opportunity to reduce tensions between the U.S. and Iran. The U.S. needs to find an off-ramp to avoid further conflict following the president's assassination order, but thanks to Pompeo's decision that off-ramp won't be found in New York.

[Jan 06, 2020] Putin's Hour Is At Hand - PaulCraigRoberts.org

Notable quotes:
"... Putin's Hour Is At Hand was published in the Russian press Monday morning, January 6, 2020. ..."
Jan 06, 2020 | www.paulcraigroberts.org

Putin's Hour Is At Hand January 4, 2020 | Categories: Articles & Columns | Tags: | Print This Article Print This Article

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

Putin's Hour Is At Hand

Paul Craig Roberts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jan 06, 2020] Mike Pompeo- Killing Qasem Soleimani disrupted an imminent attack

Looks like Pompeo a gifted liar...
Jan 06, 2020 | www.youtube.com

James Shaw , 2 days ago

THE PEOPLE OF BOTH COUNTRIES DO NOT WANT WAR...ITS THE LEADERS THAT WANT WAR, NOT THE PEOPLE

Moses Tekper , 2 days ago

The world is a safer place there but all American civilians should get out of the region. What a joke.

Fi Vongphachanh , 2 days ago

Trump screwed up that why need to move American people's.

Sidra Irfan , 1 day ago

Trump try to open door of third [world] war He is really sick man.

Bhai Log , 1 day ago

Shameless act by trump. World need peace but Donald trump doesn't want

WADA FAKA , 2 days ago

Now those who fought ISIS with blood and swear are systematically eliminated by the USA😎

Manny M , 2 days ago

Your asking the wrong people for the strikes, ask Israel 🇮🇱 you'll get little more then here!!

delonix regia , 1 day ago

Mike Pompeo? " We lie , cheat and steal " . That's all we have to know about this guy .

Fix News , 2 days ago

Done our level best under the direct guidance of the president. Oh boy.

Aldemar Delapuy , 2 days ago

Who wants a jeep ride with an Iranian general?

G.E. B. , 2 days ago

As soon as he opened his mouth he started to glorify Trump.....

Captain1 Jones , 1 day ago

What's different is that Trump got impeached.

A Warrior of Christ , 2 days ago

Puppet Pompeo, Trump's hand is behind his back and manipulating his lips!

Green Orange , 2 days ago

There is No justice, if there was , most of the USA politicians would be sentenced for War Crimes.

Sherry Osinga , 2 days ago

... you don't understand, we don't trust you.

Muntadher Alqrashie , 2 days ago

Think of us the Iraqi people before you start a war. We're tired from wars.. enough

Hadzra Hatta , 2 days ago

Does Mike Pompeo know what he's talking about?

Sandy Phelps , 1 day ago

Pompeo is a traitor and a liar. We are letting liars lead us into a terrible war.

Elizabeth Klimas , 2 days ago

have weapon of mass destruction being found yet other than CHEMTRAILS in the USA?????

BARTETMEDIA , 2 days ago

Trump stuck his right foot way up his a$$ this time. Now the left foot it's coming.

[Jan 06, 2020] Buttigieg on Soleimani strike- We need answers

Jan 06, 2020 | www.youtube.com

jason thomas , 3 hours ago

Don't trust the CIA


Aramai Jonassi , 9 hours ago

We have nothing to worry about with Jared Kushner being in charge of middle East peace, amiright?🙄

Deborah Lawson , 8 hours ago (edited)

More people at Mara Lago knew that General Suliemeni was going to be hit than congressmen and congresswomen? That tells me trump was bragging about how much power he has. He's so insecure and feeble that he has no business holding the most power office in the land!


light Archer , 10 hours ago

The main beneficiaries of Solimanies death are his arch enemies, Isis. Trump turned on both his field allies against Isis, the Kurds and Solimani's militia. Who are America's allies in the field, now?

Idin Azadipour , 5 hours ago

Let me tally this up for the wonderful viewers, an American backed coupe of a democratically elected prime minister who wanted to nationalize the oil fields of Iran which at time was owned by Britain. The shooting down of a plane with 290 people in it by an American Naval vessel. The backing of Saddam with chemical weapons and millions of dollars, to go to war with Iran leaving half a million dead. The installation of a dictator whose secret police force imprisoned, tortured and killed political dissidence. Learn your history.

Katherine Diaz , 20 minutes ago (edited)

All jokes aside but everyone this isnt a joke anymore becuase of our wreckless president making dumb distractions ive ever heard of trump is a sociopath he makes the rich richer, the poor poorer. Just remember this guy and his family are banned from having fun raisers in the state of new york becuase trump held a big fundraiser to help fight kids cancer he stole money from kids to search to find a cure for cancer. He nearly shut down the gouverment becuase Congress refused to give him the money for him to build the wall but not most of all 5 general from the us resigned becuase they didnt agree with his intensions. He doesnt care about anyone but himself and anyone with common sense can sse that and im done with the US government and this isnt the American that i grew up loving. All the hatred for eachother is disgusting and disturbing


TheFarmanimalfriend , 11 hours ago

The Iranian fiasco started in 1953 when America overthrew Iran's democratically elected government, so we could get their oil. The autocrat we installed had a nasty habit of torturing and murdering any who opposed him, but he did sell us oil. In 1979 the Iranians, united by their clergy, threw him out. We keep stirring the hornets nest we created and are surprised when we get stung? Now you too can have a front row seat at this foreign policy debacle! War? We don't need no stinking war. Trump is desperate to distract the American people from seeing how incompetent and stupid he really is.

[Jan 06, 2020] Elizabeth Warren on Qasem Soleimani killing- People are reasonably asking, why this moment

Warren kept her ground wonderfully in this exchange. Warren suggests that people are reasonable asking about timing. Also warmongering of Trump.
Jan 06, 2020 | www.youtube.com

Richie Beck , 6 hours ago (edited)

"When everyone else is losing their heads, it is important to keep yours." - Marie-Antoinette, Queen of France and Irony.

Bob Bart , 7 hours ago (edited)

" What is human warfare but just this; an effort to make the laws of God and nature take sides with one party. " ~ Henry David Thoreau

personal cooking , 4 hours ago

China is laughing.US pay attention in middel east now.

[Jan 06, 2020] Neocon Pompeo pushed Trump to kill Soleimani; Looks like West Point educated military contactor mafia to which Pompeo and Esper belongs controls the President, although Trump malleability and recklessness are inexcusable

Highly recommended!
So Trump instead of draining the swamp brought swamp creatures like Pompeo into his Administration; now he can pay the price.
Notable quotes:
"... The greenlighting of the airstrike near Baghdad airport represents a bureaucratic victory for Pompeo ..."
"... "We took a bad guy off the battlefield. We made the right decision," Pompeo told CNN. "I'm proud of the effort that President Trump undertook." ..."
"... On Dec. 29, Pompeo, Esper and Milley traveled to the president's private club in Florida, where the two defense officials presented possible responses to Iranian aggression, including the option of killing Soleimani, senior U.S. officials said. ..."
"... One significant factor was the "lockstep" coordination for the operation between Pompeo and Esper, both graduates in the same class at the U.S. Military Academy, who deliberated ahead of the briefing with Trump, senior U.S. officials said. Pence also endorsed the decision, but he did not attend the meeting in Florida. ..."
"... Some defense officials said Pompeo's claims of an imminent and direct threat were overstated, and they would prefer that he make the case based on the killing of the American contractor and previous Iranian provocations. ..."
"... On Sunday, Iran announced that it was suspending all limits of the nuclear deal, including on uranium enrichment, research and development, and enlarging its stockpile of nuclear fuel. Britain, France and Germany, as well as Russia and China, were original signatories of that deal with the United States and Iran, and all opposed Trump's decision to withdraw from the pact. ..."
"... "No one trusts what Trump will do next, so it's hard to get behind this," said the European diplomat. ..."
"... Since his time as CIA director, Pompeo has forged a friendship with Yossi Cohen, the director of the Israeli intelligence service Mossad, said a person familiar with their meetings. The men have spoken about the threat posed by Iran to both Israel and the United States. In a prescient interview in October, Cohen said Soleimani "knows perfectly well that his elimination is not impossible." ..."
"... At every step of his government career, Pompeo has tried to stake out a maximalist position on Iran that has made him popular among two critical pro-Israel constituencies in Republican politics: conservative Jewish donors and Christian evangelicals. ..."
"... After Trump tapped Pompeo to lead the CIA, Pompeo quickly set up an Iran Mission Center at the agency to focus intelligence-gathering efforts and operations, elevating Iran's importance as an intelligence target. ..."
Jan 06, 2020 | www.washingtonpost.com

The secretary also spoke to President Trump multiple times every day last week, culminating in Trump's decision to approve the killing of Iran's top military commander, Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, at the urging of Pompeo and Vice President Pence, the officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

Pompeo had lost a similar high-stakes deliberation last summer when Trump declined to retaliate militarily against Iran after it downed a U.S. surveillance drone, an outcome that left Pompeo "morose," according to one U.S. official. But recent changes to Trump's national security team and the whims of a president anxious about being viewed as hesitant in the face of Iranian aggression created an opening for Pompeo to press for the kind of action he had been advocating.

The greenlighting of the airstrike near Baghdad airport represents a bureaucratic victory for Pompeo, but it also carries multiple serious risks: another protracted regional war in the Middle East; retaliatory assassinations of U.S. personnel stationed around the world; an interruption in the battle against the Islamic State; the closure of diplomatic pathways to containing Iran's nuclear program; and a major backlash in Iraq, whose parliament voted on Sunday to expel all U.S. troops from the country.

For Pompeo, whose political ambitions are a source of constant speculation , the death of U.S. diplomats would be particularly damaging given his unyielding criticisms of former secretary of state Hillary Clinton following the killing of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and other American personnel in Benghazi in 2012.

But none of those considerations stopped Pompeo from pushing for the targeted strike, U.S. officials said, underscoring a fixation on Iran that spans 10 years of government service from Congress to the CIA to the State Department.

"We took a bad guy off the battlefield. We made the right decision," Pompeo told CNN. "I'm proud of the effort that President Trump undertook."

Pompeo first spoke with Trump about killing Soleimani months ago, said a senior U.S. official, but neither the president nor Pentagon officials were willing to countenance such an operation.

For more than a year, defense officials warned that the administration's campaign of economic sanctions against Iran had increased tensions with Tehran, requiring a bigger and bigger share of military resources in the Middle East when many at the Pentagon wanted to redeploy their firepower to East Asia.

How the siege of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad unfolded On Jan. 1, the siege on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad appeared to come to an end after supporters of the Iranian-backed Kataib Hezbollah militia retreated. (Liz Sly, Joyce Lee, Mustafa Salim/The Washington Post)

Trump, too, sought to draw down from the Middle East as he promised from the opening days of his presidential campaign. But that mind-set shifted on Dec. 27 when 30 rockets hit a joint U.S.-Iraqi base outside Kirkuk, killing an American civilian contractor and injuring service members.

On Dec. 29, Pompeo, Esper and Milley traveled to the president's private club in Florida, where the two defense officials presented possible responses to Iranian aggression, including the option of killing Soleimani, senior U.S. officials said.

Trump's decision to target Soleimani came as a surprise and a shock to some officials briefed on his decision, given the Pentagon's long-standing concerns about escalation and the president's aversion to using military force against Iran.

One significant factor was the "lockstep" coordination for the operation between Pompeo and Esper, both graduates in the same class at the U.S. Military Academy, who deliberated ahead of the briefing with Trump, senior U.S. officials said. Pence also endorsed the decision, but he did not attend the meeting in Florida.

"Taking out Soleimani would not have happened under [former secretary of defense Jim] Mattis," said a senior administration official who argued that the Mattis Pentagon was risk-averse. "Mattis was opposed to all of this. It's not a hit on Mattis, it's just his predisposition. Milley and Esper are different. Now you've got a cohesive national security team and you've got a secretary of state and defense secretary who've known each other their whole adult lives."

Mattis declined to comment.

In the days since the strike, Pompeo has become the voice of the administration on the matter, speaking to allies and making the public case for the operation. Trump chose Pompeo to appear on all of the Sunday news shows because he "sticks to the line" and "never gives an inch," an administration official said.

But critics inside and outside the administration have questioned Pompeo's justification for the strike based on his claims that "dozens if not hundreds" of American lives were at risk.

[ Trump faces Iran crisis with fewer experienced advisers and strained relations with allies ]

Lawmakers left classified briefings with U.S. intelligence officials on Friday saying they heard nothing to suggest that the threat posed by the proxy forces guided by Soleimani had changed substantially in recent months.

When repeatedly pressed on Sunday about the imminent nature of the threats, whether it was days or weeks away, or whether they had been foiled by the U.S. airstrike, Pompeo dismissed the questions.

"If you're an American in the region, days and weeks -- this is not something that's relevant," Pompeo told CNN.

Some defense officials said Pompeo's claims of an imminent and direct threat were overstated, and they would prefer that he make the case based on the killing of the American contractor and previous Iranian provocations.

Critics have also questioned how an imminent attack would be foiled by killing Soleimani, who would not have carried out the strike himself.

"If the attack was going to take place when Soleimani was alive, it is difficult to comprehend why it wouldn't take place now that he is dead," said Robert Malley, the president of the International Crisis Group and a former Obama administration official.

Following the strike, Pompeo has held back-to-back phone calls with his counterparts around the globe but has received a chilly reception from European allies, many of whom fear that the attack puts their embassies in Iran and Iraq in jeopardy and has now eliminated the chance to keep a lid on Iran's nuclear program.

"We have woken up to a more dangerous world," said France's Europe minister, Amelie de Montchalin.

Two European diplomats familiar with the calls said Pompeo expected European leaders to champion the U.S. strike publicly even though they were never consulted on the decision.

"The U.S. has not helped the Iran situation, and now they want everyone to cheerlead this," one diplomat said.

"Our position over the past few years has been about defending the JCPOA," said the diplomat, referring to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.

On Sunday, Iran announced that it was suspending all limits of the nuclear deal, including on uranium enrichment, research and development, and enlarging its stockpile of nuclear fuel. Britain, France and Germany, as well as Russia and China, were original signatories of that deal with the United States and Iran, and all opposed Trump's decision to withdraw from the pact.

"No one trusts what Trump will do next, so it's hard to get behind this," said the European diplomat.

Pompeo has slapped back at U.S. allies, saying "the Brits, the French, the Germans all need to understand that what we did -- what the Americans did -- saved lives in Europe as well," he told Fox News.

Israel has stood out in emphatically cheering the Soleimani operation, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praising Trump for "acting swiftly, forcefully and decisively."

"Israel stands with the United States in its just struggle for peace, security and self-defense," he said.

Since his time as CIA director, Pompeo has forged a friendship with Yossi Cohen, the director of the Israeli intelligence service Mossad, said a person familiar with their meetings. The men have spoken about the threat posed by Iran to both Israel and the United States. In a prescient interview in October, Cohen said Soleimani "knows perfectly well that his elimination is not impossible."

Though Democrats have greeted the strike with skepticism, Republican leaders, who have long viewed Pompeo as a reassuring voice in the administration, uniformly praised the decision as the eradication of a terrorist who directed the killing of U.S. soldiers in Iraq after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

"Soleimani made it his life's work to take the Iranian revolutionary call for death to America and death to Israel and turn them into action," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said.

A critical moment for Pompeo is nearing as he faces growing questions about a potential Senate run, though some GOP insiders say that decision seems to have stalled. Pompeo has kept in touch with Ward Baker, a political consultant who would probably lead the operation, and others in McConnell's orbit, about a bid. But Pompeo hasn't committed one way or the other, people familiar with the conversations said.

Some people close to the secretary say he has mixed feelings about becoming a relatively junior senator from Kansas after leading the State Department and CIA, but there is little doubt in Pompeo's home state that he could win.

At every step of his government career, Pompeo has tried to stake out a maximalist position on Iran that has made him popular among two critical pro-Israel constituencies in Republican politics: conservative Jewish donors and Christian evangelicals.

After Trump tapped Pompeo to lead the CIA, Pompeo quickly set up an Iran Mission Center at the agency to focus intelligence-gathering efforts and operations, elevating Iran's importance as an intelligence target.

At the State Department, he is a voracious consumer of diplomatic notes and reporting on Iran, and he places the country far above other geopolitical and economic hot spots in the world. "If it's about Iran, he will read it," said one diplomat, referring to the massive flow of paper that crosses Pompeo's desk. "If it's not, good luck."

[Jan 06, 2020] Angry Bear " Killing Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis by Barkley Rosser

Notable quotes:
"... If the plan is/was to leave Syria and Iraq, it was not. In this case it was a screwed, albeit mafia-style, tactical move killing two birds with one stone. ..."
Jan 06, 2020 | angrybearblog.com
Most of the attention in this recent attack by a US drone at the Baghdad Airport has been on it killing Iranian Quds Force commander, Qasim (Qassem) Solmaini (Suleimani), supposedly plotting an “imminent” attack on Americans as he flew a commercial airliner to Iraq at the invitation of its government and passed through passport control. But much less attention has been paid to the killing in that attack of Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, commander of the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq and reportedly an officer in the Iraqi military, as well as being, according to Juan Cole, a Yazidi Kurd, although the PMF is identified as being a Shia militia allied with Iran.

The problem here is that supposedly US leaders approved this strike because there were no Iraqi officials in this group; it was supposedly “clean.” But there was al-Muhandis, with his PMF also allied to a political faction, the Fath, who hold 48 seats in the Iraqi parliament. The often anti-Iranian Shia leader, Moqtada al-Sadr, has now joined with Fath and other groups to demand a vote in the parliament to order a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.

... ... ...

There is much more that can be said about this, but among less noticed responses I note that although Israeli PM Netanyahu made a strong statement supporting the attack, apparently he has ordered his aides not to talk about it further, and the Israelis are worried about possible escalation of this In KSA, “Bone-Saw” MbS has said nothing, although supposedly the Saudi had sought to kill Solemaini themselves.

Oh, and of course Mike Pompeo announced that this move has made Americans “safe” in the region, even as Americans have been urged to leave Iraq immediately. So, yeah, they will be more safe by getting the heck out.

likbez , January 6, 2020 3:22 am

@Terry, January 5, 2020 10:37 pm

it is not clear to me that killing Solemaini was a mistake.

If the plan is/was to leave Syria and Iraq, it was not. In this case it was a screwed, albeit mafia-style, tactical move killing two birds with one stone.

But a more plausible hypothesis is that it was spontaneous Trump-style overreaction on siege of the US embassy which now start backfiring in a spectacular and very dangerous way, because Iran views this as the declaration of war (and not without reasons, see below)

"Before the vote Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi told the parliament that he was scheduled to meet with Soleimani a day after his arrival to receive a letter from Iran to Iraq in response to a de-escalation offer Saudi Arabia had made. The U.S. assassinated Soleimani before the letter could be delivered by him. Abdul-Mahdi also said that Trump had asked him to mediate between the U.S. and Iran. Did he do that to trap Soleimani? It is no wonder then that Abdul-Mahdi is fuming."

If this is true, the most close analogy I can think of is probably Lebanon, 1983. See overview of 1983 Beirut barracks bombings at https://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2020/01/there-will-be-blood-by-larry-c-johnson.html

Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr said the parliamentary resolution to end foreign troop presence in the country did not go far enough, calling on local and foreign militia groups to unite . I also have confirmation that the Mehdi Army is being re-mobilized .

He called for closure of the US embassy and forming united Shia paramilitary groups to fight occupation which he named "Resistance legions"

https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/202001051077952584-iraqi-shiite-cleric-sadr-calls-for-international-resistance-legions-as-mps-vote-to-oust-us-troops/

More specifically, Sadr issues a statement with demands:
• close the US embassy
• end security deal immediately
• close US bases in a humiliating way
• protection of Iraq should be handed to the Resistance militias
• boycott of US products

[Jan 06, 2020] Tucker Carlson is livid with anger and frustration at Trump's actions .

Jan 06, 2020 | www.unz.com

KA , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 8:57 pm GMT

@Just passing through https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/04/media/fox-news-iran-soleimani/index.html

Tucker Carlson is livid with anger and frustration at Trump's actions .

Death to America is a rallying point for Iran to emphasize the same aspect of American status .
They talk in future . Carlson is reminding that we are already there .

If people woke up with anger at Iran., they would find that the dead horse isn't able to do much but only can attract a lot of attention from far .

The reason Taliban didn't inform Mulla Omar's death was to let the rank and file continues to remain engaged without getting into internal feuding fight .
A trues state of US won't be televised until the horse starts rotting but then that would be quite late .

I don't recall any dissent until this assassination . Now 70 cities are witnessing protests and a few in Media are not happy at all .

There is a big unknown if and when Iran would strike back and at who. Persian is not like khasaogi murderer or Harri kidnapper .

[Jan 06, 2020] Wow the iraq PM office just stated that The US government had asked Iraq to invite Soleimani to iraq for face to face deescalation talks with the US then murdered in the airport.

Notable quotes:
"... In other blowbacks from the murder of Soleimani the Qatar leaders are fuming over the use of a Qatar based reaper drone to launch the missiles and were controlled remotely by operators at the US Air Force base in Creech, Nevada. https://www.arabnews.com/node/1608386/middle-east ..."
"... The picture of the meeting between the Qatar FM and the Iranian FM showed the Qatar flag with the red replaced by black in respect. https://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/article/04/01/2020/Qatar-Foreign-Minister-meets-Iranian-counterpart-in-Tehran ..."
"... It should be noted that Qatar owes a debt of honor to Iran for supplying need food goods to survive a blockade by KSA and the UAE. Likewise, Qatar has close ties with Turkey due to the presence of a couple thousand Turkish troops that prevented a KSA invasion and has been supplying a lot of LGN fuel to Turkey. ..."
Jan 06, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Kadath , Jan 5 2020 17:23 utc | 60

Wow the iraq PM office just stated that The US government had asked Iraq to invite Soleimani to iraq for face to face deescalation talks with the US then murdered in the airport. Even by outlaw empire standards this was insane they murdered a diplomat on talks they invited him to. US diplomacy has been on decline for decades but this is reckless terrorist diplomacy, with a single action the US has lost the middle east and killed the value of US assurances and diplomacy

paul , Jan 5 2020 17:27 utc | 63

The Soliemani assassination now looks even more abhorent. Now it looks like one of the oldest and most abhorent types of war acts: a fake parley turned into a murder zone. What the people who seem to have arranged this - presumably the US and Israel and maybe Saudi Arabia - apparently did not expect was that Soleimani was to become a martyr in the eyes of his people.

Mercouris suggests that Soleimani expected and planned on exactly this: that he would become a martyr and a unifying symbol in the end. Presumably he did not know when it would happen exactly, or perhaps he did have a sense. Several people here suggested as much and it doesn't seem so farfetched now. I'm reminded of Martin Luther King's death, though of course Soleimani was far from being a man of peace as MLK was. MLK seemed to know that he was soon to become a martyr and he seemed to accept this as a necessary thing, even as perhaps the best way for him to continue his work. Obi Wan Kenobi lol! ,

But there is a correlating thought I don't see anyone picking up on yet. If this was indeed an ambush, possibly, then it was preplanned. Trump's reported veiled references to people at his resort ('something huge is coming') also seem to point to this. In that case it seems even more likely that the initial rocket attack was itself a false flag operation.

Igor Bundy , Jan 5 2020 17:31 utc | 65
Ah the text book case from the British Empire..

They invited all the Tibetan leaders to attend the peace conference.. As a gesture of respect, everyone removed a single shot from their rifle which left the Tibetan security guards single shot muskets defenceless when the British opened fire and ended the tibetan political power and started drawing the new borders.. After a while the communists took over when the british left and a leaderless tibetan homeland as their own.. China is one third the Tibetan empire.. It was taken without any resistance at all.. China in 5000 years was never able to conquer Tibet.. But like the US helping exterminate christians world wide.. The british helps other cultures get destroyed..

BM , Jan 5 2020 17:33 utc | 66
3. If Saudi tricked Suleimani by getting Iraq to "mediate" (Iraq's prime minister was expecting a message by him on the mediation when he was assassinated), Saudi will get targeted.
Posted by: somebody | Jan 5 2020 16:52 utc | 44

More likely, Saudi will be pissed off at Israel enough to have a serious impact on their relations! All the more reason to patch up with Iran and go for the HOPE plan.

All the attention is focussed on how Trump has messed up so badly, which he has - but Israel has messed itself up even more badly.

krollchem , Jan 5 2020 17:39 utc | 67
Some background on the Iraqi vote:

Posted by Naijaa_Man at the Saker site on January 05, 2020 · at 9:58 am EST/EDT

"From Iraq Prime Minister's speech in Parliament, I gathered that:

(1) Trump told the Prime Minister that he will attack Iraqi PMU Militias, The Prime Minister objected and Trump ignored him

(2) After the US Embassy protests ended, Trump called the Prime Minister and thanked him for successfully persuading Iraqi PMU Militias to withdraw from Embassy grounds and Green Zone. Trump refused to apologize for defying the Prime Minister's request to respect Iraq Sovereignty and strike the PMU militias

(3) Trump asked Iraq to be a mediator between USA/Saudi axis and the Iranians. The Prime Minister agreed and communicated the message to Iran. The Prime Minister asked Americans to stop conducting helicopter overflights above PMU military bases, Trump ignored him

(4) With respect to the mediation issue, Qassem Solemani was in Iraq to deliver a personal message from Ayatollah Khamenei to the Prime Minister when the Americans assassinated him."

This has led to, 170 Iraqi lawmakers sign draft bill to expel US military forces from country
https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2020/01/05/615421/Iraqi-lawmakers-draft-US-forces

Note : there is a process to be followed. The lawmakers will now seek parliamentary approval.
http://thesaker.is/soleimani-murder-sitrep-funeral-and-vote/

So technically, The Iraqi parliament voted to "ask" the Iraqi government to end the security agreement with the US, end the presence of foreign troops & the international coalition's mandate against ISIS, even in Iraqi air space "for whatever reason."

There will be a lot of negotiation required before any significant withdrawal of US troops. It is noteworthy that there were only 180 US troops in Iraq 2014.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_Iraq_(2014%E2%80%93present)

The surge in US forces only occurred following the 2014 defeat of ISIS in the battle for Latakia, Syria where the Obama Administration backed islamists (many imported from Libya) were relocated into Iraq and joined former Saddam military forces to roll back Iraqi Shia forces.
http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/ISIS_Governance.pdf

As discussed in the latest Grayzone 2 hour discussion it was Qassem Soleimani who was key to the defeat of the US/Israeli/KSA/UAE backed ISIS forces.

https://thegrayzone.com/2020/01/03/us-war-iran-iraq-rania-khalek/

For more coverage see RANIA KHALEK'S twitter site:

https://twitter.com/RaniaKhalek?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

As reported in RT, "Iraqi parliament has voted to have foreign troops removed from the country, heeding to a call from its caretaker prime minister. The move comes after US assassination of a top Iranian general and a commander of Iraqi militia The resolution, which was passed anonymously, instructs the government to cancel a request for military assistance to the US-led coalition, which was issued in response to the rise of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS). With IS supposedly defeated, Iraq will not need foreign troops to fight the jihadists and can close its airspace to coalition aircraft."

According to Press TV, some Western military presence may remain for training purposes. The resolution says Iraqi military leadership has to report the number of foreign instructors that are necessary for Iraqi national security At the same time, the Iraqi Foreign Ministry said that Baghdad had turned to the UN Security Council with complaints about US violations of its sovereignty The interim prime minister said after the incident that it was clear it was in the interest of both the US and Iraq to end the presence of foreign forces on Iraqi soil

Mahdi said Soleimani was on his way to meet him when the US airstrike killed the Iranian general https://mobile.twitter.com/janearraf/status/1213823941321592834

Influential Iraqi cleric Muqtada al-Sadr stated in a letter that Iraq should go further and shut down the US embassy."
https://www.rt.com/news/477515-iraq-parliament-foreign-troops/

More specifically, Sadr issues a statement saying the partial end proposal was weak anyway, with demands:
• close the US embassy
• end security deal immediately
• close US bases in a humiliating way
• protection of Iraq should be handed to the Resistance militias
• boycott of US products

https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/202001051077952584-iraqi-shiite-cleric-sadr-calls-for-international-resistance-legions-as-mps-vote-to-oust-us-troops/

Meanwhile, "Iraq's (Kurdish) President Barham Salih has threatened to step down rather than approve a candidate for prime minister put forward by Iran-linked political parties, pushing Baghdad deeper into political turmoil after nearly three months of anti-government protests."

"Protesters have demanded that the next prime minister be someone unconnected to political parties they accuse of corruption. Yet the Iran-linked Binaa parliamentary voting bloc has nominated Asaad al-Edani, a former minister and governor of oil-rich Basra province. Binaa's bloc is mostly made up of the Fatah party led by militia leader turned politician Hadi al-Ameri, who is close to Tehran. The rival Sairoon bloc, headed by populist Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, said it would not participate in the process of nominating a new premier."
https://www.ft.com/content/50f09fe4-27f4-11ea-9a4f-963f0ec7e134

However, "Out of an eagerness to spare blood and preserve civil peace, I apologize for not naming Edani prime minister," the letter continued. "I am ready to submit my resignation to parliament."
https://time.com/5755588/iraq-president-resignation/

My take is that the best way to minimize further violence would for the US to accept Muqtada al-Sadr demands.

In other blowbacks from the murder of Soleimani the Qatar leaders are fuming over the use of a Qatar based reaper drone to launch the missiles and were controlled remotely by operators at the US Air Force base in Creech, Nevada. https://www.arabnews.com/node/1608386/middle-east

The picture of the meeting between the Qatar FM and the Iranian FM showed the Qatar flag with the red replaced by black in respect.
https://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/article/04/01/2020/Qatar-Foreign-Minister-meets-Iranian-counterpart-in-Tehran

It should be noted that Qatar owes a debt of honor to Iran for supplying need food goods to survive a blockade by KSA and the UAE. Likewise, Qatar has close ties with Turkey due to the presence of a couple thousand Turkish troops that prevented a KSA invasion and has been supplying a lot of LGN fuel to Turkey.

Today, the first blowback came as Al Shabab (backed by Qatar and the UAE) attacked for the first time a US base in Kenya which came a few hours after the Qatari FM visited Teheran. Link:

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2020/01/05/us-aircraft-destroyed-no-troops-injured-in-jihadi-attack-on-base-in-kenya/

It is not only Shia and some Sunni that oppose US/Israeli aggression in the Mideast but also Christians:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdZgkGI5h0A

On a related note, Putin is scheduled to visit Turkey on January 8, 2020 to "officially" open the Turkstream pipeline. Putin had better have extra security given the many murders conducted for geopolitical gain by Western powers and their agents!

I close with a visionary French rock opera Starmania "story of an alternate reality where a fascist millionaire famous for building skyscrapers is running for president on an anti-immigration policy, and where the poor are getting more and more desperate for their voices to be heard."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78LytR-6Xmk

See also Dimash's renderation of the Starmania final song S.O.S https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hTy2MqmwLk

Pray for peace

somebody , Jan 5 2020 17:41 utc | 68
Posted by: BM | Jan 5 2020 17:33 utc | 65

What you describe is fictional. Saudi continues to have a huge problem in Yemen, which is his backyard .

Jackrabbit , Jan 5 2020 17:45 utc | 69
Is there any confirmation of Magnier's reporting about Soleimani as a peace envoy? I haven't found any.

Magnier previously mused that Trump offered Iran the killing of a US 4-star General to compensate for the killing of Soleimani. That is nonsense.

!!

Kadath , Jan 5 2020 17:46 utc | 70
Well that didnt take too long Marco Rubio (little Marco) is already calling on the US to ignore the parliament's resolution and support a break away kurdistan in northern iraq
oldhippie , Jan 5 2020 17:46 utc | 71
Trump is real clear. He has a target list of 52 sites. They will be hit if Iran does anything at all. Or if Iran does nothing they will be hit. Paranoids invent slights and offenses. So the bombs will fly, soon.

The only questions are what delivery systems, what armaments, how good are Iran's air defences? I suspect Iran's air defences are quite good and plenty gets through anyway. So is it nukes or "only" mini-nukes on the first round? Any way you look at it there will be a second round. And then the next question. Can anyone or anything put the brakes on this sequence of events?

Trump is just a second string gangster. The gangsters who are firmly in his camp are also second string. The big boys have largely been absent, they don't much care who is US President or how the little squabbles go. Wondering here if Rockefellers and Rothschilds and the older families have good means for quickly getting a Hollywood rewrite on all these antics or if the avalanche is now unstoppable.

As for the new information that Soleimani was lured and ambushed --- why would anyone do diplomacy with US again? Even Lavrov has to wonder if he is safe anywhere. Ordinary diplomats and functionaries at UN have to wonder if they are safe. Who would want to be so much as a consular assistant?

Jackrabbit , Jan 5 2020 17:54 utc | 72
Laguerre @52: Your fear is incomprehensible.

"Incomprehensible?" LOL.

Kadath @70:

Well that didnt take too long Marco Rubio (little Marco) is already calling on the US to ignore the parliament's resolution and support a break away kurdistan in northern iraq

!!
cdvision , Jan 5 2020 18:01 utc | 73
Forward @24. I believe yours is the correct interpretation. Israeli fingerprints are all over this. Its the only thing that makes sense. Trump may have averted all hell by claiming credit, but the truth will soon be out. And you can bet the farm that Iran already knows the truth. This has already backfired spectacularly in uniting Sunni and Shia against the US/Israel/Saudi. And we are still in the period of mourning. It hasn't begun yet.
psychohistorian , Jan 5 2020 18:04 utc | 74
@ oldhippie # 71 who wrote
"
Trump is just a second string gangster. The gangsters who are firmly in his camp are also second string. The big boys have largely been absent, they don't much care who is US President or how the little squabbles go. Wondering here if Rockefellers and Rothschilds and the older families have good means for quickly getting a Hollywood rewrite on all these antics or if the avalanche is now unstoppable.
"

I am of the opinion that what is going on is part of the elite script for our world and only would be proven wrong if they go nuclear. This circus we have been seeing is the throw America under the bus ploy while global private finance get to cull the heard and stay in charge of human finance.....I hope they fail but having read The Shock Doctrine, I have had this scenarion in my head for quite some time. Look at this forum and how many are of faith....If the faith leaders back the God of Mammon core then think about how hard it would be to eliminate......in spite of China's growing example.

It doesn't slow down from here, IMO, so we should have a pretty good read of what is playing out in 6 months or so

Cynica , Jan 5 2020 18:06 utc | 75
Especially in times like these, people should remember what drives US foreign policy more than anything else: maintaining the reserve-currency status of the US dollar. It's no coincidence at all that the countries that the US establishment considers its biggest adversaries are those countries which are resisting the dollar hegemony the most. The US establishment may stop at nothing to maintain the dollar hegemony. Certainly it won't shy away from such underhanded tactics as those employed in the assassination of Soleimani.

It's entirely predictable that the Iraqi parliament would order the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. And it's entirely predictable that the US will ignore that order. Likewise, it's predictable that Iran will respond in some way against US military targets in the Middle East, which will trigger US airstrikes against targets in Iran (as Trump has already promised). At that point, it's war, plain and simple. Iran will most likely declare war on the US after the airstrikes and then launch an all-out missile attack against as many US and allied targets in the Middle East as possible. What happens beyond that is more difficult to see. It may well become a case of "Apres nous, le deluge."

Russ , Jan 5 2020 18:07 utc | 76
"Before the vote Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi told the parliament that he was scheduled to meet with Soleimani a day after his arrival to receive a letter from Iran to Iraq in response to a de-escalation offer Saudi Arabia had made. The U.S. assassinated Soleimani before the letter could be delivered by him. "

So if this report is correct, is there any word on whether the Saudi regime still stands by this offer, and has Mahdi received it yet by another channel?

As for the vote, I've predicted in the last several threads that the US clearly is throwing down the mask completely, will never abide by legal demands to leave, and will resort to straight brute violence in an attempt to hold onto the country as a staging ground for war. They'll try to force regime change if they can (though now that such a coup would be directly engineered by the abominable occupier, it's hard to see what significant number of Irakis would support it and serve in a puppet government. It would be like the fake, zero-supported Mussolini retread regime the Germans installed after invading Italy in 1943.

Failing that, the US will try to wreck the place completely, turn it into total chaos.

DFC , Jan 5 2020 18:16 utc | 79
Of course USA has threatened many times to nuke many contries, North Korea and China were threatened many many times from the Mc Arthur times (1950) to just recently; of course North Vietnam was repeatedly threatened with devastating nuclear attacks, and many others have been subject to the same bully tactics that never ever worked and could have medium term consequences, in the american citicens, difficult to predict.
Any nuclear unprovoked first strike attack of the USA to another country, to put it on their kness, will be follow for a complete nuclear proliferation of nuclear weapons and delivery systems all around the world by nations and terrorist groups, and I think in few years it is nos unthinkable some nuclear devices could explode in some american cities (by unknown people).

China and Russia will prepare themselves all their allies for that eventuality bigly

Why do they think nuclear threats will work now with people with a martyrdom mentality like Iran if it did not work in the past? why do the american military thinks the iranians are so easy to scare? what do they think Iran and every Shia group in the world will do next in the case of a nuke attack on Iran soil?

The world will be x1000 more dangerous for the american people.

Even nuking failed made Japan surrender, in fact was Zhukov crushing defeat of the japanese Manchuria army and the fear that would be the Soviet Union who invades Japan and put a red flag in the emperor's palace (you know uncle Joe was less fearful of soldiers' losses than the americans counterpart).

[Jan 06, 2020] $21 Trillion Missing U.S. Government as a Criminal Enterpris

Jan 06, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Tom_LX , Jan 5 2020 17:24 utc | 61

Here is a story making the rounds which perfectly fits in the "Should I Stay or Should I Leave" US Middle East Swamp.
How the Pentagon Was Duped by Contractors Using Shell Companies By David Voreacos and Neil Weinberg
January 4, 2020, 2:00 PM GMT+1

https://www.cryptogon.com/?p=57055
$21 Trillion Missing – U.S. Government a Criminal Enterprise – Catherine Austin Fitts
By Greg Hunter On October 1, 2017

[Jan 06, 2020] Iran takes final JCPOA step, removing last limit on nuclear program

Jan 06, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

b , Jan 5 2020 18:49 utc | 83

Iran takes final JCPOA step, removing last limit on nuclear program
The statement by the Iranian government regarding the measure reads:


"The Islamic Republic of Iran, in the fifth step in reducing its commitments, discards the last key component of its limitations in the JCPOA, which is the "limit on the number of centrifuges."
As such, the Islamic Republic of Iran's nuclear program no longer faces any operational restrictions, including enrichment capacity, percentage of enrichment, amount of enriched material, and research and development.


From here on, Iran's nuclear program will be developed solely based on its technical needs.


If the sanctions are lifted and Iran benefits from its interests enshrined in the JCPOA, the Islamic Republic is ready to return to its commitments.


Iran's cooperation with the IAEA will continue as before.

[Jan 06, 2020] Iran is relatively isolated politically

Jan 06, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

abierno , Jan 5 2020 19:19 utc | 87

With reference to Iran's defense capability, it has been noted elsewhere that Iran purchased the Russian S500 system which is currently being rolled out. Inquiring minds would predict that delivery is accelerated. Also, Iraq was considering the S 400 system and, again this could be predicted to be an unpublished immediate decision. Looks like Erdogan was right to stand his ground regarding the S400s.

Discussions appear to assume that Iran is relatively isolated politically. Perhaps forgetting that they are allied in a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership with China, are an applicant for the Shanghai Cooperative Association and a dialogue partner with the BRICS. This covers considerable ground geostratically with players who are reflective, disciplined and play a long game in attaining their goals. More probably than not engaged in dialogues which are never revealed in media voices. Retaliation and revenge will be international, ranging far beyond the middle east.

[Jan 06, 2020] Trump now faces that possibility of an election campaign with US soldiers getting killed by Iranian proxies with a decentralized command structure?

Jan 06, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

somebody , Jan 5 2020 19:20 utc | 88

Posted by: Jose Garcia | Jan 5 2020 18:56 utc | 84

An election campaign with US soldiers getting killed by Iranian proxies with a decentralized command structure? With a big explosion in October? Considering a "surge" AGAIN?

I think the most stupid redneck would notice.

juliania , Jan 5 2020 19:53 utc | 96

As reported by krollchem @ 67 and by b in this and the following post, the involvement of Trump directly in premeditated murder cannot be absolved, and the circumstances are abhorrent to any patriotic American citizen. May God have mercy on the souls of the peace makers, for they shall be called the sons of God.

I take the Iraqi Prime Minister at his word, and reassert the need for Trump and his administration to be impeached on treasonous grounds. Where that will lead in terms of the rest of the US government I cannot say but VP Pence is also impeachable here, so it is difficult to see who is least culpable in this. It may mean that there is need for a provisional government to be put in place - not party organized. If impeachment proceeds apace as it should, behind the scenes such a people's approved peaceful citizens coalition needs to be considered. This cannot stand as official US government policy. It is heinous.

I too, as forward @ 24 has done, sent prayers for the souls of the departed Iran general as well as his friend from Iraq and their companions this morning in my home chapel. It is the Sunday before Christmas, old calendar. May the Lord bring them and so many others before them to a place where the just repose.

William Gruff , Jan 5 2020 20:14 utc | 100
The empire feeling it necessary to burn its assets like our resident bunny's credibility by forcing the spin control beyond its limit is an indication of desperation (thank you bevin @89 for bringing attention to that)

We can take pleasure from circumstances spinning out of the evil empire's control, but keep in mind that means the empire's behavior will become more desperate and irrational the further control slips from its grasp. More irrational and psychotic behavior from the empire puts all of humanity in danger. It also makes analysis of that behavior more of a challenge.

I fear oldhippie @71 might be correct. Even if Iran does nothing, the empire's psychotic delusions are now so intense that America may lash out spastically anyway.

[Jan 06, 2020] There Will Be Blood by Larry C Johnson

This is an interesting post which outlines the complexity of such situation and unpredictable development of events after the initial crime
Notable quotes:
"... America's naive belief in the miracle of the assassination fantasy, especially when applied in the Middle East, reminds me of an Alzheimer's patient who believes in magic beans but fails to remember that the beans never sprout. We keep on planting the same seed and look anxiously for a beanstalk that never sprouts. ..."
"... We were no longer "peacekeepers." We chose sides and were fighting against Palestinians and Shia and, indirectly, Iran. A hotbed of military activity was the Hezbollah bases in the Syrian-controlled Beqaa Valley in Lebanon. The recently deceased Soleimani, along with the members of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), trained and equipped Hezbollah to battle the Christian controlled government in Beirut. ..."
"... We justify/excuse our act because Suleimani was really, really bad. Of course, we have trouble precisely defining the line that someone must cross in order to be "really, really bad." There are many instances in our history where we embraced really, really bad people (Joseph Stalin comes to mind) in order to pursue a goal important to us. Kim Jong Un, who also is responsible for the death of at least one innocent American, is another suspected bad guy who has gotten the pass to sit with President Trump rather than take a Hell Fire up the caboose. ..."
"... This latest strike is likely to come back to haunt us. We should not be surprised in the future if other countries, such as Russia and China, embrace our new doctrine of assassinating people we say are "imminent" threats. I used to believe that our moral authority counted for something. I no longer believe that to be true. I remain eager to be proven wrong, but if history is any guide, we have not learned the lessons we need to in order to create a better future. ..."
Jan 06, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com
America's naive belief in the miracle of the assassination fantasy, especially when applied in the Middle East, reminds me of an Alzheimer's patient who believes in magic beans but fails to remember that the beans never sprout. We keep on planting the same seed and look anxiously for a beanstalk that never sprouts.

Killing Qassem Soleimani is the latest meaningless chapter in this blood soaked narrative of revenge and retribution against a "bad" guy. Killing a "bad" guy makes us feel proud and provides the emotional equivalent of a sugar rush. But there is no compelling evidence that these killings actually advance the cause of peace or coerce the other bad guys into hiding in a cave and praying that we go away.

Let me take you for a walk down memory lane. Let's start in Beirut in 1982--that's 38 years ago. In other words, if you are younger than 45 this is likely to be new to you. The United States during the Presidency of Ronald Reagan decided to send troops to Lebanon in late 1982 in order to help "calm" a civil war. In June 1982, the Israel Defense Forces invaded Lebanon with the intention of rooting out the PLO. The next two months witnessed furious battles in West Beirut. Despite the raging civil war, the Lebanese held a Presidential election in August 1982 and Bachir Gemayel emerged the victor. Gemayel was famous in Lebanon for leading the most powerful militia in Lebanon, which ferociously and successfully battled the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Syrian Army. But his victory was short-lived. On 14 September a bomb exploded in his Beirut Phalange headquarters, killing Gemayel along with 26 others.

Two days later, Gemayel's party took revenge in the in the Sabra neighborhood and the adjacent Shatila refugee camp in Beirut, Lebanon, where several thousand Palestinians and Lebanese Shiites lived. That massacre left between 500 and 3500 dead. The killing took place as Israeli forces stood by and observed. The Israelis did nothing to stop the murder of women and children.

That event created a deep thirst among both Palestinian and Shia leaders for revenge and the war in Lebanon intensified. About a week after the massacre in Sabra and Shatila, the U.S. 32nd Marine Amphibious Unit arrived in Beirut as part of a multinational "peacekeeping" force. But instead of keeping the peace, U.S. troops fought on the side of Gemayel's Phalange party.

One of the targets for U.S. naval gunfire were Syrian backed forces fighting on behalf of Palestinians and Shias .

Two United States Navy ships off Beirut fired dozens of shells today in support of Lebanese Army units defending the town of Suk al Gharb on a ridge overlooking Beirut. It was the first direct military support of the Lebanese Army by United States forces.

The cruiser Virginia and the destroyer John Rodgers, both guided missile warships, moved to within nearly a mile of shore to fire five-inch shells at Syrian-backed Druse militiamen and Palestinian guerrillas who were attacking army positions.

We were no longer "peacekeepers." We chose sides and were fighting against Palestinians and Shia and, indirectly, Iran. A hotbed of military activity was the Hezbollah bases in the Syrian-controlled Beqaa Valley in Lebanon. The recently deceased Soleimani, along with the members of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), trained and equipped Hezbollah to battle the Christian controlled government in Beirut.

Reagan's decision to fight against the Iranian supported forces had tragic consequences. In April of 1983, the U.S. Embassy in Beirut was virtually destroyed by a truck bomb.

On April 18, 1983, a suicide bomber detonated a one-half-ton pickup truck laden with 2,000 pounds of TNT near the front of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, killing 63 people, including 17 Americans. It was the deadliest attack on a U.S. diplomatic mission to date, and changed the way the U.S. Department of State secured its resources and executed its missions overseas.

The Iranian backed forces were not finished. The Marines were the next victims :

At 6:22 on Sunday morning Oct. 23, 1983, a 19-ton yellow Mercedes stake-bed truck entered a public parking lot at the heart of Beirut International Airport. The lot was adjacent to the headquarters of the U.S. 8th Marine Regiment's 1st Battalion, where some 350 American service members lay asleep in a four-story concrete aviation administration building that had been successively occupied by various combatants in the ongoing Lebanese Civil War. . . .

Sergeant of the guard Stephen Russell was alone at his sandbag-and-plywood post at the front of the building but facing inside. Hearing a revving engine, he turned to see the Mercedes truck barreling straight toward him. He instinctively bolted through the lobby toward the building's rear entrance, repeatedly yelling, "Hit the deck! Hit the deck!" It was futile gesture, given that nearly everyone was still asleep. As Russell dashed out the rear entrance, he looked over his shoulder and saw the truck slam through his post, smash through the entrance and come to a halt in the midst of the lobby. After an ominous pause of a second or two, the truck erupted in a massive explosion -- so powerful that it lifted the building in the air, shearing off its steel-reinforced concrete support columns (each 15 feet in circumference) and collapsing the structure. Crushed to death within the resulting mountain of rubble were 241 U.S. military personnel -- 220 Marines, 18 Navy sailors and three Army soldiers. More than 100 others were injured. It was worst single-day death toll for the Marines since the World War II Battle of Iwo Jima.

Looking back at these events with the benefit of 37 years of experience, we can see that assassinations by both sides (U.S. and Iran) did little to create an unambiguous victory or achieve peace.

Hezbollah also employed another tactic that limited the military response of the United States--hostage taking. Between 1982 and 1992, elements of Hezbollah in direct contact with Iran's Revolutionary Guard kidnapped 104 foreign hostages . The most notable of these were the CIA Chief of Station in Beirut, William Buckley, and Marine Lt Colonel Rich Higgins (Higgins was later promoted to Colonel while in captivity). Buckley was nabbed on 16 March 1984 and Higgins on February 17, 1988, while serving as the Chief, Observer Group Lebanon and Senior Military Observer, United Nations Military Observer Group, United Nations Truce Supervision Organization. Both men were executed by their Hezbollah captors.

None of this stopped the cycle of violence. In February 1992, Israeli forces launched a raid into southern Lebanon and "assassinated" Sayyed Abbas Mussawi, Hezbollah's secretary general, had led a commemoration marking the eighth anniversary of the assassination of Sheikh Ragheb Harb. (Nicholas Blanford. "Warriors of God." https://books.apple.com/us/book/warriors-of-god/id422547646)

Then we have Imad Mughniyeh, the founding member of Lebanon's Islamic Jihad Organization and number two in Hezbollah's leadership. He was believed to be responsible for bombing the Marine barracks in Beirut, two US embassy bombings, and the kidnapping of dozens of foreigners in Lebanon in the 1982-1992 period. He also was indicted in Argentina for his alleged role in the 1992 Israeli embassy attack in Buenos Aires.

In February 2008, Mughniyeh was killed on the night of the 12th by a car bomb in Damascus, Syria, which was planned in a joint operation by the CIA and Mossad.

It is worth nothing that Hezbollah and Iran dramatically shifted after 1995 from the retaliatory terrorist strikes that were their calling card during the 1980s. As the Shias carried out fewer terrorist attacks, Sunnis, principally Osama Bin Laden, ratcheted up attacks--the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the coordinated bombings of U.S Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998 and the attack on the USS Cole in October 2000. There is controversy surrounding who to blame for the bombing of the US military based in Dharan, Saudi Arabia in 1995. The FBI concluded it was Hezbollah and blamed Mugniyeh. But other intelligence pointed to Al Qaeda.

Since the terrorist attacks of 9-11, the United States has done a lot of killing of terrorists, real and imagined. Yet, the threat of terrorism has not been erased.

Before we get too excited about the effectiveness of assassination, it would be useful to recall the dismal record of this method during the last 38 years. It has not made the world safer or more stable.

The killing of Suleimani is likely to put Iran back in the business of attacking our embassies and military installations. I also believe kidnapping of Americans will be back in vogue. And these actions, as in the past, will be met with further U.S. retaliation and the cycle of violence will continue to spin furiously.

There is another effect now that the United States has openly embraced the "Jamal Khashoggi solution." The Saudis decreed Khashoggi a "bad" man and a terrorist threat. To their way of thinking that gave them the excuse to chop him up on the sovereign soil of another country. In this case, Turkey. We have now basically done the very thing that we condemned the Saudis for. Yes, I know, Khashoggi was a journalist and Soleimani was a "terrorist." But the Saudis saw a terrorist. Consider this as a corollary to the saying, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

We justify/excuse our act because Suleimani was really, really bad. Of course, we have trouble precisely defining the line that someone must cross in order to be "really, really bad." There are many instances in our history where we embraced really, really bad people (Joseph Stalin comes to mind) in order to pursue a goal important to us. Kim Jong Un, who also is responsible for the death of at least one innocent American, is another suspected bad guy who has gotten the pass to sit with President Trump rather than take a Hell Fire up the caboose.

This latest strike is likely to come back to haunt us. We should not be surprised in the future if other countries, such as Russia and China, embrace our new doctrine of assassinating people we say are "imminent" threats. I used to believe that our moral authority counted for something. I no longer believe that to be true. I remain eager to be proven wrong, but if history is any guide, we have not learned the lessons we need to in order to create a better future.

[Jan 06, 2020] Unfortunately, the sheep who comprise the bulk of the 30% Trump base, and perhaps many more on the democratic side, will always buy this lemon with their warped sense of patriotism.

Jan 06, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Alpi , Jan 5 2020 19:27 utc | 29

@ Cynthia 10

The number 52 refers to the hostages in Iran at the beginning of the revolution. Trump has always used that to rally his idiotic base and sell any lemon he can think of in that context. How dare they take "Americans" as hostages, is the attitude of this moron? And in his childish brain he wants revenge for what happened 40 hears ago.

When the Iranian students took them hostage, it was a tense and chaotic time and nobody knew who was in charge, including "the people in charge". But they kept them, they housed them and fed them in a house arrest setting. Pretty much treated them as a guests, albeit unwanted guests. Youtube is full of videos of ordinary Iranians bringing them food and books and pleading with the guards to treat them well.

Unlike us, who we have a different take on hostages and "guests". We send them to the Caribbean, give them orange jump suits, water board them, play loud heavy metal music 16 hours a day and keep them without food., without charge and without trial.

And in the end, these so called 52 hostages were used as a political pun by Jim Baker and his team for the election of Reagan and he made sure they were not released until Carter had been defeated and released on the day of inauguration. How convenient and coincidental.

Unfortunately, the sheep who comprise the bulk of the 30% Trump base, and perhaps many more on the democratic side, will always buy this lemon with their warped sense of patriotism.

Sunny Runny Burger , Jan 5 2020 20:18 utc | 39

This summary by sputniknews (RIA novosti) of the US in Iraq since about 2011 is very concise but decent and could be perfect for anyone in the US and elsewhere who doesn't know or understand the situation.
Sasha , Jan 5 2020 20:52 utc | 48
The US created Daesh terror group and killed the commander who defeated Daesh in #Iraq and #Syria. (Parts 1 and 2 )

https://twitter.com/PressTV/status/1213902578792239105

https://twitter.com/PressTV/status/1213903753675493376


[Jan 06, 2020] The only option for the US in war with Iran is to resort to Hermann G ring fag-tardery, i.e., trying to rely on air superiority to win a ground war.

Jan 06, 2020 | www.unz.com

Kratoklastes , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 2:52 am GMT

@JamesD

So the Sunni's are going to be ticked off Trump took on Iran?

The Sunni man-in-the-street is much more likely to set aside his differences with the Shi'a, than to takes sides with the kufar .

Think of it this way: if China invaded the US, which side would most Canadians support?

Also, think about close-to-theatre demographics.

Iraq will be the US military 'boots on the ground' staging area in any conventional war against Iran. Shi'a opinion will make all the difference.

Land warfare is significantly harder if your primary staging area is knee-deep in people who are very sympathetic to the other side.

So consider

2/3rds of the Iraqi Muslim population are Shi'ite . They are concentrated in the South-East of Iraq. Shi'a are a majority of the population of Baghdad, where the decent-sized airports are (ignore USAB Ayn Al Asad: landing US forces in the middle of Iraq and driving all the way to the Iranian border would be retarded).

So Baghdad would become a very (ahem) problematic staging area – especially if Sistani and Sadr start to rile up the Shia (and Sadr has been doing that since Soleimani's assassination).

The Sunni are split roughly 50/50 between Arabs and Kurds; the Kurds have no strong affection for the Arabs, Sunni or otherwise.

So the only place the US has a relatively high proportion of friendlies (even assuming no fraternity-of-convenience between Iraqiyyun and Jazirani ) is in Iraqi Kurdistan.

Iraqi Kurdistan borders Iran sounds like a plan!

Well

You might look at a Google Map and think – " Well, all the Kurds are in the North-East, so the US could just stage from Erbil or Kirkuk and have a straight shot to Teheran U!S!A!!U!S!A! ".

Meanwhile there are people who have DEMs of the region (so can say things about topography), and who understand how hard it is to transport men, WATER, artillery and armour over mountains – even if you own the airspace outright (which the US won't, in any engagement with Iran).

Think " Korengal ", but with an opponent with 21st century weapons and near-peer air defences.

The effect of the latter on air-cav alone, should make people think really hard: helicopters are critical in infil/exfil, medevac, resupply and operational overwatch – and they are as slow as fuck and have pissweak countermeasures. 1Cav hasn't gone up against a peer opponent since Korea.

.

Topologically The US has one logistically (almost-)non-suicidal option for 'boots on the ground' invasion of Iran: everybody knows that.

That is why the US will resort to Hermann Göring fag-tardery, i.e., trying to rely on air superiority to win a ground war.

For these reasons, the US will either lose or will use nuclear weapons – which will hand Russia and China a moral victory, because it will permanently destroy US self-hagiography about freedom and so forth.

.

And if the US attacks Iran, how long do you think it would take for a supertanker to be sunk in the Straits?

Trick question – the correct response is " Which Straits? Hormuz or Malacca ?"

The US has shown it can't protect Malacca without crashing into shipping: in a recent display of historic comedic irony, the USS John McCain (named after Hanoi Songbird 's Dad), showed itself to be as incompetent as the Songbird hisself, who killed more US seamen than the Viet Cong.

[Jan 06, 2020] On top of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya, be the long-awaited beginning of the end of America's imperial ambitions

Jan 06, 2020 | www.unz.com

the grand wazoo , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 3:36 am GMT

And it might well, on top of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya, be the long-awaited beginning of the end of America's imperial ambitions.

One must ask; Is the US presence in the ME really because of imperial ambition? At least if it is I can understand. I mean, it's bad but that's what nations have done for centuries. Or is America in the ME at Israel's insistence? Hers's the roll: Afghanistan in 2002 and Iraq 2003, Libya in 2011, Syria shortly after that; not one of these countries threatened America, not one. Yet we invaded these nations, and brutally murdered Qadhaffi and Hussain, and we did it all based on lies dreamed up by Jewish dual citizens who call themselves American patriots but who are really agents of Israel.

I'm not using the term neocons any longer, as the term is a lie, a mask. They are just a large group of powerful dual citizen Jews many descended from Trotskyites that immigrated from Russia in the 1930s. They hide their real intentions. And what are those intentions? To protect Israel by scaring the American public through their propaganda organ known as the MSM, scaring us into allowing a Trillion dollar military budget, and these forever wars. And anyone who questions them is an anti-Semite. And, that's right from the mouth of Nathan Perlmutter in his essay; "The Real Anti-Semite In America"

These parasitic dual citizen Jews and their Washington Think Tanks have to go. They are liars and cowards who will fight for Israel to the last drop of blood spills from the last American soldier. Trump knowingly, or not, is being used by these bastards. Today he's a traitor and a liar too. Iran poses no threat to America. None Zilch

Rome was imperialist, Spain, England yes, but the US doesn't fit the definition. What does fit is 'hired gun'. Right? So, who hired the USA? And, are they paying, or are they somehow threatening us or blackmailing us?

... ... ...

[Jan 06, 2020] The US unwittingly helped create Qassem Soleimani. Then they killed him. -- RT Op-ed

Notable quotes:
"... After the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the US used the Northern Alliance to establish a foothold in Afghanistan and eventually drive the Taliban from power. Soleimani played a major role behind the scenes helping make the US-Northern Alliance partnership viable, including providing operational and intelligence support. ..."
"... "an Axis of Evil" ..."
"... The US invasion of Iraq in 2003 created another opportunity for Iranian-American cooperation, which the US promptly fumbled. While Iran had no desire for increased American military presence in the region, it found common cause with the US in removing its archenemy, Saddam Hussein, from power. ..."
"... Likewise, when the Islamic State erupted on the scene in 2014, it was Soleimani, at the invitation of the Iraqi government, who helped organize and equip various Shi'a militias under the umbrella of the Popular Mobilization Force. Soleimani went on to direct the PMF in a series of bloody battles that helped turn the tide against the Islamic State well before the US became decisively engaged in the fighting. Soleimani played a defining role in shaping the Middle East in the aftermath of 9/11, positioning Iran to become a major power in the region, if not the major power. ..."
"... Soleimani's actions in accomplishing this outcome, however, were not part of a master Iranian plan for regional domination, but rather part and parcel of Iran's ability to react effectively to the mistakes made by the United States ..."
"... "maximum pressure" ..."
"... Murdered, Soleimani is transformed into a martyr-hero whose exploits will motivate those who seek to replicate them against an American foe void of the kind of self-constraint and wisdom born of experience. ..."
Jan 06, 2020 | www.rt.com

Scott Ritter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer. He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf's staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. The US is unprepared for the consequences of its assassination of Qassem Soleimani, if only because it knows nothing about the reality of the man it murdered, and can't gauge the impact of his death on Iran or the Middle East. Qassem Soleimani, an Iranian military commander whose paramilitary organization, known as the Quds Force, helped position Iran as a modern regional power, was assassinated on January 3, 2020, on order of the President of the United States, Donald Trump. American political leaders of both major parties have been united in their description of Soleimani as an evil man whose death should be celebrated, even while the consequences of his demise remain unknown.

The celebration of Soleimani's death, however, is born of an ignorance regarding the events and actions that shaped the work he directed, and which defined the world in which he operated. While the US has cast Soleimani as a byproduct of Iran's malign intent in the Middle East, the reality is much starker: Soleimani is the direct result of America's irresponsibly aggressive policies. In a world defined by cause-effect relationships, the link between Soleimani and the United States is undeniable.

... ... ...

While senior Iranian military leadership advocated a massive punitive expedition into western Afghanistan, Soleimani advised a more constrained response, with his Quds Force providing training and material support to the Northern Alliance, an umbrella group of forces opposed to the Taliban. Soleimani personally directed this effort, transforming the Northern Alliance into an effective fighting force.

After the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the US used the Northern Alliance to establish a foothold in Afghanistan and eventually drive the Taliban from power. Soleimani played a major role behind the scenes helping make the US-Northern Alliance partnership viable, including providing operational and intelligence support.

The US-Iranian cooperation was short-lived; President Bush's designation of Iran as being part of "an Axis of Evil" caused Iran to terminate its cooperation with the Americans.

Training the anti-US Iraq rebels

The US invasion of Iraq in 2003 created another opportunity for Iranian-American cooperation, which the US promptly fumbled. While Iran had no desire for increased American military presence in the region, it found common cause with the US in removing its archenemy, Saddam Hussein, from power.

... ... ...

Likewise, when the Islamic State erupted on the scene in 2014, it was Soleimani, at the invitation of the Iraqi government, who helped organize and equip various Shi'a militias under the umbrella of the Popular Mobilization Force. Soleimani went on to direct the PMF in a series of bloody battles that helped turn the tide against the Islamic State well before the US became decisively engaged in the fighting. Soleimani played a defining role in shaping the Middle East in the aftermath of 9/11, positioning Iran to become a major power in the region, if not the major power.

Soleimani's actions in accomplishing this outcome, however, were not part of a master Iranian plan for regional domination, but rather part and parcel of Iran's ability to react effectively to the mistakes made by the United States and its allies in implementing policies of aggression in the region.

In the aftermath of the US withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear Agreement in 2018, and the subsequent implementation of the so-called "maximum pressure" campaign of economic sanctions and geo-political containment undertaken by the United States, Soleimani cautioned President Trump against embarking down a path toward confrontation.

... ... ...

Murdered, Soleimani is transformed into a martyr-hero whose exploits will motivate those who seek to replicate them against an American foe void of the kind of self-constraint and wisdom born of experience.

Far from making the Middle East and the world a safer place to live and work, President Trump's precipitous assassination of Qassem Soleimani has condemned yet another generation to suffer the tragic consequences of American overreach in the post-9/11 era.

[Jan 06, 2020] Iraqi parliament passes resolution asking government to cancel request for assistance from US-led coalition

Notable quotes:
"... Iraq's parliament passed a resolution, urged by its caretaker prime minister, calling for the removal of foreign troops from the country, after the US' assassination of a top Iranian general and a commander of an Iraqi militia. The non-binding resolution instructs the government to cancel a request for military assistance from the US-led coalition, which was issued in response to the rise of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS). With IS supposedly defeated, Iraq will not need foreign troops to fight the jihadists and can close its airspace to coalition aircraft. ..."
"... Speaking at an emergency parliament session on Sunday, Iraq's caretaker PM Adil Abdul Mahdi said the American side notified the Iraqi military about the planned airstrike minutes before it was carried out. He stressed that his government denied Washington permission to continue with the operation. ..."
"... Influential Iraqi cleric Muqtada al-Sadr stated in a letter that Iraq should go further and shut down the US embassy. ..."
Jan 06, 2020 | www.rt.com

Iraq's parliament passed a resolution, urged by its caretaker prime minister, calling for the removal of foreign troops from the country, after the US' assassination of a top Iranian general and a commander of an Iraqi militia. The non-binding resolution instructs the government to cancel a request for military assistance from the US-led coalition, which was issued in response to the rise of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS). With IS supposedly defeated, Iraq will not need foreign troops to fight the jihadists and can close its airspace to coalition aircraft.

The Iraqi government must work to end the presence of any foreign troops on Iraqi soil and prohibit them from using its land, airspace or water for any reason.

According to Press TV, some Western military presence may remain for training purposes. The resolution says Iraqi military leadership has to report the number of foreign instructors that are necessary for Iraqi national security.

At the same time, the Iraqi Foreign Ministry said that Baghdad had turned to the UN Security Council with complaints about US violations of its sovereignty.

Speaking at an emergency parliament session on Sunday, Iraq's caretaker PM Adil Abdul Mahdi said the American side notified the Iraqi military about the planned airstrike minutes before it was carried out. He stressed that his government denied Washington permission to continue with the operation.

... ... ...

Influential Iraqi cleric Muqtada al-Sadr stated in a letter that Iraq should go further and shut down the US embassy.

... ... ...

[Jan 06, 2020] Israel on the receiving end of the anger about Soleimani killing

Some wondeer whether Isreal will exist in 25-50 year and it might be better emigrants from Ukraine to move back.
Notable quotes:
"... John Kashis on CNN speaking from Ohio today reminded the host Wolf Blitzer that US under Trump scuttled and undermined a potential thaw in relations between US and Iran with Japan 's Abe mediating the contacts and subsequent meeting despite initially agreeing . Not unbelievable given what was done to NK. by Bolton gang . ..."
"... As for the murder of the late Solaimani, which I have no doubt was primarily driven by Israeli agenda, ..."
Jan 06, 2020 | www.unz.com

anon [295] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 11:26 pm GMT

@BL John Kashis on CNN speaking from Ohio today reminded the host Wolf Blitzer that US under Trump scuttled and undermined a potential thaw in relations between US and Iran with Japan 's Abe mediating the contacts and subsequent meeting despite initially agreeing . Not unbelievable given what was done to NK. by Bolton gang .

No Trump was not serious He thought he could billow smoke and scare Iranian like he thought he could Venezuela and NK . Around this time last year this mean man bought and raised by Zionists was exactly doing same thing to NK hoping they would fold.

Guess what Iran may not have nukes But it wont fold. Trump is psychopath a bully otherwise he would have raised hell against Israel and against the overt bribing of him by Adelshon. That is his character . He puffs and huffs . He knows sometimes those puffs might sway a reed but he doesn't know it won't break or uproot them .

Trump is not honest even by his own standard .Patriotism or White nationalism is the cloak he wears to hide this defect.

AnonFromTN , says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 5, 2020 at 11:24 pm GMT
@Iris

As for the murder of the late Solaimani, which I have no doubt was primarily driven by Israeli agenda,

In fact, this crime and prompt approval of it by Bibi hurt Israeli interests a lot. This was Bibi's agenda. Bibi hopes that a war with Iran would save him from a well-deserved prison sentence. I hope not. He deserves to rot in jail for the rest of his miserable life.

[Jan 06, 2020] Add one more war crime to the pile for when the SCO pulls Gina out of the fake rock and puts her in the glass cage at Nuremberg II.

Notable quotes:
"... So far we have aggression by sending of armed bands and irregulars; armed attack on the civilian population; a sneak attack in breach of the Convention relative to the Opening of Hostilities; illegal war propaganda, to wit, fabricated chemical weapons attacks; and murder, a war crime in universal jurisdiction. ..."
"... Now we have one more compounding war crime: perfidy. Using the pretext of parley for ambush. ..."
Jan 06, 2020 | www.unz.com

Nukes away , says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 5, 2020 at 11:09 pm GMT

Add one more war crime to the pile for when the SCO pulls Gina out of the fake rock and puts her in the glass cage at Nuremberg II.

So far we have aggression by sending of armed bands and irregulars; armed attack on the civilian population; a sneak attack in breach of the Convention relative to the Opening of Hostilities; illegal war propaganda, to wit, fabricated chemical weapons attacks; and murder, a war crime in universal jurisdiction.

Now we have one more compounding war crime: perfidy. Using the pretext of parley for ambush.

When it's time to decapitate the CIA regime, the victors can really clean house. The US used the purported Pearl Harbor sneak attack as legal justification for nuking Japan. That's a handy precedent to have. No doubt there are some decent human beings inside the beltway, but if Russia or China turn it into a sinkhole of molten basalt, no one will complain. The USG's a cancer on the world. They've got to be put down like rabid dogs.

[Jan 06, 2020] al-Muhandis who was kiiled with Solaimani paramilitary group is allied to a political faction, the Fath, who hold 48 seats in the Iraqi parliament.

Jan 06, 2020 | angrybearblog.com

Most of the attention in this recent attack by a US drone at the Baghdad Airport has been on it killing Iranian Quds Force commander, Qasim (Qassem) Solmaini (Suleimani), supposedly plotting an "imminent" attack on Americans as he flew a commercial airliner to Iraq at the invitation of its government and passed through passport control.

But much less attention has been paid to the killing in that attack of Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, commander of the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq and reportedly an officer in the Iraqi military, as well as being, according to Juan Cole, a Yazidi Kurd, although the PMF is identified as being a Shia militia allied with Iran.

The problem here is that supposedly US leaders approved this strike because there were no Iraqi officials in this group; it was supposedly "clean." But there was al-Muhandis, with his PMF also allied to a political faction, the Fath, who hold 48 seats in the Iraqi parliament. The often anti-Iranian Shia leader, Moqtada al-Sadr, has now joined with Fath and other groups to demand a vote in the parliament to order a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.

It might be good for them to go, although Trump has just sent in 3,500 more Marines to protect the US embassy that came under attack and protests after an earlier US attack on pro-Iranian militias.

[Jan 06, 2020] As an American who lives abroad, this is just a repainting of the target I've had on my back

Jan 06, 2020 | www.unz.com

The Alarmist , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 3:04 am GMT

As an American who lives abroad, this is just a repainting of the target I've had on my back for decades, compliments of people who live behind big defence perimeters and are surrounded by teams of bodyguards.

[Jan 06, 2020] The Soleimani Assassination by Philip Giraldi

Highly recommended!
Jan 06, 2020 | www.unz.com

Donald Trump rode to victory in 2016 on a promise to end the useless wars in the Middle East, but he has now demonstrated very clearly that he is a liar. Instead of seeking detente, one of his first actions was to end the JCPOA nuclear agreement and re-introduce sanctions against Iran. In a sense, Iran has from the beginning been the exception to Trump's no-new-war pledge, a position that might reasonably be directly attributed to his incestuous relationship with the American Jewish community and in particular derived from his pandering to the expressed needs of Israel's belligerent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Trump bears full responsibility for what comes next. The neoconservatives and Israelis are predictably cheering the result, with Mark Dubowitz of the pro-Israel Foundation for Defense of Democracies enthusing that it is "bigger than bin Laden a massive blow to the [Iranian] regime." Dubowitz, whose credentials as an "Iran expert" are dubious at best, is at least somewhat right in this case. Qassem Suleimani is, to be sure, charismatic and also very popular in Iran. He is Iran's most powerful military figure in the entire region, being the principal contact for proxies and allies in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. But what Dubowitz does not understand is that no one in a military hierarchy is irreplaceable. Suleimani's aides and high officials in the intelligence ministry are certainly more than capable of picking up his mantle and continuing his policies.

In reality, the series of foolish attacks initiated by the United States over the past week will only hasten the departure of much of the U.S. military from the region. The Pentagon and White House have been insisting that Iran was behind an alleged Kata'ib Hezbollah attack on a U.S. installation that then triggered a strike by Washington on claimed militia targets in Syria and also inside Iraq. Even though the U.S. military presence is as a guest of the Iraqi government, Washington went ahead with its attack even after the Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi said "no."

To justify its actions, Mark Esper, Secretary of Defense, went so far as to insist that "Iran is at war with the whole world," a clear demonstration of just how ignorant the White House team actually is. The U.S. government characteristically has not provided any evidence demonstrating either Iranian or Kata'ib involvement in recent developments, but after the counter-strike killed 26 Iraqi soldiers, the mass demonstrations against the Embassy in Baghdad became inevitable. The demonstrations were also attributed to Iran by Washington even though the people in the street were undoubtedly Iraqis.

Now that the U.S. has also killed Suleimani and Muhandis in a drone strike at Baghdad Airport, clearly accomplished without the approval of the Iraqi government, it is inevitable that the prime minister will ask American forces to leave. That will in turn make the situation for the remaining U.S. troops in neighboring Syria untenable. And it will also force other Arab states in the region to rethink their hosting of U.S. soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen due to the law of unanticipated consequences as it is now clear that Washington has foolishly begun a war that serves no one's interests.

The blood of the Americans, Iranians and Iraqis who will die in the next few weeks is clearly on Donald Trump's hands as this war was never inevitable and served no U.S. national interest. It will surely turn out to be a debacle, as well as devastating for all parties involved. And it might well, on top of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya, be the long-awaited beginning of the end of America's imperial ambitions. Let us hope so!

Philip M. Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer who served nineteen years overseas in Turkey, Italy, Germany, and Spain. He was the CIA Chief of Base for the Barcelona Olympics in 1992 and was one of the first Americans to enter Afghanistan in December 2001. Phil is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a Washington-based advocacy group that seeks to encourage and promote a U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East that is consistent with American values and interests

Curmudgeon , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 7:50 pm GMT

The question – who benefits? – has not been raised.
There was no benefit to Kata'ib Hezbollah or the Iranians to attack an American installation.
There was no benefit to the Iranians to attack the US Embassy in Iraq.
There was no benefit to anyone in Iraq or Iran in the shooting of "peaceful demonstrators" in Iraq.
There is only one beneficiary to all of the above – Israel.

Mr. Giraldi is quite correct in laying this at Trump's feet and referring to his incestuous relationship regarding Israel. After all, it it Trump that pulled out of the JCPOA, and ultimately gave the order to strike. A previous strike was called off, what has changed? I understand Mr. Giraldi is a never Trumper, and that is his right. Often it is not what he says, but what he doesn't say, that is problematic. In this article, two things not expanded stand out to me. The author proclaims his support for the JCPOA.
What is never explained is that the JCPOA was a voluntary restriction, by Iran, on its rights as a signatory under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Former Reagan nuclear advisor Dr. Gordon Prather was writing about the illegality of forcing restrictions on Iran back in the days when "Bonkers" Bolton was foaming at the mouth for Bush 43 at the UN. Trump cancelling the deal was not the problem. The problem was maintaining the US's illegal position on Iran's rights under the NPT. Mr. Giraldi's opposition to the cancelling, without context, means he finds the US's illegal position on Iran's rights under an international treaty as acceptable.
The second issue is the intelligence surrounding the "alleged Kata'ib Hezbollah attack on a U.S. installation". This is an operation straight out of the I sraeli S ecret I ntelligence S ervice manual. It was acknowledged, by the military, 20 years ago Israel had the capability to stage an attack and blame it on "Arabs". Who were those involved in providing the "intelligence to Trump? How many of those people know/knew the intelligence to be questionable or outright false, but allowed it to pass on anyway without caveat? It is unknown whether Trump "asked the right questions" about the intelligence, and if it came from military sources, I suspect none at all, of substance, were asked. Again, yes Trump will, and should, be blamed, but how much of it involves the traitors within who will continue with the internal rot?

Philip Giraldi , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 8:08 pm GMT
@Bragadocious You are one of the supreme a-holes on this site and I wish you would go somewhere else to spread your pollution. But I will answer your question: Soleimani was not near the embassy. He had flown into to town to attend the funerals of the 26 Iraqi militiamen that we Americans had killed earlier in the week!
Cloak And Dagger , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 8:24 pm GMT
This is a watershed moment in our enslaved country, and the net is rife with speculations as to where this will lead to.

Personally, I don't believe that this will erupt in WW3, but the days of casual travel by high-ranking US officials is probably over in the near term. What follows will be millions of paper cuts and constant stress for our sons and daughters relegated to foreign lands in the war for Israel. Did you sign up your children to die for Israel? I didn't.

So what can we expect? A lot of our children are going to come back in body bags in the weeks ahead. The murder of the Iranian general with no proof of his hand in the recent death of an American mercenary in Iraq, is a war crime – but who's looking? We have become imitators of our BFF, Israel. Not only have we militarized our police force under their auspices, we flout International law and civil rights without even blinking once. Sure, many Iranians (and Iraqi) innocents will die in the process, but the silver lining is that this will start the dominoes falling and lead to our Vietnam-like exit from the ME with our tail between our legs, as we repeat the helicopter exits from the roofs of our embassies.

From all indications, the Iranian general was a revered man inside and outside Iran. He appears to have arrived in Baghdad to attend the funeral of the people killed in the airstrike by US/Israel. Killing people headed to funerals and weddings seems to have become our MO in recent years. No US president in the last few decades has had his hands clean. Out damned spot!

Meanwhile, who was that "killed" contractor? Is there a name attached to that speculatively fictitious soul whose alleged death was the rationale for the murder? It is a sign of the times that our first reaction to anything we hear from the PTB is one of skepticism and disbelief. This does not bode well for our rulers when the slaves reject whatever claims they make.

Sadly, the revolution will not begin in Pretoria, but in distant lands, far from the prying eyes of the sleeping citizenry of this land. As Allison Weir would say, if Americans knew what is being perpetrated in our name, they would realize that we are all Palestinians.

Trump has been compromised. Whether you believe that he is or isn't behind this, is irrelevant. Frankly, it doesn't really matter who the president is – he is a powerless puppet. I suspect that the deep state initiated this and then informed Trump post-facto. The absence of an immediate tweets (tweet with a US flag suggests speechlessness), followed by an announcement from the Pentagon that Trump had personally ordered the attack, instead of Trump boasting about it, does not fit his usual pattern. My guess is that he knows that going against the will of the deep state would result in his being JFK'ed.

I expect the following in the days ahead:
– There will be outrage in Iraq and demands for us to go home – which we won't
– Our children/cannon fodder will be targeted across the ME
– One or more US high officials or Military leaders will be assassinated, perhaps Graham or Pompeo or Adelson
– Israel will use the distraction to annex more Palestinian territory.
– Every US politician will blame the victims
– Israel and KSA will be walking around in adult diapers for the next shoe to drop

Take heart, the end is nigh. It is the witching hour. It is a replay of history as the empire shoots itself in the foot. Remember which country invented the game of Chess – it wasn't us or our European cousins.

TimeTraveller , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 8:37 pm GMT
I read somewhere that the order for this assassination came from Trump himself. I read this as meaning that the order came from Israel and Trump's staff advised against it. I hope Iran takes this into account as they plan their retaliation.
The other interesting dynamic is that common folk are waking up to the ZOG on the one hand, and the government/media is doing their level best to slow this awakening. I wonder how this assassination and its aftermath fit into all of it.
Cloak And Dagger , says: Show Comment January 3, 2020 at 8:41 pm GMT
The one big fear I have in the near-term is that, with the expected retaliation from Iran, it is the perfect opportunity for Israel to launch a false flag somewhere and blame it on Iran, further turning up the heat.

As always, ask: cui bono?

[Jan 06, 2020] Was Pompeo and his West point educated mafia of military contractors the driving force of Soleimani killing?

Pompeo is trying to avoid the responsibility
Jan 06, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

powerandpeople , Jan 5 2020 20:33 utc | 105

A slew of Mike Pompeo propaganda - he's actually very, very, good at it - on January 5th:

Interview
Secretary Michael R. Pompeo With Margaret Brennan of CBS Face the Nation
Michael R. Pompeo January 5, 2020

Interview
Secretary Michael R. Pompeo With Chuck Todd of NBC Meet the Press
Michael R. Pompeo January 5, 2020

Readout
Secretary Michael R. Pompeo's Call with Qatari Deputy Prime Minister al-Thani
January 5, 2020


Interview
Secretary Michael R. Pompeo With Maria Bartiromo of Fox Sunday Morning Futures
Michael R. Pompeo January 5, 2020

Interview
Secretary Michael R. Pompeo With Jake Tapper of CNN State of the Union
Michael R. Pompeo January 5, 2020

Interview
Secretary Michael R. Pompeo With George Stephanopoulos of ABC This Week
Michael R. Pompeo January 5, 2020

Interview
Secretary Michael R. Pompeo With Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday
Michael R. Pompeo January 5, 2020

All available at https://www.state.gov/press-releases/

Many lies (of course) and disinformation, but also clear policy.

Example: "Frankly, this war kicked off – people talk about the war. This war kicked off when the JCPOA was entered into. It told the Iranians that they had free rein to develop a Shia crescent that extended from Yemen to Iraq to Syria and into Lebanon, surrounding our ally, Israel, and threatening American lives as well."

Pompeo refers to being at war with Iran. There has been no declaration of war by either side.

The so-called Shia crescent is a major regional country developing regional allies, regardless of the religous makeup of the various countries referred to. The implication is that USA government will dictate the foreign policy of Middle East countries from Romes headquarters 7,000 miles away.

It underscore that the policy is based on fear that Israel will be under military pressure once regional countries have advanced missile systems, presuming that the foreign policy of Iran is to militarily attack Israel.

USA knows this won't happen, but the occupied territories may well be sent arms by Iran. Taking, in other words, a page from the USA government playbook, as it does exactly the same thing. Evidence exhibit #1 = arms to so-called 'opposition' and to religous criminals in Syria.

Israel is reaching a demographic (and water) crisis. It has no choice but to obey International law and settle with the Arab population. It has been intransigent, confrontational and obstructive for years. Now, it will be forcede to negotiate by the realities of passing time.

Israel would do well to play fair and enter a genuine negotiation on fair terms (not a one-sided diktat).

Iran would do well to abandon its 'maximum pressure' policy on Israel, recognize its right to exist behind the Security Council agreed borders, and actively work diplomatically to arrive at a fair solution.

Another example:
"In October of this year, George, the JCPOA, that nuclear deal, will permit arms trade with Iran. That's crazy. That's crazy – have missiles and systems – high-end systems, from China and Russia in Iran lawfully in October."

Pompeo is playing the definition game: 'our missiles = good. Your missiles = bad'.

Every country has a right to defend itself, no exceptions.

Which country has illegally invaded a sovereign country in the Middle East?

Which country illegally bombed the most developed country of the Middle East to a state of infrastructural destitution?

So the USA foreign policy, it seems, is to prohibit sovereign Iran from developing any means of defending itself with modern weaponry. Perhaps they will be 'allowed' to have slingshots to defend themselves against USA government aggression.

The USA will have to change its foreign policy to accomodate new realities in the Middle East. It's so-called allies, its Middle East NATO is a big fail. No suprise.

If it doesn't want to embrace the Iranian plan for all Gulf members to unites to police the Gulf, maybe it should join the long-standing Russian effort for a multi-sided consensus-driven Gulf peace plan.

[Jan 06, 2020] Iran had every right not to renegotiate with US . Deal was deal.

Notable quotes:
"... Iran had every right not to renegotiate with US . Deal was deal. Trump could have left and followed the agreements . Instead his masters donors and his Jewish advisers made it sure that they could do through him what they all along wanted -- - ,strangling Iran through more sanctions. . ..."
Jan 06, 2020 | www.unz.com

KA , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 10:06 pm GMT

@BL Iran had every right not to renegotiate with US . Deal was deal. Trump could have left and followed the agreements . Instead his masters donors and his Jewish advisers made it sure that they could do through him what they all along wanted -- - ,strangling Iran through more sanctions. .

Iran didn't provoke unless killing the rebels and ISIS supported by Israel US Saud are considered as acts of provocations . Unless Iran demanding implementation of JOPA was act of defiance .

The lies about Iran killing 600 have been laid bare by Scott Horton in http://www.antiwar.com

CNN William Cohen is saying false flag and blamed enough Iran

[Jan 06, 2020] Democrats demand answers on Soleimani killing - This is not a game

Most probably Pompeo was cheating and deceived Trump to get the approval of this asssasination. now with his head on the block he is trying to avoid the responsibility.
Notable quotes:
"... Speaking on "Fox News Sunday," Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said public assurances from the Trump administration that such a threat was "imminent" were simply not enough. ..."
"... Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg said on CNN's "State of the Union" that until the administration provides answers on "how this decision was reached ... then this move is questionable , to say the least." ..."
"... "I still worry about whether this president really understands that this is not a show, this is not a game," he said. "Lives are at stake right now." ..."
"... the administration has yet to make public its evidence that Soleimani was acting out of step in comparison with his years of similar planning as a leader in Iran's proxy wars and other covert operations, which have led to U.S. deaths . ..."
Jan 06, 2020 | www.nbcnews.com

Democrats on Sunday demanded answers about the killing of top Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani as tensions mounted with Iran and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo insisted that the United States had faced an imminent threat.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said on ABC's "This Week" that he worried that President Donald Trump's decision "will get us into what he calls another endless war in the Middle East ." He called for Congress to "assert" its authority and prevent Trump from "either bumbling or impulsively getting us into a major war."

Speaking on "Fox News Sunday," Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said public assurances from the Trump administration that such a threat was "imminent" were simply not enough.

"I think we learned the hard way ... in the Iraq War that administrations sometimes manipulate and cherry-pick intelligence to further their political goals," he said.

"That's what got us into the Iraq War. There was no WMD," or weapons of mass destruction, he said. "I'm saying that they have an obligation to present the evidence."

Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg said on CNN's "State of the Union" that until the administration provides answers on "how this decision was reached ... then this move is questionable , to say the least."

"I still worry about whether this president really understands that this is not a show, this is not a game," he said. "Lives are at stake right now."

Booker: 'All Americans should be concerned right now' JAN. 5, 2020 04:18

The fraught relationship with Iran has significantly deteriorated in the days since Soleimani's death, which came days after rioters sought to storm the U.S. Embassy compound in Baghdad and a U.S. contractor was killed in a rocket attack on an Iraqi military base in Kirkuk.

The Defense Department said Soleimani, the high-profile commander of Iran's secretive Quds Force, who was accused of controlling Iranian-linked proxy militias across the Middle East, orchestrated the attacks on bases in Iraq of the U.S.-led coalition fighting the Islamic State militant group, including the strike that killed the U.S. contractor. In addition, the Defense Department said Soleimani approved attacks on the embassy compound in Baghdad.

" We took action last night to stop a war ," Trump said Friday in a televised address, referring to the airstrike that killed Soleimani. "We did not take action to start a war."

But the administration has yet to make public its evidence that Soleimani was acting out of step in comparison with his years of similar planning as a leader in Iran's proxy wars and other covert operations, which have led to U.S. deaths .

Iran and its allies vowed to retaliate for the general's death, and Trump has since escalated his language in response.

Download the NBC News app for breaking news and politics

[Jan 06, 2020] Rival Shi'ite leaders in Iraq call for U.S. troop expulsion in rare show of unity

Jan 06, 2020 | www.reuters.com

We are about to get kicked out of Iraq again .

Rival Shi'ite political leaders on Friday called for American troops to be expelled from Iraq after a U.S. air strike in Baghdad killed a senior Iranian general, in an unusual show of unity among factions that have squabbled for months.

How can the neocons and chickenhawks justify results like this No, Russia nd China are not next Because they have nukes ad the means to deliver them. Trump can't even stop groveling to North Korea.

Bullies only pick on the defenseless. --

Sanders-Gabbard 2020 !

[Jan 06, 2020] The threat of General Soleimani - TTG

Highly recommended!
Below are some idea from Below are some idea from OffGuardian that clrify TT post...
The Saker took a look yesterday at The Soleimani murder – what could happen next . He thinks, as he has said before, that Trump is regarded as a disposable asset by his Deep State handlers and is being used as a front man for risky policy actions that he can be scapegoated for if/when they go wrong.
war with Iran has been the auto-erotic fixation for the hardcore war nuts in Washington for years, and imminent confrontation has been predicted regularly since at least 2005
Trump administration from the very beginning has been ramping up the tensions (Adelson money at work): Trump teared up the nuclear deal, re-imposed sanctions, making provocations, making threats. But this has all been within the familiar framework that always just stops short of actual conflict. The murder of Soleimani is orders of magnitude beyond anything they have ever risked before. the US and Israel now have carte blanche to stage as much false flag 'terrorism' as they want and blame it on Iranian 'revenge'. Whatever else happens, we can almost certainly look forward to some of that. The murder of Soleimani is orders of magnitude beyond anything they have ever risked before. the US and Israel now have carte blanche to stage as much false flag 'terrorism' as they want and blame it on Iranian 'revenge'. Whatever else happens, we can almost certainly look forward to some of that. The murder of Soleimani is orders of magnitude beyond anything they have ever risked before. the US and Israel now have carte blanche to stage as much false flag 'terrorism' as they want and blame it on Iranian 'revenge'. Whatever else happens, we can almost certainly look forward to some of that.
The major question really though is – will this backtracking and odd claims of wanting de-escalation actually do anything to de-escalate? Will it persuade Iran not to seek retaliation, supposing this is now what Pompeo et al want?
It's become a commonplace to describe Trump foreign policy as 'insane', and it's an apposite description. But the murder of Soleimani takes the evident insanity to new and self-defeating levels.
Notable quotes:
"... Eric, the embassy attack hurt little more than our pride. Yes, an entrance lobby and it's contents were burned and destroyed but no American was injured or even roughed up. It was the Iraqi government that let the demonstrators approach the embassy walls, not Soleimani. The unarmed PMU soldiers dispersed as soon as the Iraqi government said their point was made. If we are so thin skinned that rude graffiti and gestures induce us to committing assassinations, we deserve to be labeled as international pariahs. ..."
"... Yes, I see Soleimani as a threat, but he was a threat to the jihadis and the continued US dreams of regional hegemony. ..."
"... According to published pictures of the rockets recovered after the K-1 attack, they were the same powerful new weapons that Turkish troops recovered from a YPG ammo depot in Afrin last year: 'Iranian' 107mm rockets Manufactured 2016 Lot 570. I know matching lots isn't proof of anything, but what are the chances? ..."
"... This "imminent" threat of Gen. Soleimani attacking US forces seems eerily reminiscent of the "mushroom cloud" imminent threat that Bush, Cheney and Blair peddled. Now we even have Pence claiming that Soleimani provided support to the Saudi 9/11 terrorists. Laughable if it wasn't so tragic. But of course at one time the talking point was Saddam orchestrated 9/11 and was in cahoots with Osama bin Laden. ..."
"... After the Iraq WMD, Gadhaffi threat and Assad the butcher and the incorrigible terrorist loving Taliban posing such imminent threats that we must use our awesome military to bomb, invade, occupy, while spending trillions of dollars borrowed from future generations, and our soldiers on the ground serving multiple tours, and our fellow citizens buy into the latest rationale for killing an Iranian & Iraqi general, without an ounce of skepticism, says a lot! ..."
"... IMO, Craig Murray is pointing in the right direction around the word 'immanent,' by pointing out that it is referring to the legally dubious Bethlehem Doctrine of Self Defense, the Israeli, UK and US standard for assassination, in which immanent is defined as widely as, 'we think they were thinking about it.' The USG managed to run afoul of even these overly permissive guidelines, which are meant only against non-state actors. ..."
Jan 06, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com
The threat of General Soleimani - TTG W7kf87eV

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States had "clear, unambiguous" intelligence that a top Iranian general was planning a significant campaign of violence against the United States when it decided to strike him, the top U.S. general said on Friday, warning Soleimani's plots "might still happen."

Army General Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a small group of reporters "we fully comprehend the strategic consequences" associated with the strike against Qassem Soleimani, Tehran's most prominent military commander.

But he said the risk of inaction exceeded the risk that killing him might dramatically escalate tensions with Tehran. "Is there risk? Damn right, there's risk. But we're working to mitigate it," Milley said from his Pentagon office. (Reuters)

-- -- -- -- --

This is pretty much in line with Trump's pronouncement that our assassination of Soleimani along with Iraqi General Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis was carried out to prevent a war not start one. Whatever information was presented to Trump painted a picture of imminent danger in his mind. What did the Pentagon see that was so imminent?

Well first let's look at the mindset of the Pentagon concerning our presence in Iraq and Syria. These two recent quotes from Brett McGurk sums up that mindset.

"If we leave Iraq, that will just increase further the running room for Iran and Shia militia groups and also the vacuum that will see groups like ISIS fill and we'll be right back to where we were. So that would be a disaster."

"It's always been Soleimani's strategic game... to get us out of the Middle East. He wants to see us leave Syria, he wants to see us leave Iraq... I think if we leave Iraq after this, that would just be a real disastrous outcome..."

McGurk played a visible role in US policy in Iraq and Syria under Bush, Obama and Trump. Now he's an NBC talking head and a lecturer at Stanford. He could be the poster boy for what many see as a neocon deep state. He's definitely not alone in thinking this way.

So back to the question of what was the imminent threat. Reuters offers an elaborate story of a secret meeting of PMU commanders with Soleimani on a rooftop terrace on the Tigris with a grand view of the US Embassy on the far side of the river.

-- -- -- -- --

"In mid-October, Iranian Major-General Qassem Soleimani met with his Iraqi Shi'ite militia allies at a villa on the banks of the Tigris River, looking across at the U.S. embassy complex in Baghdad, and instructed them to step up attacks on U.S. targets in the country"

"Two militia commanders and two security sources briefed on the gathering told Reuters that Soleimani instructed his top ally in Iraq, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, and other powerful militia leaders to step up attacks on US targets using sophisticated new weapons provided by Iran."

"Soleimani's plans to attack US forces aimed to provoke a military response that would redirect Iraqis' anger towards Iran to the US, according to the sources briefed on the gathering, Iraqi Shi'ite politicians and government officials close to Iraq PM Adel Abdul Mahdi."

"At the Baghdad villa, Soleimani told the assembled commanders to form a new militia group of low-profile paramilitaries - unknown to the United States - who could carry out rocket attacks on Americans housed at Iraqi military bases." (Reuters)

-- -- -- -- --

And what were those sophisticated new weapons provided by Iran? They were 1960s Chinese designed 107mm multiple rocket launcher technology. These simple but effective rocket launchers were mass produced by the Soviet Union, Iran, Turkey and Sudan in addition to China. They've been used in every conflict since then. The one captured outside of the K1 military base seems to be locally fabricated, but used Iranian manufactured rockets.

Since when does the PMU have to form another low profile militia unit? The PMU is already composed of so many militia units it's difficult to keep track of them. There's also nothing low profile about the Kata'ib Hizbollah, the rumored perpetrators of the K1 rocket attack. They're as high profile as they come.

Perhaps there's something to this Reuters story, but to me it sounds like another shithouse rumor. It would make a great scene in a James Bond movie, but it still sounds like a rumor.

There's another story put out by The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Although it also sounds like a scene form a James Bond movie, I think it sounds more convincing than the Reuters story.

-- -- -- -- --

Delegation of Arab tribes met with "Soleimani" at the invitation of "Tehran" to carry out attacks against U.S. Forces east Euphrates

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights learned that a delegation of the Arab tribes met on the 26th of December 2019, with the goal of directing and uniting forces against U.S. Forces, and according to the Syrian Observatory's sources, that meeting took place with the commander of the al-Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Qassim Soleimani, who was assassinated this morning in a U.S. raid on his convoy in Iraq. the sources reported that: "the invitation came at the official invitation of Tehran, where Iran invited Faisal al-al-Aazil, one of the elders of al-Ma'amra clan, in addition to the representative of al-Bo Asi clan the commander of NDF headquarters in Qamishli Khatib al-Tieb, and the Sheikh of al-Sharayin, Nawaf al-Bashar, the Sheikh of Harb clan, Mahmoud Mansour al-Akoub, " adding that: "the meeting discussed carrying out attacks against the American forces and the Syria Democratic Forces."

Earlier, the head of the Syrian National Security Bureau, Ali Mamlouk, met with the security committee and about 20 Arab tribal elders and Sheikhs in al-Hasakah, at Qamishli Airport Hall on the 5th of December 2019, where he demanded the Arab tribes to withdraw their sons from the ranks of the Syria Democratic Forces. (SOHR)

-- -- -- -- --

I certainly don't automatically give credence to anything Rami sends out of his house in Coventry. I give this story more credibility only because that is exactly what I would do if Syria east of the the Euphrates was my UWOA (unconventional warfare operational area). This is exactly how I would go about ridding the area of the "Great Satan" invaders and making Syria whole again. The story also includes a lot of named individuals. This can be checked. This morning Colonel Lang told me some tribes in that region have a Shia history. Perhaps he can elaborate on that. I've read in several places that Qassim Soleimani knew the tribes in Syria and Iraq like the back of his hand. This SOHR story makes sense. If Soleimani was working with the tribes of eastern Syria like he worked with the tribes and militias of Iraq to create the al-Ḥashd ash-Shaʿbi, it no doubt scared the bejeezus out of the Pentagon and endangered their designs for Iraq and Syria.

So, Qassim Soleimani, the Iranian soldier, the competent and patient Iranian soldier, was a threat to the Pentagon's designs a serious threat. But he was a long term threat, not an imminent threat. And he was just one soldier.The threat is systemic and remains. The question of why, in the minds of Trump and his generals, Soleimani had to die this week is something I will leave for my next post.

A side note on Milley: Whenever I see a photo of him, I am reminded of my old Brigade Commander in the 25th Infantry Division, Colonel Nathan Vail. They both have the countenance of a snapping turtle. One of the rehab transfers in my rifle platoon once referred to him as "that J. Edgar Hoover looking mutha fuka." I had to bite my tongue to keep from breaking out in laughter. It would have been unseemly for a second lieutenant to openly enjoy such disrespect by a PV2 and a troublemaking PV2 at that. God bless PV2 Webster, where ever you are.

TTG

John Merryman , 04 January 2020 at 06:33 PM

Wondering how much more intense the security will be around Trump's campaign rallies during the election.
The Twisted Genius , 04 January 2020 at 06:46 PM
Eric, the embassy attack hurt little more than our pride. Yes, an entrance lobby and it's contents were burned and destroyed but no American was injured or even roughed up. It was the Iraqi government that let the demonstrators approach the embassy walls, not Soleimani. The unarmed PMU soldiers dispersed as soon as the Iraqi government said their point was made. If we are so thin skinned that rude graffiti and gestures induce us to committing assassinations, we deserve to be labeled as international pariahs.

Yes, I see Soleimani as a threat, but he was a threat to the jihadis and the continued US dreams of regional hegemony. I was glad we went back into Iraq to take on the threat of IS and cheered our initial move into Syria to do the same. That was the Sunni-Shia war you worry about. More accurately, it was a Salafist jihadist-all others war. Unfortunately, we overstayed the need and our welcome. It's a character flaw that we cannot loosen our grasp on empire no matter how much it costs us.

Jack -> The Twisted Genius ... , 04 January 2020 at 08:16 PM
TTG,

Thanks for your post. What it says I buy. We are in the Middle East and have been for a while to impose regional hegemony. What that has bought us is nebulous at best. Clearly we have spent trillions and destabilized the region. Millions have been displaced and hundreds of thousands have been killed and maimed, including thousands of our soldiers. Are we better off from our invasion of Iraq, toppling Ghaddafi, and attempting to topple Assad using jihadists? Guys like McGurk, Bolton, Pompeo will say yes. Others like me will say no.

The oil is a canard. We produce more oil than we ever have and it is a fungible commodity. Will it impact Israel if we pull out our forces? Sure. But it may have a salutary effect that it may force them to sue for peace. Will the Al Sauds continue to fund jihadi mayhem? Likely yes, but they'll have to come to some accommodation with the Iranian Shia and recognize their regional strength.

Our choice is straightforward. Continue down the path of more conflict sinking ever more trillions that we don't have expecting a different outcome or cut our losses and get out and let the natural forces of the region assert themselves. I know which path I'll take.

JamesT -> The Twisted Genius ... , 04 January 2020 at 09:48 PM
TTG,

With all due respect, I think you are wrong. I think the protesters swarming the embassy was exactly the same kind of tactic that US backed protesters used in Ukraine (and are currently using in Hong Kong) to great effect. The Persians are unique in that they are capable of studying our methodologies and tactics and appropriating them.

When the US backed protesters took over Maidan square and started taking over various government building in Kiev, Viktor Yanukovych had two choices - either start shooting protesters or watch while his authority collapsed. It was and is a difficult choice.

In my humble opinion, there are few things the stewards of US hegemony fear more than the IRGC becoming the worlds number one disciple of Gene Sharp.

PavewayIV , 04 January 2020 at 06:46 PM
TTG - "And what were those sophisticated new weapons provided by Iran?"

According to published pictures of the rockets recovered after the K-1 attack, they were the same powerful new weapons that Turkish troops recovered from a YPG ammo depot in Afrin last year: 'Iranian' 107mm rockets Manufactured 2016 Lot 570. I know matching lots isn't proof of anything, but what are the chances?

If the U.S. only had a Dilyana Gaytandzhieva to bird-dog out the rat line. Wait... the MSM would have fired her by now for weaponizing journalism against the neocons [sigh].

Factotum , 04 January 2020 at 07:21 PM
If a goal is to get the heck out of the Middle East since it is an intractable cess pit and stat protecting our own borders and internal security, will we be better off with Soleimani out of the picture or left in place.

Knowing of course, more just like him will sprout quickly, like dragon's teeth, in the sands of the desert.ME is a tar baby. Fracking our own tar sands is the preferable alternative.

Real war war would be a direct attack on Israel. Then they get our full frontal assault. But this pissy stuff around the edges is an exercise in futility. 2020 was Trump's to lose.Incapacity to handle asymmetirc warfare is ours to lose.

Jane , 04 January 2020 at 07:35 PM
There is no necessary link between the Iranian support for the Assad regime, to include its operations in tribal areas of Syria. The Iranian-backed militias and Iranian government officials have been operating in that area for a long time, supporting the efforts of Security/Intel Ali Mamlouk. That Suleimani knew the tribes so well is a mark of his professional competence. Everyone is courting the Syrian tribes, some sides more adeptly than others. It is also worth noting that in putting together manpower for their various locally formed Syrian militias, the Iranians took on unemployed Sunnis.

That said, there are small Ismaili communities in Syria and there are apparently a couple of villages in Deir ez Zor that did convert to Shiism, but no mass religious change. The Iranians are sensitive to the fact that they could cause a backlash if they tried hard to promote "an alien culture."

Elora Danan , 04 January 2020 at 07:40 PM
Well, The Donald has turned to Twitter menacing iran with wiping out all of its World Heritage Sites....which is declared intention to commit a war crime...

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1213593975732527112

For what it seems Iran must sawllow the assasination of its beloved and highjly regarded general...or else...

Do you really think there is any explanation for this, whatever Soleimani´s history ( he was doing his duty in his country and neighboring zone...you are...well...everywhere...) or that we can follow this way with you escalating your threats and crimes ever and that everybody must leave it at that without response or you menace coming with more ?

That somebody or some news agency has any explanation for this is precisely the sign of our times and our disgrace. That there is a bunch of greedy people who is willing to do whatever is needed to prevail and keep being obscenely rich...

BTW, would be interesting to know who are the main holders of shares at Reuters...

Elora Danan , 04 January 2020 at 08:09 PM
Board of Directors of Reuters

The same monopolizing almost each and every MSM and news agency at every palce in the world, big bank, big pharma, big business, big capital ( insurances companies nad hedge funds ) big real state, and US think tanks...

Elora Danan , 04 January 2020 at 08:33 PM
In Elora´s opinion, Bret MacGurk is making revanche from Soleimani for the predictable fact that a humble and pious man bred in the region, who worked as bricklayer to help pay his father´s debt during his youth, and moreover has an innate irresistible charisma, managed to connect better with the savage tribes of the ME than such exceptionalist posh theoric bred at such an exceptionalist as well as far away country like the US.

But...what did you expect, that MacGurk would become Lawrence of Arabia versus Soleimani in his simpleness?

May be because of that that he deserved being dismembered by a misile...

As Pence blamed shamefully and stonefacelly Soleimani for 9/11, MacGurk blames him too for having fallen from the heights he was...

It seems that Pence was in the team of four who assesed Trump on this hit...along with Pompeo...

A good response would be that someone would leak the real truth on 9/11 so as to debunk Pence´s mega-lie...

Factotum , 04 January 2020 at 08:48 PM
Two years ago, the public protest theme for Basel's winter carnival Fashnach was the imminent threat nuclear war as NK and US were sabre rattling, and NK was lobbing missles across Japan with sights on West Coast US cities.

Then almost the following week, NK and US planned to meet F2F in Singapore. And we could all breathe again. In the very early spring of 2018.

blue peacock , 04 January 2020 at 09:54 PM
TTG

This "imminent" threat of Gen. Soleimani attacking US forces seems eerily reminiscent of the "mushroom cloud" imminent threat that Bush, Cheney and Blair peddled. Now we even have Pence claiming that Soleimani provided support to the Saudi 9/11 terrorists. Laughable if it wasn't so tragic. But of course at one time the talking point was Saddam orchestrated 9/11 and was in cahoots with Osama bin Laden.

I find it fascinating watching the media spin and how easily so many Americans buy into the spin du jour.

After the Iraq WMD, Gadhaffi threat and Assad the butcher and the incorrigible terrorist loving Taliban posing such imminent threats that we must use our awesome military to bomb, invade, occupy, while spending trillions of dollars borrowed from future generations, and our soldiers on the ground serving multiple tours, and our fellow citizens buy into the latest rationale for killing an Iranian & Iraqi general, without an ounce of skepticism, says a lot!

Yeah, it will be interesting to see how Trump's re-election will go when we are engaged in a full scale military conflagration in the Middle East? It sure will give Tulsi & Bernie an excellent environment to promote their anti-neocon message. You can see it in Trump's ambivalent tweets. On the one hand, I ordered the assassination of Soleimani to prevent a war (like we needed to burn the village to save it), while on the other hand, we have 52 sites locked & loaded if you retaliate. Hmmm!! IMO, he has seriously jeapordized his re-election by falling into the neocon Deep State trap. They never liked him. The coup by law enforcement & CIA & DNI failed. The impeachment is on its last legs. Voila! Incite him into another Middle Eastern quagmire against what he campaigned on and won an election.

I would think that Khamanei has no choice but to retaliate. How is anyone's guess? I doubt he'll order the sinking of a naval vessel patrolling the Gulf or fire missiles into the US base in Qatar. But assassination....especially in some far off location in Europe or South America? A targeted bombing here or there? A cyber attack at a critical point. I mean not indiscriminate acts like the jihadists but highly calculated targets. All seem extremely feasible in our highly vulnerable and relatively open societies. And they have both the experience and skills to accomplish them.

If ever you have the inclination, a speculative post on how the escalation ladder could potentially be climbed would be a fascinating read.

Jack -> blue peacock... , 05 January 2020 at 12:01 AM
"I find it fascinating watching the media spin and how easily so many Americans buy into the spin du jour."

BP,

Yes, indeed. It is a testament to our susceptibility that there is such limited scepticism by so many people on the pronouncements of our government. Especially considering the decades long continuous streams of lies and propaganda. The extent and brazenness of the lies have just gotten worse through my lifetime.

I feel for my grand-children and great-grand children as they now live in society that has no value for honor. It's all expedience in the search for immediate personal gain.

I am and have been in the minority for decades now. I've always opposed our military adventurism overseas from Korea to today. I never bought into the domino theory even at the heights of the Cold War. And I don't buy into the current global hegemony destiny to bring light to the savages. I've also opposed the build up of the national security surveillance state as the antithesis of our founding. I am also opposed to the increasing concentration of market power across every major market segment. It will be the destruction of our entrepreneurial economy. The partisan duopoly is well past it's sell date. But right now the majority are still caught up in rancorous battles on the side of Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum.

Something To Think About , 04 January 2020 at 10:19 PM
A question to the committee: what is the source for the claim that Soleimani bears direct responsibility for the death of over 600 US military personnel?

Craig Murray points to this article:
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2019/04/04/iran-killed-more-us-troops-in-iraq-than-previously-known-pentagon-says/

If that is the case (and it appears to be) then the US govt's claim is nonsense, as it clearly says " 'During Operation Iraqi Freedom, DoD assessed that at least 603 U.S. personnel deaths in Iraq were the result of Iran-backed militants,' Navy Cmdr. Sean Robertson, a Pentagon spokesman, said in an email."

So those figures represent casualties suffered during the US-led military invasion of Iraq i.e. casualties suffered during a shooting-war.

If Soleimani is a legitimate target for assassination because of the success of his forces on the battlefield then wouldn't that make Tommy Franks an equally-legitimate target?

Jack , 04 January 2020 at 10:33 PM
Pulitzer Prize winning author of Caliphate, Romanian-American, Rukmini Callimachi, on the intelligence on Soleimani "imminent threat" being razor-thin.

https://twitter.com/rcallimachi/status/1213421769777909761?s=21

PavewayIV said in reply to Jack... , 04 January 2020 at 11:01 PM
You just beat me to her thread, Jack. For the Twitter shy, this is the first of a series of 17 tweets as a teaser:
1. I've had a chance to check in with sources, including two US officials who had intelligence briefings after the strike on Suleimani. Here is what I've learned. According to them, the evidence suggesting there was to be an imminent attack on American targets is "razor thin".

Summary: [Too shameful to type]

Roy G , 04 January 2020 at 11:59 PM
IMO, Craig Murray is pointing in the right direction around the word 'immanent,' by pointing out that it is referring to the legally dubious Bethlehem Doctrine of Self Defense, the Israeli, UK and US standard for assassination, in which immanent is defined as widely as, 'we think they were thinking about it.' The USG managed to run afoul of even these overly permissive guidelines, which are meant only against non-state actors.

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/01/lies-the-bethlehem-doctrine-and-the-illegal-murder-of-soleimani/

[Jan 06, 2020] President Trump's ME policy is utter and complete failure.

Notable quotes:
"... As for the murder of the late Solaimani, which I have no doubt was primarily driven by Israeli agenda, it is creating popular unity in Iran despite all the recent socio-economic turmoil, political unity in Iraq despite the faction fractures, provides the framework for expelling US forces from Iraq, strengthens the Shia Crescent, brings together Shia and Sunni in all of the Muslim world, will provide the opportunity for some traditional US allies (Germany, France) to devise a more independent foreign policy, and the list of unintended consequences goes on. ..."
"... Iran is not like the US, who let Israel murder its citizens in total impunity during 9/11; they will use this adverse event to re-shape the region at their advantage. ..."
Jan 06, 2020 | www.unz.com

Iris , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 10:03 pm GMT

@Colin Wright The way President Trump's ME policy is seen by the people of the region (as summarised by Hassan Nasrallah) is that his strategies led to utter and complete failure.

– He repudiated the JCPOA and applied sanctions, requiring Iran to beg for negotiations; they completely ignored him.
– Lebanon's Hezbollah has tremendously improved their military capabilities against the demented racist state North of Gaza.
– Iraq is breaking free.
– The US-led coalition has lost the war on Syria.
– President Trump has recently made a political somersault and was obliged to initiate talks with the Talibans, talks he initially repudiated.
– He just further lost credibility by abandoning the US Kurd allies to be slaughtered by Erdogan.
– The wretched, impoverished, powerless Palestinians have superbly ignored his "Deal of the Century"; they did not even attend the meetings.

If this is success, I wonder how failure looks like.

As for the murder of the late Solaimani, which I have no doubt was primarily driven by Israeli agenda, it is creating popular unity in Iran despite all the recent socio-economic turmoil, political unity in Iraq despite the faction fractures, provides the framework for expelling US forces from Iraq, strengthens the Shia Crescent, brings together Shia and Sunni in all of the Muslim world, will provide the opportunity for some traditional US allies (Germany, France) to devise a more independent foreign policy, and the list of unintended consequences goes on.

Only short-sighted Hasbara trolsl can think that the Solaimani murder is a success.

Iran is not like the US, who let Israel murder its citizens in total impunity during 9/11; they will use this adverse event to re-shape the region at their advantage.

Israel is a short-sighted, greedy poker player; Iran is a profound, sophisticated chess player who will win the long game.

[Jan 06, 2020] Now I know for sure that the US government spreads shameless lies, so you can't believe anything it says.

Notable quotes:
"... So, I did not see it as a war crime back then, but I do now. ..."
Jan 06, 2020 | www.unz.com

AnonFromTN , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 10:22 pm GMT

@ChuckOrloski At the time I thought that it might be justified, if Al Qaida actually did 9/11. Now I know that Al Qaida was and is a CIA operation and have my doubts regarding its involvement in 9/11.

Even if it was, that was on direct orders of its American handlers.

What's more, now I know for sure that the US government spreads shameless lies, so you can't believe anything it says. In fact, you can safely assume that everything it says is a lie and be right 99.9% of the time.

So, I did not see it as a war crime back then, but I do now.

[Jan 05, 2020] The Donald Is Now America First s Own Assassin by Craig Murray

Notable quotes:
"... This switch in US foreign policy was known in the White House of 2007 as "the redirection". It meant that Sunni jihadists like Al-Qaida and later al-Nusra were able to switch back to being valued allies of the United States. It redoubled the slavish tying of US foreign policy to Saudi interests. The axis was completed once Mohammad Bin Salman took control of Saudi Arabia. His predecessors had been coy about their de facto alliance with Israel. MBS felt no shyness about openly promoting Israeli interests, under the cloak of mutual alliance against Iran, calculating quite correctly that Arab street hatred of the Shia outweighed any solidarity with the Palestinians. Common enemies were easy for the USA/Saudi/Israeli alliance to identify; Iran, the Houthi, Assad and of course the Shia Hezbollah, the only military force to have given the Israelis a bloody nose. The Palestinians themselves are predominantly Sunni and their own Hamas was left friendless and isolated. ..."
"... Such precarious balance as there ever was in Iraq was upset this last two months when the US and Israelis transported more of their ISIL Sunni jihadists into Iraq, to escape the pincer of the Turkish, Russian and Syrian government forces. The Iranians were naturally not going to stand for this and Iranian militias were successfully destroying the ISIL remnants, which is why General Qassem Suleimani was in Iraq, why a US mercenary assisting ISIL was killed in an Iranian militia rocket attack, and why Syrian military representatives were being welcomed at Baghdad airport. ..."
"... Nevertheless, Tel Aviv and Riyadh will also be celebrating today at the idea that their dream of the USA destroying their regional rival Iran, as Iraq and Libya were destroyed, is coming closer. The USA could do this. The impact of technology on modern warfare should not be underestimated. There is a great deal of wishful thinking that fantasizes about US military defeat, but it is simply unrealistic if the USA actually opted for full scale invasion. ..."
"... Technology is a far greater factor in warfare than it was in the 1960s. The USA could destroy Iran, but the cost and the ramifications would be enormous, and not only the entire Middle East but much of South Asia would be destabilized, including of course Pakistan. My reading of Trump remains that he is not a crazed Clinton-type war hawk and it will not happen. We all have to pray it does not. ..."
Jan 03, 2020 | original.antiwar.com

For the United States to abandon proxy warfare and directly kill one of Iran's most senior political figures has changed international politics in a fundamental way. It is a massive error. Its ramifications are profound and complex.

There is also a lesson to be learned here in that this morning there will be excitement and satisfaction in the palaces of Washington, Tel Aviv, Riyadh and Tehran. All of the political elites will see prospects for gain from the new fluidity. While for ordinary people in all those countries there is only the certainty of more conflict, death and economic loss, for the political elite, the arms manufacturers, the military and security services and allied interests, the hedge funds, speculators and oil companies, there are the sweet smells of cash and power.

Tehran will be pleased because the USA has just definitively lost Iraq. Iraq has a Shia majority and so naturally tends to ally with Iran. The only thing preventing that was the Arab nationalism of Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Socialist Party. Bush and Blair were certainly fully informed that by destroying the BA'ath system they were creating an Iranian/Iraqi nexus, but they decided that was containable. The "containment" consisted of a deliberate and profound push across the Middle East to oppose Shia influence in proxy wars everywhere.

This is the root cause of the disastrous war in Yemen, where the Zaidi-Shia would have been victorious long ago but for the sustained brutal aerial warfare on civilians carried out by the Western powers through Saudi Arabia. This anti-Shia western policy included the unwavering support for the Sunni Bahraini autocracy in the brutal suppression of its overwhelmingly Shia population. And of course it included the sustained and disastrous attempt to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria and replace it with pro-Saudi Sunni jihadists.

This switch in US foreign policy was known in the White House of 2007 as "the redirection". It meant that Sunni jihadists like Al-Qaida and later al-Nusra were able to switch back to being valued allies of the United States. It redoubled the slavish tying of US foreign policy to Saudi interests. The axis was completed once Mohammad Bin Salman took control of Saudi Arabia. His predecessors had been coy about their de facto alliance with Israel. MBS felt no shyness about openly promoting Israeli interests, under the cloak of mutual alliance against Iran, calculating quite correctly that Arab street hatred of the Shia outweighed any solidarity with the Palestinians. Common enemies were easy for the USA/Saudi/Israeli alliance to identify; Iran, the Houthi, Assad and of course the Shia Hezbollah, the only military force to have given the Israelis a bloody nose. The Palestinians themselves are predominantly Sunni and their own Hamas was left friendless and isolated.

The principal difficulty of this policy for the USA of course is Iraq. Having imposed a rough democracy on Iraq, the governments were always likely to be Shia dominated and highly susceptible to Iranian influence. The USA had a continuing handle through dwindling occupying forces and through control of the process which produced the government. They also provided financial resources to partially restore the physical infrastructure the US and its allies had themselves destroyed, and of course to fund a near infinite pool of corruption.

That US influence was balanced by strong Iranian aligned militia forces who were an alternative source of strength to the government of Baghdad, and of course by the fact that the center of Sunni tribal strength, the city of Falluja, had itself been obliterated by the United States, three times, in an act of genocide of Iraqi Sunni population.

Through all this the Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi had until now tiptoed with great care. Pro-Iranian yet a long term American client, his government maintained a form of impartiality based on an open hand to accept massive bribes from anybody. That is now over. He is pro-Iranian now.

Such precarious balance as there ever was in Iraq was upset this last two months when the US and Israelis transported more of their ISIL Sunni jihadists into Iraq, to escape the pincer of the Turkish, Russian and Syrian government forces. The Iranians were naturally not going to stand for this and Iranian militias were successfully destroying the ISIL remnants, which is why General Qassem Suleimani was in Iraq, why a US mercenary assisting ISIL was killed in an Iranian militia rocket attack, and why Syrian military representatives were being welcomed at Baghdad airport.

It is five years since I was last in the Green Zone in Baghdad, but it is extraordinarily heavily fortified with military barriers and checks every hundred yards, and there is no way the crowd could have been allowed to attack the US Embassy without active Iraqi government collusion. That profound political movement will have been set in stone by the US assassination of Suleimani. Tehran will now have a grip on Iraq that could prove to be unshakable.

Nevertheless, Tel Aviv and Riyadh will also be celebrating today at the idea that their dream of the USA destroying their regional rival Iran, as Iraq and Libya were destroyed, is coming closer. The USA could do this. The impact of technology on modern warfare should not be underestimated. There is a great deal of wishful thinking that fantasizes about US military defeat, but it is simply unrealistic if the USA actually opted for full scale invasion.

Technology is a far greater factor in warfare than it was in the 1960s. The USA could destroy Iran, but the cost and the ramifications would be enormous, and not only the entire Middle East but much of South Asia would be destabilized, including of course Pakistan. My reading of Trump remains that he is not a crazed Clinton-type war hawk and it will not happen. We all have to pray it does not.

There will also today be rejoicing in Washington. There is nothing like an apparently successful military attack in a US re-election campaign. The Benghazi Embassy disaster left a deep scar upon the psyche of Trump's support base in particular, and the message that Trump knows how to show the foreigners not to attack America is going down extremely well where it counts, whatever wise people on CNN may say.

So what happens now? Consolidating power in Iraq and finishing the destruction of ISIL in Iraq will be the wise advance that Iranian statesman can practically gain from these events. But that is, of course, not enough to redeem national honor. Something quick and spectacular is required for that. It is hard not to believe there must be a very real chance of action being taken against shipping in the Straits of Hormuz, which Iran can do with little prior preparation. Missile attacks on Saudi Arabia or Israel are also well within Iran's capability, but it seems more probable that Iran will wish to strike a US target rather than a proxy. An Ambassador may be assassinated. Further missile strikes against US outposts in Iraq are also possible. All of these scenarios could very quickly lead to disastrous escalation.

In the short term, Trump in this situation needs either to pull out troops from Iraq or massively to reinforce them. The UK does not have the latter option, having neither men nor money, and should remove its 1400 troops now. Whether the "triumph" of killing Suleimani gives Trump enough political cover for an early pullout – the wise move – I am unsure. 2020 is going to be a very dangerous year indeed.

Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster, human rights activist, and former diplomat. He was British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and Rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010. The article is reprinted with permission from his website .

[Jan 05, 2020] The Donald Is Now America First's Own Assassin by David Stockman

Notable quotes:
"... As is evident from the yellow, green, red and black circles on the map below, which circles outline each missile's striking range, the overwhelming bulk of Iran's missile force has a range of 500 miles or less. These missiles are capable of hitting targets in the immediate vicinity of the Persian Gulf, or roughly the same area which encompasses the 35 military bases designated by American flags in the graphic above. ..."
"... Stated differently, Iran's extremely modest military capacities are not remotely about an offensive threat to the American homeland. They are overwhelmingly about defending itself in its own neighborhood, where Washington has been intervening and occupying with massive firepower and hostile intent for decades. ..."
"... So left to its own devices, Tehran would produce 5 million barrels per day from its abundant reserves. That's barely one-tenth of its present meager output, which is owing to Washington's vicious sanctions against any and all customers for its oil and potential investors in modernizing and expanding it production capacity. ..."
"... So if it's not ISIS or oil, exactly why does Washington maintain the circle of 35 bases displayed in the graphic above and keep thousands of US troops and other personnel in harms' way in the region? ..."
"... The answer, of course, is that the foreign policy apparatus of the US government is controlled by anti-Iran neocons and regime changers. We are still in Syria not to fight ISIS, which is gone, but to block Iran's land route to its allies in Syria and Lebanon (Hezbollah); and we remain in Iraq solely to use it as a base for clandestine US and Israeli attacks on these allies and proxy forces. ..."
"... Likewise, the US military-industrial complex's greed and appetite for power and pelf is so voracious that it will embrace any and all missions anywhere on the planet – no matter how stupid or futile or immoral, as per the case of 19-years in Afghanistan – that keep the budgetary loot flowing. ..."
"... For crying out loud, Washington has been demonizing, ostracizing and economically attacking Iran for decades, and is now literally attempting to destroy its economy and society through is oil sanctions and its "maximum pressure" campaign that aims to bring the fate of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi to its top leaders in Tehran. ..."
"... That's why Secretary of State Pompeo's statement justifying the Donald's act of naked aggression is so hideous. ..."
"... Washington is putting the entire nation of Iran at risk in the very place where God or evolution, as the case may be, formed the peninsula on which it resides; and it is doing so without any Iranian provocation against the security of the American homeland whatsoever. ..."
"... "I can't talk too much about the nature of the threats. But the American people should know that the President's decision to remove Soleimani from the battlefield saved American lives," Pompeo told CNN. ..."
Jan 04, 2020 | original.antiwar.com

Antiwar.com Regional News

Posted on January 04, 2020 January 3, 2020

By the twisted logic of Imperial Washington you could say the Iranians were asking for it. After all, they had the nerve to locate their country right in the middle of 35 U.S. military bases!

Then again, your saner angels may ask: What in the hell is Washington doing with a massive military footprint in a region and in a string of backwater countries that have virtually no bearing on homeland security, safety and liberty?

Djibouti? Oman? Kyrgyzstan? Uzbekistan? Afghanistan? Bahrain? Kuwait? And, yes, Iraq and Iran?

In fact, Washington destroyed the former for no good reason and based on egregious Big Lies about Saddam's nonexistent WMDs and sheltering of al-Qaeda. That turned Iraq into a failed state hellhole pulsating with sectarian frictions and anti-American grievances – even as the rump state of Iraq centered in Baghdad fell under the control of Iran-friendly Shiite politicians and militias.

At the same time, Iran itself is zero threat to the American homeland. It's tiny $350 billion GDP amounts to 6 days of US annual output and its $20 billion defense budget is equivalent to what the Pentagon wastes every 8 days.

Militarily, it has no blue water navy, an air force that could double as a cold war museum and a short and medium range missile force that is self-evidently dedicated to defense and deterrence in the region, not an attack on the USA way over on the yonder side of the deep blue seas.

Its 300 or so active aircraft, for example, include 175 US F-4, F-5, F-14 and sundry transports, helicopters and trainers purchased by the Shah during the 1970s and kept together since the revolution with bailing wire and bubble gum. It also fields 60 or so Soviet vintage MiG-29s and Sukhoi Su attack aircraft – plus a few dozen European and Chinese planes of mostly ancient design.

Likewise, even its most advanced medium range cruise missile (Soumar) can barely get to Rome, Italy, to say nothing of Rome, Georgia.

As is evident from the yellow, green, red and black circles on the map below, which circles outline each missile's striking range, the overwhelming bulk of Iran's missile force has a range of 500 miles or less. These missiles are capable of hitting targets in the immediate vicinity of the Persian Gulf, or roughly the same area which encompasses the 35 military bases designated by American flags in the graphic above.

Stated differently, Iran's extremely modest military capacities are not remotely about an offensive threat to the American homeland. They are overwhelmingly about defending itself in its own neighborhood, where Washington has been intervening and occupying with massive firepower and hostile intent for decades.

Therein, of course, lies a hint. More than 13 years after Saddam's last hurrah on a Baghdad gallows, the US still has upwards of 30,000 troops and contractors in the immediate vicinity of the Persian Gulf. But why?

It can't be owing to ISIS. The Islamic State was never much more than a no count salient of dusty, woebegone towns and villages on the Upper Euphrates straddling Western Iraq and northeastern Syria that was destined to collapse on its own barbaric madness anyway; and which was essentially dispatched by the Russian air force, Assad's military and the Shiite militia forces organized by the dead man himself, Major General Soleimani.

Likewise, it should be obvious by now that it's not the oil, either. At the moment the US is producing nearly 13 million barrels per day and is the world's leading oil producer – well ahead of Saudi Arabia and Russia; and is now actually a net exporter of crude for the first time in three-quarters of a century.

Besides, the Fifth Fleet has never been the solution to oil security. The cure for high prices is high prices – as the great US shale oil and Canadian heavy oil booms so cogently demonstrate, among others.

And the route to global oil industry stability is peaceful commerce because virtually every regime – regardless of politics and ideology – needs all the oil revenue it can muster to fund its own rule and keep its population reasonably pacified.

Surely, there is no better case for the latter than that of Iran itself – with an economy burdened by decades of war, sanctions and mis-rule and an 80-million population that aspires to a western standard of living.

So left to its own devices, Tehran would produce 5 million barrels per day from its abundant reserves. That's barely one-tenth of its present meager output, which is owing to Washington's vicious sanctions against any and all customers for its oil and potential investors in modernizing and expanding it production capacity.

So if it's not ISIS or oil, exactly why does Washington maintain the circle of 35 bases displayed in the graphic above and keep thousands of US troops and other personnel in harms' way in the region?

Or more to the moment, why has the Donald been unable to bring the forces home as he has so often proclaimed to be his policy?

The answer, of course, is that the foreign policy apparatus of the US government is controlled by anti-Iran neocons and regime changers. We are still in Syria not to fight ISIS, which is gone, but to block Iran's land route to its allies in Syria and Lebanon (Hezbollah); and we remain in Iraq solely to use it as a base for clandestine US and Israeli attacks on these allies and proxy forces.

These Washington instigated or conducted attacks on Iranian allies, in fact, are why there was growing pressure in the Iraqi government to demand that the US finally leave. These pressures will now become overwhelming in light of this week's US bombing of five PMF camps (Popular Mobilization Forces) which are Shiite militias that have been integrated into the Iraqi army and which are under the command of its prime minister, and last night's assassination of their Deputy Commander along with Soleimani.

To be sure, Iran's choice of allies has nothing to do with America's homeland security: None of the sovereign governments of Lebanon (where Hezbollah is the leading political party) or Syria or even Iraq (which is an ostensible US ally) have protested these confession (i.e. Shiite) based arrangements and the aid and benefits which flow from them.

That's because the so-called Shiite crescent is a bogeyman invented by Bibi Netanyahu and is the excuse for his hysterical anti-Iranian foreign policy. The latter is not even designed to enhance Israel's own security, but to vilify a "far enemy" that can keep his rightwing coalition glued together and himself in power.

Likewise, the US military-industrial complex's greed and appetite for power and pelf is so voracious that it will embrace any and all missions anywhere on the planet – no matter how stupid or futile or immoral, as per the case of 19-years in Afghanistan – that keep the budgetary loot flowing.

Accordingly, the Washington apparatus conspires to keep the 35 Mideast bases in place and to trigger actions like last night's insane assassination of Iran's foremost military leader in order to reify the threat and to periodically stoke tensions and counterattacks that keep missions alive and the forces deployed.

Indeed, we are hard-pressed to imagine a more poignant case of the pot calling the kettle black than Washington's claim that it had to retaliate owing to actual and expected Iranian "aggression".

For crying out loud, Washington has been demonizing, ostracizing and economically attacking Iran for decades, and is now literally attempting to destroy its economy and society through is oil sanctions and its "maximum pressure" campaign that aims to bring the fate of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi to its top leaders in Tehran.

So do ya think a regime under a veritable existential threat might gravitate toward retaliation as an alternative to extinction?

And we needs be clear about the matter of striking back in self defense. Washington's current sanctions campaign against Iran is so aggressive and brutal that it constitutes war by any other name.

When you surround a sovereign nation with an armada of land, sea and air-based high-tech lethality and than declare outright economic war on it with a barely-disguised aim of regime change, it must and will fight back however it can.

That's why Secretary of State Pompeo's statement justifying the Donald's act of naked aggression is so hideous.

Washington is putting the entire nation of Iran at risk in the very place where God or evolution, as the case may be, formed the peninsula on which it resides; and it is doing so without any Iranian provocation against the security of the American homeland whatsoever.

But this neocon knucklehead has the gall to insist that when it comes to the actual anti-Iranian belligerents (i.e. U.S. forces) Washington has bivouacked where they have no business being at all, that not a hair on their head should come to harm.

That's Imperial arrogance of a kind rarely seen in a world history which is littered with exactly that.

"I can't talk too much about the nature of the threats. But the American people should know that the President's decision to remove Soleimani from the battlefield saved American lives," Pompeo told CNN.

The IRGC general had been "actively plotting" in the region to "take big action, as he described it, that would have put hundreds of lives at risk," according to Pompeo.

Undoubtedly, things will now spiral out of control because the Iranian regime must and will retaliate for Soleimani's death. Indeed, by vaporizing the latter, the Donald has now also vaporized any chance of actually implementing the "America First" policy upon which he ran, and which was the principal basis for his freakish elevation to the Oval Office.

The fact is, the only decent thing Obama did on the foreign policy front was the Iran Nuke Deal. Under the latter, Iran gave up a nuclear weapons capability it never had or wanted for the return of billions of escrowed dollars (which belong to Tehran in the first place), while putting itself in a straight-jacket of international inspections and controls that even Houdini could not have broken free from.

But the Donald wantonly shit-canned this arrangement, not because Iran violated either the letter or spirit of the deal, but because the neocons – led by his bubble-headed son-in-law and Bibi Netanyahu errand boy, Jared Kushner – blatantly lied to him about its alleged defects.

Indeed, the resulting Washington pivot to the current "maximum pressure" aggression against Iran is fast becoming the Empire most demented and shameful hour – even as it crystalizes like rarely before the difference between homeland defense and imperial aggression.

Under the former, not one American serviceman, contractor or civilian official would be in harms' way because the ring of hostile bases surrounding Iran would not exist nor would Washington be waging economic warfare on what would otherwise be a prosperous 5 million barrel per day oil trade with the world.

Only empires put their citizens needlessly in harms' way and thereby trap their leader's into a cycle of violence which feeds upon itself.

The Donald is now yet another American president ensnared in the kind of tit-for-tat trap that is the modus operandi of Empire First.

David Stockman was a two-term Congressman from Michigan. He was also the Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan. After leaving the White House, Stockman had a 20-year career on Wall Street. He's the author of three books, The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed , The Great Deformation: The Corruption of Capitalism in America and TRUMPED! A Nation on the Brink of Ruin And How to Bring It Back . He also is founder of David Stockman's Contra Corner and David Stockman's Bubble Finance Trader .

[Jan 05, 2020] The USA is now at war, de-facto and de-jure, with BOTH Iraq and Iran (UPDATED 6X) The Vineyard of the Saker

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... work to end the presence of any foreign troops on Iraqi soil and prohibit them from using its land, airspace or water for any reason ..."
"... Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr said the parliamentary resolution to end foreign troop presence in the country did not go far enough, calling on local and foreign militia groups to unite . I also have confirmation that the Mehdi Army is being re-mobilized . ..."
"... The United States just spent Two Trillion Dollars on Military Equipment. We are the biggest and by far the BEST in the World! If Iran attacks an American Base, or any American, we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way…and without hesitation! ..."
Jan 05, 2020 | thesaker.is
The blowback has begun

First, let’s begin by a quick summary of what has taken place (note: this info is still coming in, so there might be corrections once the official sources make their official statements).

  1. Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdl Mahdi has now officially revealed that the US had asked him to mediate between the US and Iran and that General Qassem Soleimani to come and talk to him and give him the answer to his mediation efforts. Thus, Soleimani was on an OFFICIAL DIPLOMATIC MISSION as part of a diplomatic initiative INITIATED BY THE USA .
  2. The Iraqi Parliament has now voted on a resolution requiring the government to press Washington and its allies to withdraw their troops from Iraq.
  3. Iraq’s caretaker PM Adil Abdul Mahdi said the American side notified the Iraqi military about the planned airstrike minutes before it was carried out. He stressed that his government denied Washington permission to continue with the operation.
  4. The Iraqi Parliament has also demanded that the Iraqi government must “ work to end the presence of any foreign troops on Iraqi soil and prohibit them from using its land, airspace or water for any reason “
  5. The Iraqi Foreign Ministry said that Baghdad had turned to the UN Security Council with complaints about US violations of its sovereignty .
  6. Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr said the parliamentary resolution to end foreign troop presence in the country did not go far enough, calling on local and foreign militia groups to unite . I also have confirmation that the Mehdi Army is being re-mobilized .
  7. The Pentagon brass is now laying the responsibility for this monumental disaster on Trump (see here ). The are now slowly waking up to this immense clusterbleep and don’t want to be held responsible for what is coming next.
  8. For the first time in the history of Iran, a Red Flag was hoisted over the Holy Dome Of Jamkaran Mosque , Iran. This indicates that the blood of martyrs has been spilled and that a major battle will now happen . The text in the flag say s “ Oh Hussein we ask for your help ” (u nofficial translation 1) or “ Rise up and avenge al-Husayn ” (unofficial translation 2)
  9. The US has announced the deployment of 3’000 soldiers from the 82nd Airborne to Kuwait .
  10. Finally, the Idiot-in-Chief tweeted the following message , probably to try to reassure his freaked out supporters: “ The United States just spent Two Trillion Dollars on Military Equipment. We are the biggest and by far the BEST in the World! If Iran attacks an American Base, or any American, we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way…and without hesitation! “. Apparently, he still thinks that criminally overspending for 2nd rate military hardware is going to yield victory…
Analysis

Well, my first though when reading these bullet points is that General Qasem Soleimani has already struck out at Uncle Shmuel from beyond his grave . What we see here is an immense political disaster unfolding like a slow motion train wreck. Make no mistake, this is not just a tactical "oopsie", but a major STRATEGIC disaster . Why?

For one thing, the US will now become an official and totally illegal military presence in Iraq. This means that whatever SOFA (Status Of Forces Agreement) the US and Iraq had until now is void.

Second, the US now has two options:

Fight and sink deep into a catastrophic quagmire or Withdraw from Iraq and lose any possibility to keep forces in Syria

Both of these are very bad because whatever option Uncle Shmuel chooses, he will lost whatever tiny level of credibility he has left, even amongst his putative "allies" (like the KSA which will now be left nose to nose with a much more powerful Iran than ever before).

The main problem with the current (and very provisional) outcome is that both the Israel Lobby and the Oil Lobby will now be absolutely outraged and will demand that the US try to use military power to regime change both Iraq and Iran.

Needless to say, that ain't happening (only ignorant and incurable flag-wavers believe the silly claptrap about the US armed forces being "THE BEST").

Furthermore, it is clear that by it's latest terrorist action the USA has now declared war on BOTH Iraq and Iran.

This is so important that I need to repeat it again:

The USA is now at war, de-facto and de-jure , with BOTH Iraq and Iran.

I hasten to add that the US is also at war with most of the Muslim world (and most definitely all Shias, including Hezbollah and the Yemeni Houthis).

Next, I want to mention the increase in US troop numbers in the Middle-East. An additional 3'000 soldiers from the 82nd AB is what would be needed to support evacuations and to provide a reserve force for the Marines already sent in. This is NOWHERE NEAR the kind of troop numbers the US would need to fight a war with either Iraq or Iran.

Finally, there are some who think that the US will try to invade Iran. Well, with a commander in chief as narcissistically delusional as Trump, I would never say "never" but, frankly, I don't think that anybody at the Pentagon would be willing to obey such an order. So no, a ground invasion is not in the cards and, if it ever becomes an realistic option we would first see a massive increase in the US troop levels, we are talking several tens of thousands, if not more (depending on the actual plan).

No, what the US will do if/when they attack Iran is what Israel did to Lebanon in 2006, but at a much larger scale. They will begin by a huge number of airstrikes (missiles and aircraft) to hit:

Iranian air defenses Iranian command posts and Iranian civilian and military leaders Symbolic targets (like nuclear installations and high visibility units like the IRGC) Iranian navy and coastal defenses Crucial civilian infrastructure (power plants, bridges, hospitals, radio/TV stations, food storage, pharmaceutical installations, schools, historical monuments and, let's not forget that one, foreign embassies of countries who support Iran). The way this will be justified will be the same as what was done to Serbia: a "destruction of critical regime infrastructure" (what else is new?!)

Then, within about 24-48 hours the US President will go on air an announce to the world that it is "mission accomplished" and that "THE BEST" military forces in the galaxy have taught a lesson to the "Mollahs". There will be dances in the streets of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem (right until the moment the Iranian missiles will start dropping from the sky. At which point the dances will be replaced by screams about a "2nd Hitler" and the "Holocaust").

Then all hell will break loose (I have discussed that so often in the past that I won't go into details here).

In conclusion, I want to mention something more personal about the people of the US.

Roughly speaking, there are two main groups which I observed during my many years of life in the USA.

Group one : is the TV-watching imbeciles who think that the talking heads on the idiot box actually share real knowledge and expertise. As a result, their thinking goes along the following lines: " yeah, yeah, say what you want, but if the mollahs make a wrong move, we will simply nuke them; a few neutron bombs will take care of these sand niggers ". And if asked about the ethics of this stance, the usual answer is a " f**k them! they messed with the wrong guys, now they will get their asses kicked ".

Group two : is a much quieter group. It includes both people who see themselves as liberals and conservatives. They are totally horrified and they feel a silent rage against the US political elites. Friends, there are A LOT of US Americans out there who are truly horrified by what is done in their name and who feel absolutely powerless to do anything about it. I don't know about the young soldiers who are now being sent to the Middle-East, but I know a lot of former servicemen who know the truth about war and about THE BEST military in the history of the galaxy and they are also absolutely horrified.

I can't say which group is bigger, but my gut feeling is that Group Two is much bigger than Group One. I might be wrong.

I am now signing off but I will try to update you here as soon as any important info comes in.

The Saker

UPDATE1 : according to the Russian website Colonel Cassad , Moqtada al-Sadr has officially made the following demands to the Iraqi government:

Immediately break the cooperation agreement with the United States. Close the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. Close all U.S. military bases in Iraq. Criminalize any cooperation with the United States. To ensure the protection of Iraqi embassies. Officially boycott American products.

Cassad (aka Boris Rozhin) also posted this excellent caricature:

UPDATE2: RT is reporting that " One US service member, two contractors killed in Al-Shabaab attack in Kenya, two DoD personnel injured ". Which just goes to prove my point that spontaneous attacks are what we will be seeing first and that the retaliation promised by Iran will only come later.

UPDATE3 : al-Manar reports that two rockets have landed near the US embassy in Baghdad.

UPDATE4 : Zerohedge is reporting that Iranian state TV broadcasted an appeal made during the funeral procession in which a speaker said that each Iranian ought to send one dollar per person (total 80'000'000 dollars) as a bounty for the killing of Donald Trump. I am trying to get a confirmation from Iran about this.

UPDATE5 : Russian sources claim that all Iranian rocket forces have been put on combat alert.

UPDATE6 : the Russian heavy rocket cruiser "Marshal Ustinov" has cross the Bosphorus and has entered the Mediterranean.

The Essential Saker III: Chronicling The Tragedy, Farce And Collapse of the Empire in the Era of Mr MAGA

Order Now The Essential Saker II: Civilizational Choices and Geopolitics / The Russian challenge to the hegemony of the AngloZionist Empire

Order Now Leave a Reply Click here to cancel reply. Leave a Reply

(1) Leave the name field empty if you want to post as Anonymous. It's preferable that you choose a name so it becomes clear who said what. E-mail address is not mandatory either. The website automatically checks for spam. Please refer to our moderation policies for more details. We check to make sure that no comment is mistakenly marked as spam. This takes time and effort, so please be patient until your comment appears. Thanks.

(2) 10 replies to a comment are the maximum.

(3) Here are formating examples which you can use in your writing:
<b>bold text</b> results in bold text
<i>italic text</i> results in italic text
(You can also combine two formating tags with each other, for example to get bold-italic text.)
<em>emphasized text</em> results in emphasized text
<strong>strong text</strong> results in strong text
<q>a quote text</q> results in a quote text (quotation marks are added automatically)
<cite>a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited</cite> results in:
a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited
<blockquote>a heavier version of quoting a block of text...</blockquote> results in:

a heavier version of quoting a block of text that can span several lines. Use these possibilities appropriately. They are meant to help you create and follow the discussions in a better way. They can assist in grasping the content value of a comment more quickly.
and last but not least:
<a href=''http://link-address.com''>Name of your link</a> results in Name of your link

(4) No need to use this special character in between paragraphs:
&nbsp;
You do not need it anymore. Just write as you like and your paragraphs will be separated.
The "Live Preview" appears automatically when you start typing below the text area and it will show you how your comment will look like before you send it.

(5) If you now think that this is too confusing then just ignore the code above and write as you like.

63 Comments

Anonymous on January 05, 2020 , · at 2:39 pm EST/EDT

Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdl Mahdi has now officially revealed that the US had asked him to mediate between the US and Iran and that General Qassem Soleimani to come and talk to him and give him the answer to his mediation efforts. Thus, Soleimani was on an OFFICIAL DIPLOMATIC MISSION as part of a diplomatic initiative INITIATED BY THE USA.

If this is true, it makes America's murder of General Soleimani even more outrageous. This would be like the USA sending an American regime official to some other country for a negotiation only to have him/her drone striked in the process!

America reveals its malign character as even more sick that even its opponents have thought possible.

Perhaps, Iran should request that Mike Pompeo come to Baghdad for a negotiation about General Soleimani 's murder and then "bug splat" Pompeo's fat ass from a drone!

Anonymous on January 05, 2020 , · at 3:08 pm EST/EDT
"For one thing, the US will now become an official and totally illegal military presence in Iraq. This means that whatever SOFA (Status Of Forces Agreement) the US and Iraq had until now is void."

-I actually read somewhere that the Iraqi government is just a caretaker government and even thought it voted to remove foreign forces, it is not actually legally binding.

Anyone that can conform or deny?

Lysander on January 05, 2020 , · at 4:18 pm EST/EDT
I'm no lawyer. I don't see why that would matter. If a caretaker government is presented with a crisis, why would it not have the authority to act?

That said, It could be the line the US government chooses to use to insist its presence is still legal. If course the MSM will repeat and repeat and make it seem real.

Serbian girl on January 05, 2020 , · at 4:42 pm EST/EDT
Not the entire government. Only the PM Mahdi as far as I understand. He resigned after some protests. The parliament approved his resignation on Dec 2019. He is the caretaker until they appoint another PM.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/29/iraq-pm-resign-protests-abdul-mahdi-al-sistani
Pamela on January 05, 2020 , · at 4:59 pm EST/EDT
Couldn't agree more. When I read that my jaw dropped and I'm sure my eyes went huge. I just couldn't believe they could be that stupid, or that immoral, that sunk in utter utter depravity. They truly are those who have not one shred of decency, and thus have no way of recognising or understanding what decency is. Pure psychopath – an inability to grasp the emotions, values, and world view of those who are normal. This truly is beyond the pale, and this above everything else will ensure the revenge the heartbroken people of Iran are seeking. May God bless them.
Mark on January 05, 2020 , · at 2:45 pm EST/EDT
Well, this is going to be interesting for sure. I for one cannot see any way out for the Yankees, so I expect them to do their usual doubling down .

Assassinate some more people, airstrikes etc.

Hans on January 05, 2020 , · at 2:51 pm EST/EDT
The US Armed Forces do not need to be 'THE BEST". All they need is mountains of second rate ordinance to re-bury Iraq bury Iran under rubble. They can then keep their forces in tightly fortified compounds and bomb the c**p out of any one who wants to 'steal their oil', or any one who wants to 'steal the land promised by God to the Chosen People'. The U.S. has always previously been limited in their avarice for destruction by their desire to be viewed as the 'good guy'. This limitation has now been stripped away. There is now nothing to stop the AngloZionist entity except naked force in return.

As the Saker says, 'all hell will break loose '.

Anonymous on January 05, 2020 , · at 3:09 pm EST/EDT
"realistic option we would first see a massive increase in the US troop levels, we are talking several tens of thousands, if not more (depending on the actual plan)."

-There is an interesting article on colonal cassad about this, USA actually has around 100k troops in ME spread out over various bases.
https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/5543349.html

Yes, but these are not part of a single force, many of these are more a target than a threat. Besides, they need to be concentrated into a a few single forces to actually participate in an invasion.
The Saker

Anonymouse on January 05, 2020 , · at 4:15 pm EST/EDT
To understand troop size and relevance think along these lines. For every US front line soldier there will be 5 others in support roles, logistics etc. So for every front line fighting Marine there will be 5 others who got him there and who support him in his work. 10,000 front line fighting troops means 50,000 troops shipping out to the borders of Iran. I think perhaps you would need 100,000 US front line troops for an invasion AND occupation (because we all know if they go in they aren't going to leave quickly) We're talking about half a million US troops, this simply isn't going to happen for multiple reasons, not least they need to amass at some form of base (probably Iraq – yeah right) maybe Kuwait? They'd just be a constant sitting target. Saker is correct in that if this goes down it's going to be an air campaign (will the Iranians use the S300s they have?) and possibly Navy supported. the Israelis will help out but in turn make themselves targets at home for rocket attacks. Again I can't see it happening, it would take too long to arrange plus from the moment it kicks off every US base, individual is just a target to the majority of anti US forces spread across the whole middle east. I expect back door diplomacy, probably to little effect, and a ham fisted token blitz of cruise missiles and drone bombs at Iranian infrastructure, sadly this will not work for the Americans, we will have a long running campaign on ME ground but also mass terrorist activity across the US and some of its allies. Its a best guess scenario but if that plays out whatever happens to Iran this war will be another long running death by a 1000 cuts for the US and will guarantee Trump does not get re-elected.
Whoever sold this to Trump (Bolton via Pompeo? Bibi?) has really lit the touch paper of ruin. Yes it stinks of Netanyahoo but it also reaks of full strength neocon, Bolton style. Trump is dumb enough to fall for it and obviously did.
Cosimo on January 05, 2020 , · at 5:38 pm EST/EDT
1. To read the Colonel Cassad website in English or any other language, just go to https://translate.yandex.com/ and then paste in the Cassad URL, which is given above but again, it's https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/ The really nice thing is that when you click on links, Yandex Translate automatically translates those links. Two problems, though. 1. For some unknown reason, Yandex always first translates Cassad as English-to-Russian, and then you have to click on a little window near the top left, to again request Russian-to-English and then it translates everything fine. I do not experience this problem when using Yandex on any other website. 2. Unlike what Benders-Lee intended when he invented the web browser, the "back button" almost doesn't work on Yandex Translate. So always right-click to open links in a new tab.

2. The US could probably carry out a large number of air attacks, but the Iranian response would be to destroy all the Gulf oil facilities AND everything worth bombing in Israel. This potential for offense is Iran's best defense, and, I think, the main reason why there hasn't been a war. Iran's air defense missiles are probably more effective than the lying MSM will admit, and might shoot down a large percentage of the humans and aluminum the US would throw at Iran, but it's a matter of attrition, and Iran would suffer grave damage. We can't rule out that that might be the plan since the Empire is run by psychopaths. A US Army elite training manual, from 2012 in Kansas, implied that by 2020, Europe would not be a major power. Perhaps they were thinking that Europe would go out of business from a lack of Persian Gulf oil.

3. As for a ground war against Iran, I don't think the US or even the US with the former NATO coalition, would have any hope and they know it. A real invasion force would require at least 250,000 troops, probably 500,000, maybe more. 80 million very determined and united Iranians, many of whom who don't fear martyrdom, would make the Vietnam War look like a bad picnic with fire ants . Yes, Vietnam had jungle for guerillas to hide behind, but South Vietnamese society was divided and many supported the Americans. Iran has no such division. Even the Arab province of Khuzestan would stand united, knowing how the Shiite Arabs are mistreated in the Eastern Province and in Kuwait.

Tom Welsh on January 05, 2020 , · at 5:31 pm EST/EDT
"They can then keep their forces in tightly fortified compounds "

eating and drinking what? When no Iraqi will even speak to them, let alone do anything for them.

Greifenburg on January 05, 2020 , · at 2:52 pm EST/EDT
Count me in as part of group two. As a former U.S. Army service member I can assure anyone reading this that this action is an historic strategic mistake. What the Saker has outlined above is very likely. There is most probably no way to walk back now. Who in the ME would negotiate with the U.S. Government? Their perfidy is well known. Many citizen in this country feel like they are held hostage by a government that doesn't represent their interests or feelings. I hope the people in the ME know this.
The Saker on January 05, 2020 , · at 2:57 pm EST/EDT
Since the folks in the ME know that the US is a "pretend democracy" they also realize that the people of the USA are just as oppressed by the AngloZionist regime as the people abroad. Frankly, I have traveled on a lot of countries and I have never come across anything like real hostility towards the US American people. The very same people who hate Uncle Shmuel very much enjoy US music, literature, movies, novel ideas, etc. I believe that the Empire is truly hated across the globe, but not the people of the USA.
Kind regards
The Saker
Melotte 22 on January 05, 2020 , · at 3:23 pm EST/EDT
As long as people of the USA tolerate their government criminal activities around the world, and this is happening for last 70 years, I don't agree with your comment. These crimes are commited in the name of people of the USA, who are doing nothing to prevent them. As for movies coming from US, most of them are propaganda about 'exceptional nation'. No thanks.
Auslander on January 05, 2020 , · at 4:09 pm EST/EDT
The United States of America is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic. That being said, the fall elections are going to be of significant interest.

With kindest regards
Auslander

Nachtigall on January 05, 2020 , · at 4:18 pm EST/EDT
Couldn't agree with you less Saker. They share the spoils of war, generation after generation. From the killing of indigenous population to neocolonial resource extraction today, they get their cut. You cannot have it both ways, enjoying the spoils of war and hiding behind invalid rationalizations, pretending you have no-thingz to do with that.
The Saker on January 05, 2020 , · at 3:12 pm EST/EDT
Russian TV says that there were anti-war demonstrations in 80 (!) US cities.
I don't have the time to check whether this is true, but it sure sounds credible to me.
The Saker
Anonymous on January 05, 2020 , · at 3:24 pm EST/EDT
Greetings Mr. Saker,

This information is true. I personally took part in the march in Denver, Colorado. I would estimate we had about 500 people, which is a lot more than most anti-war protests have ever gotten in recent memory.

Do not count out the possibility of a sudden large and massive anti-war movement suddenly springing out of nowhere.

Unfortunately, I do not see how "peaceful" protests will accomplish anything on their own. Rioting may be necessary. The system needs to be shut down and commerce slow to a crawl so that nobody may ignore this.

The Saker on January 05, 2020 , · at 3:32 pm EST/EDT
Thank you for this precious confirmation!
And keep up the good fight!
Kind regards
The Saker
durlin on January 05, 2020 , · at 4:25 pm EST/EDT
anonymous, fellow Coloradoan here, would appreciate some info on where I need to look for the next one,. I will be there
Richard Sauder on January 05, 2020 , · at 2:55 pm EST/EDT
Yes. I am thinking about the Deagel.com numbers again. They're starting to come into better focus.

http://www.deagel.com/country/forecast.aspx

I agree that there will first be a period of violent confusion, followed by -- well, what sane person even wants to think about what possible horrors lie ahead?

The threat of one or more spectacular false flag attacks to further fan the flames would also appear to be a possibility.

Real evil has been unleashed, that is clear. The empire has decided to fight, and to fight very dirty.

Nikolai on January 05, 2020 , · at 3:08 pm EST/EDT
Wasn't the Saker working in the employ of the US or NATO when they attacked Srbija without cause? Because that was my understanding.

Actually, no. I was working at the UN Institute for Disarmament Research.
But thanks for showing everybody how ugly, petty and clueless ad hominem using trolls can be!
The Saker

Marko on January 05, 2020 , · at 4:20 pm EST/EDT
Looks like our Nikolai is a Canvas Otpor Belgrade troll.
Serbian girl on January 05, 2020 , · at 4:46 pm EST/EDT
Or perhaps not Serbian at all
Flabbergasted on January 05, 2020 , · at 3:11 pm EST/EDT
"I can't say which group is bigger, but my gut feeling is that Group Two is much bigger than Group One. I might be wrong."

My personal observation is unfortunately the opposite. I think the population that is over 40 is probably leans 80% toward the TV-watching imbecile category with zero critical thinking abilities and exposure to four plus decades of propaganda. The population under 40 is largely too apathetic to have an opinion and unwilling to engage in research.

History will most likely play out in disaster resulting from a corrupt ruling class, systemic institutional rot, and brain-washed public not realizing what's happened.

Nikolai on January 05, 2020 , · at 3:23 pm EST/EDT
I will hazard a guess and say there are far more men than women in Group 1, and many more draft-age young adults of both sexes in Group 2.

But by and large a disturbing number of people in America regard world events as being akin to a football game, with Team A and Team B and a score to be kept. If things don't appear to be going well for their "team," they speak and behave irrationally, with crass statements like "nuke the whole place and turn it into a glass parking lot." Impressive, isn't it? Grown adults, comporting themselves like overindulged little children, always accustomed to getting their way – and displaying a terrifying willingness to set the whole house on fire when they don't.

It is a spiritual illness which pollutes the USA. Terrible things will have to happen before the society can become well, again

Anonymous on January 05, 2020 , · at 3:26 pm EST/EDT
Even if only 20% of the population join us, that will be enough. Because guess what? The TV-watching imbeciles are fat, lazy, and they won't do anything to support the government either, and they definitely aren't brave enough to get in the way of an angry mob
JJ on January 05, 2020 , · at 5:08 pm EST/EDT
About 50% of UK people opposed the UK intervention into Iraq .1 m people held marches on London and cities ..made no difference.
cdvision on January 05, 2020 , · at 3:39 pm EST/EDT
Its not just the US that's braindead. This from a once reputable newspaper in the UK

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/01/05/boris-johnson-calls-de-escalation-iran-us-killing-ofgeneral/

Its behind a paywall so you only get the first few paragraphs – frankly all you need. BUT its the comments that tell the story!

Pamela on January 05, 2020 , · at 5:11 pm EST/EDT
It's interesting to me, this comment of Sakers'. I have been thinking, with these revelations of the utter depravity and total lack of what was once called "honour " and treating the enemy with respect, of a few instances which seemed to show me that not all of America was like this.

There is a scene in the much loved but short lived** TV series "Firefly" in which the rebel "outsider" spaceship Captain offers a doctor on the run a berth with them. The Doctor says "but you dont like me. You could kill me in my sleep" to which the Captain replies "Son, you dont know me yet, So let me tell you know, If i ever try to kill you, you will be awake, you will be facing me, and you will be armed"

Exactly I thought. There is a Code of Honour by which battles used to be fought. This latest by US has shown how low it's Ruling Regime is, that is doesn't not see that. But from examples like the above, I gathered that there are people in America who still hold to it closely – and that's good to know.

** Short lived because it showed as it's heroes a group of people who lived outside the Ruling Tyrannical Regime, who had fought for Independence and lost, and now lived "by their wits" and not always according to law. Not surprising that the rulers of US weren't going to allow that to go to air!!

Nikolai on January 05, 2020 , · at 3:13 pm EST/EDT
Wasn't the Saker working in the employ of the US and NATO when they attacked and bombed Srbija without cause? Because that was my understanding.

Thanks, now we all know how good your "understanding" is!
The Saker :-P

Rufus Palmer on January 05, 2020 , · at 3:32 pm EST/EDT
Unfortunately I believe the largest group in the USA is the "nuke 'em group". All of my friends watch Fox and none have an understanding of the empire.

Sake thank you as always for your excellent work. What do you think Iran will attack first?

teranam13 on January 05, 2020 , · at 3:19 pm EST/EDT
Thanks Saker for this discussion/information space you provide when nothing is very trustworthy and on what is a holiday week end for you.

Two points:
Never underestimate the perfidy of the Kurds. They held back on the censure/withdrawal vote in the Iraqi\
parliament and are probably offering withdrawal airport space for US military.

And Agreed, about most Americans being absolutely horrified and ashamed.Even Alex Jones had to put Syrian Girl on and to post her on video.banned. One of his callers demanded that Alex apologize to his listening audience on "bended knee" for his support of Trump's attack on Iran. When Alex tried to schmooze
the irate caller -- The man started yelling -- "Who cares, Alex, who cares about Iran my neighbors have no jobs
and are dying from drug overdoses. who cares about Israel? Let them take care of themselves."

Trump has sealed his own fate on many levels and ours her in looneylandia. It is said that a nation gets the leadership it deserves. We are about to become a nation of the yard-sale.

Craig Mouldey on January 05, 2020 , · at 3:27 pm EST/EDT
Whew, this is something to chew on and try to digest. That first point jumped right off the page. General Soleimani was on an official diplomatic mission, requested by the U.S.! They set him up and were waiting for him to get in his car at the airport and go onto the road.
The entire world will know there is no way to justify this. It is just as ugly as the public murder of JFK. They have zero credibility in all they say and do. It will be interesting to see who supports what is coming and who have gotten the message from this murder and have decided they cannot support this beast.
Clarence on January 05, 2020 , · at 3:33 pm EST/EDT
How many missiles does the us have in the middle east?
How many air defense missiles does have iran?
Does iran have the ability to destroy us airbases to prevent aircraft from attacking iranian territory? That would be my first move: destroying the ennemy s fighter jets while they are still on the ground.
How many missiles does iran can launch ? How far can they hit?
I think these are important questions if we want to make a good assessment of the situation
One Tribe on January 05, 2020 , · at 3:36 pm EST/EDT
Thank you for the continuing courageous, fact-based reporting.

All as-yet-unenslaved-minds of the oppressed people living under the auspices of the empire share the horror of what has happened, made worse so, for I personally, learning the evil duplicity of the 'fake' diplomacy of the masters of the U.S.A. administration.
If there had been any credibility whatsoever, left for the U.S.A. diplomatic integrity, it is now completely murdered.

I should like to point out, yet again, the perverse obviousness of the utter subordination of the utterly testiclesless america n ' leadership ' by the affiliates, dually loyal extra-nationals, aligned to the quasi-nation of pychopathic hatred against humanity.

In spite of, and now increasingly because of, the absurd perception management/propaganda agencies, completely controlled by this aforementioned affiliation, and their ongoing absurd efforts, people are becoming aware of the ultimate source of the hatred and agenda we re witnessing in the ME, and indeed, in ever country under the auspices of the empire.
It is becoming impossible to cover, even for the most timid followers of the citizens of empire-controlled nation states.
The war continues against the non-subliminated citizens, and will certainly escalate as the traction of the perception-management techniques have been pushed way over their best-before date.

Even not wanting to know this, people are becoming aware of it.

I urge all those self-identifying with this affiliation of secretive hatred against humanity to disavow either publicly, or privately, this collective of hatred.
The recusement of the fifth-column will undermine these machinations.

It is now the time to realize that no promise of superior upward mobility, in exchange for activities supporting the affiliation, is worth the stark prospect of complete destruction of the biosphere.

Paul23 on January 05, 2020 , · at 3:38 pm EST/EDT
Saker: what makes you think it will just be a couple of days of bombing? I would have thought they would set up a no fly zone then fly over that country permanently blowing the shit out of any military thing on the ground until the gov collapses.

Iran doesn't have the ability to prevent this & running a country under these conditions is impossible.

Randy Brady on January 05, 2020 , · at 4:10 pm EST/EDT
Set up a no-fly zone over Iran? Iran is well aware of American air-power. They have a multi-layer air defense. And I wouldn't be surprised that the Iranian's are capable of taking out U.S. satellites.

Iran knows their enemy. They have been preparing for conflict with the U.S. for 40 years. This is a sophisticated, and highly advanced nation, with brilliant leadership. They understand what their weaknesses are, and what their strengths are.

The wild cards are threefold: Russia. China. North Korea. If one wants to think about the possible asymmetrical capabilities of those three, let alone the pure power their militaries, it boggles the mind.

Prediction: The U.S. stands down on orders of their own military. People like John Bolton quietly pass away in their sleep.

Kilombo Zumbi on January 05, 2020 , · at 5:02 pm EST/EDT
The only no fly zone to be implemented will be on all american warplanes over Iran and Iraq. Do you remember the multimillion drone that went down? Multipliy it by hundreds of manned planes. God, how delusional can you be?!!!
You have a fighting force that is a disgrace composed by little girls that start screeming once they get bullets flying over their heads. You have aircraft battle groups that are sitting ducks waitng to go to the bottom of the sea. Wake up and get your pills, man!
Tom Welsh on January 05, 2020 , · at 5:39 pm EST/EDT
Paul23, from where will the aircraft take off to implement your "no-fly zone"? Any air base within 2,000 km would be destroyed by a shower of cruise missiles and possibly drones.

Any aircraft carrier within 2,000 km likewise.

Mike from Jersey on January 05, 2020 , · at 3:45 pm EST/EDT
File this next article under "Just when you thought that things couldn't get any crazier."

Pompeo is slamming Europe for not being supportive of the American murders in the Middle East.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/europeans-havent-been-helpful-after-suleimani-killing-pompeo-slams-allies-not

Nussiminen on January 05, 2020 , · at 3:48 pm EST/EDT
It is Group 1 -- loud, reactionary, extremely vulgar, militant parasites -- which defines the US national character. Exceptional and indispensable simply mean "entitled to other peoples' natural resources and labour output". Trying to reason with these lowlives is a waste of time. Putin understands this; hence the new Russian weapons. The latter will be needed very soon.
Mike from Jersey on January 05, 2020 , · at 4:08 pm EST/EDT
I am an American and I am not sure that is true.

Americans are a good people but America is one of the most heavily propagandized nations in the world. The media is corrupt. The educational systems teach a sanitized version of history. But that is only a part of it.

Pro-Military propaganda is everywhere. Even before the Superbowl, jet bombers fly over the stadium – as if Militarism constituted a basic American value. At Airports, "Military Personnel" are given preferential boarding. At retail stores customers are asked to make donations to "military families." College football games are dedicated to "Military Appreciation Day." High Schools work in unison with Military Recruiters to steer students into the Military. Even playground facilities for children that have video displays display pro military messages. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.

Most of this propaganda is paid for out of the obscene military budget. The average citizen doesn't have a chance.

Americans are a good people, if they really knew what was being done in their name, they would put a stop to it.

Nussiminen on January 05, 2020 , · at 4:37 pm EST/EDT
Militant parasites do live in a world of total lies, deception, and delusion but never at the expense of their survival instincts. US imperial coercion, mayhem, and murder globally are absolutely crucial to the American way of life, and the 99% know it. Their living standards would drop enormously without the imperial loot. Thus, they dearly yearn for all the repression, war, and chauvinism they vote for and more.
Steki on January 05, 2020 , · at 3:53 pm EST/EDT
One thing is telling, at least for me. Who the f in the right state of mind kills other state's official and then admits of doing it?!? The common sense sense tells me that you do something and to avoid bigger consequences you stay quet and deny everything. Just like CIA is doing. Trump just put US military personnel in grave danger. We know how they accused Manning for showing the to the world US war crimes. They put him in the jail for what Trump just did. But, I cannot believe that they are that much stupid. If US does not want war, as Trump is saying, they could have done this and then blame someone else because now it has been shown that they wanted to "talk" to Iran, as Iraqis PM said. At least, US brought new meaning to the word "talk"
Rostislav_Velka_Morava on January 05, 2020 , · at 3:56 pm EST/EDT
Russia will not allow this, and will put their foot down.
Hussan Carim on January 05, 2020 , · at 4:00 pm EST/EDT
The most damaging, no most devestating, assymetrical attack on the US would be a 'non violent' attack.

Let me quickly explain.

It has been well known since the exposure of the man behind the curtain during the great financial crisis of 2007-08 that all Human operations – all Human life in fact – is financialised in some way.

Some ways being so sophisticated or 'subtle' that barely 1 person in 1000 is even aware, much less capable of understanding them, much less the financial control grid (and state / deepstate power base) which empoverishs them and enslaves them to an endless cycle of aquiring and spending 'money'.

Look deeply and the wise will see how 'Human resources' (as opposed to Human Beings) are herded like cattle to be worked on the farm, 'fleeced', or slaughtered as appropriate to the money masters.

We have been programmed, trained, and conditioned to call 'currency units' (dollar/euro/pound/yuan, etc) 'money', when they are actually nothing of the sort, they are state or bank issued money substitutes.

In the middle east and north africa some leaders recognised this determined how to escape slavery and subjegation. They attempted to field this knowledge like an economic-nuke, but without the massive protection required, and they were destroyed by the empire – Sadam Hussain with his oil for Gold (and oil for Euros) program, and Col. Gadaffi of Libya with his North African 'Gold Dinar' and 'Silver Durham' Islamic money program.

To cut a very long story short – the evil empire depends upon all nations and peoples excepting thier pieces of paper currency units as 'real' money – which the empire print / create in unlimited quantities to fund thier war machine and global progrram of domination.

All financial markets are either denominated or settled in US Dollars (or are at least convertable).

All Nations Central Banks (except Irans I believe) are linked via various US Dollar exchange / liquidity mechanisms, and all 'settle' in US Dollars.

Currently all nations use US controlled electronic banking communications / exchange / tranfer systems (swift being the most well known).

Would it therefore not make sence to go for the very beating heart of the Beast – the US financial system?

The most powerful attack against the empire would therefore be against this power base – the global reserve currency – the US dollar – and the US ability to print any quantity of it (or create digits on a screen and call them 'Dollar Units').

It would be pointless trying to fight an emnemy capable of printing for free enough currency to buy every resource (including peoples lives) – unless that super ability was destroyed or disrupted.

Example of a massive nuclear equivilent attack on the beast would be an internal and major disrruption of interbank electronic communications (at all levels from cash machine operation and card payment readers up to interbank transfers and federal banking operations).

Shut down the US banking system and you shut down the US war machine.

Not only that you shut down the US ability to buy resources and bribe powerful leaders – which means they wont be able to recover from such a blow quickly.

Shutting down banking and electronic payments of all kinds would cause the US people – particularly those currently enjoying bread and circus distraction and pacification – to tear appart thier own communities, and each other, as the spoiled and gready fight for the remaining resources, including food and fuel.

The 'grid' has been studied in great depth by both Russia and China (and Israel as part of thier neo-sampson option) and we can therefore deduce that Iran has some knowledge of how it works and where the weak links are (and not just the undersea optical cables and wireless nodes).

I, and a thousand other people have always said, the best, perhaps only way to defeat the US and end its reign of terror on this Earth is to take away its ability to create out of thin air the Worlds global reserve currency – the US Dollar.

Reducing the US to an empoverished 3rd world state by taking its check book away would be a worthy and lasting revenge and humiliation.

Amon Ra on January 05, 2020 , · at 4:09 pm EST/EDT
" I, and a thousand other people have always said, the best, perhaps only way to defeat the US and end its reign of terror on this Earth is to take away its ability to create out of thin air the Worlds global reserve currency – the US Dollar. "

No, the best way would be for each nation to ditch the intertwined, privately ( Rothschild ) controlled central banks, and to return to printing their own money. Anything, short of that will just perpetuate the same system from a different home base ( nation ), most likely China next. This virus can jump hosts and it will given a chance.

Auslander on January 05, 2020 , · at 4:03 pm EST/EDT
Who knows what will happen, but an actual boots on the ground invasion of Iran will not happen. Iran is not Irak and things have changed since that war.

US does not have 6 to 12 months to gather it's forces and logistics for an invasion (remember, the election is coming), plus US no longer has the heavy lift assets to do this. Toss in the fact that Iran is now on a war footing and has allies in the general AO, hired RoRo's and other logistics and supply assets will be targets before they get anywhere near the ports or beaches to off load. Plus, you can kiss oil goodbye, Iran will close the straights a nanosecond after the first bomb is in the air.

An air assault such as Serbia will be very expensive, Iran will fight back from the first bomb if not before, and Iran has a pretty viable air defense system and the missiles to make life miserable for any cluster of troops and logistics within roughly 300 kilometers of the borders if not longer. Look at a map. There is a long border between Iran and Irak, but as such and considering the terrain, any viable ground attack has to come from Irak territory. With millions of Iraki's seething at what Uncle Sugar just did and millions of Iranians seething at what Uncle Sugar just did, any invading troops will not be greeted with showers spring blossoms. To paraphrase a quote, 'You will be safe nowhere, our land will be your grave.'

Toss in the fact that an invasion of Irak, if even half successful, will put American troops on a war footing perilously close to Russian territory and possibly directly on the Russian Lake, aka Caspian Sea, and sovereign territory of Russia. Won't happen, VVP will not allow it.

Ergo, in spite of all the bluster and chest beating, at best all Foggy Bottom can do is bomb, bomb some more and bomb again. The cost in airframes and captured pilots will be a disaster and if RoRo's and other logistic heavy lift assets or bases are hit, the body bags coming back to Dover will be of numbers that can not be hidden as they are today with explanations that the dead are victims of training accidents or air accidents.

Foggy Bottom, and Five Points with Langley, have painted themselves in to a corner and unfortunately for them, (and it's within the realm of possibility that Five Points egged Trump on for this deal regardless of their protestations of innocence and surprise) they are now in a case of put up or shut up. As a point of honor they will continue down the spiral path of open warfare and war is like a cow voiding it's watery bowels, it splatters far beyond the intended target.

As my friend said a few years ago, damn you, damn your eyes, damn your souls, damn you back to Satan whose spawn you are. Go back to your fetid master and leave us in peace.

Auslander
Author http://rhauslander.com/

Never The Last One, paper back edition. https://www.amazon.com/dp/1521849056 A deep look in to Russia, her culture and her Armed Forces, in essence a look at the emergence of Russian Federation.

An Incident On Simonka. paperback edition. https://www.amazon.com/dp/1696160715 NATO Is Invited To Leave Sevastopol, One Way Or The Other.

Auslander on January 05, 2020 , · at 4:19 pm EST/EDT
"Toss in the fact that an invasion of Irak, if even half successful," should read:

"Toss in the fact that an invasion of Iran, if even half successful,"

It's late and this old man is tired. More tomorrow.

Auslander

Anonymous on January 05, 2020 , · at 4:04 pm EST/EDT
"UPDATE2: RT is reporting that "One US service member, two contractors killed in Al-Shabaab attack in Kenya, two DoD personnel injured". Which just goes to prove my point that spontaneous attacks are what we will be seeing first and that the retaliation promised by Iran will only come later."

-Al-Shabaab is a salafist terror group

Observer on January 05, 2020 , · at 4:17 pm EST/EDT
Saker, Some of us might be curious to know what your experience with the UN Institute for Disarmament Research informs you about the imminent Virginia gun bans and confiscations planned for this year and next. Can Empire afford to fight an actual shooting war on two fronts, one externally against Iraq/Iran and the second internally against its own people, some of whom will paradoxically be called away to fight on the first front? Perhaps the two conflicts could become conjoined as Uncle Shmuel mislabels every peaceful gun owner who just wants to be left alone as a foreign enemy-sympathizer and combatant by default, thereby turning brother against brother in a bloody prolonged hell in the regions immediately around Washington DC? Could the Empire *truly* be that suicidal?
Hajduk on January 05, 2020 , · at 4:20 pm EST/EDT
'Mr. Trump, the Gambler! Know that we are near you, in places that don't come to your mind. We are near you in places that you can't even imagine. We are a nation of martyrdom. We are the nation of Imam Hussein You are well aware of our power and capabilities in the region. You know how powerful we are in asymmetrical warfare You know that a war would mean the loss of all your capabilities. You may start the war, but we will be the ones to determine its end '
Gen. Soleimani (2018)
Bikkin on January 05, 2020 , · at 4:31 pm EST/EDT
Hello Saker,
I would like to ask you a question.
According to the Russian nuclear doctrine "The Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction against itself or its allies and also in response to large-scale aggression involving conventional weapons in situations that are critical for the national security of the Russian Federation and its allies."
In your opinion does Russia consider Iran such an ally? Will Russia shield Iran against USAn / Israeli nuclear strikes? In case of an imminent nuclear strike on Iran is Russia (and possibly others) going to issue a nuclear ultimatum to the would-be aggressor? And in case an actual nuclear attack on Iran happens is Russia going to retaliate / deter further attacks with its own nukes?
What is your opinion?
One thing: please do not start explaining why the above scenario is completely unthinkable, unrealistic and why it would never ever happen. I need your opinion on the possible events if such an attack does take place or it is about to happen. I do not need reasons why it would not happen; I need your opinion what might take place if it does happen. If you cannot answer my question, have no opinion or simply do not want to answer it please let me know it.
In case there is a formal commitment by Russia – one I know not of – when, where was it made?
Thanks in advance.
Nachtigall on January 05, 2020 , · at 5:27 pm EST/EDT
2nd that, but be polite to the Saker. Ask nicely next time, like someone who is civilized.

Thanks you for your indispensable work, dear Saker!

Marko on January 05, 2020 , · at 4:32 pm EST/EDT
I think USA still has nuclear option.
They will not hesitate to use it on Iran if Israel is in danger.
So, I think Iran shall be defeated anyway, as USA is much stronger.

Wrong. If the US uses nukes, then this will secure the total victory of Iran.
The Saker

Nachtigall on January 05, 2020 , · at 5:31 pm EST/EDT
How does this secure a total victory, dear Saker? Please help my to understand this: Nukes on every major city, industrial site, infrastructure with pos. millions dead – how is this a victory?
robert on January 05, 2020 , · at 4:41 pm EST/EDT
So, how many hostages for Iran are in Iraq now?
Petro-G on January 05, 2020 , · at 4:44 pm EST/EDT
I think that if Iran were to launch some devastating missiles into Israel, either a US ship/submarine or Israel will launch a nuclear bomb into Iran. The US knows there is nothing to be gained by a ground invasion. If we [the US] were to start launching missiles into Iran, Iran would rightfully be launching sophisticated arms back toward US ships and Israel and the US can't stand for that. We are good at dishing it out, but lousy at receiving it.

I can only believe we assassinated Solieman [apologies] because it is the writhing of a dying petrodollar. The US is desperate. But I don't understand how going to war is supposed to help?

Stand Easy on January 05, 2020 , · at 4:56 pm EST/EDT
Some short comments on the strategic blunder made by US.

Meantime, global ramifications are being felt. View from China, one of the biggest consumers of ME oil:

https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1175782.shtml

and some mind-reading from a HK based rag:

"Beijing's ties with Tehran are crucial to its energy and geopolitical strategies, and with Moscow also in the mix, a broader conflagration is a real possibility"

https://www.asiatimes.com/2020/01/article/could-china-take-irans-side-in-a-war-with-us/

Japan had planned to send some military hardware to the ME just before the new year but Gen Soleimani's murder may change the calculus.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/01/03/national/japan-sdf-assassination-iran-qassem-soleimani/#.XhJYxfLmjN4

Last but not least, Happy Nativity to all Orthodox Christians (thanks for the beautifully illustrated Orthodox calendar, The Saker.)
Let us all pray for peace.

Kent on January 05, 2020 , · at 5:33 pm EST/EDT
"(thanks for the beautifully illustrated Orthodox calendar, The Saker.)"

Credits for the calendar(s) should go to one of our in house Artists and poets Ioan.

You obviously do not visit the Cafe' very often, do you?

Regards
Kent

Wendy on January 05, 2020 , · at 5:24 pm EST/EDT
Trump is the King of the South. Killing under a flag of parley is a rare thing these days and is the reason why Trump will end up going to war with no allies by his side just like the path mapped oit for him in Daniel.

Analysis sans eschatology is Onism.

Tom on January 05, 2020 , · at 5:32 pm EST/EDT
It's not a blunder.
Trump's goals pre-assassination:
1) withdraw US troops from the ME ("Fortress America") and
2) placate Israel
This is how it is done. Not a direct "hey guys, we have to bring the boys home." Trump tried that and got smashed by the Deep State and Israel. Instead, he is going to force the Islamic world to do the talking for him by refusing to host our pariah army (that's all they have to do, not destroy a major US base or two). Then even the Deep State will admit it's a lost cause. He can say he did all he could while achieving his goals.
As The Saker pointed out, the troops being sent now are to evacuate, not to conquer Tehran. Next time this year the US will have its troops home and Trump will be reelected

[Jan 05, 2020] Are "evil" and "incompetent" synonymous?

Notable quotes:
"... Donald Trump rode to victory in 2016 on a promise to end the useless wars in the Middle East, but he has now demonstrated very clearly that he is a liar. ..."
"... The shmuck was elected to stop the unnecessary, and criminal, external wars for the Jews and protect the US from the internal Jewish war – through unchecked immigration – on the US citizens. ..."
"... Iran's response will certainly include legal redress, and the honor component of the US wrongful act can be quite adequately handled in state responsibility of satisfaction for internationally wrongful acts. The last couple times CIA faced Iran in the Hague (Oil Platforms and Aerial Incident,) Iran wiped the floor with the third-rate DoS shysters. ..."
"... Since this is so self-evidently disastrous for the US, why would the US civil/military command structure present this as an option? CIA doesn't like Trump – he tweaked them with a feint at ARCA compliance, and mocked their contempt for the national interest in a speech at Langley. ..."
"... Trump's been more insubordinate than any presidential figurehead since Nixon. So why not let him hold the bag for a crime big as the one Nixon got stuck with? CIA made Nixon their helpless patsy for their bombing of neutral Cambodia at great risk of general nuclear war. ..."
"... They purged him with a bill of impeachment that briefly included that crime. CIA never tries anything new, so now they'll make Trump their helpless patsy for murder at great risk of general nuclear war. The absurd existing bill of impeachment can easily incorporate murder as an inchoate crime, Trump's common plan and conspiracy for war, Nuremberg count 1. What does CIA get out of that? By personalizing aggression, CIA gets off the hook. ..."
Jan 05, 2020 | www.unz.com

Cloak And Dagger says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 8:41 pm GMT 200 Words

Regional report from EJ Magnier:

https://ejmagnier.com/2020/01/04/what-comes-next-after-the-us-assassination-of-qassem-soleimani-the-options/

WHAT COMES NEXT AFTER THE US ASSASSINATION OF QASSEM SOLEIMANI? THE OPTIONS.

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

Wow! Own goal! Are "evil" and "incompetent" synonymous?

Cloak And Dagger , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 8:48 pm GMT

@geokat62 This is one is for you, geo, reporting from Athens:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/qohYs-dVKiU?feature=oembed

Anonymous [105] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 8:48 pm GMT

Donald Trump rode to victory in 2016 on a promise to end the useless wars in the Middle East, but he has now demonstrated very clearly that he is a liar.

True, and this mistake puts him firmly in the wastebasket where all other liar-politicians reside.

The shmuck was elected to stop the unnecessary, and criminal, external wars for the Jews and protect the US from the internal Jewish war – through unchecked immigration – on the US citizens.

He's a massive failure on both counts.

Oops His Bad , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 9:06 pm GMT
It's possible to overdo the focus on the personal here. سپاه has a very deep bench and it's not subject to decapitation. Soleimani's murder will have no more effect on the command structure than Pompeo's murder would: removing the primus inter pares of a corps of brilliant strategists smarts a bit; and if the US lost Pompeo, one of many delusional religious fanatics with community-college level training from a laughingstock military academy, So what?

This murder is first and foremost an insult, of course. The CIA regime is much more of an honor culture than Iran because these days the DO is stuffed with lumpen redneck jarheads. But organizational aspects worldwide will determine the outcome.

Iran's response will certainly include legal redress, and the honor component of the US wrongful act can be quite adequately handled in state responsibility of satisfaction for internationally wrongful acts. The last couple times CIA faced Iran in the Hague (Oil Platforms and Aerial Incident,) Iran wiped the floor with the third-rate DoS shysters.

And for the first time the US faces Iran without their British dancing boys on the bench – Britain got kicked off the ICJ bench for arbitrary actions of its own. So that's gonna cost ya, $$$! The ICC can weigh in propria motu, and should do. Absent efficacious criminal sanctions, Iran ally China has shown that you can take international criminal law into your hands quite effectively (ask William Bennett and his wifey!) Iran's status in the SCO is an additional degree of freedom. If Russia chooses to get involved, it can use its superior missile technology to control escalation at every level. This is the perfect opportunity for its doctrine of coercion to peace.

Since this is so self-evidently disastrous for the US, why would the US civil/military command structure present this as an option? CIA doesn't like Trump – he tweaked them with a feint at ARCA compliance, and mocked their contempt for the national interest in a speech at Langley.

Trump's been more insubordinate than any presidential figurehead since Nixon. So why not let him hold the bag for a crime big as the one Nixon got stuck with? CIA made Nixon their helpless patsy for their bombing of neutral Cambodia at great risk of general nuclear war.

They purged him with a bill of impeachment that briefly included that crime. CIA never tries anything new, so now they'll make Trump their helpless patsy for murder at great risk of general nuclear war. The absurd existing bill of impeachment can easily incorporate murder as an inchoate crime, Trump's common plan and conspiracy for war, Nuremberg count 1. What does CIA get out of that? By personalizing aggression, CIA gets off the hook.

With the family jewels and inside knowledge of the JFK coup, Nixon graymailed CIA for a pardon. They won't let Trump get away like that. The current status of international criminal law requires that heads must roll. Just like Charles Taylor got put away for Israeli state crimes against peace, the equally disposable Donald Trump will hold the bag for grave CIA crimes.

Eric135 , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 9:51 pm GMT
@Anonymous Another possibility is calling neo-cons what they really are: Israel Firsters.
geokat62 , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 11:48 pm GMT
Trump: "We Will Not Rest Until Anti-Semitism Is Destroyed! "

https://www.youtube.com/embed/Mq0cFzKEtYI?feature=oembed

Description:

"Everyone here today stands in unwavering solidarity with our Jewish brothers and sisters.

"We will not rest until the horrible and vile ideology of antiSemitism has been defeated and destroyed."

Cloak And Dagger , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 11:59 pm GMT
When you kill someone, don't let them become a martyr, because then their death will be more troublesome than their life.

https://www.instagram.com/p/B63PjLjle4M/embed/captioned/?cr=1&v=12&wp=625&rd=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.unz.com&rp=%2Fpgiraldi%2Fthe-soleimani-assassination%2F#%7B%22ci%22%3A0%2C%22os%22%3A15205.466915544198%2C%22ls%22%3A1416.0103308342982%2C%22le%22%3A1436.1921874433578%7D

geokat62 , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 11:59 pm GMT
To those who assured us there would be no war with Iran:

For the First time in it's History #Iran has Raised The Red flag, IRAN has issued a terrifying warning to the US as it raised a red flag over the Holy Dome Jamkarān Mosque as a symbol of a severe battle to come. pic.twitter.com/mnWgmu2eS4

-- marshall (@Marshall_H15) January 4, 2020

geokat62 , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 12:24 am GMT
Breaking news!

Trump warns Iran: US has targeted '52 Iranian sites' and will 'hit very fast and very hard' if needed

https://www.foxnews.com/world/iran-trump-warns-iran-we-have-targeted-52-iranian-sites

Rumour has it that 52 sites were chosen so that it corresponded to the number of major Jewish-American organizations in America, lol!

https://petras.lahaine.org/the-fifty-two-major-jewish-american/

lavoisier , says: Website Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 12:29 am GMT
@geokat62

Thanks, C&D. I'm very familiar with the two Alexes of the Duran Report. While I think they provide very objective reporting on world events, they are also very reluctant to touch the third rail, the 800 lb gorilla in the room.

Yes, it is far too easy and fashionable to pin it all on the "deep state" without ever naming the Jew.

Anonymous [105] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 12:30 am GMT
Wow! The idiot-in-chief just threatened Iran with bombing their cultural targets.

"Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!"

What a sad (((golem))) he's turned out to be.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/no-more-threats-trump-warns-iran-52-targets-will-be-hit-very-fast-hard

Cloak And Dagger , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 12:34 am GMT
@geokat62

To those who assured us there would be no war with Iran:

I am one of those that did – and I stand by that assertion. Technically, we just declared war on Iran, however, I expect there to be thousands of skirmishes, but nothing the equivalent of the Iraq invasion.

At the risk of eating crow

Dannyboy , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 1:09 am GMT
If you listen to what Donald Trump said when he was campaigning, you will hear what the majority of the American people want. Improved relations with Russia, exit from pointless Middle East conflicts, greatly reduced immigration and a wall on the Southwest border, money spent on the crumbling US infrastructure etc etc

Unfortunately, what the majority of the American people want matters very little if at all. It's pretty much the same everywhere "democracy" and "democratic principles" reign.

It's a joke. A sick fucking game.

I don't believe Trump is a bad man. I believe he truly loves this country and it's people. But he has surrounded himself with and trusted the wrong people from the beginning.

It pains me to say it, but NOTHING will change in this once great nation until there is either collapse and/or revolution. The Deep State and it's (((Ruling Elite))) will then move on to another host.

ThreeCranes , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 1:46 am GMT
@the grand wazoo And those 25 nuclear bombs are hidden in .wait for it ..Holocaust Museums! Yes, paid for by the American taxpayer.

Who said Jews don't have a sense of humor?

NoseytheDuke , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 2:10 am GMT
@Oops His Bad Your first and only comment so far and quite a debut. Is this just a hit and run or shall we be hearing more from you in the future?
renfro , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 2:26 am GMT
@Cloak And Dagger f'ing bastards .. who's commanding all these strikes?
This is just like the kind of 'hit anything' strikes Israel does on Syria.
Responder111 , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 2:47 am GMT
I find it hard to believe that with the history of so many recent false flag operations that everyone is just assuming what is being presented is actually what happened. I personally think it all is a little too convenient at this point in time. Israel has wanted a war with Iran almost forever. While Netanyahu is having a bromance with Donald Trump and getting every single thing he wants to the point of changing a make America great again to make Israel great again, I find the whole thing extremely suspicious. It just seems like another War being started for the benefit of Israel, business as usual.
MEexpert , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 2:49 am GMT
@A123

Iranian Kataib Hezbollah is present in Iraq over the objections of many Arab citizens (mostly Shia) who resent Persian interference.

So many lies in just one sentence. As always, you spread misinformation with lot of mumbo jumbo. There is no such thing as Iranian Kataib Hezbollah. Kataib Hezbullah consist of Iraqi volunteers. They may have been trained by Iran but they are still Iraqis.

You keep calling Khamenei a sociopath. The real sociopath is your hero Netanyahu.

You are one of the group of Zionist agents who are just waiting with canned comments for the articles to appear. You are so predictable.

And please take that symbol off. By posting it does not make you a peace lover. You are nothing but a war monger.

Oops His Bad , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 3:02 am GMT
Nosey 95, these poor bastards you will always have with you.
Anon [829] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 3:20 am GMT
Excellent complementary info. by Mrs. Sibel Edmonds:

Target Iran" Operations on Pause- Here's Why

https://www.youtube.com/embed/R2zj8Z8RNRU?feature=oembed

War on the Horizon? Iran's Strategic Strengths & Weaknesses :

https://www.youtube.com/embed/Pc-4UtBzTx4?feature=oembed

CIA – Al-Qaeda Operations Center in Iran's Backyard Exposed :

https://www.youtube.com/embed/k5ZK6FbTO2w?feature=oembed

See also

Developing- Operation Iran: The Pentagon is Deploying Troops to Saudi Arabia
(Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Rockwell Collins, L3 Engilitycorp mercenaries)
By C. Sorensen:

https://www.newsbud.com/2019/07/27/developing-operation-iran-the-pentagon-is-deploying-troops-to-saudi-arabia/

Cloak And Dagger , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 3:26 am GMT
@renfro

f'ing bastards .. who's commanding all these strikes?

Well, at least indirectly, according to Pepe Escobar, it is the usual suspects, Israel/deep state, with a compliant US.

President Donald Trump may have issued the order. The U.S. Deep State may have ordered him to issue the order. Or the usual suspects may have ordered them all.

According to my best Southwest Asia intel sources, " Israel gave the U.S. the coordinates for the assassination of Qassem Soleimani as they wanted to avoid the repercussions of taking the assassination upon themselves."

https://consortiumnews.com/2020/01/03/pepe-escobar-us-kick-starts-the-raging-20s-by-declaring-war-on-iran/

A leopard can't change its spots, and we can't resist being manipulated by Israel for 30 shekels.

York , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 3:54 am GMT
@A123 Obviously a (((Fellow American))). Remember the Liberty, Hymie. Still trying to destabilize the ME with your golem. Maybe this time Bibi bit off more than he can chew. The cost of human life and suffering is no doubt immaterial for a politician desperate to stay in power.. and out of prison. Once again the Jewish lobby is causing an uproar. Only three things are certain; death, taxes and Israel getting the US into Middle Eastern wars
Anonymous [105] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 3:56 am GMT
@MEexpert "A123" is on my "Hasbara shills" list. Well spotted.
Colin Wright , says: Website Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 4:00 am GMT
How does the US justify carrying out assassinations within the territory of a friendly power without even obtaining the consent of that power? Don't we at least pretend to respect Iraq's sovereignty?
York , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 4:00 am GMT
@ra And backing Trump has what purpose? Would he pay your rent if you were laid off? Then he is just a picture on your wall. Just like jock sniffers idolize apeletes, and masturbaters luvs their porn performers, political groupies actually imagine that their favorite political crush gives a shit about them. If one isn't a multimillionaire, then they matter not at all to the political class. Have to bring something to the party other than bootlicking. There are plenty of those in higher places than a broke ass
fan. Meanwhile grow the f ** k up. Trump isn't your friend. Unless you're name is Adelson or Netanyahu anyway
Colin Wright , says: Website Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 4:04 am GMT
Another striking aspect of all this is that while I suspect doubts about this are very widespread among the actual people, the mainstream media seem to be all but unanimous in their approval.
Cloak And Dagger , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 4:14 am GMT
Trump is threatening to attack 52 Iranian cultural sites. He doesn't seem to care that many of these are world heritage sites and it is a war crime to destroy them.
Paul C. , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 4:21 am GMT
@Colin Wright Not only supporting it but selling it. Because that's their job.
Paul C. , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 4:23 am GMT
@Colin Wright Does Israel give a whit about Iraq? That's the answer.
Cloak And Dagger , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 4:37 am GMT
@Cloak And Dagger

If @realDonaldTrump hits holy sites in #Iran , no place for any American in the world will be safe. It will be an all-ou-war.
In one day, thousands were killed in #Iraq after the destruction of Zarqawi (like Trump today) destroyed Shia Holy Shrine in Samarra.

-- Elijah J. Magnier (@ejmalrai) January 5, 2020

renfro , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 5:04 am GMT
@Cloak And Dagger Perhaps if Russia gave one of these missile to Iran peace would breakout ..lol.

Hypersonic Missiles Are a Game Changer
No existing defenses can stop such weapons -- which is why everyone wants them.

Last week, President Vladimir Putin of Russia announced the deployment of the Avangard, among the first in a new class of missiles capable of reaching hypersonic velocity -- something no missile can currently achieve, aside from an ICBM during reentry
Such weapons have long been an object of desire by Russian, Chinese and American military leaders, for obvious reasons: Launched from any of these countries, they could reach any other within minutes. No existing defenses, in the United States or elsewhere, can intercept a missile that can move so fast while maneuvering unpredictably.
Whether or not the Avangard can do what Mr. Putin says, the United States is rushing to match it. We could soon find ourselves in a new arms race as deadly as the Cold War -- and at a time when the world's arms control efforts look like relics of an inscrutable past and the effort to renew the most important of them, a new START agreement, is foundering

https://quincyinst.org/2020/01/02/hypersonic-missiles-are-a-game-changer/

jack daniels , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 5:10 am GMT
Giraldi seldom comes up with any new facts to shed light on a situation. He just runs through the same anti-neocon boilerplate. I agree with his boilerplate, but it's not enough to justify reading his articles.
Biff , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 5:16 am GMT
@the grand wazoo

I'm not using the term neocons any longer, as the term is a lie, a mask. They are just a large group of powerful dual citizen Jews many descended from Trotskyites that immigrated from Russia in the 1930s.

I like it – very well put.

Biff , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 5:20 am GMT
@Colin Wright

Don't we at least pretend to respect Iraq's sovereignty?

Bwaah!! Like Washington pretends to respect it's own citizens sovereignty. Not!

Monty Ahwazi , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 5:23 am GMT
@A123 You're talking nonsense all the time! You know what? You should follow your name, say 1-2-3 and jump off of a high rise
annamaria , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 5:33 am GMT
@Bragadocious Hey, Israeli hasbara, why didn't you read the above article carefully?

The blood of the Americans, Iranians and Iraqis who will die in the next few weeks is clearly on Donald Trump's hands as this war was never inevitable and served no U.S. national interest.

One more time for you: this war [with Iran] serves no U.S. national interests. The only "benefiting" party is the Jewish State, the bloody theocracy of obnoxious supremacists known for their cowardice and deception. The Epstein nation of Israel.

American veterans kill themselves every day, every hour. None of the dead veterans is Jewish.

Here is how the usual schema works: First, the zionist scum finds kindred spirits among the locals; see Cheney the Traitor, greedy Clintons, and the cowardly US brass thirsty for money and comforts (exhibit one, Donny Rumsfeld). Second, the zionist scum arranges mass media by putting the eager presstitutes on key positions in the previously honorable papers and journals (exhibit one, The New Yorker). And voila, the war profiteers unite with Israel firsters and get free hands to plunder whatever country they want to plunder. On the American citizenry dime & limb.

It does not take much effort to recognize the extraordinary difference between the piggish and thoroughly corrupt Bibi and the noble and valiant Soleimani.

Unfortunately, the US is ruled by Bibi et al.

FieryJason , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 5:34 am GMT
@A123 Really? How stupid can one get? Sir, it would behove all of us to read and understand history. Noone likes the Ayatollahs but the only reason they are ruling Iran is because of the USA. And everyone has the right to defend themselves – including the Iranians. Just look at our behaviour and compare it to a bully. No difference at all!!
Unfortunately, it is very well established in the world that USA has degenerated from being a good guy to a bully, assassin and a terrorist. We shall reap the whirlwind and the hurricane . unfortunately it will be the common person who suffers always.
I'm Tyrone , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 5:36 am GMT
@anon Not sure why so many commenters engage hasbara clowns like A123. Why engage people who aren't debating in good faith?
Z-man , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 5:53 am GMT
@geokat62

Rumour has it that 52 sites were chosen so that it corresponded to the number of major Jewish-American organizations in America, lol!

I 'second' that LOL!!!
52 is for the fifty two embassy hostages from 1979. And he said he's going to hit cultural sites in that 52 number. So you museum curators in Tehran 'watch out!'

On a serious note, I consider myself a patriotic American but I just can't root for my country in this regard. Honestly it makes me feel bad but following the truth does not always make you feel good. But it's the right thing to do.
Iran has been 'set up' since Donald got out of the nuclear deal. Tucker Carlson says Iran has been the target for decades. I can just hope that the kinetic action is brief, loss of American and Iranian life small and that, as Giraldi predicts, America will finally get out of there, to the frustration of the Zionists.
But then we have the aforementioned Zionists and their Samson option it never ends. Until Israel ends

but an humble craftsman , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 5:55 am GMT
@Eric135 Interesting line of thought.

Please remind me again of why the US has not shot down a civilian Persian airliner in decades?

Seems the Persians did not seek revenge back then either?

My guess: we will not see another Persian General murdered in decades. Nor will we see any act of revenge.

Paul C. , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 5:57 am GMT
@jack daniels Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
but an humble craftsman , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 6:07 am GMT
@El Dato Upper Volta with nukes was Helmut Schmidt's dscription of the Soviet Union.
TKK , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 6:22 am GMT
@John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan Having a different policy opinion or contrasting read on a political issue than yours is spam?

Are you Alyssa Milano? Jim Carrey? Micheal Moore?

Go post on StormFront.

If you and your ilk don't migrate there, Unz will soon be on synonymous with MySpace ( obsolete)

Unz himself is already considered a joke due to his blatant solidarity & sympathy with America's enemies and his "acres"of anti- Israel propaganda.

But wait!!! He gives out gold stars to the most anti American/Israeli posters! It's hilarious.

I get gold stars too- its called cash from working.

renfro , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 6:32 am GMT
Anti Iran war protest going on in cities , at WH, at Trump Hotels etc..
"The American people have had enough with U.S. wars and are rising up to demand peace with Iran!" tweeted CodePink, an anti-war group that helped organize the nationwide demonstrations.

I have found the guy to star in my assassination movie . an Iraq war vet you need to hear:

THIS IS WORTH A VIEWING pic.twitter.com/T81Mkuap5C

-- miguelito (@w0rldleadir) January 4, 2020

TKK , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 6:36 am GMT
@Cloak And Dagger

From all indications, the Iranian general was a revered man inside and outside Iran.

The arrogant ignorance on this site tweeters between alarming and comedic.

The rank and file MUST gnash their teeth and wail over this terrorist's death. There are more Secret Police in Iran than the Stasi had. If they don't show grief, their family members or they will pay the price.

Do you know any Persians? They detest living under a brutal theocracy. They don't care about Soleimani. They care about their children, jobs and being happy.

They act the fool in the street to mourn his death because it is expected, it's a way to let off steam and it's social.

Russ , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 6:36 am GMT
@Gleimhart Mantooso

Now would be the perfect time for the Mossad to do its false flag shtick. They wouldn't even have to try very hard to pin it on Iran. I'll bet that when the news came out that the Iranian guy had been killed, every neocon on the planet popped a boner that will last for days. Michael Ledeen is probably mazel tov-ing his ass off.

Michael "FASTER PLEASE!" Ledeen? Yes, I don't doubt. And as regards a Mossad false flag: Giraldi writes that the Iraqi PM will inevitably "ask American forces to leave." THAT should be the greenest of green lights for Trump to withdraw them from that bottomless hellhole except who wants them there forevermore?

I don't care about the dead Muslim who got killed, since that's the only kind of "good Muslim" you're ever going to find, but I would still prefer for the U.S. to get out of the Middle East altogether. Let those two warring anti-Christ peoples kill each other to their hearts' content.

Verily. Alas, look for Congress now to reauthorize those thoroughly corrupt FISA courts, so that honorable American heroes and patriots such as Gums Page and Peter Strzok can thwart evil Iran terrorists before they perpetrate their dastardly acts against innocent Americans. Now, remind me of the nationalities of those who committed the 9/11/2001 atrocities again?

All glory, praise, and honor to Our Lord Jesus Christ -- may He and St Michael ever watch over those of us redeemed by Him.

SolontoCroesus , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 6:40 am GMT
@vespasian Qaani is a Muslim name. Not likely Jewish.

Times of Israel says Qaani was Soleimani's deputy.

Khamenei appointed / anointed Qaani to step into Soleimani's place. Why would Khamenei do this if he wanted to eradicate Soleimani's style?

Khamenei echoes Achmadinejad's call that "zionism will disappear from the pages of history." Not a Jewish sentiment.

Pahlavi broke down the ghettoes and hired a lot of Jews, but there is no indication that Pahlavi was Jewish. His physiognomy is so typically Persian he's practically a caricature of the breed.

in other words, you're full of crap.

Leave propagandistic mimetics to the cretins who know how to do it.

Russ , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 6:50 am GMT
@the grand wazoo

There's a rumor that part of Israel's Samson option includes nuclear bombs hidden in 25 American cities. Veterans Today has mentioned it several times. Is it true? Maybe. Maybe someone should find out.

It would end Democrat prattle about presidential elections by popular vote in lieu of electoral college.

ivegotrythm , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 6:50 am GMT
@Lot Israel and A123 has a dozen Iranian responses prepared and ready to go.
Ilyana_Rozumova , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 6:54 am GMT
@Bragadocious No Golden rectangle for you!
Nonny Mouse , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 7:06 am GMT
@geokat62 Wow!!!
Ilyana_Rozumova , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 7:11 am GMT
Giraldi is maybe little bit somber here, so I do have to say no.
Irani thinkers know that the affair is just a thick worm on the hook.
They will do what they did before consolidate She_ite power in the Levant to end any cooperation of states with the great Satan there.
Russ , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 7:20 am GMT
@geokat62

A very revealing tweet:

The quote is from a 24 Oct 2004 article "Jews, Israel and America" in the New York Times by Thomas L. Friedman. Friedman proceeds to criticize the Bush admin for inept communications in Iraq. One wonders which will be found first: the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, or the real killers of Ron and Nicole by OJ Simpson.

ivegotrythm , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 7:25 am GMT
@vespasian Jews, Shiites, Protestants, Communists are very hard for outsiders to tell apart and are all the same on the inside.
anon [353] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 7:38 am GMT
Once the US began seriously enforcing sanctions on Iranian oil exports, the US effectively declared war on Iran. Iran has done what it could, but its response has been limited.

After you have already attempted and partially succeeded in wrecking a country's economy, what does a drone strike add to the situation?

The incident makes very little sense for the US, which is vulnerable in Iraq. Iran is still under severe economic siege, so not much has really changed there either.

Everyone seems to want this to be a major inflection point, but why would Iran suddenly become stupid? Maybe Trump has changed, but he has resisted number of attempts to get him to sign on to military adventures.

MEexpert , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 8:08 am GMT

News flash: Pence says Suleimani aided the 9/11 highjackers.

Let us see what else can we accuse him of masterminding.
1. Gulf of Tonkin incident
2. Bombing of Laos
3. Sabotaging the space shuttle
4. JFK Assassination
5. And yes, of course, starting the American Civil War.

This guy is nuts and this is what we will get as a result of Trump's impeachment.

anon [846] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 8:09 am GMT
@GogMagoggian

never comment again

Hello fellow White person.

Johnny F. Ive , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 8:09 am GMT
@Bragadocious

2) The issue of #Jerusalem seems to have been a critical point of Shamrani's anger. His second-most recent of his tweets (just before his will) was an RT of Trump's December 2017 Jerusalem speech, made sometime in the last 48 hours. pic.twitter.com/wjP7FMzZXW

-- Rita Katz (@Rita_Katz) December 7, 2019

It happened and it may happen again.

Meimou , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 8:44 am GMT
@Eric135

The public is too dumb to recognize that the Jews control America, much less connect our pointless wars for Israel to that Jewish control.

The pubic knows, it's a matter of openly expressing those views.

We know and things are simmering.

Willem , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 8:51 am GMT
@GogMagoggian He is just pointing out possibilities. And he may be right. Didn't you notice oil prices went up after this event?

The idea that this whole event is used as a stage to get something done is not far sought at all. Question is, what is something?

But perhaps you have better information? – Enlighten us.

Meimou , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 8:57 am GMT
@Sean

A few days after John Bolton was sacked as Trump's national security adviser, Soleimani humiliated the US by a blatantly Iranian attack on Saudi oil facilities, which Pompeo called an act of war.

Shill better. You people say this over and over, but don't give a logical reason we should believe it, and why even give us Pompeo's opinion?

Ludwig Watzal , says: Website Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 9:11 am GMT
The Israeli Mossad was the instigator, and the Zionist stooge, President Donald Trump, pulled the trigger.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/01/03/after-mossad-targeted-soleimani-trump-pulled-the-trigger/
http://between-the-lines-ludwig-watzal.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-reckless-killing-of-qasem-soleimani.html

American blood will be spent on the most reckless regime in the Middle East: Israel. How stupid can an American President be to support such a system?

Tom Welsh , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 9:17 am GMT
@gandzakan I suspect (s)he is sitting in front of a computer waiting to be triggered into typing by any politically controversial event.

The "first post" is a dead giveaway.

Ghali , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 9:19 am GMT
The murder of General Qasem Soleimani shows that, nothing on this scale of U.S. violence, criminality and violation of international law has been seen before, not even in Nazi Germany. The assassination of two well-known leaders is an act of Terrorism. It was a cowardice act, because the two leaders were travelling in public. What the US regime gained from this premeditated murder?

As I stated in several articles, we live under a brutal form of Fascism that has no equivalent in human history. There are no longer the rules of law and civilised norms. It is a barbaric, lawless, rogue, terrorising and distinctly global AngloZionist Fascism.

Sean , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 9:46 am GMT
@Philip Giraldi

" COME on, we are waiting for you. We are the real men on the scene, as far as you are concerned. You know that a war would mean the loss of all your capabilities. You may start the war, but we will be the ones to determine its end," Qassem Soleimani said in a fiery July 2018 speech directed at Trump

Not exactly taking the heat out of the situation in which Iran is confronting the world's most powerful country. A good state has to know its limitations, as Mearsheimer says.

He had flown into to town to attend the funerals of the 26 Iraqi militiamen that we Americans had killed earlier in the week!

Most interesting. I wonder if those militiamen were maybe killed in the expectation that he would fly in to attend the funeral.

Miggle , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 10:00 am GMT
@FieryJason

Really? How stupid can one get? Sir, it would behove all of us to read and understand history. Noone likes the Ayatollahs but the only reason they are ruling Iran is because of the USA. And everyone has the right to defend themselves – including the Iranians. Just look at our behaviour and compare it to a bully. No difference at all!!
Unfortunately, it is very well established in the world that USA has degenerated from being a good guy to a bully, assassin and a terrorist. We shall reap the whirlwind and the hurricane . unfortunately it will be the common person who suffers always.

True that the only reason the Ayatollahs are ruling Iran is because of the USA's hatred of democracy. Though the bull in the china shop grunts about democracy all the time it really hates democracy. Better to install a single dictator who will take orders, rather than having to bribe every elected member of a parliament and gamble that that will work.

Degenerated okay. A frightful country of gangster rule, a murderous thug as President, giant levels or homelessness, giant prices of medicines, giant levels of police killings etc. etc. and the economic hit-men who caused it to fall apart, crumbled infrastructure because privatized, want to obey Israhell and pocket the worthless dollar, nothing else.

Daniel Rich , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 10:16 am GMT
@The Alarmist

As an American who lives abroad, this is just a repainting of the target I've had on my back for decades, compliments of people who live behind big defence perimeters and are surrounded by teams of bodyguards.

There used to be a simple escape-clause: pretend to be Canadian.

As they've happily jumped on the War Bandwagon as well, that clause is now void.

Damn!

Daniel Rich , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 10:29 am GMT
@Cloak And Dagger

At the risk of eating crow

I've heard when you steam them for a few days, they become relatively eatable :o]

The US has 52 designated targets?

This is what Iran can choose from:

70,000 troops in the ME.

Bahrain : Naval Support-Bahrain, Shaykh Isa Air Base and Khalifa Ibn Salman Port.

Kuwait : Camp Buehring, Ali al-Salem Air Base, Camp Arifjan, Camp Patriot and Shaykh Ahmad al-Jabir Air Base.

Oman : Port of Salalah and Port of Duqm.

Qatar : Al Udeid Air Base and Camp As Sayliyah.

Saudi Arabia : approximately 3,000 U.S. troops.

Syria : bases + 800 troops [likely more].

Turkey : Air bases in Izmir and Incirlik.

UAE : Al Dhafra Air Base, Port of Jebel Ali and Fujairah Naval Base.

Needless to say; these are disclosed locations.

Might we safely assume the Iranians know a few undisclosed ones as well?

jhon , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 10:31 am GMT
@Johnny Smoggins Iran give back by the Lord's promissed land between the Eufraat & Tigris !
Hosea5
anon [133] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 10:39 am GMT
@geokat62 Anti semitism is badge of honor . Hard working honest and aware people wear it .
Bill Jones , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 10:42 am GMT
Phillip. your "Strategic Culture" piece on
"The Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act"
seemed insightful but

" Respectable organizations including Human Rights Watch " made me smile. Really?

https://consortiumnews.com/2014/05/13/the-corruption-of-human-rights-watch/

HRW has long been a tool of the West with occasional shows of impartiaity to buy credibility.
An all too familiar pattern.

Bill Jones , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 10:44 am GMT
@GogMagoggian "That has to be the most inane comment I have ever read. "

Thank you for confirming that you do not read your own comments before posting them.

anon [133] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 10:47 am GMT
@Johnny F. Ive Rita Katz !! The lady who used to upload the vile movies of beheading even before the Jihadists had uploaded . How come !!!
Israel usually knows when war would start against Libya Syria Iraq and against Iran . How come!! Israel would claim that war will be soon. What gives!

Rita 's circle was playing same roles the cabal plays in agitating for wars .

El Dato , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 10:52 am GMT
Contra Madame Condolezza's (aka. "Condi") affirmation in 2006 that we were witnessing "the birth pangs of a New Middle East" when Israel went all Warshaw Ghetto on various pieces of Palestine, these could be the REAL birth pangs of a New Middle East.

Iran hoists blood-red 'flag of revenge' in holy city of Qom as thousands mourn Soleimani across the region

The flag used in the ceremony is called the 'Ya la-Tharat al-Husayn', which dates back to the late 7th century. It was first raised after the Battle of Karbala in a call to avenge the death of Imam Husayn ibn Ali, which became one of the key events that led to the split between Shia and Sunni Islam. It has been reported that the red flag has never been unfurled atop the Jamkaran (a major holy site since the early Middle Ages) until now.

You know shit is going down when it's getting Game of Thrones out there.

Memorandum by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity to Trump (who probably can barely comprehend this): Doubling Down Into Yet Another 'March of Folly,' This Time on Iran

Any bets on whether The Malevolent Beluga Pompeo returns from his Kazakhstan trip in a casket?

El Dato , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 10:58 am GMT
@Meimou It's also unimportant whether some bureaucrat of the US says that this and that happening far away is an "act of war" while engaging in acts of war like sanctions, targeted assassination of lower-rung people, support of "regime change" operations laying waste to whole regions, bombing of civvies in Yemen, bombing of selected targets all over the Middle East and on and on.

Pompeo says == Goering protesting

Sean , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 10:59 am GMT
@Meimou The Embassy thing might not have been ordered by Soleimani, but the coup of of hitting Saudi oil facilities would surely have to be authorised by him in his capacity as commander of all Iranian paramilitary actions abroad. Yet this humiliation of the US forces in and around Saudi Arabia came days after Trump had sacked Iran's greatest foe in the Administration, John Bolton.

I think that if the interests of Iran was the objective paramount in Soleimani's mind, the timing of the attack on Saudi oil facilities was a truly catastrophic failure of comprehension. Michael Ledeen (Iran's biggest enemy in the US) must have been weeping tears of gratitude. And that was only one of Soleimanis great mistakes, if fame was not his real goal.

PATRICK Cockburn noted pro Iranian militia leaders were pointing to 'the failure of Trump to retaliate after the drone attack on Saudi oil facilities earlier in September that Washington had blamed on Iran' and a sign that Trunp would avoid a war. Moreover:

[T]here was a small demonstration in central Baghdad demanding jobs, public services and an end to corruption. The security forces and the pro-Iranian paramilitaries opened fire, killing and wounding many peaceful demonstrators. Though Qais al-Khazali later claimed that he and other Hashd leaders were trying to thwart a US-Israeli conspiracy, he had said nothing to me about it. It seemed likely that General Soleimani, wrongly suspected that the paltry demonstrations were a real threat and had ordered the pro-Iranian paramilitaries to open fire and put a plan for suppressing the demonstrations into operation disastrous for Iranian influence in Iraq. [ ]

General Soleimani died in the wake of his greatest failure and misjudgement

Not only did he strengthen the hand of anti Iran opinion in the White House by making Trump look stupid, Soleimani's Baghdad massacre of protesting Shiite Arabs was a wedge in the Iraqi– Iranian Shia alliance. Soleimani acted as if he was controlled by Ledeen, and yet also worked on the higher plane of US divide and rule grand strategy for the Middle East a la Kissinger.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/Xetlc1wZT-U?feature=oembed

Kolya Krassotkin , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 11:01 am GMT
@Colin Wright "Don't we at least pretend to respect Iraq's sovereignty. "

Oh, please, dude. Respecting another country's sovereignty? That is so-o-o 2015.

niceland , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 11:03 am GMT
I sense desperation from Washington.
What has been accomplished in the middle-east since the 'war on terror' began?

Pick any goal, real or not and evaluate the success from the beginning of the century:
Terrorism down?
Israel safer?
Better access to oil and gas for U.S. companies?
Democracy on the rise?
Stronger strategic position in the region?
Russia and China kept at bay?
Trade opportunities?
Status of the dollar?
Relations to allies in Europe and elsewhere?

All I see is negatives, perhaps someone can enlighten me?

Is it getting better or worse, is time on the U.S. side in this struggle? I can't see it. If I was running this show I would be desperate too. And perhaps for the people actually running the show, the biggest problem is how to exit the stage and guard Israel at the same time.

Abbybwood , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 11:15 am GMT
@geokat62 If Israel has over 500 nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them (this according to former President Jimmy Carter), AND Israel has refused ALL inspections by the IAEA , then this is a legitimate threat to Iran.

The world should see that Iran has a right to defend itself with nuclear weapons.

This is grade school easy to get.

chris , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 11:17 am GMT

The Pentagon and White House have been insisting that Iran was behind an alleged Kata'ib Hezbollah attack on a U.S. installation that then triggered a strike by Washington on claimed militia targets in Syria and also inside Iraq.

But clearly this attack was much longer in the planning because of the prisoner exchange between the US and Iran on December 12th ( https://www.voanews.com/usa/us-hopes-prisoner-exchange-will-lead-broader-discussion-iran ). Obviously, that exchange took place in order not to leave any potential hostages in Iran when the escalation was triggered. All the excuses for the assassination were later tailored to fit the story as it developed.

Also, there is the State Department and Pompeo's own quote which purports that the attacks were not in retaliation for something but in order to forestall future attacks (as if this could ever be justifiable).

What this indicates to me, is that, contrary to the peddled story, a major escalation was planned, which started with a prisoner exchange, the next step was adopting the Israeli strategy of using completely disproportionate responses in order to trigger some ever increasing responses from the Iranians. Stage 1: One rocket attack (probably staged by US-Israeli secret services); response: 23 soldiers killed by US. Stage 2: embassy protests, no casualties; response: Soleimani and Iraqui official killed.

Pompeo's excuse that the assassination of Soleimani was not for previous action on the general's part but in order to prevent some great escalation which he was planning, was more likely one of the stories they sold each other, Trump, and the public, in order to create some 'plausible' deniability for the plan. What friggin' criminals!

Daniel Rich , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 11:38 am GMT
@I'm Tyrone

Not sure why so many commenters engage hasbara clowns like A123. Why engage people who aren't debating in good faith?

True thoughts and wise words, my friend.

All those hasbara clowns are on my 'Commneters to Ignore' list. They can say whateva they want [freedom of speech], but I don't have to waste my time reading or commenting on it.

That really is a great feature of UR.

Tsar Nicholas , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 11:39 am GMT
@Gleimhart Mantooso

God doesn't bless muslims.

Jesus Christ died for all men.

Jay Fink , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 11:53 am GMT
@TKK Why then are there large protests from the Persian community in Los Angeles? They don't have to worry about secret police. Personally I think he was a good man because he helped destroy ISIS.
Carlosfg54 , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 11:56 am GMT
The iraqi parliament will never vote to expell US troops, whats the betting their all bought and paid for?

Anyone seen the movie snowden will know they prob have photos of them iraqi MPs with their mistresses and know where their secret bank accounts are.

When it comes down to it personal financial interest will rule.

NoseytheDuke , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 12:05 pm GMT
@jack daniels I would imagine that, given Giraldi's background and experience, he is more than qualified to offer his analysis of the circumstances, situation and possible consequences on the topic under discussion and many people value that.

You don't have to agree at all but making empty comments like that are just a waste of your time.

9/11 Inside job , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 12:14 pm GMT
Remember the Maine and 9/11 ! The yellow press and Alex Jones are already talking about Iranian sleeper cells in the US , there will likely be a false flag attack on the "Homeland" ,with civilian casualties ,which will be blamed on Iran , as a result the public will be propaganized into supporting "decisive" action against Iran .
NoseytheDuke , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 12:15 pm GMT
@renfro Damn the guy deserves a medal! I hope he stay safe. This should be shared, now!
chris , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 12:34 pm GMT
@Bragadocious As you well know, Supercilious, Hezbollah was the military force which handed the Israelis their asses when they tried to invade Lebanon in 2006; Soleimani, being one of the organizers of that resistance.

Subsequently, Israel used its complete control of its vassal, the US government, in order to declare them a terrorist organization in 2009. The reason they did it then is the same reason they want to destroy Iran, is in order to, among other things, have a free hand and take southern Lebanon and be able to finally keep it.

Medieval Kingdom , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 12:43 pm GMT
Wow what an impressive bit of confusion. Giraldi says a big bunch of mistakes have been made and the end result might be the US withdrawing its troops from over seas bases. In other words a massive victory for the taxpayers and the rest of the world.
anon [332] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 12:51 pm GMT
""Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?""

Animal House, 1978

ChuckOrloski , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 12:59 pm GMT
@TKK Crazy TKK lay in hay & he done obey the Israeli way & thus ge doth say: "They (Persians) act the fool in the street to mourn his death because it is expected, it's a way to let off steam and it's social."
Momus , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 1:04 pm GMT
@John Chuckman @123 is spot on. Soeimani and the aye are toller have had this coming for about 2 decades. Did they really think that a full scale attack on a US embassy would go unanswered after the 2013 Benghazi atrocity?

The 2 main protagonists have been eliminated and so have various minor Iranian minions. Many others have been arrested by US special forces and are being held.

The Iranians are paralysed because their strategic brain has gone and they have no good retaliatory options.
If they missile a US warship Donald will destroy their nuclear program. That is his end game. If they missile Tel Aviv the Israelis will strategically nuke them. The Iranians are shitting bricks.

ivegotrythm , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 1:11 pm GMT
@TKK What do you [plan to do with your thirty pieces of silver, hang yourself?
Momus , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 1:15 pm GMT
@Daniel Rich Might we assume that the US has the coordinates of every Iranian facility cancerned with their generational nuclear and missile program and the means to destroy them.

The US has all the good options. The very fact that Iran has done nothing a week after the base attack and days after Soleimani's removal indicates they are paralysed with fear.

Momus , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 1:16 pm GMT
@Daniel Rich Might we assume that the US has the coordinates of every Iranian facility cancerned with their generational nuclear and missile program and the means to destroy them.

The US has all the good options. The very fact that Iran has done nothing a week after the base attack and days after Soleimani's removal indicates they are paralysed with fear.

anonymous [217] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 1:19 pm GMT
@Gleimhart Mantooso

God doesn't bless muslims.

So who exactly are the blessed? The Christian/Hindoo/ whiteys/blackeys/brownies ? Those who regularly contort their minds into pretzels trying to comprehend their pagan polytheist mangods-worshipping faith?

You whitey idiots are such a confused lot that, at a spiritual level, you seem to be splitting like the amoeba, all the time. It is hilarious, and it is pathetic.

Is that called a blessing in your pagan/godless kind's spiritual dictionary? Lol!

The Almighty One has blessed us true monotheists with these 4 verses, and much much more. If we get nothing else, these are enough;

Say, "He is Allah, [who is] One, Allah, the Eternal Refuge. He neither begets nor is born, Nor is there to Him any equivalent." : 112

ChuckOrloski , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 1:28 pm GMT
@TKK Dummy TKK doth obey the Israeli way, and naturally, he lay down in all wet hay, & he done say: "They (Persians) act the fool in the street to mourn his (Soleimani's) death because it is expected, it's a way to let off steam and it's social."

Hey TKK! (Zigh)

Re, above; As you're aware, you are a low rent U.R. hasbarist.

Haha. You stupidly figure guys like me have forgotten the mind-numbing & week long mourning pageant, extensively covered by ZUS TalmudVision,* for the ultra-Shabbos goy anti-hero, Senator John McCain, who famously cackled "Bomb, bomb Iran."

* Credit creative geokat for spoton "TalmudVision."

Realist , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 1:31 pm GMT
@Angharad

Jew.

Your use of the word Jew as a pejorative is childish and simple minded. Max Blumenthal is a Jew .he very much appears to agree with the crux of Giraldi's article. Unz is a Jew, who allows Giraldi to post articles like the one you are responding to do you hold him in disdain?

Realist , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 1:39 pm GMT
@Bragadocious

What was Qassem Soleimani doing near the U.S. Embassy?

What possible reason could he have for being there?

What possible reason does the US have for being in Iraq hegemony, oil .and protection of Israel.

anonymous [217] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 1:41 pm GMT
@TKK

its called cash from working.

Ah, the first clear confirmation from a paid hasbara troll!

DanFromCT , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 1:46 pm GMT
@anon The most vicious attack against me and my country I've witnessed came at the hands of young American Jews from NYC. I'd been back for a few years from a combat role in Vietnam and, at a party in our building where my wife and I were the only non-Jews, a bunch of Jews who'd just returned from fighting for Israel in some capacity during its '73 war went after me with a hatred that I can still feel to this day. They were saying that American soldiers suck and how much better Israelis were in the field. It ended when a woman no less yelled at me, "All we want is your money." This from supposed Americans. As they like to say, "We Jews shit on you Christians." If you haven't worked on Wall Street with them, this may seem academic. The hate is palpable.

I cannot understand how our higher ups bow and scrape before them, except to note the baked in contradiction of American military leadership -- that those officers who're early on identified for transfer to some HQ company are so selected because they're generally order-taking martinets and the antithesis of warrior leaders, becoming in time the perfumed princes we see paraded like trained poodles before the kosher cameras on TV to sell out their country for Israel. I offer as proof their willingness to send Americans to do the dying and suffering so good Israeli boys need not. Can you imagine anything more disgusting than a putative man complying with crimes against humanity because he's afraid of neocons like Max Boot or Fiona Hill and then has the gall to call it his sworn, patriotic duty? I can't.

anon [133] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 1:50 pm GMT
It must be very visually traumatic for the Jews to come to know that his body was blown into pieces and not handed over the Jews fro Purim ritual.

Do you think America will be asked to increase the doles and handouts? --
https://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/more-holocaust-reparations-for-2020-the-gift-that-keeps-on-giving/

All it need is getting a researchers on Fox and get him or her publish about the trauma experienced from a distance from the killing of an adversary despite the killing wanted by the Jews . Wordsmithing can follow New jargon will appear . People with those ideas will be showcased and promoted to Harvard or Yale or to the Anti semitism society of the US Cabinet ( It is not there but it exists ) . Money will be earmarked to get few extra senate vote or something like that .

PeterMX , says: Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 1:53 pm GMT
@Daniel Rich I have to hold my tongue or fear putting myself at risk, but to give you an idea of what I'm thinking, I wish Iran all the luck in the world.
Greg Bacon , says: Website Show Comment January 5, 2020 at 2:05 pm GMT
When those transfer tubes come home, filled with our dead soldiers, killed fighting endless wars for Wall Street and Israel, will the flag draping the tube be one Made in the USA?

And how much money did Jared K make by shorting certain stocks? He would of known of the coming murder of the Iranian general, I seriously doubt he would of let a money-making opportunity like that pass.

[Jan 05, 2020] The report says Israel was "on the verge" of assassinating Soleimani three years ago

Jan 05, 2020 | www.unz.com

renfro , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 7:02 am GMT

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/u-s-gives-israel-green-light-to-assassinate-iran-s-general-soleimani-1.5630156

The report says Israel was "on the verge" of assassinating Soleimani three years ago, near Damascus, but the United States warned the Iranian leadership of the plan, revealing that Israel was closely tracking the Iranian general.

It was Obama that warned Iran because the US Iran nuclear agreement was in effect and Israel was trying everything possible to wreck it and just as they are doing now, to goad Iran into war.

The way to stop Israel is to spill more Jewish blood than they can stand, and there may be enough Muslims and Arabs willing to die themselves to do that.

freedom-cat , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 7:03 am GMT
Very upset at this news. It is an obvious escalation by the Israeli led USA and puppet Trump. They have some excellent forms of blackmail going on Trump. He walked into this mess with his big ego; and they saw him coming and are making the best use of this stupid man.

Our nation has already brought so much shame on itself for attacking the Middle East under Bush and Obomber. I still have a photo of a little Iraqi boy who was laying in a hospital bed with no legs or arms, just a head and torso left. He was a victim of USA Bombing (Shock & Awe) in 2003 Baghdad. He looks at the camera with a look I have never seen before.

I wish all this will go away, but we all know it is about to get worse and all the Israelis need to get the American population onboard for a new fight is a major False Flag. So, be vigilant and careful. We have no idea where they will strike and then blame Iran.

2stateshmustate , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 7:54 am GMT
To this day I remember Mr. Linh Dinh's saying on Unz Review, to paraphrase; Trump is a shill, owned by the Jews/Israelis, on top of which they would never allow anyone who wouldn't grovel before them to be president. He was obviously correct.

Be that as it may. I want war. Only a war in which the paper tiger that is the US gets itself real bloody nose is there a possibility of ending Jew supremacist's control of my county.

ra , says: Show Comment January 4, 2020 at 8:19 pm GMT
It is indeed a foolhardy move. I've taken a lot of grief for supporting Trump while always pointing out his ways of frustrating and stringing the neo-cons along. My one desperate and perhaps foolish hope is that being foiled in trying to extricate us from Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq, he has agreed to this act(whether post or pre, and I suspect post) to allow them(the neo-cons and MIC) enough rope to hang themselves. The Iraqi parliament will certainly vote to have us leave. If my desperate hope is true, we will do so. If not, at least it hastens the end of our imperial age, which I would greatly welcome, at best without nuclear war.

[Jan 05, 2020] For the United States to abandon proxy warfare and directly kill one of Iran's most senior political figures has changed international politics in a fundamental way. It is a massive error. by Craig Murray

Comments on ZH are mostly negative, so looks like Trump lost an additional part of independents vote. He might also lost the election, because now impeachment is the most logical way out of this situation, with Trump servings as a sacrificial lamp for the MIC and neocon (he was neocon prostitute all his term (MIGA instead of MAGA), so nothing essentially changed)
At the same time, Iran itself is zero threat to the American homeland. It's tiny $350 billion GDP amounts to 6 days of US annual output and its $20 billion defense budget is equivalent to what the Pentagon wastes every 8 days.
The most dangerous reaction of Iran now is is that it it can hit any US target. That would be profoundly stupid. The most dangerious reaction sis that it can quietly develop nuclear weapons.
Jan 05, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com
Authored by Craig Murray,

Its ramifications are profound and complex.

The principal difficulty of this policy for the USA of course is Iraq. Having imposed a rough democracy on Iraq, the governments were always likely to be Shia dominated and highly susceptible to Iranian influence. The USA had a continuing handle through dwindling occupying forces and through control of the process which produced the government.

They also provided financial resources to partially restore the physical infrastructure the US and its allies had themselves destroyed, and of course to fund a near infinite pool of corruption.

* * *

Unlike his adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, Craig's blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate. Subscriptions to keep Craig's blog going are gratefully received .

beemasters , 3 minutes ago link

Trump claims to have evidence of an Iran attack threat, but he won't let Congress or the American people see it. A president who has lied tens of thousands of times about things both big and small while in office is now expecting the American people to take his word for it on Iran.

Defense Officials Say Trump Is Lying About Iran Threat

https://www.politicususa.com/2020/01/03/defense-officials-say-trump-is-lying-about-iran-threat.html

Pollygotacracker , 43 seconds ago link

It's OK to lie to the goyim. Just sayin'.

He–Mene Mox Mox , 19 minutes ago link

Although Trump has said he has 52 more targets, its really doubtful he knows what to do beyond that, if the Iranians retaliate. Then, there is the big problem of the Russian and the Chinese navies in the region of the Red Sea and Persian Gulf. The U.S. is not in any winnable situation, anyway you look at it. They will be forced to deploy more troops and materials to the Middle East, and the money for all of that will come out of your Social Security checks, and by reducing other entitlements, like Medicare, they will have to print more money----meaning, the money you have in hand will be worth less. We had this very same situation back in 1968-1969 with Vietnam, when the U.S. ran out of money to support the war there, and we entered into an inflationary period in the early 1970's. We eventually lost that war, if any one of you recall, and America was far better off then than what it is now. Simply put, America is in no position to be going to war.

porco rosso , 19 minutes ago link

The orange genius is a clueless ignorant moron and like wax in the hand of his hawkish advisors. With this imbecilic terrorist attack and loudmouth rhetoric afterwards he is now basically forced to attack Iran whenever something looks like Iranian retaliation. Which is basically an invitation to Tel Aviv to trigger the war at their discretion. Make Israel great again!

Arising , 28 minutes ago link

..why a US mercenary assisting ISIL was killed in an Iranian militia rocket attack...

This is the fundamental question that no lemming is asking, and it should be asked as this is the catalyst that started the recent events.

Does anyone know anything about this mercenary..ahem: 'contractor'? -His role, his employer, his name, did he really exist?

beemasters , 23 minutes ago link

All I know is Trump assassinated the guy that had been preventing ISIS from spreading.

Helg Saracen , 16 minutes ago link

Saddam Husein was a friend of the United States, fought against Iran, was part of the Bush family. But when he decided to sell oil not only in dollars but also in euros, his country was destroyed, and he himself was hanged for dubious reasons. It is dangerous to be an enemy of the United States, but even more dangerous to be a friend of the United States. The USA is a colony, since lobbying is not prohibited in the USA, and the fittest mass of lobbyists has Israeli citizenship. They determine US foreign policy. So you are absolutely right, this is not a country, it is a cancerous tumor. And she looks disgusting even in comparison with the Saudis, they at least do not hypocritical in their atrocities.

beemasters , 32 minutes ago link

RED ALERT Iran vows to hit 35 US targets and unfurls red flag of WAR as America says it expects retaliation 'within weeks'

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10670210/iran-unfurls-red-flag-ready-for-war/

beemasters , 26 minutes ago link

So much for Trump's claim that the assassination was about stopping a war.

lloll , 33 minutes ago link

"When we did 9/11 we figured we'd blame the Saudis

so we can better wag them through the US to support our agenda vs Iran."

- Satanyahoo of APARTHEID Israhell

http://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/2020/01/04/trump-the-assassin/

schroedingersrat , 40 minutes ago link

Hillary would have been better than Trump. Thats how low Trump sunk!

Fireman , 45 minutes ago link

Will a new bout of slaughter by the not so Great Satan and its vile little Satan be enough to stop the inevitable civil war reloaded in Slumville when the Wall St Ponzi shitter finally erupts and blows Trumptard's beautiful Washing town sewer with it?

Iran knows well, like China and Russia, that time is on their side. USSA is the most bankrupt deadbeat in human history and its Saudi albatross and their collective fiat filth IOU petroscrip toilet paper dollah can no longer be saved despite the wanton murder, genocide and ravings of the Pentacon mobsters and their Agent Orange juice.

The so called Green Zone will be burned like Benghazi before it and it will happen when USSA is least expecting it. Looking at Agent Orange's Soleimani gambit last week simply shows how frightened the anglozionazi regime has in fact become in light of what these terrorists call "the facts on the ground" i.e. the ongoing anglozionist war against the ruling Shia majority inside Iraq. All the "boots on the ground" that USSA can now muster in the region will only guarantee all the more bodybags that will be needed to ferry their remians back to Slumville in the coming collap$e of all things USSAN.

In case any resident of Slumville still imagines that hired killer Agent Orange was not ensnared in his best buddy Jeffrey Pedovore's Maralago Mossad kiddy **** show then why are Pentacon hired killers from Slumville protecting Soleimani in this photo?

https://twitter.com/Partisangirl/status/1213181166439714816

https://thesaker.is/soleimani-murder-sitrep-funeral-and-vote/

ken , 47 minutes ago link

Russia, Russia, Russia, you know Putin's not a stupid. He's sounding very logical and sane. Perhaps Iran could be the same. Sober sanity is a good thing for people and the world.

07564111 , 53 minutes ago link

War with Iran brings ..

Israel Destroyed.
The House Of Saud Destroyed.
No Oil Leaves The ME.
Petro$$ Dead.

researchfix , 48 minutes ago link

Explain that to morons, who only think 2 hours ahead.

lloll , 59 minutes ago link

Why the doubling down?

"Israel will not last 10 years." - Kissinger in 2012

Tick-tock.

http://cufpa.wordpress.com/2018/05/04/us-preparing-for-a-post-israel-middle-east/

Cloud9.5 , 1 hour ago link

We the people have no control over this. Cheering team A over team B is the preoccupation of the peanut gallery. The deed has been done. What follows are the consequences. There are muslim cultural centers all over the United States. We don't know if they are Shia or Sunni. What we do know is that they have a mutual hatred of Christians. Expect the attacks on Christians to escalate. Look to your people, their provisions and their security.

SnatchnGrab , 1 hour ago link

Quick take:

This is 40 years plus in the making. When the USA abandoned the Shah (not a nice guy) during the Carter administration, two significant events occurred.

One, Iran went from a quasi-secular, pro-western nation, to one that in spite of, or despite the wishes of its population, a vehemently anti-Western, and anti-USA nation, with heavy religious leanings.

(And make no mistake, Iran has been interfering with, killing, and attacking the USA in various ways for quite some time)

Two, because we (USA) needed a "player" in the middle east, we turned to the Saudis. Well Saudi's (Arabs) are not Iranians (Persians), and we learned that, or should have, when a much younger OBL issued his first "manifesto". (Which had nothing to do with Jews, but everything to do with the stationing of US troops in the same country as Mecca and Medina)

Iran has a long history of being interfered by western powers (Most notably Britain. Ohhh Britain). This leads to a duality: one, they can claim (at least until 1953 or so) that they were being kept down financially by: {INSERT COUNTRY HERE}. There is some truth to that (again - Britain). However, while claiming they are being kept weak, they can't get out of their own way when it comes to running their own country. (Ostensibly, pre-1978 the mercantile class, versus the people, versus the ruling class)

The United States has, in the past 40 years, handled Iran with kid gloves. You may not like that statement, but when we are warning people to exit Oil platforms to minimize casualties, I'm not lying. What happens next, militarily? I can't say. But unfortunately, it will be the Iranian people who will suffer the most.

[Jan 05, 2020] Trump is wholly responsible for his own actions, but he -- just like the Ayatollah -- is being pushed in a direction where it's impossible to back down and still "save face". Neither men can afford to do so by Andrew Korybko

Highly recommended!
Looks like Trump administration buried the Treaty of non-proliferation once and for all. From now on only a country with nuclear weapons can be viewed as a sovereign country.
Notable quotes:
"... To remind the reader once more, however, none of this would be happening had Iran not abandoned its "nuclear ambiguity" by agreeing to the 2015 Rouhani-Obama deal, with that event in hindsight being the tripwire that provoked the American military into wantonly escalating tensions with Iran ..."
"... Because they realized that the maximum costs that the Islamic Republic could inflict on it in response to their actions could be "manageable". ..."
"... The lesson to be learned from all of this is that the possession of nuclear weapons safeguards a country's sovereignty by enabling it to inflict "unmanageable"/"unacceptable" costs on its foes and thus deter their aggression, failing which leaders on both sides can be manipulated into a serious crisis. ..."
Jan 05, 2020 | astutenews.com

Astute News

Trump is wholly responsible for his own actions, but he -- just like the Ayatollah -- is being pushed in a direction where it's impossible to back down and still "save face". Neither men can afford to do so, which makes it likely that a lot more people than just Maj. Gen. Soleimani might be about to die.

To remind the reader once more, however, none of this would be happening had Iran not abandoned its "nuclear ambiguity" by agreeing to the 2015 Rouhani-Obama deal, with that event in hindsight being the tripwire that provoked the American military into wantonly escalating tensions with Iran (despite believing that they're doing so in "self-defense)

Because they realized that the maximum costs that the Islamic Republic could inflict on it in response to their actions could be "manageable".

The lesson to be learned from all of this is that the possession of nuclear weapons safeguards a country's sovereignty by enabling it to inflict "unmanageable"/"unacceptable" costs on its foes and thus deter their aggression, failing which leaders on both sides can be manipulated into a serious crisis.

By Andrew Korybko
Source: One World

[Jan 05, 2020] PEPE ESCOBAR US Kick Starts Raging '20s Declaring War on Iran Consortiumnews

Jan 05, 2020 | consortiumnews.com

S Cassidy , January 5, 2020 at 02:03

No matter who we get in the White House, they are always won over by the so-called "Intelligence" services and the Pentagon. A little bit of kow-towing to them by staff and others and they forget who they are and why they ran in the first place. In the case of Trump, Netanyahu is an old friend. So did we ever expect any thing else? The Israelis think they own us, and Netanyahu has aid so, so did Sharon. As for the end-of-timers, they think they will be gathered in a cloud and watch while we all suffer nuclear war. With people like this, who needs enemies?

Kiwikris , January 4, 2020 at 23:38

Pepe, while I respect your work hugely I must disagree with your assertion that Trump is trapped by Impeachment. The "impeachment", until it's delivered to the Senate is a big fat nothing. Even if it ever does make it to the Senate, I doubt VERY much if it will come to anything & I believe Trump is not worried in the slightest. Donations to his re-election campaign have skyrocketed, Zogbys latest poll (for what they are worth) shows his support up across the board. And the Republicans control the Senate, not withstanding the potential turncoat RINOs

Ron Johnson , January 4, 2020 at 18:26

Casey, swing voters will decide everything in 2020. Trump very well might keep his base, but he could also lose the swing voters who believed him when he said he wanted peace. They knew Hillary was a war monger, and they hoped for better with Trump. Now Trump has proven himself to be just as blood thirsty, so that opens the door to anyone who can convincingly argue that they are for peace, or at least for more restraint.

Robert Emmett , January 4, 2020 at 11:35

A little doggerel for some of those sharp toothed cats out there.

"Yeah, that was that cat alright."

ass faced men (pomp-a-don)

ass ass i' the-nation
passpass yer quid-
pro-quo-tay-shun
murderer had it comin'
screw turns harder
ain't no time
to bicker or to barter
just out of sight
in the dead of night
another screw turns loose
more money gets thrown
off the back of the caboose
run around town with open pockets
while men in hoods pull eyes out they sockets
best keep peepers & peeps at home
seal their names in a golden tome
help those in need act on yer own
ass-faced men are on the loose

Michael , January 4, 2020 at 20:58

"This the way the Roaring, Raging Twenties begin: not with a bang, but with the release of whimpering dogs of war."

This is very poetic and deeply moving. I hope it will be remembered for the ages.

John Drake , January 4, 2020 at 11:05

Probably not a good time to be an American in the Mideast. I remember during Vietnam when quite a few American tourists wore Canadian lapel pins abroad.
Trump is so stupid. With over 700 military bases abroad and dependency on Mideast oil he doesn't understand how incredibly vulnerable US assets are.
This will probably further alienate US' so called allies (vassal states); as their leaders will realize this is creating a lose-lose scenario. Except Britain which has almost equally, mentally challenged leadership.
Looking on the bright side, another nail in the coffin of US hegemony is being forged.
And when is Israel going to haul Bibi away in cuffs?

paul , January 4, 2020 at 10:40

Let's see how fond of these murderous antics the Exceptional and Indispensable Folk feel when the body bags start coming home and the $6 trillion already thrown down the rabbit hole starts looking like chump change.

Moi , January 4, 2020 at 02:26

What makes the US the enemy of mankind is that, in their foreign policy, they are never the architects of their own misfortune. Blowback on Americans is always someone else's fault no matter how ham-fisted their machinations in the lead-up to an event.

Until the exceptionalists can say "mea culpa" of themselves the innocents of this world will end up paying the price.

Ben Novick , January 4, 2020 at 00:29

Don't underestimate the US. We can annihilate half the world's population in the next hour, if required.

Zhu , January 4, 2020 at 07:12

What good would that do?

Cornelius Pipe , January 4, 2020 at 07:32

Nope. All you can annihilate is yourselves. Should the US choose to use a nuclear bomb in a world where nuclear weapons proliferate the US will find out why people in glass houses should not throw stones. i.e. the US should think long and hard before it swaps Washington for Tehran.

caseyf5 , January 4, 2020 at 07:36

Hello Ben Novick,
And will in the future!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anthony Shaker , January 4, 2020 at 09:51

I don't know what this inane comment is meant to convey, but perhaps you should ponder what you just wrote. What is your religion, exactly? There is an intolerable element of evil in your words. What you are saying also is that, in the end, the US, which is no longer an island in today's world, is being led by a death wish. Is that the apocalypse that the howling lunatics of the pseudo-religious Church of Wealth presently unfurling itself on the Evangelical crowd in America (and now Latin America) are waiting for? Everything the US does another can do and do with growing efficiency.

Truth first , January 4, 2020 at 11:55

Sheeee!!

Apparently Ben does not realize that the US CANNOT annihilate "half the world's population" without annihilating half of the US population.

Like a US patriot he is perfectly prepared to kill billions "if required". Only a psychopath would ever consider killing billions of innocents "if required"

SERGIO GONCALVES BASTOS , January 4, 2020 at 12:56

E depois fariam o que ! virariam zumbis 'sobre os escombros .como filmes de mad max.

kgw , January 4, 2020 at 13:51

We? Define "We,", Mr. Novick. I am a native of the U.S., and the only "We" that would act in such a way are not aware of being human.

Mrs. Debra L. Carr de Legorreta , January 4, 2020 at 14:07

Ben Novick we cannot eliminate half the world's population without eliminating all of it.
That's the problem. We have no sense of proportionality.
They kill one "contractor" we kill 25 militia members.
They trash one embassy, hurting no one; we murder their top general, murder several other top officials, and we drone the heck out of a new group of protesters getting on their way to the same embassy. Totally disproportionate.
Like you, these neocons are overly impressed with their toys and their self-righteousness. They couldn't stomach brown people desecrating their pretty billion-dollar embassy in Baghdad.
YOUR way of thinking IS the problem.
Your comments remind me of Hillary Clinton cackling on getting the news that Gaddafi had been sodomized and murdered.
You proud? Is that what being a "patriot" means to you, that you can murder anyone you want?

LJ , January 4, 2020 at 17:33

Hey Ben, Learn something. Look up Bomb Carbon. It is going to disappear in a few years so government funded Scientists are doing a lot of testing and engaging in various kinds of research trying to make good use of it while the fun lasts. . Bomb Carbon is short for a radioactive by product of the nuclear explosions that were ended by the early 60's after the ban on Testing of Nuclear weapons above ground like at Bikini Atoll, Area 51, etc. Now I guess you think there's a good reason to create a whole lot more bomb carbon. It will be great . Good for research? We got to keep those guys gainfully employed? We've got to keep ahead of them damn Ruskies and the Chinese too , the ones that aren't already employed at MIT, Lawrence Livermore Lab and elsewhere here in the Brigand Nation that assassinates with impunity without regard to International Law or Borders then lies about it on TV. Well, since we can't do it to American Indians anymore we got to find new victims?
This was a historic mistake. 650 million Shiites will not ever forget This. This man was a hero and definitely expected assasination and martyrdom. Read about Twelvers. The Shia Branch of Islam. Their religion is based on and centers around revering the 11 already martyred Imans that were assassinated/murdered by unjust powers. I don't make this stuff up. This plays right into what they believe. No Shiite could side with the USA on this. Not possible . There are hundreds of millions of them.
This was a stupid decision by stupid men and unless the Democrats are just as stupid they are going to resist this, come out against a Trump War and Trump is going to lose the election in a landslide. Americans want No More War despite what the News Media and the Pentagon and yes the Deep State say.
Trump- LOSER.

geeyp , January 3, 2020 at 23:27

At least where Pepe reports from, he has access to great food for our Last Supper, as some portray this stupid action from President Trump and the all too eager Pentagon, who is the only group to generously gain from this. Netanyahu may now think he does and we wouldn't want him or expect him to think any other way.

Mark Stanley , January 3, 2020 at 19:35

Excellent Pepe, but disturbing
The whole thing makes me sick to my stomach. Happy New Year? Will Americans really swallow this treble hook whole again?
I keep wondering how much insider or opportunistic trading goes on. Any one who knew about this 10 minutes beforehand could simply go long oil, or gold. Quite predictable. The markets are so volatile nowadays, over reacting to news events. Much of this is due to AI trading systems that are programmed to react to news, and they get the feeds before anyone else and react instantly–buy/sell. Deep state creeps certainly made a killing in the markets today. No brainer there. It would be interesting to check out the volume on various options and commodities contracts prior to the assassination. The term "elephant tracks" has been used to identify massive buy/sell orders by unidentified players.
As an old hippy guy, I really thought our world would be a better place by now. Au contrere. No matter what political system, the sociopaths continue to rise to the top like toxic scum.

Jeff Harrison , January 3, 2020 at 18:12

I imagine that the Iranians will be able to demonstrate that the the US isn't the only nation that can assassinate at a distance and I also suspect that Israel will discover a few dead bodies of their own. I expect that the Iraqis will kick the US out of their country. They certainly don't want to be the battle field for an Iran/US war either. The real question will be – what will Russia's and China's response to this be?

Clark M Shanahan , January 3, 2020 at 22:13

I wish that calm heads shall prevail.
BTW: the Saudi's can expect payback, too.

rosemerry , January 4, 2020 at 13:17

There is an agreement between the USA and Iraq about US troops inside Iraq,and this act has clearly broken it, and if the Iraqis do not kick all the US troops out they will get no support from anyone. There is NO excuse to treat the government of an "allied, sovereign" country in such a way, involving Iraqi government forces and militias as well, of course, as Gen. Suleimani.

karlof1 , January 3, 2020 at 17:54

Wonder what the odds are on Pompeo, Trump, or Esper dying non-violently at some point in the near future? IMO, Trump also killed his reelection. My other initial and subsequent comments were made at Moon of Alabama and don't need repeating here. I will post this there along with a few quotes from Pepe, whose Facebook is also jammed.

caseyf5 , January 4, 2020 at 07:41

Hello karlof1,
I vehemently disagree in your belief that the tRump will lose the 2020 election. His cult followers think that war with Iran is a great thing!

Tom Kath , January 3, 2020 at 17:53

There can be no clearer DECLARATION OF WAR. Choose your sides and prepare to die regardless which side you choose.

[Jan 05, 2020] After Mossad Targeted Soleimani, Trump Pulled the Trigger

Jan 05, 2020 | www.counterpunch.org

by Jefferson Morley

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameini and Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani, right (Credit: Wikimedia Commons).

Last October Yossi Cohen, head of Israel's Mossad, spoke openly about assassinating Iranian general Qassem Soleimani, the head of the elite Quds Force in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

"He knows very well that his assassination is not impossible," Cohen said in an interview. Soleimani had boasted that the Israel's tried to assassinate him in 2006 and failed.

"With all due respect to his bluster," Cohen said, "he hasn't necessarily committed the mistake yet that would place him on the prestigious list of Mossad's assassination targets."

"Is Israel Targeting Iran's Top General for Assassination?" I asked on October 24. On Thursday, Soleimani was killed in an air strike ordered by President Trump.

Soleimani's convoy was struck by U.S. missiles as he left a meeting at Baghdad's airport amid anti-Iranian and anti-American demonstrations in Iraq. Supporters of an Iranian-backed militia had agreed to withdraw from the U.S. diplomatic compound in return for a promise that the government would allow a parliamentary vote on expelling 5,000 U.S. troops from the country.

The Pentagon confirmed the military operation, which came "at the direction of the president" and was "aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans." The Pentagon claimed in a statement that Gen. Soleimani was "actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region."

Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, under indictment for criminal charges, was the first and only national leader to support Trump's action, while claiming that that Trump acted entirely on his own.

"Just as Israel has the right to self-defense, the United States has exactly the same right," Netanyahu told reporters in Greece. "Qassem Soleimani is responsible for the deaths of American citizens and other innocents, and he was planning more attacks."

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani vowed retaliation for the general's death, tweeting that "Iran will take revenge for this heinous crime."

Capable Foe

Soleimani was the most capable foe of the United States and Israel in the region. As chief of the Al-Quds force, Soleimani was a master of Iran's asymmetric warfare strategy, using proxy forces to bleed Iran's enemies, while preserving the government's ability to plausibly deny involvement.

After the U.S. invasions of Iraq, he funded and trained anti-American militias that launched low-level attacks on U.S. occupation forces, killing upward of 600 U.S. servicemen and generating pressure for U.S. withdrawal.

In recent years, Soleimani led two successful Iranian military operations: the campaign to drive ISIS out of western Iraq in 2015 and the campaign to crush the jihadist forces opposed to Syria's Bashar al-Assad. The United States and Israel denounced Iran's role in both operations but could not prevent Iran from claiming victory.

Soleimani had assumed a leading role in Iraqi politics in the past year. The anti-ISIS campaign relied on Iraqi militias, which the Iranians supported with money, weapons, and training. After ISIS was defeated, these militia maintained a prominent role in Iraq that many resented, leading to demonstrations and rioting. Soleimani was seeking to stabilize the government and channel the protests against the United States when he was killed.

In the same period, Israel pursued its program of targeted assassination. In the past decade Mossad assassinated at least five Iranian nuclear scientists, according to Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman, in an effort to thwart Iran's nuclear program. Yossi Melman, another Israeli journalist, says that Mossad has assassinated 60-70 enemies outside of its borders since its founding in 1947, though none as prominent as Soleimani.

Israel also began striking at the Iranian-backed militias in Iraq last year. The United States did the same on December 29, killing 19 fighters and prompting anti-American demonstrations as big as the anti-Iranian demonstrations of a month ago.

Now the killing of Soleimani promises more unrest, if not open war. The idea that it will deter Iranian attacks is foolish.

"This doesn't mean war," wrote former Defense Department official Andrew Exum, "It will not lead to war, and it doesn't risk war. None of that. It is war. "​

The Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Jarida reported a year ago that Washington had given Israel the green light to assassinate Soleimani . Al-Jarida, which in recent years has broken exclusive stories from Israel, quoted a source in Jerusalem as saying that "there is an American-Israeli agreement" that Soleimani is a "threat to the two countries' interests in the region." It is generally assumed in the Arab world that the paper is used as an Israeli platform for conveying messages to other countries in the Middle East.

Trump has now fulfilled the wishes of Mossad. After proclaiming his intention to end America's " stupid endless wars," the president has effectively declared war on the largest country in the region in solidarity with Israel, the most unpopular country in the Middle East.

This article first appeared on Jefferson Morley's TheDeepStateBlog .

Jefferson Morley , author of The Ghost: The Secret Life of CIA Spymaster James Jesus Angleton , is the editor of The Deep State blog. He is a member of the Truth & Reconciliation Committee , founded to reopen the investigations of the assassination of JFK, MLK, RFK, and Malcolm X.

[Jan 05, 2020] Mark Esper on Iran in Iraq, by Mark T. Esper

Jan 02, 2020 | www.voltairenet.org

ast Friday, the Iranian-backed militia Kata'ib Hizbollah or KH launched yet another attack against American forces in Iraq, resulting in the death of one American civilian, and injuries to four American service members, as well as two of our partners in the Iraqi Security Forces. This continues a string of attacks against bases with U.S. forces and Iraqi Security Forces. KH has a strong linkage to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Quds Force and has received lethal aid, support, and direction from Iran.

Over the last couple of months Iranian-backed Shia militias have repeatedly attacked bases hosting American forces in Iraq. These attacks have injured our partners in the Iraqi Security Forces, but fortunately Americans were not casualties of these attacks until last week. On November 9th, Iranian-backed Shia militias fired rockets at Q-West Air Base located in North-West Iraq. On December 3rd, they conducted a rocket attack against Al Asad Air Base, and on December 5th, they launched rockets against Balad Air Base. Finally, on December 9th, these same militia groups fired rockets at the Baghdad Diplomatic Support Center located on the Baghdad International Airport. It is clear that these attacks are being directed by the Iranian regime, specifically IRGC leadership.

In response, U.S. leaders have repeatedly warned the Iranians and their Shia militia proxies against further provocative actions. At the same time, we have urged the Iraqi government to take all necessary steps to protect American forces in their country. I personally have spoken to Iraqi leadership multiple times over recent months, urging them to do more.

After the attack last Friday, at the direction of the President, U.S. forces launched defensive strikes against KH forces in Iraq and Syria. These attacks were aimed at reducing KH's ability to launch additional attacks against U.S. personnel and to make it clear to Iran and Iranian-backed militias that the United States will not hesitate to defend our forces in the region.

On Tuesday, December 31st, at the instigation of Shia militias, violent rallies of members of these militias outside the American embassy in Baghdad resulted in damage to exterior entry facilities and buildings at the embassy compound. We know it was Iranian-backed Shia militias because key leaders were spotted in the crowd and some militia members showed up wearing their uniforms and carried the flags of their militia, including KH. We continue to urge the Iraqi government to prevent further escalation. Leaders of the Iraqi government have condemned the attack on the U.S. embassy, including the Iraqi president, prime minister, foreign minister, and speaker of the parliament. Additionally, regional and international partners have condemned the attacks on U.S. facilities, including Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Bahrain in the region, and the E.U., Germany, France, and others around the globe.

On Tuesday, to ensure the security of the Americans at the embassy in Baghdad, we immediately deployed Marines from Kuwait who arrived at the embassy in a matter of hours. We also deployed a battalion of the 82nd Airborne Division to ensure that we can provide additional defensive support to the embassy in Baghdad or elsewhere in the region as needed.

Let me speak directly to Iran and to our partners and allies. To Iran and its proxy militias: we will not accept continued attacks against our personnel and forces in the region. Attacks against us will be met with responses in the time, manner, and place of our choosing. We urge the Iranian regime to end their malign activities.

To our partners and allies: we must stand together against the malign and destabilizing actions of Iran. The 81 nations and member organizations of the Defeat ISIS Coalition are in Iraq and Syria, and cooperating around the globe to defeat ISIS. We have worked closely with our partners in the Iraqi Security Forces and Syrian Democratic Forces to roll-back the so-called ISIS caliphate in Iraq and Syria and liberated millions of Iraqis and Syrians. NATO nations are also in Iraq to assist with building the capabilities of the Iraqi Security Forces. Unlike the Iranians who continue to meddle in Iraq's internal affairs and seek to use corruption to further Tehran's malign influence, the United States and our allies are committed to an independent, stable, secure, and sovereign democratic Iraq that addresses the aspirations and needs of the Iraqi people, who we see protesting for these very things and objecting to Iran's malign influence. We call on our friends and allies to continue to work together to reduce Iran's destabilizing influence so Iraq is governed by Iraqis without this interference in its internal affairs. Mark T. Esper

[Jan 05, 2020] The Christmas Truce of 1914 Why There Is Still No Peace On Earth

Jan 05, 2020 | original.antiwar.com

Antiwar.com Regional News

by David Stockman Posted on December 25, 2019 December 24, 2019

After the Berlin Wall fell in November 1989 and the death of the Soviet Union was confirmed two years later when Boris Yeltsin courageously stood down the Red Army tanks in front of Moscow's White House, a dark era in human history came to an end.

The world had descended into a 77-Year War, incepting with the mobilization of the armies of old Europe in August 1914. If you want to count bodies, 150 million were killed by all the depredations that germinated in the Great War, its foolish aftermath at Versailles, and the march of history into World War II and the Cold War that followed inexorably thereupon.

Upwards of 8% of the human race was wiped out during that span. The toll encompassed the madness of trench warfare during 1914-1918; the murderous regimes of Soviet and Nazi totalitarianism that rose from the ashes of the Great War and Versailles; and then the carnage of WWII and all the lesser (unnecessary) wars and invasions of the Cold War including Korea and Vietnam.

At the end of the Cold War, therefore, the last embers of the fiery madness that had incepted with the guns of August 1914 had finally burned out. Peace was at hand. Yet 28 years later there is still no peace because Imperial Washington confounds it.

In fact, the War Party entrenched in the nation's capital is dedicated to economic interests and ideological perversions that guarantee perpetual war. These forces ensure endless waste on armaments; they cause the inestimable death and human suffering that stems from 21st-century high-tech warfare; and they inherently generate terrorist blowback from those upon whom the War Party inflicts its violent hegemony.

Worse still, Washington's great war machine and teeming national security industry is its own agent of self-perpetuation. When it is not invading, occupying and regime changing, its vast apparatus of internal policy bureaus and outside contractors, lobbies, think tanks and NGOs is busy generating reasons for new imperial ventures.

So there was a virulent threat to peace still lurking on the Potomac after the 77-Year War ended. The great general and President, Dwight Eisenhower, had called it the "military-industrial complex" in his farewell address. But that memorable phrase had been abbreviated by his speechwriters, who deleted the word "congressional" in a gesture of comity to the legislative branch.

So restore Ike's deleted reference to the pork barrels and Sunday-afternoon warriors of Capitol Hill and toss in the legions of Beltway busybodies who constituted the civilian branches of the Cold War armada (CIA, State, AID, NED and the rest) and the circle would have been complete. It constituted the most awesome machine of warfare and imperial hegemony since the Roman legions bestrode most of the civilized world.

In a word, the real threat to peace circa 1991 was that the American Imperium would not go away quietly into the good night.

In fact, during the past 28 years Imperial Washington has lost all memory that peace was ever possible at the end of the Cold War. Today it is as feckless, misguided and bloodthirsty as were Berlin, Paris, St. Petersburg, Vienna and London in August 1914.

A few months after that horrendous slaughter had been unleashed 105 years ago, however, soldiers along the western front broke into spontaneous truces of Christmas celebration, song and even exchange of gifts . For a brief moment they wondered why they were juxtaposed in lethal combat along the jaws of hell.

As Will Griggs once described it ,

A sudden cold snap had left the battlefield frozen, which was actually a relief for troops wallowing in sodden mire. Along the Front, troops extracted themselves from their trenches and dugouts, approaching each other warily, and then eagerly, across No Man's Land. Greetings and handshakes were exchanged, as were gifts scavenged from care packages sent from home. German souvenirs that ordinarily would have been obtained only through bloodshed – such as spiked pickelhaube helmets, or Gott mit uns belt buckles – were bartered for similar British trinkets. Carols were sung in German, English, and French. A few photographs were taken of British and German officers standing alongside each other, unarmed, in No Man's Land.

Near the Ypres salient, Germans and Scotsmen chased after wild hares that, once caught, served as an unexpected Christmas feast. Perhaps the sudden exertion of chasing wild hares prompted some of the soldiers to think of having a football match. Then again, little prompting would have been necessary to inspire young, competitive men – many of whom were English youth recruited off soccer fields – to stage a match. In any case, numerous accounts in letters and journals attest to the fact that on Christmas 1914, German and English soldiers played soccer on the frozen turf of No Man's Land.

British Field Artillery Lieutenant John Wedderburn-Maxwell described the event as "probably the most extraordinary event of the whole war – a soldier's truce without any higher sanction by officers and generals ."

The truth is, there was no good reason for the Great War. The world had stumbled into war based on false narratives and the institutional imperatives of military mobilization plans, alliances and treaties arrayed into a doomsday machine and petty short-term diplomatic maneuvers and political calculus. Yet it took more than three-quarters of a century for all the consequential impacts and evils to be purged from the life of the planet.

The peace that was lost last time has not been regained this time, however, and for the same reasons. Historians can readily name the culprits from 105 years ago.

These include the German general staff's plan for a lightning mobilization and strike on the western front called the Schlieffen Plan; the incompetence and intrigue in the court at St. Petersburg; French President Poincare's anti-German irredentism owing to the 1871 loss of his home province, Alsace-Lorraine; and the bloodthirsty cabal around Winston Churchill who forced England into an unnecessary war, among countless others.

Since these casus belli of 1914 were criminally trivial in light of all that metastasized thereafter, it might do well to name the institutions and false narratives that block the return of peace today. The fact is, these impediments are even more contemptible than the forces that crushed the Christmas truces one century ago.

IMPERIAL WASHINGTON – THE NEW GLOBAL MENACE

There is no peace on earth today for reasons mainly rooted in Imperial Washington – not Moscow, Beijing, Tehran, Damascus, Mosul or the rubble of Raqqa. Imperial Washington has become a global menace owing to what didn't happen in 1991.

At that crucial inflection point, Bush the Elder should have declared "mission accomplished" and parachuted into the great Ramstein air base in Germany to begin the demobilization of the America's war machine.

So doing, he could have slashed the Pentagon budget from $600 billion to $250 billion (2015 $); demobilized the military-industrial complex by putting a moratorium on all new weapons development, procurement and export sales; dissolved NATO and dismantled the far-flung network of U.S. military bases; reduced the United States' standing armed forces from 1.5 million to a few hundred thousand; and organized and led a world-disarmament and peace campaign, as did his Republican predecessors during the 1920s.

Unfortunately, George H. W. Bush was not a man of peace, vision or even middling intelligence.

He was the malleable tool of the War Party, and it was he who single-handedly blew the peace when, in the very year the 77-Year War ended with the demise of the Soviet Union, he plunged America into a petty argument between the impetuous dictator of Iraq and the gluttonous emir of Kuwait. But that argument was none of George Bush's or America's business.

By contrast, even though liberal historians have reviled Warren G. Harding as some kind of dummkopf politician, he well understood that the Great War had been for naught, and that to ensure it never happened again the nations of the world needed to rid themselves of their huge navies and standing armies.

To that end, he achieved the largest global-disarmament agreement ever during the Washington Naval Conference of 1921, which halted the construction of new battleships for more than a decade. And even then, the moratorium ended only because the vengeful victors at Versailles never ceased exacting their revenge on Germany.

And while he was at it, President Harding also pardoned Eugene Debs. In so doing, he gave witness to the truth that the intrepid socialist candidate for president and vehement antiwar protester, who Wilson had thrown in prison for exercising his First Amendment right to speak against US entry into a pointless European war, had been right all along.

In short, Warren G. Harding knew the war was over and the folly of Wilson's 1917 plunge into Europe's bloodbath should not be repeated, at all hazards.

But not George H. W. Bush. The man should never be forgiven for enabling the likes of Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Robert Gates and their neocon pack of jackals to come to power – even if he eventually denounced them in his doddering old age.

Alas, upon his death, Bush the Elder was deified, not vilified, by the mainstream press and the bipartisan duopoly. And that tells you all you need to know about why Washington is ensnared in its Forever Wars and is the very reason why there is still no peace on earth.

Even more to the point, by opting not for peace but for war and oil in the Persian Gulf in 1991 Washington opened the gates to an unnecessary confrontation with Islam and nurtured the rise of jihadist terrorism that would not haunt the world today save for forces unleashed by George H. W. Bush's petulant quarrel with Saddam Hussein.

We will momentarily get to the 45-year-old error that holds the Persian Gulf is an American lake and that the answer to high oil prices and energy security is the Fifth Fleet.

Suffice it to say here that the answer to high oil prices everywhere and always is high oil prices – a truth driven home in spades by the oil busts of 2009 and 2015 and the fact the real price of oil today (2019 $) is lower than it was on the eve of the great oil embargo of 1973.

But first it is well to remember that in 1991 there was no plausible threat anywhere on the planet to the safety and security of the citizens of Springfield, MA, Lincoln, NE or Spokane, WA when the Cold War ended.

The Warsaw Pact had dissolved into more than a dozen woebegone sovereign statelets; the Soviet Union was now unscrambled into 15 independent and far-flung republics from Belarus to Tajikistan; and the Russian motherland would soon plunge into an economic depression that would leave it with a GDP about the size of the Philadelphia MSA.

Likewise, China's GDP was even smaller and more primitive than Russia's. Even as Mr. Deng was discovering the People's Bank of China's printing press, which would enable it to become a great mercantilist exporter, an incipient Chinese threat to national security was never in the cards.

After all, it was the 4,000 Wal-Marts in America upon which the prosperity of the new Red Capitalism inextricably depended and upon which the rule of the Communist oligarchs in Beijing was ultimately anchored. Even the hardliners among them could see that in swapping militarism for mercantilism and invading America with tennis shoes, neckties and home textiles – that the door had been closed to any other kind of invasion thereafter.

NO ISLAMIC TERRORISTS OR JIHADI THREAT CIRCA 1991

Likewise, in 1991 there was no global Islamic threat or jihadi terrorist menace at all. What existed under those headings were sundry fragments and deposits of Middle Eastern religious, ethnic and tribal histories that were of moment in their immediate region, but no threat to America's homeland security whatsoever.

The Shiite/Sunni divide had coexisted since A.D. 671, but its episodic eruptions into battles and wars over the centuries had rarely extended beyond the region, and certainly had no reason to fester into open conflict in 1991.

Inside the artificial state of Iraq, which had been drawn on a map by historically ignorant European diplomats in 1916, for instance, the Shiite and Sunni got along tolerably. That's because the nation was ruled by Saddam Hussein's Baathist brand of secular Arab nationalism, flavored by a muscular propensity for violent repression of internal dissent.

Hussein championed law and order, state-driven economic development and politically apportioned distributions from the spoils of the extensive government-controlled oil sector. To be sure, Baathist socialism didn't bring much prosperity to the well-endowed lands of Mesopotamia, but Hussein did have a Christian foreign minister and no sympathy for religious extremism or violent pursuit of sectarian causes.

As it happened, the bloody Shiite/Sunni strife that plagues Iraq, Syria and the greater middle east today and which functioned as a hatchery for angry young jihadi terrorists in their thousands was initially unleashed only after Hussein had been driven from Kuwait in 1991 and the CIA had instigated an armed uprising in the Shiite heartland around Basra..

That revolt was brutally suppressed by Hussein's republican guards, but it left an undertow of resentment and revenge boiling below the surface. That was one of many of George H. W. Bush's fetid legacies in the region.

Needless to say, when it came their turn, Bush the Younger and his cabal of neocon warmongers could not leave well enough alone.

When they foolishly destroyed Saddam Hussein and his entire regime in the pursuit of nonexistent WMDs and alleged ties with al-Qaeda, they literally opened the gates of hell, leaving Iraq as a lawless failed state where both recent and ancient religious and tribal animosities were given unlimited violent vent.

WHY THE WAR PARTY NEEDED TO DEMONIZE IRAN

Also circa 1990, the Shiite theocracy ensconced in Tehran was no threat to America's safety and security – even if it was an unfortunate albatross on the Persian people.

The very idea that Tehran is an expansionist power bent on exporting terrorism to the rest of the world is a giant fiction and tissue of lies invented by the Washington War Party and its Bibi Netanyahu branch in order to win political support for their confrontationist policies.

Indeed, the three-decade-long demonization of Iran has served one overarching purpose. Namely, it has enabled both branches of the War Party to conjure up a fearsome enemy, thereby justifying aggressive policies that call for a constant state of war and military mobilization.

Indeed, Iran has not been demonized by happenstance. When the Cold War officially ended in 1991, the Cheney/neocon cabal feared the kind of drastic demobilization of the US military-industrial complex that was warranted by the suddenly more pacific strategic environment.

In response, they developed an anti-Iranian doctrine that was explicitly described as a way of keeping defense spending at high Cold War levels. If the fearsome Soviet Union was gone, a vastly inflated threat emanating from Iran's minuscule GDP of $350 billion and tiny defense budget of $15 billion would needs be invented and hyperbolized.

And the narrative they developed to this end is one of the more egregious Big Lies ever to come out of the Beltway. It puts you in mind of the young boy who killed his parents, and then threw himself on the mercy of the courts on the grounds that he was an orphan!

To wit, during the 1980s the neocons in the Reagan Administration issued their own fatwa against the Islamic Republic of Iran based on its rhetorical hostility to America. Yet that enmity was grounded in Washington's 25-year support for the tyrannical and illegitimate regime of the Shah, and constituted a founding narrative of the Islamic Republic that was not much different than America's revolutionary castigation of King George.

That the Iranians had a case is beyond doubt. The open US archives now prove that the CIA overthrew Iran's democratically elected government in 1953 and put the utterly unsuited and megalomaniacal Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi on the Peacock Throne to rule as a puppet on behalf of US security and oil interests.

During the subsequent decades the Shah not only massively and baldly plundered the wealth of the Persian nation; with the help of the CIA and US military, he also created a brutal secret police force known as SAVAK. The latter made the East German Stasi look civilized by comparison.

All elements of Iranian society including universities, labor unions, businesses, civic organizations, peasant farmers and many more were subjected to intense surveillance by the SAVAK agents and paid informants. As one critic described it:

Over the years, Savak became a law unto itself, having legal authority to arrest, detain, brutally interrogate and torture suspected people indefinitely. Savak operated its own prisons in Tehran, such as Qezel-Qalaeh and Evin facilities and many suspected places throughout the country as well. Many of those activities were carried out without any institutional checks.

Ironically, among his many grandiose follies, the Shah had embarked on a massive civilian nuclear-power campaign in the 1970s, which envisioned literally paving the Iranian landscape with dozens of nuclear power plants.

He would use Iran's surging oil revenues after 1973 to buy all the equipment required from Western companies – and also fuel-cycle support services such as uranium enrichment – in order to provide his kingdom with cheap power for centuries.

At the time of the revolution, the first of these plants at Bushehr was nearly complete, but the whole grandiose project was put on hold amidst the turmoil of the new regime and the onset of Saddam Hussein's war against Iran in September 1980. As a consequence, a $2 billion deposit languished at the French nuclear agency that had originally obtained it from the Shah to fund a ramp-up of its enrichment capacity to supply his planned battery of reactors.

Indeed, in this very context the new Iranian regime proved quite dramatically that it was not hell-bent on obtaining nuclear bombs or any other weapons of mass destruction. In the midst of Iraq's unprovoked invasion of Iran in the early 1980s, Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa against biological and chemical weapons.

Yet at that very time, Saddam was dropping these horrific weapons on Iranian battle forces – some of them barely armed teenage boys – with the spotting help of CIA tracking satellites and the concurrence of Washington. So from the very beginning, the Iranian posture was wholly contrary to the War Party's endless blizzard of false charges about its quest for nukes.

However benighted and medieval its religious views, the theocracy that ruled Iran did not consist of demented warmongers. In the heat of battle they were willing to sacrifice their own forces rather than violate their religious scruples to counter Saddam's WMDs.

HOW WASHINGTON INSPIRED THE MYTH OF IRAN'S SECRET NUCLEAR-WEAPONS PROGRAM

Then in 1983 the new Iranian regime decided to complete the Bushehr power plant and some additional elements of the Shah's grand plan. But when they attempted to reactivate the French enrichment-services contract and buy necessary power plant equipment from the original German suppliers they were stopped cold by Washington. And when they tried to get their $2 billion deposit back, they were curtly denied that, too.

To make a long story short, the entire subsequent history of off-again, on-again efforts by the Iranians to purchase dual-use equipment and components on the international market, often from black market sources like Pakistan, was in response to Washington's relentless efforts to block its legitimate rights as a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to complete some parts of the Shah's civilian nuclear project.

Needless to say, it did not take much effort by the neocon "regime change" fanatics that inhabited Washington's national-security machinery, especially after the 2000 election, to spin every attempt by Iran to purchase even a lowly pump or pipe fitting as evidence of a secret campaign to get "the bomb".

The exaggerations, lies, distortions and fear mongering that came out of this neocon campaign are truly deplorable. Yet they incepted way back in the early 1990s when George H. W. Bush actually did reach out to the newly elected government of Hashemi Rafsanjani to bury the hatchet after it had cooperated in obtaining the release of American prisoners being held in Lebanon in 1989.

Rafsanjani was self-evidently a pragmatist who did not want conflict with the United States and the West; and after the devastation of the eight-year war with Iraq, he was wholly focused on economic reconstruction and even free market reforms of Iran's faltering economy.

It is one of the great tragedies of history that the neocons managed to squelch even Bush the Elder's better instincts with respect to rapprochement with Tehran.

So the prisoner-release opening was short-lived – especially after the top post at the CIA was assumed in 1991 by the despicable Robert Gates.

He was one of the very worst of the unreconstructed Cold War apparatchiks who looked peace in the eye, and elected, instead, to pervert John Quincy Adams' wise maxim. That is, Gates spent the rest of his career searching the globe for monsters to fabricate.

In this case the motivation was especially loathsome. Gates had been Bill Casey's right-hand man during the latter's rogue tenure at the CIA in the Reagan Administration. Among the many untoward projects that Gates shepherded was the Iran-Contra affair that nearly destroyed his career when it blew up, and for which he blamed the Iranians for its public disclosure.

From his post as deputy national-security director in 1989 (and then as CIA head shortly thereafter), Gates pulled out all the stops to get even. Almost single-handedly he killed off the White House goodwill from the prisoner release, and launched the blatant myth that Iran was both sponsoring terrorism and seeking to obtain nuclear weapons.

Indeed, it was Gates who was the architect of the demonization of Iran that became a staple of War Party propaganda after 1991. In time that morphed into the utterly false claim that Iran is an aggressive would-be hegemon and a fount of terrorism dedicated to the destruction of the state of Israel, among other treacherous purposes.

The latter giant lie was almost single-handedly fashioned by the neocons and Bibi Netanyahu's coterie of power-hungry henchman after the mid-1990s. Indeed, the false claim that Iran posed an "existential threat" to Israel is a product of the pure red meat domestic Israeli politics that kept Bibi in power for much of the last two decades – a plague on mankind that hopefully is finally ending.

But the truth is Iran has only a tiny fraction of Israel's conventional military capability. And compared to the latter's 200-odd nukes, Iran never even had a nuclear weaponization program after a small-scale research program was abandoned in 2003.

And that is not our opinion. It was the sober assessment of the nation's top 17 intelligence agencies in the official National Intelligence Estimates for 2007 , and has been confirmed ever since.

It's the reason that the neocon plan to bomb Iran at the end of George W. Bush's term didn't happen. As Dubya confessed in his autobiography, even he couldn't figure out how he could explain to the American public why he was bombing facilities that all his intelligence agencies had said did not exist. That is, he would have been impaled on WMD 2.0 on his way out of the White House.

Moreover, now via a further study arising from the 2015 international nuclear accord – which would have straitjacketed even Iran's civilian program and eliminated most of its enriched-uranium stockpiles and spinning capacity had not the Donald foolishly shit-canned it – the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has also confirmed that Iran had no secret nuclear-weapons program after 2003.

The whole scary bedtime story was false War Party propaganda manufactured from whole cloth.

MORE WAR PARTY LIES – DEMONIZATION OF THE SHIITE CRESCENT

In this context, the War Party's bloviating about Iran's leadership of the so-called Shiite Crescent is another component of Imperial Washington's 28-year-long roadblock to peace. Iran wasn't a threat to American security in 1991, and since then it has never organized a hostile coalition of terrorists that requires Washington's intervention.

Start with Iran's long-standing support of Bashir Assad's government in Syria. That alliance goes back to his father's era and is rooted in the historic confessional politics of the Islamic world.

The Assad regime is Alawite, a branch of the Shiites, and despite the regime's brutality, it has been a bulwark of protection for all of Syria's minority sects, including Christians, against a majority-Sunni ethnic cleansing. The latter would surely occur if US and Saudi-supported rebels, led by the Nusra Front and ISIS, had been permitted to take full power.

Likewise, the fact that the Baghdad government of the broken state of Iraq – that is, the artificial 1916 concoction of two striped-pants European diplomats (Messrs. Sykes and Picot of the British and French foreign offices, respectively) – is now aligned with Iran is also a result of confessional politics and geo-economic propinquity.

For all practical purposes, Iraq has been partitioned. The Kurds of the Northeast have declared their independence and have been collecting their own oil revenue for the past few years and operating their own security forces.

And the western Sunni lands of the upper Euphrates, of course, were first conquered by ISIS with American weapons dropped in place by the hapless $25 billion Iraqi army minted by Washington's departing proconsuls; and then obliterated during Obama's vicious bombing and droning campaign designed to uproot the terrorist evil that Washington itself had spawned.

Accordingly, what is left of the rump state of Iraq is a population that is overwhelmingly Shiite and nurses bitter resentments after two decades of violent conflict with the Sunni forces. Why in the world, therefore, wouldn't they ally with their Shiite neighbor?

Likewise, the claim that Iran is now trying to annex Yemen, thereby justifying the sheer genocide wreaked upon it by the Saudi air war, is pure claptrap. The ancient territory of Yemen had been racked by civil war off and on since the early 1970s. And a major driving force of that conflict has been confessional differences between the Sunni South and the Shiite North.

In more recent times, Washington's blatant drone war inside Yemen against alleged terrorists and its domination and financing of Yemen's government eventually produced the same old outcome – that is, another failed state and an illegitimate government that fled at the 11th hour, leaving another vast cache of American arms and equipment behind.

Accordingly, the Houthis forces now in control of substantial parts of the country are not some kind of advanced guard sent in by Tehran. They are indigenous partisans who share a confessional tie with Iran, but who have actually been armed, if inadvertently, by Washington.

Finally, there is the fourth element of the purported Iranian axis – the Hezbollah-controlled Shiite communities of southern Lebanon and the Beqaa Valley in the northeast. Like everything else in the Middle East, Hezbollah is a product of historical European imperialism, Islamic confessional politics and the frequently misguided and counterproductive security policies of Israel.

In the first place, Lebanon was not any more a real country than Iraq was when Sykes and Picot laid their straight-edged rulers on a map. The result was a stew of religious and ethnic divisions – Maronite Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Copts, Druse, Sunnis, Shiites, Alawites, Kurds, Armenians, Jews and countless more – that made the fashioning of a viable state virtually impossible.

At length, an alliance of Christians and Sunnis gained control of the country, leaving the 40% Shiite population disenfranchised and economically disadvantaged, as well. But it was the inflow of Palestinian refugees in the 1960s and 1970s that eventually upset the balance of sectarian forces and triggered a civil war that essentially lasted from 1975 until the turn of the century.

It also triggered a catastrophically wrong-headed Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon in 1982, and a subsequent repressive occupation of mostly Shiite territories for the next 18 years. The alleged purpose of this invasion was to chase the PLO and Yasser Arafat out of the enclave in southern Lebanon that they had established after being driven out of Jordan in 1970.

Eventually Israel succeeded in sending Arafat packing to North Africa, but in the process created a militant, Shiite-based resistance movement that did not even exist in 1982 and that in due course became the strongest single force in Lebanon's fractured domestic political arrangements.

After Israel withdrew in 2000, the then-Christian president of the country made abundantly clear that Hezbollah had become a legitimate and respected force within the Lebanese polity, not merely some subversive agent of Tehran:

"For us Lebanese, and I can tell you the majority of Lebanese, Hezbollah is a national resistance movement. If it wasn't for them, we couldn't have liberated our land. And because of that, we have big esteem for the Hezbollah movement."

So, yes, Hezbollah is an integral component of the so-called Shiite Crescent, and its confessional and political alignment with Tehran is entirely plausible. But that arrangement – however uncomfortable for Israel – does not represent unprovoked Iranian aggression on Israel's northern border.

Instead, it's actually the blowback from the stubborn refusal of Israeli governments – especially the right-wing Likud governments of modern times – to deal constructively with the Palestinian question.

In lieu of a two-state solution in the territory of Palestine, therefore, Israeli policy has produced a chronic state of confrontation and war with the huge share of the Lebanese population represented by Hezbollah.

The latter is surely no agency of peaceful governance and has committed its share of atrocities. But the point at hand is that given the last 35 years of history and Israeli policy, Hezbollah would exist as a menacing force on its northern border even if the Iranian theocracy didn't exist and the shah or his heir was still on the Peacock Throne.

In short, there is no alliance of terrorism in the Shiite Crescent that threatens American security. That proposition is simply one of the big lies that was promulgated by the War Party after 1991 and that has been happily embraced by Imperial Washington since then in order to keep the military-industrial-security complex alive, and justify its self-appointed role as policeman of the world.

WASHINGTON'S ERRONEOUS VIEW THAT THE PERSIAN GULF IS AN AMERICAN LAKE – THE ROOT OF SUNNI JIHADISM

The actual terrorist threat has arisen from the Sunni, not the Shiite, side of the Islamic divide. But that, in turn, is largely of Washington's own making; and it is being nurtured by endless US meddling in the region's politics and by the bombing and droning campaigns against Washington's self-created enemies.

At the root of Sunni-based terrorism is the long-standing Washington error that America's security and economic well-being depend upon keeping an armada in the Persian Gulf in order to protect the surrounding oil fields and the flow of tankers through the straits of Hormuz.

That doctrine has been wrong from the day it was officially enunciated by one of America's great economic ignoramuses, Henry Kissinger, at the time of the original oil crisis in 1973. The 46 years since then have proven in spades that it doesn't matter who controls the oil fields, and that the only effective cure for high oil prices is the free market.

Every tin pot dictatorship from Libya's Muammar Gaddafi, to Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, to Saddam Hussein, to the bloody-minded chieftains of Nigeria, to the purportedly medieval mullahs and fanatical revolutionary guards of Iran has produced oil – and all they could because they desperately needed the revenue.

For crying out loud, even while the barbaric thugs of ISIS were briefly in power in eastern Syria, they milked every possible drop of petroleum from the tiny, wheezing oil fields scattered around their backwater domain. So there is no economic case whatsoever for Imperial Washington's massive military presence in the Middle East.

The truth is, there is no such thing as an OPEC cartel – virtually every member produces all they can and cheats whenever possible. The only thing that resembles production control in the global oil market is the fact that the Saudi princes treat their oil reserves not much differently than Exxon.

That is, they attempt to maximize the present value of their 270 billion barrels of reserves, but ultimately are no more clairvoyant at calibrating the best oil price to accomplish that than are the economists at Exxon or the International Energy Agency.

During the last decade, for example, the Saudis have repeatedly underestimated how rapidly and extensively the $100-per-barrel marker reached in early 2008 and again in 2014 would trigger a flow of investment, technology and cheap debt into the US shale patch, the Canadian tar sands, the tired petroleum provinces of Russia, the deep waters offshore Brazil and the like. And that's to say nothing of solar, wind and all the other government-subsidized alternative sources of BTUs.

Way back when Jimmy Carter was telling us to turn down the thermostats and put on our cardigan sweaters, those of us in Congress on the free market side of the so-called energy-shortage debate said that high oil prices would bring about their own cure. Now we know.

So the Fifth Fleet and its overt and covert auxiliaries should never have been there – going all the way back to the CIA's coup against Iranian democracy in 1953.

But having turned Iran into an enemy, Imperial Washington was just getting started when 1990 rolled around. Once again in the name of "oil security" it plunged the American war machine into the politics and religious fissures of the Persian Gulf, and did so on account of the above referenced small-potatoes conflict that had no bearing whatsoever on the safety and security of American citizens.

As US Ambassador Glaspie rightly told Saddam Hussein on the eve of Hussein's Kuwait invasion, America had no dog in that hunt.

Kuwait wasn't even a country; it was a bank account sitting on a swath of oil fields surrounding an ancient trading city that had been abandoned by Ibn Saud in the early 20th century. That's because Saud didn't know what oil was or that it was there; and in any event, it had been made a separate protectorate by the British in 1913 for reasons that are lost in the fog of diplomatic history.

Likewise, Iraq's contentious dispute with Kuwait had been over its claim that the emir of Kuwait was "slant drilling" across his border into Iraq's Rumaila field. Yet it was a wholly elastic boundary of no significance whatsoever.

In fact, the dispute over the Rumaila field started in 1960 when an Arab League declaration arbitrarily marked the Iraq – Kuwait border two miles north of the southernmost tip of the Rumaila field.

And that newly defined boundary, in turn, had come only 44 years after a pair of English and French diplomats had carved up their winnings from the Ottoman Empire's demise by laying a straight-edged ruler on the map. In so doing, they thereby confected the artificial country of "Iraq" from the historically independent and hostile Mesopotamian provinces of the Shiites in the South, the Sunnis in the West and the Kurds in the North.

In short, it did not matter who controlled the southern tip of the Rumaila field – the brutal dictator of Baghdad or the opulent emir of Kuwait. Neither the price of oil, nor the peace of America, nor the security of Europe nor the future of Asia depended upon it.

THE FIRST GULF WAR – A CATASTROPHIC ERROR

But once again Bush the Elder got persuaded to take the path of war. This time it was by Henry Kissinger's economically illiterate protégés at the National Security Council and Bush's Texas oilman secretary of state. They falsely claimed that the will-o'-the-wisp of "oil security" was at stake, and that 500,000 American troops needed to be planted in the sands of Arabia.

That was a catastrophic error, and not only because the presence of "crusader" boots on the purportedly sacred soil of Arabia offended the CIA-trained mujahedeen of Afghanistan, who had become unemployed when the Soviet Union collapsed.

The 1991 CNN-glorified war games in the Gulf also further empowered another group of unemployed crusaders. Namely, the neocon national-security fanatics who had misled Ronald Reagan into a massive military buildup to thwart what they claimed to be an ascendant Soviet Union bent on nuclear-war-winning capabilities and global conquest.

All things being equal, the sight of Boris Yeltsin, vodka flask in hand, facing down the Red Army a few months later should have sent the neocons into the permanent disrepute and obscurity they so richly deserved. But Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz managed to extract from Washington's Pyrrhic victory in Kuwait a whole new lease on life for Imperial Washington.

Right then and there came the second erroneous predicate – to wit, that "regime change" among the assorted tyrannies of the Middle East was in America's national interest.

More fatally, the neocons now insisted that the first Gulf War proved it could be achieved through a sweeping interventionist menu of coalition diplomacy, security assistance, arms shipments, covert action and open military attack and occupation.

What the neocon doctrine of regime change actually did, of course, was to foster the Frankenstein that ultimately became ISIS. In fact, the only real terrorists in the world who threaten normal civilian life in the West are the rogue offspring of Imperial Washington's post-1990 machinations in the Middle East.

The CIA-trained and CIA-armed mujahedeen mutated into al-Qaeda not because bin Laden suddenly had a religious epiphany that his Washington benefactors were actually the Great Satan owing to America's freedom and liberty.

His murderous crusade was inspired by the Wahhabi fundamentalism loose in Saudi Arabia. This benighted religious fanaticism became agitated to a fever pitch by Imperial Washington's violent plunge into Persian Gulf political and religious quarrels, the stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia, and the decade-long barrage of sanctions, embargoes, no-fly zones, covert actions and open hostility against the Sunni regime in Baghdad after 1991.

Yes, bin Laden would have amputated Saddam's secularist head if Washington hadn't done it first, but that's just the point. The attempt at regime change in March 2003 was one of the most foolish acts of state in American history.

Bush the Younger's neocon advisers had no clue about the sectarian animosities and historical grievances that Hussein had bottled up by parsing the oil loot and wielding the sword under the banner of Baathist nationalism. But shock and awe blew the lid and the de-Baathification campaign unleashed the furies.

Indeed, no sooner had George Bush pranced around on the deck of the Abraham Lincoln declaring "mission accomplished" than Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a CIA recruit to the Afghan war a decade earlier and smalltime specialist in hostage taking and poisons, fled his no-count redoubt in Kurdistan to emerge as a flamboyant agitator in the now-dispossessed Sunni heartland.

The founder of ISIS succeeded in Fallujah and Anbar province just like the long list of other terrorist leaders Washington claims to have exterminated. That is, Zarqawi gained his following and notoriety among the region's population of deprived, brutalized and humiliated young men by dint of being more brutal than their occupiers.

Indeed, even as Washington was crowing about the demise of Zarqawi, the remnants of the Baathist regime and the hundreds of thousands of demobilized republican guards were coalescing into al-Qaeda in Iraq, and their future leaders were being incubated in a monstrous nearby detention center called Camp Bucca that contained more than 26,000 prisoners.

As one former U.S. Army officer, Mitchell Gray, later described it,

"You never see hatred like you saw on the faces of these detainees," Gray remembers of his 2008 tour. "When I say they hated us, I mean they looked like they would have killed us in a heartbeat if given the chance. I turned to the warrant officer I was with and I said, 'If they could, they would rip our heads off and drink our blood.

What Gray didn't know – but might have expected – was that he was not merely looking at the United States' former enemies, but its future ones as well. According to intelligence experts and Department of Defense records, the vast majority of the leadership of what is today known as ISIS, including its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, did time at Camp Bucca.

And not only did the US feed, clothe and house these jihadists, it also played a vital, if unwitting, role in facilitating their transformation into the most formidable terrorist force in modern history.

Early in Bucca's existence, the most extreme inmates were congregated in Compound 6. There were not enough Americans guards to safely enter the compound – and, in any event, the guards didn't speak Arabic. So the detainees were left alone to preach to one another and share deadly vocational advice . . .

Bucca also housed Haji Bakr, a former colonel in Saddam Hussein's air-defense force. Bakr was no religious zealot. He was just a guy who lost his job when the Coalition Provisional Authority disbanded the Iraqi military and instituted de-Baathification, a policy of banning Saddam's past supporters from government work.

According to documents recently obtained by German newspaper Der Spiegel, Bakr was the real mastermind behind ISIS's organizational structure and also mapped out the strategies that fueled its early successes. Bakr, who died in fighting in 2014, was incarcerated at Bucca from 2006-' 08, along with a dozen or more of ISIS's top lieutenants."

The point is, regime change and nation building can never be accomplished by the lethal violence of 21st-century armed forces; and they were an especially preposterous assignment in the context of a land rent with 13-century-old religious fissures and animosities.

In fact, the wobbly, synthetic state of Iraq was doomed the minute Cheney and his bloody gang decided to liberate it from the brutal but serviceable and secular tyranny of Saddam's Baathist regime. That's because the process of elections and majority rule necessarily imposed by Washington was guaranteed to elect a government beholden to the Shiite majority .

After decades of mistreatment and Saddam's brutal suppression of their 1991 uprising, did the latter have revenge on their minds and in their communal DNA? Did the Kurds have dreams of an independent Kurdistan spilling into Turkey and Syria that had been denied their 30-million-strong tribe way back at Versailles and ever since?

Yes, they did. So the $25 billion spent on training and equipping the putative armed forces of post-liberation Iraq was bound to end up in the hands of sectarian militias, not a national army.

In fact, when the Shiite commanders fled Sunni-dominated Mosul in June 2014 they transformed the ISIS uprising against the government in Baghdad into a vicious fledgling state in one fell swoop. But it wasn't by beheadings and fiery jihadist sermons that it quickly enslaved dozens of towns and several million people in western Iraq and the Euphrates Valley of Syria.

THE ISLAMIC STATE WAS WASHINGTON'S VERY OWN FRANKENSTEIN

To the contrary, its instruments of terror and occupation were the best weapons that the American taxpayers could buy. That included 2,300 Humvees and tens of thousands of automatic weapons, as well as vast stores of ammunition, trucks, rockets, artillery pieces and even tanks and helicopters.

And that wasn't the half of it. The Islamic State also filled the power vacuum in Syria created by its so-called civil war. But in truth that was another exercise in Washington-inspired and Washington-financed regime change undertaken in connivance with Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

The princes of the petro-states were surely not interested in expelling the tyranny next door. Instead, the rebellion was about removing Iran's Alawite/Shiite ally from power in Damascus and laying the gas pipelines to Europe – which Assad had vetoed – across the upper Euphrates Valley.

In any event, due to Washington's regime change policy in Syria, ISIS soon had even more troves of American weapons. Some of them were supplied to Sunni radicals by way of Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

More came up the so-called ratline from Gaddafi's former arsenals in Benghazi through Turkey. And still more came through Jordan from the "moderate" opposition trained there by the CIA, which more often than not sold them or defected to the other side.

So, that the Islamic State was Washington's Frankenstein monster became evident from the moment it rushed upon the scene in mid 2014. But even then the Washington War Party could not resist adding fuel to the fire, whooping up another round of Islamophobia among the American public and forcing the Obama White House into a futile bombing campaign for the third time in a quarter century.

But the short-lived Islamic State was never a real threat to America's homeland security.

The dusty, broken, impoverished towns and villages along the margins of the Euphrates River and in the bombed-out precincts of Anbar province did not attract thousands of wannabe jihadists from the failed states of the Middle East and the alienated Muslim townships of Europe because the caliphate offered prosperity, salvation or any future at all.

What recruited them was outrage at the bombs and drones dropped on Sunni communities by the US Air Force and by the cruise missiles launched from the bowels of the Mediterranean that ripped apart homes, shops, offices and mosques which mostly contained as many innocent civilians as ISIS terrorists.

The truth is, the Islamic State was destined for a short half-life anyway. It had been contained by the Kurds in the North and East and by Turkey with NATO's second-largest army and air force in the Northwest. And it was further surrounded by the Shiite Crescent in the populated, economically viable regions of lower Syria and Iraq.

Absent Washington's misbegotten campaign to unseat Assad in Damascus and demonize his confession-based Iranian ally, there would have been nowhere for the murderous fanatics who had pitched a makeshift capital in Raqqa to go. They would have run out of money, recruits, momentum and public acquiescence in their horrific rule in any event.

But with the US Air Force functioning as their recruiting arm and France's anti-Assad foreign policy helping to foment a final spasm of anarchy in Syria, the gates of hell had been opened wide, unnecessarily.

What has been puked out was not an organized war on Western civilization as former French president Hollande so hysterically proclaimed in response to one of the predictable terrorist episodes of mayhem in Paris.

It was just blowback carried out by that infinitesimally small contingent of mentally deformed young men who can be persuaded to strap on a suicide belt.

In any event, bombing did not defeat ISIS; it just temporarily made more of them.

Ironically, what did extinguish the Islamic State was the Assad government, the Russian air force invited into Syria by its official government and the ground forces of its Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard allies. It was they who settled an ancient quarrel that had never been any of America's business anyway.

But Imperial Washington was so caught up in its myths, lies and hegemonic stupidity that it could not see the obvious. Accordingly, 28 years after the Cold War ended and several years after Syria and friends extinguished the Islamic State, Washington has learned no lessons. The American Imperium still stalks the planet for new monsters to destroy.

And that's why there is still no peace on earth 28 years after it should have broken out, as did the Christmas Truce of 1914.

David Stockman was a two-term Congressman from Michigan. He was also the Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan. After leaving the White House, Stockman had a 20-year career on Wall Street. He's the author of three books, The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed , The Great Deformation: The Corruption of Capitalism in America and TRUMPED! A Nation on the Brink of Ruin And How to Bring It Back . He also is founder of David Stockman's Contra Corner and David Stockman's Bubble Finance Trader .

[Jan 05, 2020] It appears that 2020 has got off to a hot start with Golf Cart Goofy been played by neocons again

Jan 05, 2020 | off-guardian.org

Antonym ,

BTL the usual misdirection pointing just to Israel; never are the Sunni Arab oil sheiks in the picture:
blinded by anti Zionism. The Gulf rulers love this aspect best.

Israel has little to offer to the US military-industrial complex except being an unsinkable aircraft carrier.

The Sunni Arab oil sheiks on the other hand have massive amount of cash and oil reserves, just what the US dollar needs to keep on floating against financial gravity.

With the Shia Iranian power exports as bogey these few individuals are also great clients for the Anglo protection racket. Iran is more about mass movements, hard to be a wise guy for.

Brianeg ,

I am as perplexed as anybody over the assassination of Soleimani, seeing no tactical advantage and in fact serious disadvantages and dangers.

I can add little to the excellent article and excellent comments except to say that last year, I saw a documentary about Soleimani and I felt at the time, he was perhaps the only person that might bring peace to the whole of the Middle East and it may be for that reason somebody thought he was dangerous and had to go.

At the very least, the Iraqi Government have now been given the chance to kick America and NATO out of Iraq and maybe Syria as well. With that in mind, I am sure that MSM will then say that this is all a Russian plot. I am sure that Pompeo's flight to Kazakstan is perhaps to prepare an air base if a rapid Vietnam style evacuation needs to occur.

The options left open for America, NATO and Israel are fairly limited to remote offshore missile attacks as any form of close engagement against battle hardened troops when your own forces have only experience against unarmed civilians and forces only armed with small arms would be fraught with danger. I am sure that Trump's advisers and their experience of playing war games on their computers might think differently.

As for a major missile strike like that after Douma when only a handful of rockets hit their targets especially as Syria did not have the latest anti missile systems, there is a likelihood that not one might reach its target.

2020 is shaping up to become a very interesting year and by its end destined to become a very changed world.

Trump's actions appear to be that of a very poor gambler trying to take desperate measures to improve his luck. I believe Hitler had great faith in his astrologer, does Trump use one?

richard le sarc ,

I rather see Israel, ie Bibi behind this. It is a diversion from his corruption crisis, it is pure Talmudism, with its murder of Israel's 'enemies', and it brings forward the prospect of 'obliterating' 'Persia' in a New Purim that would cement Bibi's place as a 'King of Israel' for all time ie a few more years. I really think that assuming that the architects of this action are rational and sane, when they are mad, bad, dangerous to know and infinitely blood-thirsty, is mistaken.

adlskfj ,

Ah, didn't take long to see Off Guardian's never ending commitment to the most vile President in US history, and that's saying a lot. The Deep State made him do it!!!!!!!!!!!!

So did the Deep State direct this fascist, racist, misogynist, jerk of epic proportions Trump to pimp for war against Iran during his campaign? Can't see from this jerk's body language that he sees himself as a "tough guy". Did the Deep State force him to take on super neocon ex CIA director Woolsey as a foreign policy advisor during his campaign, or force him to suck up to the State of Israel in an AIPAC speech outdoing Clinton's, or suck up to the House of Saud bragging about arms sales with an effing poster, or force him to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem, or force him to increase military operations in the ME including new rules of engagement making it easier for US troops to slaughter civilians, or force him to attack the Syrian regime, or force him to commit to "take the oil", or force him to name torture queen Haspel to direct the CIA, or force him to nominate an oil tycoon as Secretary of State then replace him with torture advocate ex CIA director Pompeo, or force him to re-initiate and increase military hardware from war zones going to police departments, and the sorry list goes on that OG and other compromised "leftists" regard poor Trump being forced to do by the Deep State.

But the Deep State made him do it!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OG just loves their Trump, but likely not as much as the Deep State.

paul ,

I think like many people you are partly blinded by an understandable hatred of Trump.
I hold no brief for him, except to say Clinton would have been even worse.

But people trying to make sense of the latest ill starred US foreign policy adventure only need to understand two things.
1. The complete Zionist stranglehold over US politics and media.
2. The character of the political leadership in the US (and its satellites.)

1. From a Zionist point of view, Iraq, Libya and Syria (to a lesser extent) are all a rip roaring success. The first two are failed states that have been bombed back to the Stone Age. Syria is only slightly better off. Iran is unfinished business, the last major target on the Zionist hit list. All of this achieved by the US and its satellites providing all the money and the muscle.

2. US and western leadership in general is abysmal, the worst in its history. Arrogant, venal, corrupt, irredeemably ignorant, delusional, and ideologically driven, buying in to its own exceptionalist propaganda.

You cannot expect policies or programmes adopted to be in any way rational or coherent. What passes for an administration in the Trump Circus consists largely of competing, mutually antagonistic factions and fiefdoms, each pursuing their own objectives and generally fighting like rats in a sack. Trump is far from a dictator. He is more like a bewildered bystander presiding over what is at best a chaotic turf war.

This is not to absolve Trump of responsibility -- if he is incapable of asserting his authority, he simply shouldn't be there. But people like Bolton and others were foisted upon him at the behest of Adelson and Zionist interests. Bolton was openly trying to undermine him in North Korea and elsewhere. There are many other similar examples. Seditious and mutinous spooks and dirty cops were conspiring to unseat him even before he was elected.

In Syria, the Pentagon, the CIA, and the State Department were all following their own competing agendas, sponsoring different terrorist groups, following different objectives. Mid level bureaucrats like Vindman and Ioanovitch in all three organisations felt perfectly entitled to formulate and implement their own preferred policies, without any reference to the White House.

I don't see much to admire in Trump. But apart from some coarse and bumptious behaviour, how does he differ from Obomber or Dubya? It's a mistake to go down the MSM rabbit hole of seeing everything in terms of personalities.

Martin Usher ,

Trump hasn't shown much interest in geography unless its somewhere he can put a casino so I doubt if he really understood the implications of what he's been encouraged to do. This action isn't Trump's, it most likely Pompero (who I find amusing in his 'who me' type innocence when he complains that the world isn't lining up behind the US, its just the usual roll of toadies).

The "Deep State" isn't really a thing, its all of us, its the way that we've been trained from birth to think in terms of American exceptionalism and Cold War rivalry. Its thousands of people doing their jobs to the best of their ability and as Hannah Arendt pointed out in her essay on the Banality of Evil these people are able to be the very best or very worst depending on how they're led and used. To that end the article in the Guardian proper is very telling and points to something that needs significant investigation .

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/04/cambridge-analytica-data-leak-global-election-manipulation

RobG ,

"clever geopolitical chess"

I would say that it's something much lower down the evolutionary chain than that: these people are all criminal psychopaths -- or if you want a more polite term: batshit crazies.

[Jan 05, 2020] Soleimani murder developing narrative OffGuardian

Notable quotes:
"... 1. Increasing tensions serves the interests of the military-industrial complex – US military spending has increased enormously, and without enough tensions, there may be a "danger" that military spending will be cut in the future. Of course, this increased military spending is only in the interest of a small minority – but it is a very influential minority that spends a lot of money on politicians. ..."
"... It sounds as if his enemies in the Pentagon and the Intelligence Agencies have tricked Trump perhaps by not telling him who the target was going to be? ..."
"... You are being sidetracked by personalities. "If only we had Obama/ Reagan/ Whoever back, everything would be fine." It wouldn't. Whoever is occupying the Oval Office, whether it's Trump/ Creepy Joe Biden/ Buttplug/ Pocahontas or some other cretin, it's just another monkey dancing to the tune of the same organ grinder. ..."
"... No capitalist regime, particularly the neo-liberal type, can ever even remotely resemble a 'democracy' of any type. ..."
Jan 05, 2020 | off-guardian.org

Admin Catte Black

Mourners surround a car carrying the coffins of Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani and Iraqi paramilitary chief Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, killed in a US air strike. (Photo by SABAH ARAR / AFP)

The dust is settling somewhat over the latest and strangest act of imperial hubris in the Middle East, and a few things are becoming clearer – though no less strange.

Trump held a slightly bizarre presser at his vacation resort in Florida, wherein he tried to assure the media he had no wish to provoke either war with or regime change in Iran, saying

We took action last night to stop a war. We do not take action to start a war."

Even the slavering warhound, Pompeo was taking a more conciliatory tone, and the word 'de-escalation' began featuring prominently in his Twitter feed.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and I discussed the decisive defensive action @realDonaldTrump employed in Baghdad to protect American lives. I emphasized that de-escalation is the United States' principal goal.

-- Secretary Pompeo (@SecPompeo) January 3, 2020

In my conversation today with @masrour_barzani , we discussed yesterday's defensive action and our commitment to de-escalation. I thanked him for his steadfast partnership. We agreed on the need for continued, close cooperation.

-- Secretary Pompeo (@SecPompeo) January 3, 2020

UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab , is also urging "all parties de-escalate" – for what that's worth.

At the same time early claims by the Iraqi Popular Mobilisation Force (PMF) that the US had launched another air strike against them north of Baghdad were later retracted. According to RT:

The Iraqi Army, however, later denied that an airstrike took place there. In a statement quoted by local media, the military urged everyone to be "careful" about spreading unverified information and "rumors" in the future.

Some of this implies an attempt on both sides (Iraq and the US at least) to pull back. But while this may be welcome it does nothing to explain why the US administration escalated in the first place, in what still looks like a suicidally self-defeating move.

What is the empire up to at this point? Does it have a plan? is it coherent? is it even sane?

The Saker took a look yesterday at The Soleimani murder – what could happen next . He thinks, as he has said before, that Trump is regarded as a disposable asset by his Deep State handlers and is being used as a front man for risky policy actions that he can be scapegoated for if/when they go wrong:

I have always claimed that Donald Trump is a "disposable President" for the Neocons. What do I mean by that? I mean that the Neocons have used Trump to do all sorts of truly fantastically dumb things (pretty much ALL his policy decisions towards Israel and/or Syria) for a very simple reason. If Trump does something extremely dumb and dangerous, he will either get away with it, in which case the Neocons will be happy, or he will either fail or the consequences of his decisions will be catastrophic, at which point the Neocons will jettison him and replace him by an even more subservient individual (say Pence or Pelosi). In other words, for the Neocons to have Trump do something both fantastically dangerous and fantastically stupid is a win-win situation!

I tend to agree with this. When Clinton was dumped last minute as POTUS (too crazy, too weird), and the Deep State pivoted to Trump, it was clear from very early on he – the unwanted outsider – was going to be used just as Saker says, as a handy scapegoat; and it's interesting to note in this regard that he is indeed being blamed in many places today (Spiked , the Guardian etc), as the sole architect of the Soleimani murder.

That he is in any way solely, or even directly, responsible is of course vanishingly improbable. US presidents don't, in real terms, have that kind of power now, if they ever did. It's far more likely Trump just rubber stamped an action urged by Pompeo and his war-crazed backers, or even that he only knew about it after it was done.

But that's just detail. The fact Trump is being scapegoated implies that – at least for now – those really responsible are backtracking and thinking better of the venture.

But what was the venture? What the desired outcome? No one seems to have a very satisfactory answer to that right now.

As we said yesterday, war with Iran has been the auto-erotic fixation for the hardcore war nuts in Washington for years, and imminent confrontation has been predicted regularly since at least 2005.

But it's never become a reality because the non-crazies in Washington know the risks outweigh the benefits for US interests.

Sure, we know in recent times the Trump administration has been ramping up the tensions again. Tearing up the nuclear deal, re-imposing sanctions, sabre-rattling, making threats. But this has all been within the familiar framework that always just stops short of actual conflict.

The murder of Soleimani is orders of magnitude beyond anything they have ever risked before. Good analysts like the Saker and Moon of Alabama have pointed out that the US has basically defeated its own aims, all but destroyed itself in the region. In MoA's words:

The U.S. has won nothing with its attack but will feel the consequences for decades to come. From now on its position in the Middle East will be severely constrained. Others will move in to take its place.

Even if this turns out too dire and sweeping a prediction, the truth still is clear that the US have apparently gained nothing from this venture and lost a great deal.

Of course both the US and Israel now have carte blanche to stage as much false flag 'terrorism' as they want and blame it on Iranian 'revenge'. Whatever else happens, we can almost certainly look forward to some of that.

And, there is the bonus of being able to drive the US homeland even further toward fascism in the guise of 'preparing' for new waves of terror attacks. The Mayor of New York is already doing his own narrative preparation for this, claiming, per the Jerusalem Post that

We have to assume this action puts us in a de facto state of war

But all this seems small gains for massive losses. The question 'what were you thinking?' hangs there, currently unanswered. If this was clever geopolitical chess it's currently so deep as to defeat all analysis.

Claims that the US is just doing Israel's bidding don't even cut it. If the US loses its hold on the ME as a result of an ill-judged war with Iran, how will this benefit Israel? Does it believe it can inherit the imperial mantle? If so, it's deluded. Without US protection Israel would not last long in its current form.

Some have suggested it's a 'clever' plot to hike up oil prices. But really? There are much lower risk ways of doing that than launching a war and forcing Iran to close the Straits of Hormuz.

The QAnon crowd have even suggested it's an ultra smart way of getting the US out of Iraq. Well, we have to admit that could be the result. But does anyone really believe that was the plan?

No one has yet, to my knowledge, put out the US simply goofed and are now desperately trying to cover themselves – but that is at least as likely as some of the above.

The major question really though is – will this backtracking and odd claims of wanting de-escalation actually do anything to de-escalate? Will it persuade Iran not to seek retaliation, supposing this is now what Pompeo et al want?

Currently the answer to that looks like a 'no.' In fact Iran has just now issued a list of potential retaliation targets related to the US. Even if this is mostly posturing, it's hard to see how Iran can avoid some form of response to this heinous act of frank terrorism. Even if the US administration's 'de-escalation' stance is genuine, it may well be pointless.

And how long will the US remain in a 'de-escalation' mindset anyhow? It's become a commonplace to describe US foreign policy as 'insane', and it's an apposite description. But the murder of Soleimani takes the evident insanity to new and self-defeating levels.

Who can say what the empire's next moves will be in the coming days or weeks? More utterly lunatic 'defensive' missile strikes are entirely possible.

And at that point all bets will be off.

Facebook Twitter Reddit Pinterest WhatsApp vKontakte Email Filed under: featured , Iran , latest , terrorism , United States Tagged with: Catte Black , Dominic Raab , Donald trump , Mike Pompeo , Moon of Alabama , The Saker

Tutisicecream ,

A developing narrative indeed Catte.

It appears that 2020 has got off to a shit hot start with Golf Cart Goofy been slipped the Turd Doctrine engineered by Bolt-on brain, the deranged psychopath of Washington. From sleepy hollow the message went out to shoot first and let the policy slide along afterwards. How are the people of the land of the free going to swallow this piece of fascist wrangling?

Meanwhile in old Blighty Johnson has not even had chance to sober up from the New Year bash with his Russian friend and patron, Евгений Лебедев – bringing a whole new meaning to the phrase going down the swanee. Who said Russians don't interfere in elections? Well those with British golden passports at any rate

Antonym ,

BTL the usual misdirection pointing just to Israel; never are the Sunni Arab oil sheiks in the picture:
blinded by anti Zionism. The Gulf rulers love this aspect best.
Israel has little to offer to the US military-industrial complex except being an unsinkable aircraft carrier. The Sunni Arab oil sheiks on the other hand have massive amount of cash and oil reserves, just what the US dollar needs to keep on floating against financial gravity. With the Shia Iranian power exports as bogey these few individuals are also great clients for the Anglo protection racket. Iran is more about mass movements, hard to be a wise guy for.

Jo ,

Thanks for this. I've dodged all news since I first heard about the assassination but my initial thoughts concerned the unspeakable Pompeo and Israel. Like the author I found it absurd that Trump had personally engineered this.

On the idea that Pompeo now wants to row back, I'm not convinced. Sorry to provide a Guardian link but I saw this earlier and it seems he's scolding mainland Europe and the UK for not being more "supportive" of his insanity.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/04/mike-pompeo-european-response-to-suleimani-killing

Brianeg ,

I am as perplexed as anybody over the assassination of Soleimani, seeing no tactical advantage and in fact serious disadvantages and dangers.

I can add little to the excellent article and excellent comments except to say that last year, I saw a documentary about Soleimani and I felt at the time, he was perhaps the only person that might bring peace to the whole of the Middle East and it may be for that reason somebody thought he was dangerous and had to go.

At the very least, the Iraqi Government have now been given the chance to kick America and NATO out of Iraq and maybe Syria as well. With that in mind, I am sure that MSM will then say that this is all a Russian plot. I am sure that Pompeo's flight to Kazakstan is perhaps to prepare an air base if a rapid Vietnam style evacuation needs to occur.

The options left open for America, NATO and Israel are fairly limited to remote offshore missile attacks as any form of close engagement against battle hardened troops when your own forces have only experience against unarmed civilians and forces only armed with small arms would be fraught with danger. I am sure that Trump's advisers and their experience of playing war games on their computers might think differently.

As for a major missile strike like that after Douma when only a handful of rockets hit their targets especially as Syria did not have the latest anti missile systems, there is a likelihood that not one might reach its target.

2020 is shaping up to become a very interesting year and by its end destined to become a very changed world.

Trump's actions appear to be that of a very poor gambler trying to take desperate measures to improve his luck. I believe Hitler had great faith in his astrologer, does Trump use one?

David Macilwain ,

I'm less optimistic Catte – the claims to want deescalation come from those who just escalated, in a calculated and well planned act of war, in which I believe the UK and Australia were already well briefed. I would also venture, as suggested in "Official Secrets and Lies" – that Pompeo's demand that Corbyn would not be PM was making sure that there would be no anti-war PM in the UK in the new year, when the launching of the next decade of the war of terror would take place – so timely on 01.02.2020. Do we not remember that the attack on Iraq was planned months in advance, and launched – allegedly – at 20.30 on 20.03.2003?

And surely also, the faked killing of Baghdadi was part of this planning, as he had to be out of the way, specially nowhere near AL Qaim/Baghouz, for the killing of Soleimani to be possible. Truly it is the evil empire, with all that this includes, and Trump like a pimple waiting to burst sitting on top of the rotten pile.

Estaugh ,

Found this informative,. https://www.anti-empire.com/podcast-scott-horton-on-trumps-assassination-of-soleimani/

Harry Stotle ,

According to our Emily WMDs and the blood bath that followed in Iraq was all just a 'mistake'.

Sickening pontificating from her in the Guardian about how it is bad to murder people (without just cause) apparently oblivious to the fact her own party committed Britan to an illegal war without a shred of evidence that Saddam Hussein was a threat to our national security.

I held my nose and read her article – not a single word about Tony Blair, or the fact that the quagmire in the Middle East (as she describes it) was largely a result of NuLabour's love in with US neonazis.

People like Thornberry seem to be utterly devoid of even the most primitive form of decency.

She finishes her turdburger by saying 'Whoever becomes Labour's new leader, they need to have the strength, experience and knowledge to lead parliament in fighting back against Britain becoming embroiled in this disastrous drift to war.'
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/04/i-have-no-confidence-boris-johnson-will-keep-us-out-of-quagmire-in-iran

Oh, the fucking irony.

Dungroanin ,

O/T Ha ha – Integrity Initiative codswallop has landed with added rusty iron on Cambridge Analytica election meddling ! Guess what it only seems to be about Trump 2016 and Trump 2020!

Ah needed that laugh back to Armeggedon Now watch.

richard le sarc ,

I rather see Israel, ie Bibi behind this. It is a diversion from his corruption crisis, it is pure Talmudism, with its murder of Israel's 'enemies', and it brings forward the prospect of 'obliterating' 'Persia' in a New Purim that would cement Bibi's place as a 'King of Israel' for all time ie a few more years. I really think that assuming that the architects of this action are rational and sane, when they are mad, bad, dangerous to know and infinitely blood-thirsty, is mistaken.

RobG ,

Also:

Iraqi air base housing US troops comes under rocket fire north of Baghdad

If true, these reports are to be expected, because it wasn't just Qassem Suleimani who was assassinated by the American psychopaths, but also the Iraqi militia leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis.

If the reports are true, it's quite expected, yet it has nothing to do with Iranian retaliation.

Iranian retaliation will be coming sometime in the future; and you might need to hold your hats when that happens.

I haven't looked at the bookmakers with regard to all this. It will be interesting to see what odds they are now giving on Trump being re-elected.

RobG ,

Rockets land close to US Embassy in Baghdad, no known casualties – military

I've no idea of the veracity of this report. There was a similar report on Friday that turned out to be untrue.

adlskfj ,

Ah, didn't take long to see Off Guardian's never ending commitment to the most vile President in US history, and that's saying a lot. The Deep State made him do it!!!!!!!!!!!!

So did the Deep State direct this fascist, racist, misogynist, jerk of epic proportions Trump to pimp for war against Iran during his campaign? Can't see from this jerk's body language that he sees himself as a "tough guy". Did the Deep State force him to take on super neocon ex CIA director Woolsey as a foreign policy advisor during his campaign, or force him to suck up to the State of Israel in an AIPAC speech outdoing Clinton's, or suck up to the House of Saud bragging about arms sales with an effing poster, or force him to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem, or force him to increase military operations in the ME including new rules of engagement making it easier for US troops to slaughter civilians, or force him to attack the Syrian regime, or force him to commit to "take the oil", or force him to name torture queen Haspel to direct the CIA, or force him to nominate an oil tycoon as Secretary of State then replace him with torture advocate ex CIA director Pompeo, or force him to re-initiate and increase military hardware from war zones going to police departments, and the sorry list goes on that OG and other compromised "leftists" regard poor Trump being forced to do by the Deep State.

But the Deep State made him do it!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OG just loves their Trump, but likely not as much as the Deep State.

paul ,

I think like many people you are partly blinded by an understandable hatred of Trump.
I hold no brief for him, except to say Clinton would have been even worse.

But people trying to make sense of the latest ill starred US foreign policy adventure only need to understand two things.
1. The complete Zionist stranglehold over US politics and media.
2. The character of the political leadership in the US (and its satellites.)

1. From a Zionist point of view, Iraq, Libya and Syria (to a lesser extent) are all a rip roaring success. The first two are failed states that have been bombed back to the Stone Age. Syria is only slightly better off. Iran is unfinished business, the last major target on the Zionist hit list. All of this achieved by the US and its satellites providing all the money and the muscle.

2. US and western leadership in general is abysmal, the worst in its history. Arrogant, venal, corrupt, irredeemably ignorant, delusional, and ideologically driven, buying in to its own exceptionalist propaganda.

You cannot expect policies or programmes adopted to be in any way rational or coherent. What passes for an administration in the Trump Circus consists largely of competing, mutually antagonistic factions and fiefdoms, each pursuing their own objectives and generally fighting like rats in a sack. Trump is far from a dictator. He is more like a bewildered bystander presiding over what is at best a chaotic turf war.

This is not to absolve Trump of responsibility – if he is incapable of asserting his authority, he simply shouldn't be there. But people like Bolton and others were foisted upon him at the behest of Adelson and Zionist interests. Bolton was openly trying to undermine him in North Korea and elsewhere. There are many other similar examples. Seditious and mutinous spooks and dirty cops were conspiring to unseat him even before he was elected.

In Syria, the Pentagon, the CIA, and the State Department were all following their own competing agendas, sponsoring different terrorist groups, following different objectives. Mid level bureaucrats like Vindman and Ioanovitch in all three organisations felt perfectly entitled to formulate and implement their own preferred policies, without any reference to the White House.

I don't see much to admire in Trump. But apart from some coarse and bumptious behaviour, how does he differ from Obomber or Dubya? It's a mistake to go down the MSM rabbit hole of seeing everything in terms of personalities.

Martin Usher ,

Trump hasn't shown much interest in geography unless its somewhere he can put a casino so I doubt if he really understood the implications of what he's been encouraged to do. This action isn't Trump's, it most likely Pompero (who I find amusing in his 'who me' type innocence when he complains that the world isn't lining up behind the US, its just the usual roll of toadies).

The "Deep State" isn't really a thing, its all of us, its the way that we've been trained from birth to think in terms of American exceptionalism and Cold War rivalry. Its thousands of people doing their jobs to the best of their ability and as Hannah Arendt pointed out in her essay on the Banality of Evil these people are able to be the very best or very worst depending on how they're led and used. To that end the article in the Guardian proper is very telling and points to something that needs significant investigation .

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/04/cambridge-analytica-data-leak-global-election-manipulation

RobG ,

"clever geopolitical chess"

I would say that it's something much lower down the evolutionary chain than that: these people are all criminal psychopaths – or if you want a more polite term: batshit crazies.

MASTER OF UNIVE ,

The Social Psychology determinant of Deindividuation allows people to immerse themselves psychologically into the in-group in order to oppose out-groups whether it be along lines of ethnicity against minority ethnic groups or otherwise some other negatively viewed determinant like gender, or age.

Fascists typically join likeminded individuals to fulfill the process of deindividuation into in-groups they perceive to be socially beneficial for reasons of political opposition.

Deindividuation allows the elite to internalize their own social-psychological perspectives to in-group bias of entitlement et cetera. Out-group members are viewed as inferior, and dispossessed of perspective of what it is like to be rich & wealthy in in-group perspective.

Bikers deindividuate into biker gangs of likeminded in-group collective thinking. Out-group is anyone that is not aligned with the in-group binary of identity with the group.
I suspect that human beings somehow imprint on group membership much like Conrad Lorenz found with ducklings & geese whilst studying learning processes.

MOU

jay ,

'merica has been 'attacking' Iran for the last 10 years. It is all smoke and mirrors. Once upon a time there was a CIA fommented coup to overthrow a popular and decent government, placing the Shah in power. Then we had the Islamic Revolution led by the Ayatolah The Ayatolah had been sojourning in Paris presumably enjoying the folies bergere and some tasty charcuterie. Then right on time, He was flown business class by Air France back to Iran.

The NWO and Radical Islam go together like ram-a-lam-ding-dong

The car Soleimani was killed in appears to have been 'exploded' into a block with very little damage to the surrounding area or scorching. A car set on fire by neds in Glasgow makes more mess.

However in a change from the ubiquitous 'mysteriously' appearing passport, we have a deluxe ring that 'identified' Him.
The ring appears to change from one image to another

tonyopmoc ,

jay,

There is other evidence to support this view, admittedly from around 10+ years ago. The Iranians in a Big Blow-Up boat (don't mock our Lifeboat service uses them too to save lives in some of the most hazardous seas – and most of them are unpaid volunteers), stopped a British metal warship, who they claimed had infiltrated Iranian Waters. The Iranians arrested several members of The Royal Navy. The Iranians also arrested the BBC Cameraman, and his Soundman, and took them into the blow-up boat too, and they carried on filming, whilst they took them to jail in Iran.

I p1ssed myself laughing almost immediately, and I don't normally watch TV.

After a few days, The Iranians, let them all go. The Royal Navy said sorry, we won't do it again.

That just had to be a pre-planned set-up between the British and the Iranians.

I suspect neither told the Americans, cos they would f'ck it all up and try to start a war.

Tony

tonyopmoc ,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Iranian_arrest_of_Royal_Navy_personnel

paul ,

The premise of this article is somewhat dubious. The Deep State never "pivoted to Trump." It wanted Clinton, regardless of how crazy and corrupt she was. They have never accepted Trump's presidency.

The spooks and the dirty cops worked tirelessly to undermine his campaign to prevent him being elected. Having failed in this, it did everything possible to sabotage his administration subsequently. It has perpetrated various subversive and treasonous hoaxes, fantasies and conspiracy theories, culminating in the current impeachment circus.

They never tried to make the best of a bad job, from their point of view, to "manage Trump." This has remained constant, no matter how much pandering he does to Zionist interests, or how many trillions he gifts to the military industrial complex. They don't accept him, and never will. They hate him, and they want him dead, or at least in jail, stripped of his businesses and money, and his relatives as well.

Why is this? After all, he's gifted Nuttyyahoo Jerusalem, occupied Syria and the West Bank. The current military budget (true figure) is $1,134 billion. You might think that would cut him a bit of slack.

It's because he upset the apple cart for the Zionist interests who rule the roost in Washington.
Clinton was supposed to take over and implement their programme.
Syria was supposed to have been destroyed now, and Assad dead.
The war with Iran was supposed to have been begun long ago.
But Trump failed to deliver.
The tentative peace feelers being put out to Russia (because he was more concerned about China) enraged that same dual national constituency with their visceral hatred of Russia.

And this is so much more the case because those same interests realise they are working under time pressure. This may be their last chance. America is declining rapidly. The Zionist stranglehold that has taken a century to achieve is a declining asset. And the parasite may find it difficult to find another host.
Is Russia going to give Israel billions of dollars and unlimited free weaponry every year? Will Chinese troops be "happy to die for Israel" as US ones are (at least according to their general?

Trump may have been dragged along on the coat tails of the dual nationals and their goy stooges, rabid religious nut jobs like Pence and Pompeo. But if Trump is hoping to row things back, he is likely to be disappointed. Iran has to respond decisively, or else give a green light to endless similar (and worse) provocations by the Boltons and the Netanyahus, like Israel in Syria. It cannot afford to show any weakness. And when the retaliation comes, Trump will not get away with bombing some empty airfield.

Gall ,

The problem is not just the AIPAC and JINSA which long since should have been labeled Foreign Agents under FARA but the Christian Zionist nutballs who are banking on Armageddon so that they can be raptured off to heaven while all of us are turned into radioactive toast.

paul ,

Yes, that includes Pence, Pompeo, Hagee, and (according to some claims) 40 million of the Exceptional and Indispensable Folk.

richard le sarc ,

The USA these days is like one of those zombie ants, infected with a toxic fungus, Ziophilia prostatens, that takes over its brain, and makes it climb up a branch, so that, when the fungus explodes from its dead body, its spores can drift further away. Or, even better, the toxic protozoon, Toxoplasma gondii, that, when it infects rats, makes them suicidally unafraid of cats, they get eaten, and the protozoon goes forth, distributed through the cat's faeces. I suppose we could call the infection controlling the minds of the Washington detritus and making them genocidal as well as suicidal a 'protozion', for easy identification.

Gezzah Potts ,

You nail it. Israel provided co ordinates for Soleimani's whereabouts, Trump, in his sheer stupidity, did the deed.
And now payback is coming. And it's likely to escalate into a massive war.
Ridiculous ABC doing their little bit for Empire and the 'fight for freedom' .
More airstrikes on a PMU base on the Iraq-Syria border earlier today, another 5 killed.
One guess who was responsible. Fecken insanity.

Adrian E. ,

I think the following two explanations are most plausible:

1. Increasing tensions serves the interests of the military-industrial complex – US military spending has increased enormously, and without enough tensions, there may be a "danger" that military spending will be cut in the future. Of course, this increased military spending is only in the interest of a small minority – but it is a very influential minority that spends a lot of money on politicians.

2. The goal may be sowing chaos and violence because this increases the role of the military in international relations, and in military matters, the US in its current state is (or thinks it is – they probably want to avoid a war against a strong army that would let them find out better) more competitive than in economic matters. As far as economic matters are concerned, we can more or less predict that the "Western world" (US and EU/NATO) will almost certainly be dwarfed by China (and to some degree other East Asian countries and emerging economies). Of course, some time in the future, when urbanization will be completed to a large degree, Chinese growth will slow, but it is unlikely that this won't still mean that the US and EU economies will be tiny compared to it. If the US manages to decrease the role of economics and increase the role of the military, it may be able to slow down the decline in its significance somehow, and what it needs for that is violence, chaos, and instability.
Of course, one may say that all these instances of sowing chaos are counterproductive for the US empire. In many concrete instances, one can show that this is the case, e.g. Iran was strengthened by the US aggression against Iraq. But on the whole, is the US empire really weaker than it would have been without all these aggressions? The US economy probably is, but if we specifically talk about US empire – the US has military bases around the world in a way no empire has ever had, and without enough violence, chaos, and tensions in order to justify them, it might be difficult to keep them long-term. It is also important to attempt to analyze counterfactual scenarios. If the US has just been relieved after the end of the Cold War, reaped a huge peace dividend and if it had not committed an aggression every few years, it would probably be more prosperous, but it would hardly be an empire. Probably, NATO would not exist any more (the aggression against Yugoslavia and later stoking up historical hatred in Eastern EU member countries played an important role). The US would probably be more respected than it is now, but its international significance would probably have decreased more than it has in our current reality where the US has increased the role of the military by sowing chaos.

Brian Steere ,

The idea of Empire may not fit the modern world of broad spectrum globalism. Expecting such a world to make sense may buy into being manipulated further by an ever consolidating pattern of possession and control – that works a kind of narrative or mind capture alongside globally set regulatory structures to protect the lie at any cost and by any and all means.

Yarkob ,

that was supposed to be a link, admins i even used the code button

https://twitter.com/AWAKEALERT/status/1144134909415448576

Paul ,

It sounds as if his enemies in the Pentagon and the Intelligence Agencies have tricked Trump perhaps by not telling him who the target was going to be? Now he owns the policy and the chances of getting rid of him rise especially if the retaliation is serious and he fails to start throwing nukes around.

As with JFK over the Bay of Pigs it puts him in a very hard place. Working with Pence would probably suit the Military Complex. Ideas of withdrawing from conflict in the ME and Afghanistan are as crazy to them as Kennedy's plans to disarm.

alskdjf ,

Paul you just love your Trump. The epic corrupt capitalist globalist fascist epic jerk I'm sure would regard you with much love if he knew you existed or cared.

paul ,

You are being sidetracked by personalities. "If only we had Obama/ Reagan/ Whoever back, everything would be fine." It wouldn't. Whoever is occupying the Oval Office, whether it's Trump/ Creepy Joe Biden/ Buttplug/ Pocahontas or some other cretin, it's just another monkey dancing to the tune of the same organ grinder.

TFS ,

Is it me, or does the definition of what constitutes a Democracy, seem out of date?

Surely, where country such as Blighty likes to refer to iself as a Democracy, then it should hold true that its people are past masters of holding its rulers to account?

If we are a Democracy and we don't, as has been the case for the past 50yrs of my life, aren't we guilty of some sort of crime?

Are we (adults) all non persons, a person called 'Collateral Damage' for when Karma comes a calling?

Will we cry foul and bemoan the injustice of it not being our fault as our leaders rape the planet?

I dunno, calling Blighty a Democracy seems to be quite Arrogant and Offensive.

richard le sarc ,

No capitalist regime, particularly the neo-liberal type, can ever even remotely resemble a 'democracy' of any type.

Robyn ,

An fundamental of democracy is a free press so that citizens can cast an informed vote. There is no longer a free press (to the extent that there ever was) and, with increasing censorship of ethical journalism, the ideal of democracy becomes more remote each day.

[Jan 04, 2020] Oh, I thought last night's peace-loving strike was supposed to prevent additional warfare

Jan 04, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

https://t.co/Z2S3WQaz7L

-- Michael Tracey (@mtracey) January 3, 2020

Crush the cube , 3 minutes ago link

This will end great, a fucked up circus called congress who hasn't had the balls to do their job and legally declare war for nearly three decades, and a president who can't even defend himself from a gang of thugs staging a direct coup against him in his own government. What could possibly go wrong?

me or you , 3 minutes ago link

Weird from a guy who dodged military service.

NubianSundance , 9 minutes ago link

Yep, Trumpt got into office by weaving a web of lies to a naive public, but the us remains the pre eminent military power and can do what it likes.

[Jan 04, 2020] On Thucydides quote "the strong do what they will, the weak suffer what they must

Jan 04, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Andrei Martyanov (aka SmoothieX12) -> Ishmael Zechariah... ,03 January 2020 at 11:20 PM

The second are the immortal words of Thucydides: "the strong do what they will, the weak suffer what they must."

Yeah, I heard Thucydides had some issues with resolution of uncertainties for targeting, especially for stand-off precision guided weapons. Plus there were some issues with long range air-defense systems in Greece in times of Plato and Socrates. You know, GLONASS wasn't fully operational, plus EW was a little bit scratchy.

So, surely, it all fully applies today, especially in choke points. Plus those Athenians they were not exactly good with RPGs and anti-Armour operations. Other than that, Thucydides nailed it.

Something To Think About -> Ishmael Zechariah... , 04 January 2020 at 01:11 AM
Ah, yes, the Melian Dialogue.

Interesting to note that it was the party professing those words - Athens - who started the Peloponnesian War, driven in large part by that haughty attitude. It was Athens that also ended that war, of course. They did so when they surrendered to the Spartans.

[Jan 04, 2020] The USA only choice is a Sunni sandwich with Kurdish Bread and Shia Mayo

Jan 04, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Peeps like Sen Graham saying "the Iraqi's need to choose between us or Iran."

(That choice is a Sunni sandwich with Kurdish Bread and Shia Mayo)

[Jan 04, 2020] Good point Afghanistan. The newly appointed General Ghaani was active in Afghanistan. As he is famimiar with the place, that may well be where he decides to retaliate.

Jan 04, 2020 | thesaker.is

Serbian girl on January 03, 2020 , · at 5:00 pm EST/EDT

Good point Afghanistan. The newly appointed General Ghaani was active in Afghanistan. As he is famimiar with the place, that may well be where he decides to retaliate.

In case the link does not work, Elijah magnier's and Roberto Neccia's tweet.
https://mobile.twitter.com/neccia1/status/1213045008204533760

Str8arrow62 on January 03, 2020 , · at 5:18 pm EST/EDT
The introduction of manpads would be no less significant an impact on the occupying force as it was when the Soviet's were there when the SEE EYE AYE showered the Afghani's with Stingers. It completely changed the modus of the Soviet army once they were introduced. Helicopters became dangerous to be in and could no longer fly near the ground. Good observations though, the assassination of Assad could prove to be magnitudes greater a spark than any of us could imagine. I hope for the sake of, among the many, the Christians he's been protecting from the foreign merc's. that he stays safe. He must keep a low profile and let's hope the S400's will take care of any Predator drones that try to fly the Damascus airspace. ­
C. Khosta y Alzamendi on January 03, 2020 , · at 6:43 pm EST/EDT
It seems US (or perhaps Israel) didn't give you time enough to think about what could be the next move (breaking news from Sputinik, 23:30 GMT): vehicle convoy carrying Iraqi PMF leaders hit by airstrike, 6 dead at least.

https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/202001041077936776-two-car-convoy-north-of-baghdad-under-aerial-attack -- reports/

Chad on January 03, 2020 , · at 3:34 pm EST/EDT
Thanks for posting this. I wonder if Soleimani consciously ( on many human and beyond human levels) wanted to offer the Yanks a "target" (a type of sacrifice, namely himself) that was just too big to ignore, knowing that the stupid enemy would take the bait, and having a secure knowledge that his death would set in motion a chain of events that will (underline will) result in the final terrible fall of the US, and Israel. Stupid American "leaders", right now, they are dancing in idiotic joy, saying foolish words for which we will pay, also knowing what the future holds: the death of countless people, throughout not only the Middle East, but here in the US as well. Yes, I do hate them for what they have unleashed.

Rest In Peace, Soleimani. You very well may achieve far more in death that you attained in your eventful life.

What do we know about Esmail Ghaani?

[Jan 04, 2020] Retaliation needs to be carefully thought out, in order to avoid an exchange mounting in tension leading to outright war (certainly part of the US plan).

Jan 04, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Laguerre , Jan 3 2020 9:29 utc | 4

Oh, it was certainly a grave miscalculation by the US. The NeoCons must have been pushing for it for years, and it wasn't the first assassination attempt. But I don't think the reprisal will be immediate. Retaliation needs to be carefully thought out, in order to avoid an exchange mounting in tension leading to outright war (certainly part of the US plan).

[Jan 04, 2020] I believe is most depressing is how dumb people are

Jan 04, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

oldhippie , Jan 4 2020 18:11 utc | 13

Sitting in coffee shop in Chicago listening to Americans. The general sentiment is they had it coming and Iran should be nuked.
Glass parking lot is the desired end.

This sentiment is bottom to top in America. Measured response? No way can Iran 'measure' a response.

More generally the sentiment is that a little war in Iran, a few nukes, is not even a big thing. Football scores more important.

Isabella , Jan 4 2020 18:22 utc | 16

"Sitting in coffee shop in Chicago listening to Americans. The general sentiment is they had it coming and Iran should be nuked.
Glass parking lot is the desired end."

That's pretty much the picture i get from reading responses in UK MSM, not only from English, but many giving American addresses. They are all pretty much thoroughly brainwashed, believing as gospel the lies they've told, and still think that they are the "White hatted, good guys, who do good things for the places they bomb and invade".

it seems they will be supportive of an attack on Iran, and if their maniac "leaders", the basement crazies who got out of the basement, realise this, it increases substantially the chances of a "hot" war. In that case, should it escalate out of control, your Chicago coffee deadheads will get the Glass parking lot they want. It just wont be in the ME. Or Russia. They can have their very own, in their own back yard.

Zanon , Jan 4 2020 21:09 utc | 76
Information_Agent

Yes I also noticed this, what I believe is most depressing is how dumb people are. Trump/White house tell alot of lies which then become the truth for alot of his supporters and he also manage to get MSM where he wants, because MSM do not seems to care either, they are on-board when it comes to war.
And yes additional to that, a clear psychological operation going on to get the propaganda out.
I try to counter it on social media, I hope everyone here also do the same.

Pft , Jan 4 2020 21:48 utc | 79
Patroklos @77

Its about conditioning people that its the new normal. Anything goes, "do as thou wilt". So long as it serves the interests of our masters. With no fear that MSM or alt media can or will provide sustained or effective criticism, and the corruption of religious or secular morals among the population thanks to hollywoods cultural marxism/propaganda and corruption of christianity , they can get support among the people for just about anything. People can be made to believe anything. The past 100 years has proven that beyond all doubt. With all doubt now removed they can show their true colors and this will be accepted as the new normal.

Dick , Jan 4 2020 22:13 utc | 83
The problem with the US is most everyone in the US military, US citizenry, and US government believe their own Exceptionalism propaganda and act accordingly. Attacking the PMU units of the Iraqi army was certainly an unwise decision, but killing Qassem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis is an act of complete moronic insanity!
Robert Snefjella , Jan 5 2020 0:22 utc | 121
The United States launched a war of aggression, the supreme crime, upon Iraq in 2003, based on blatant lies, and are still there. Prior to that, they helped foment the war between Iraq and Iran, then attacked Iraq in 1991, and on top of the overt warfare there was the economic sanctions warfare. The death and maiming and poisoning of millions of Iraqis has been the American contribution to Iraq, over the last several decades. What for? How has this helped the United States? Or Europe? The main advocates for this supreme criminality has been the Israel lobby, Israel, and the supporters of Israel.

The American Apache helicopters are still buzzing around over Baghdad, dealing out terror and intimidation and death. The murder by the United States of yet more Iraqi soldiers and officials recently has been largely absent from the propaganda narratives. But could those be 'the final straw'?

As far as Trump's 52 target threat, this comes after the apparent please don't escalate and we'll make a deal - good cop-bad cop routine.

The 52 number was used to remind mind-controlled Americans that the evil Iranians outrageously took 52 Americans hostage. American's don't just take people hostage; they give them orange suits and torture them, unless they kill them. Apart from murdering and maiming by the millions, they even stage fictional killings, like Osama bin laden, to entertain the zombies, and stick out their chests, hand out medals and the like.

[Jan 04, 2020] The US shows some symptom of an empire on the brink of collapse: an irreconcilably divided and decaying citizenry, racial and cultural incoherence, a totally detached oligarchy, no overarching mission or narrative, and an over reliance on international mercenaries to fight its wars

Notable quotes:
"... Add in the war-profiteers, wide open borders, collapsing infrastructure and history-making wealth inequality, and an entire generation of healthy young white men destroyed by drugs and suicides, a despair engineered by Jews, who unlike Iranians, mock us as they do it. Let's see tranquility on the home front survive skyrocketing food and gas prices. ..."
"... We must prepare our own populist anti-war protest movement to bring the war home. We must remain steadfast in the face of a coming era of political repression nobody has seen in generations. ..."
"... "The U.S. did not only murder Qassem Soleimani. On December 29 it also killed 31 Iraqi government forces. Five days later it killed Soleimani and the Deputy Commander of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF/PMU/Hashed al-Shabi) and leader of Kata'ib Hizbollah Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. There were also four IRGC and four Kata'ib Hizbollah men who were killed while accompanying their leaders. The PMU are under direct command of the Iraqi Prime Minister. They are official Iraqi defense forces who defeated ISIS after a bloody war. Their murder demands that their government acts against the perpetrators." ..."
"... "Sitting in coffee shop in Chicago listening to Americans. The general sentiment is they had it coming and Iran should be nuked. Glass parking lot is the desired end." ..."
"... That's pretty much the picture i get from reading responses in UK MSM, not only from English, but many giving American addresses. They are all pretty much thoroughly brainwashed, believing as gospel the lies they've told, and still think that they are the "White hatted, good guys, who do good things for the places they bomb and invade". ..."
"... US murder of another nation's leader has no frigging importance in moral or consequential terms. Such is the general IQ status of the west today. Really, it takes someone intelligent and inquisitive enough for years and years to really get aghast and appreciative enough to ponder what the murder of Soleimani in Trump's hand in the manner it was executed would mean to world peace. MSM counts on this stupidity and thrives in lies and false-flag propaganda. ..."
"... The idiots at the helm of the Evil Outlaw US Empire really have absolutely no clue as their short term thinking has destroyed what mental capacities they once had and has reduced them to imbeciles. ..."
Jan 04, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Adam , Jan 4 2020 19:18 utc | 43

The US shows every symptom of an empire on the brink of collapse: an irreconcilably divided and decaying citizenry, racial and cultural incoherence, a totally detached oligarchy, no overarching mission or narrative, and an over reliance on international mercenaries to fight its wars. By 2009, soldiers of fortune outnumbered US military personnel 3-1 in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Add in the war-profiteers, wide open borders, collapsing infrastructure and history-making wealth inequality, and an entire generation of healthy young white men destroyed by drugs and suicides, a despair engineered by Jews, who unlike Iranians, mock us as they do it. Let's see tranquility on the home front survive skyrocketing food and gas prices.

A war with Iran is our line in the sand as well. All white men must boycott the military, which is run by people who despise us more than any supposed international enemy ever will. The last 3 years of having our rights and civil liberties whittled away show that it is white Americans who will always be the US plutocracy's first and last enemy. If you are currently serving, you can get honorably discharged by declaring yourself a worshipper of Asatru and anonymously emailing your superior officers pretending to be a deeply concerned member of Antifa. Even if open war doesn't break out, the recent massive troop buildups in the Middle East guarantee you will be a target. Let Zion send its anarchist neo-liberal foot soldiers in your place!

We must prepare our own populist anti-war protest movement to bring the war home. We must remain steadfast in the face of a coming era of political repression nobody has seen in generations.

The people of Iran are not our enemy. They share the same abominable foe and deserve our solidarity. They must know that the citizens of America are ignorant of who rules them, and that decisions made using our flag are not made by us.

In the name of the existence of our people and the future of our children, and even broader in the name of humanity, we must ensure that this will be Judah's last war.

Only then can we all be free.

https://national-justice.com/op-ed-line-sand

james , Jan 4 2020 19:29 utc | 47

thank you b... i see you articulated a paragraph that is out of grasp of the american msm crowd, so i am going to repeat it.. it is worth repeating...see bottom of post... my main thought is that no matter what happens everything will be blamed on iran - false flag, and etc. etc. you name it... all bad is on iran and all good is on usa-israel.. that is the constant meme that the msm provides 24-7 and that us politicians and the state dept run with 24-7 as well. it is so transparent it is beyond despicable..

@ 13 old hippie.. that about sums up my impression.. thanks

@ 22 BM.. thanks.. i share your perspective, but am not as articulate..

here is the quote from b..

"The U.S. did not only murder Qassem Soleimani. On December 29 it also killed 31 Iraqi government forces. Five days later it killed Soleimani and the Deputy Commander of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF/PMU/Hashed al-Shabi) and leader of Kata'ib Hizbollah Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. There were also four IRGC and four Kata'ib Hizbollah men who were killed while accompanying their leaders. The PMU are under direct command of the Iraqi Prime Minister. They are official Iraqi defense forces who defeated ISIS after a bloody war. Their murder demands that their government acts against the perpetrators."

oldhippie , Jan 4 2020 18:11 utc | 13
Sitting in coffee shop in Chicago listening to Americans. The general sentiment is they had it coming and Iran should be nuked.
Glass parking lot is the desired end.

This sentiment is bottom to top in America. Measured response? No way can Iran 'measure' a response.

More generally the sentiment is that a little war in Iran, a few nukes, is not even a big thing. Football scores more important.

Isabella , Jan 4 2020 18:22 utc | 16
"Sitting in coffee shop in Chicago listening to Americans. The general sentiment is they had it coming and Iran should be nuked.
Glass parking lot is the desired end."

That's pretty much the picture i get from reading responses in UK MSM, not only from English, but many giving American addresses. They are all pretty much thoroughly brainwashed, believing as gospel the lies they've told, and still think that they are the "White hatted, good guys, who do good things for the places they bomb and invade".

it seems they will be supportive of an attack on Iran, and if their maniac "leaders", the basement crazies who got out of the basement, realise this, it increases substantially the chances of a "hot" war. In that case, should it escalate out of control, your Chicago coffee deadheads will get the Glass parking lot they want. It just wont be in the ME. Or Russia. They can have their very own, in their own back yard.

Oriental Voice , Jan 4 2020 19:40 utc | 52

@13 oldhippie; @16 Isabella:

You guys are right on money! I'm a retiree in my seventy's. My social circles are old school college graduates in late fifties to late seventies, supposedly the segment of population wise enough to decipher world affairs.

But no, they care more about who's gonna win today between Titans and patriots or whether Tiger Wood will win another major in 2020.

US murder of another nation's leader has no frigging importance in moral or consequential terms. Such is the general IQ status of the west today. Really, it takes someone intelligent and inquisitive enough for years and years to really get aghast and appreciative enough to ponder what the murder of Soleimani in Trump's hand in the manner it was executed would mean to world peace. MSM counts on this stupidity and thrives in lies and false-flag propaganda.

... ... ...

karlof1 , Jan 5 2020 0:03 utc | 114
Two min twitter vid :

"Mourners in Karbala welcome the bodies of Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis and Qassem Suleimani this evening."

Many thousands; very impressive and moving!

Vid of Baghdad protests :

"Hundreds of thousands of #Iraqis attend the #martyrs last farewell in #Baghdad and protest against the US military presence in #Iraq."

And here's Zarif's tweet and photo montage :

"24 hrs ago, an arrogant clown -- masquerading as a diplomat -- claimed people were dancing in the cities of Iraq. Today, hundreds of thousands of our proud Iraqi brothers and sisters offered him their response across their soil. End of US malign presence in West Asia has begun."

The idiots at the helm of the Evil Outlaw US Empire really have absolutely no clue as their short term thinking has destroyed what mental capacities they once had and has reduced them to imbeciles.

[Jan 04, 2020] Soleimani is the equivalent of Iran killing a top American regional commander, veteran government figure, and war hero all rolled into one. This is big

Jan 03, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

MPC • 21 hours ago

Soleimani is the equivalent of Iran killing a top American regional commander, veteran government figure, and war hero all rolled into one. This is big.

It feels like an escalation far out of proportion to the events that preceded it. If Washington thinks it'll make Iran fold or beg they're crazy. If they think it'll force Iran into events leading to war, they're evil and have learned nothing.

Meanwhile China laughs.

grumpy MPC • 9 hours ago
if you are making an argument for proportionate, then you ignore history...this is a confrontation that cannot be avoided and hiding under our desks will not save us...we do not have to invade, only use the options we possess without restraint and fight total war...we would have peace for a hundred years...
Sid Finster grumpy • 3 hours ago • edited
I believe that your attitude was most succinctly put by the WWII-era Nazi leadership.

That didn't work out so well for them, once they met the Soviet Union.

Sid Finster MPC • 9 hours ago
I don't think China is too thrilled to see oil prices jump, but otherwise, you are accurate.
Charles Cosimano • 20 hours ago
No President ever lost an election by getting into a way. The destruction of Iran would not annoy the electorate one little bit.
Sid Finster Charles Cosimano • 9 hours ago
So Obama didn't get elected over McCain?
Dr. Rieux Sid Finster • 4 hours ago • edited
Dude, it was John McCain. Frau Rodham-Clinton could have beat John McCain.

(Hillary, if you're reading this, never forget that if Barack Obama hadn't seized the Democrat nomination from you, you would have been President.)

JonF311 Charles Cosimano • 9 hours ago
Bush did not lose a presidential election, but the GOP suffered huge losses in the 2006 midterms mainly over public frustration with the Iraq fiasco.
MPC Charles Cosimano • 7 hours ago
For a year or so, sure. But people will be quick to start asking why once American kids start coming home in body bags.

The media was sycophantic with Iraq for a time. With Iran there will be no such grace period.

paradoctor • 20 hours ago
I'm surprised it took him this long to make a war. Next he'll call for everyone to rally behind him. Those who don't he'll call traitors. It's the oldest trick of authoritarianism.
grumpy paradoctor • 9 hours ago
your response is silly as trump has shown more respect for constitutional limits and the rule of law than any of his predecessors...
KeithS grumpy • 4 hours ago
Sarcasm, right?
Sid Finster grumpy • 3 hours ago
Please provide concrete and specific examples comparing Trump's alleged "respect for constitutional limits and the rule of law" and how his predecessors violated the same limits and the rule of law.
Sid Finster paradoctor • 5 hours ago
View Hide
engineerscotty paradoctor • 5 hours ago
He's been busy calling the political opposition "traitors" for his entire administration.

Of course, it's not the Democrats whose standard bearer is openly proclaimed to be a puppet of a rival power on that power's state television, and has been bankrolled by that power's organized crime syndicates for a while.

Georgia Tech • 20 hours ago
I voted for the president, but I don't get this at all. For what? I hope he comes to his senses, but it's probably already too late to prevent some bad consequences.
Butler Reynolds Georgia Tech • 9 hours ago
The man is a compulsive liar. A man who is unashamedly unfaithful to his wife is not going to be faithful about anything he has ever said to you. Every MAGA hat wearing devotee knew this before the election. I still can't figure out what kind of self deception led so many of them to believe that he would act differently once in office?
Sid Finster Georgia Tech • 9 hours ago
For eight years, Obama cultists made excuse after excuse for the man, even as he betrayed them over and over again.

Don't be like them.

RightVote • 19 hours ago
The words missing from the article....the Muslims want to kill (more of) the infadels!
Awake and Uttering a Song RightVote • 9 hours ago • edited
Who are these "infadels" you speak of?
Baltimore II • 18 hours ago
It is deeply upsetting to witness the hijacking of our government by foreign interests. We know from their many public statements on the subject that Israel and Saudi Arabia have at least one shared, longstanding goal, which is to get the US to fight a war against Iran. Trump has now bowed to their demands. It has made Americans less safe and will inevitably result in wasting even more American money and blood on the Middle East.
grumpy Baltimore II • 9 hours ago
trump responded to an attack first upon an american citizen and then to our embassy...
Sid Finster grumpy • 3 hours ago • edited
There would be no such attacks if the United States had not attacked Iraq in the first place.

The embassy attacks were a direct response to Trump's attacks on the PMU militias last week.

EliteCommInc. • 16 hours ago
"Trump was elected to guard American borders."

I am looking forward to the start of that process. And he should avoid signing that farm measure that legalizes workers here illegally.

JEinCA • 15 hours ago
I am baffled. I someone who supported Trump and voted for Trump can now only think of him as a complete moron and a dangerous quisling for Israel. I can see the end of our nation now. It's in plain sight for anyone with eyes to see. Once it falls there will be no putting humpty dumpty back together. I have nothing but loathing for the Woke Democrats and the Neocon Establishment Republicans. Now Trump will top Dubya Bush as the Biggest Prostitute for Israel of the 21st Century. So much for America First. So much for making America Great Again. Watch it all fall apart before our very eyes under the leadership of this silver spoon raised reality tv star. America is finished. It's over. You can put a fork in it. It's done. The Deep State won. It doesn't matter if Trump wins or loses in 2020. The Deep State will get what they want either way. Then it will all come tumbling down. Watch the real players behind the scenes move quickly to consolidate wealth and power in the Former USA (as happened after the collapse of the USSR) in the aftermath of our coming collapse. For American Nationalists lik me Trump is more than a disappointment after this caper. He is an outright disaster. There is no hope for Washington. It is beyond repair. Our nation's Grave Stone may well read, "The United States of America, 1776-2020".
Connecticut Farmer JEinCA • 10 hours ago
My real fear is that this may turn out to be a replay of 1914 Sarajevo...and we know how THAT ended.
Dr. Rieux Connecticut Farmer • 4 hours ago
You mean the end of the imperial United States? Thanks for proving that every gray cloud has a silver lining.
dbriz JEinCA • 10 hours ago • edited
My initial feeling was as yours. A few deep breaths and some sleep and I find it difficult not to agree still. There are of course, always events left to play out and seldom do predictions happen in purely linear equation.

Iran is limited in how it may respond. This makes the situation more not less, dangerous. The JCS surely understand that a ground war with Iran would require unacceptable numbers of forces and result in a postwar quagmire that would make Iraq look like a cakewalk.

Trump, like Obama and Bush before him should be impeached for this action but we all should be aware by now that a cowardly Congress has abdicated its war making responsibilities to the President and military.

The only possible reason for any optimism is that Trump, after events like this, tends to feel he can use it as a negotiating tactic for future use. Unfortunately as Larison has pointed out elsewhere, events like this inspire little trust and engender more blowback elsewhere. We have no solutions for the region and even the loudest neocon cheerleaders have no desire to send themselves or their children to risk death there.

"Oh what a terrible tangled web we weave..."

Sid Finster dbriz • 6 hours ago
Look up the results of the Millennium Challenge 2002 wargames.

They were not pretty. Then compare with America's track record in recent wars. Also, not pretty.

words JEinCA • 10 hours ago
"I someone who supported Trump and voted for Trump can now only think of
him as a complete moron and a dangerous quisling for Israel."

Me too. I increasingly wonder whether the America in which I grew up even exists anymore. It seems to be dying, taken over and strangled by foreign interests. It started under Clinton, accelerated under the younger Bush and Obama, and under Trump it has become almost absurdly overt, with people like Sheldon Adelson openly giving elected officials millions of dollars to advance specific Israeli foreign policy goals.

Sid Finster words • 6 hours ago
Sheldon Adelson may have some odious designs, but, AFAIK, he is a US citizen.
Sid Finster JEinCA • 10 hours ago
I don't mean to sound snarky, but there is nothing baffling about it. Trump is weak, stupid, reckless and easily manipulated. This has been abundantly obvious for a long time now.

No, I did not vote for HRC.

grumpy JEinCA • 9 hours ago
your response is silly son, as the iranian general was a world class terrorist...maybe just maybe this makes it clear to the iranian mullahs that they will be held accountable...
MPC grumpy • 4 hours ago
Pretty much anyone who fights asymmetrical warfare is easily classified as a terrorist by his opponent. He no doubt has some immoral things to his name but if it were Trump in the middle of 5th avenue it would be a virtue.
Butler Reynolds JEinCA • 9 hours ago
Did you honestly think before the election that the man had any character or was capable of anything besides delivering zingers? I ask this honestly. From the very start the man came across as a BS artist. I have never been able to figure out what people saw in him.
Daniel Enous • 15 hours ago
As i am writing this, the US has targeted and killed Major-General Qassem Soleimani, head of the elite Iranian Quds Force SOC.

If there was ever a doubt by any American that US soldiers will leave Iraq and Syria and/or the ME in general, let that doubt be cast aside now.

Rest assured, Iran will see to it to extract this price in American blood and treasure. In other words, because of the headline-seeker-in-chief, he just signed the death warrants of Americans and signed a cheque for 1 Billion+ dollars.

For those not familiar with a billion, it is $1,000,000,000+

TheSnark Daniel Enous • 10 hours ago
he just signed the death warrants of Americans and signed a cheque for 1 Billion+ dollars.

But it's not his money, it's the taxpayers (actually, it's borrowed from China). And it's not a death warrant for his kids, it's somebody else's.

BTW, the cost is going to be north of a trillion dollars, not a mere billion.

BlackpilledBob TheSnark • 9 hours ago
Yeah, we have spent $6.3 trillion on mideast wars since 2001.

If we go into a full scale regime change war with Iran, we are looking at $2 trillion at a minimum.

Daniel Enous TheSnark • 6 hours ago
i agree in all things
Dr. Rieux TheSnark • 4 hours ago
IOW X > $1,000,000,000,000; where X is the cost of another foreign misadventure for our "best friend" in the whole wide world.

(Folks, write one trillion like this: $1,000,000,000,000. Make your fellow citizens see how large $1,000,000,000,000 is.)

Awake and Uttering a Song Daniel Enous • 9 hours ago
"Iran will see to it to extract this price in American blood and treasure."

And, if Iran won't be provoked into an attack, the warmongers will gladly make sure there is a big one that will be blamed on Iran. They've been salivating for a war with Iran and want it sooner rather than later. They are doing what they can to get Trump re-elected, but they want their war soon, just in case. They've been laying the groundwork for months ("Iran-backed" this and "Iran-backed" that).

Doom Incarnate • 11 hours ago
And away we go!

BOOM!

Barry_D • 11 hours ago
"Candidate Donald Trump understood that Iraq was a grievous -- "big, fat" -- mistake. "We've destabilized the Middle
East and it's a mess," he said in 2015. It "may have been the worst decision" in U.S. history. "It started ISIS, it started Libya, it started Syria," Trump said as George W. Bush's brother looked on. "Everything that's happening started with us stupidly going into the war in Iraq . and people talk about me with the button. I'm the one thatdoesn't want to do this, okay?""

Trump supported the war:

https://www.snopes.com/fact...

https://www.politifact.com/...

Barry_D • 11 hours ago
BTW, one of the things which surprised me about TAC, as a liberal, was a large number of anti-war right-wingers.

I had never encountered people like at, and have secretly suspected that it was a hang-over from opposing President Obama.

I will now see if I was right or wrong.

Sid Finster Barry_D • 10 hours ago
I opposed Bush's wars, Obama's wars and Trump's wars.

Satisfied?

Awake and Uttering a Song Sid Finster • 3 hours ago
"I opposed Bush's wars, Obama's wars and Trump's wars."

Ditto.

Tcaalaw Barry_D • 9 hours ago
TAC was expressly launched to oppose interventionism in the George W. Bush administration, so I'm not sure why you thought its antiwar position was for the sake of opposing Obama.
Clyde Schechter Barry_D • 7 hours ago • edited
Anti-war factions exist on both the right and left, unfortunately as small minorities in both camps. The recently signed defense authorization bill originally contained provisions that blocked the use of any funds for military action against Iran without explicit Congressional authorization, but that provision was taken out of the bill at the last minute by the Democratic leadership. Max Boot and Rachel Maddow are now BFF. Neoconservative ideology dominates both parties and prevails widely among non-partisan liberals and conservatives alike.

You might be interested in looking into the newly formed Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. It is dedicated to developing a cadre of foreign policy positions (and expertise to staff foreign policy in some future administration) supporting the use of diplomacy and reserving the use of force to only those situations where it is the only reasonable way to defend the actual United States. It is anti-war and anti-empire. And it has received funding from both the Koch brothers and George Soros.

TISO_AX2 • 10 hours ago
Don't be silly. Iran is not going to get into a hot war with the US.
Sid Finster TISO_AX2 • 10 hours ago
Don't be silly. The United States will start that hot war on its own.

[Jan 04, 2020] Sanders and Warren Vow to Block War With Iran, Biden and Buttigieg Offer Better-Run Wars

Jan 04, 2020 | theintercept.com

Sen. Bernie Sanders addressed the threat of war with Iran at a campaign rally in Anamosa, Iowa on Friday. Photo: Patrick Semansky/AP Sen. Bernie Sanders addressed the threat of war with Iran at a campaign rally in Anamosa, Iowa on Friday. Photo: Patrick Semansky/AP The legacy of the Iraq war, and the prospect of a bloody sequel sparked by Donald Trump's assassination of a senior Iranian official in Baghdad this week, has the potential to transform the Democratic primary, offering voters radically different visions of how the next commander-in-chief proposes to deal with the ongoing chaos caused by the 2003 invasion.

Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren described the drone strike ordered by Trump as a dangerous escalation and promised to end American wars in the Middle East. Joe Biden, the former vice president, and Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, offered more muted criticism, suggesting that the killing of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani might have been justified if a more responsible commander-in-chief was in charge.

"We must do more than just stop war with Iran," Sanders tweeted on Friday. "We must firmly commit to ending U.S. military presence in the Middle East in an orderly manner. We must end our involvement in the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen. We must bring our troops home from Afghanistan."

We must do more than just stop war with Iran.

We must firmly commit to ending U.S. military presence in the Middle East in an orderly manner.

We must end our involvement in the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen.

[Jan 04, 2020] Trump Is Doing the Bidding of Washington's Most Vile Cabal

Highly recommended!
Now we understand that it was Adelson money talking for Trump, when he campaigned in 2016 on the platform of hostility of Iran and abandonment of the nuclear deal.
While derail who and how ordered the assassination, one thing it clear: Trump no longer deserve re-election. He is yet another Hillary now. Any of Dem opponents excluding Biden, who is dead fish in any case, are better then Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump campaigned on belligerence toward Iran and trashing the Obama-led Iran nuclear deal, and he has followed through on those threats, filling his administration with the most vile, hawkish figures in the U.S. national security establishment. After appointing notorious warmonger John Bolton as national security adviser, Trump fired him last September. But despite reports that Trump had soured on Bolton because of his interventionist posture toward Iran, Bolton's firing merely opened the door for the equally belligerent Mike Pompeo to take over the administration's Iran policy at the State Department. ..."
"... Now Pompeo is the public face of the Suleimani assassination, while for his part, the fired Bolton didn't want to be left out of the gruesome victory lap: ..."
"... Trump, who had no idea who Qassim Suleimani was until it was explained to him live on the radio by conservative journalist Hugh Hewitt in 2015, didn't seem to need many details to know that he wanted to crush the Iranian state. ..."
"... Much as the neoconservatives came to power in 2001 after the election of George W. Bush with the goal of regime change in Iraq, Trump in his bumbling way assembled a team of extremists who viewed him as their best chance of wiping the Islamic Republic of Iran off the map. ..."
"... Assassination has been a central component of U.S. policy for many decades, though it has been whitewashed and normalized throughout history, most recently with Obama's favored term, "targeted killings." ..."
"... While many Democratic politicians are offering their concerns about the consequences of Suleimani's assassination, they are prefacing it with remarks about how atrocious Suleimani was. Framing his assassination that way ultimately benefits the extremist cabal of foreign policy hawks who agitated for this very moment to arrive. There's no justification for assassinating foreign officials, including Suleimani. This is an aggressive act of war, an offensive act committed by the U.S. on the sovereign territory of a third country, Iraq. This assassination and the potential for a war it raises are, unfortunately, consistent with more than half a century of U.S. aggression against Iran and Iraq. ..."
"... Five months ago, California Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna offered an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have prohibited this very type of action, but it was removed from the final bill. "Any member who voted for the NDAA -- a blank check -- can't now express dismay that Trump may have launched another war in the Middle East," Khanna wrote on Twitter after Suleimani's assassination. "My Amendment, which was stripped, would have cut off $$ for any offensive attack against Iran including against officials like Soleimani." ..."
"... Trump is responsible for whatever comes next. But time and again, the worst foreign policy atrocities of his presidency have been enabled by the very politicians who claim to want him removed from office ..."
Jan 03, 2020 | theintercept.com

While the media focus for three years of the Trump presidency has centered around "Russia collusion" and impeachment, the most dangerous collusion of all was happening right out in the open -- the Trump/Saudi/Israel/UAE drive to war with Iran .

On August 3, 2016 -- just three months before Donald Trump would win the Electoral College vote and ascend to power -- Blackwater founder Erik Prince arranged a meeting at Trump Tower. For decades, Prince had been agitating for a war with Iran and, as early as 2010, had developed a fantastical proposal for using mercenaries to wage it.

At this meeting was George Nader, an American citizen who had a long history of being a quiet emissary for the United States in the Middle East. Nader, who had also worked for Blackwater and Prince, was a convicted pedophile in the Czech Republic and is facing similar allegations in the United States. Nader worked as an adviser for the Emirati royals and has close ties to Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi crown prince. Join Our Newsletter Original reporting. Fearless journalism. Delivered to you. I'm in There was also an Israeli at the Trump Tower meeting: Joel Zamel. He was there supposedly pitching a multimillion-dollar social media manipulation campaign to the Trump team. Zamel's company, Psy-Group, boasts of employing former Israeli intelligence operatives. Nader and Zamel were joined by Donald Trump Jr. According to the New York Times, the purpose of the meeting was "primarily to offer help to the Trump team, and it forged relationships between the men and Trump insiders that would develop over the coming months, past the election and well into President Trump's first year in office."

One major common goal ran through the agendas of all the participants in this Trump Tower meeting: regime change in Iran. Trump campaigned on belligerence toward Iran and trashing the Obama-led Iran nuclear deal, and he has followed through on those threats, filling his administration with the most vile, hawkish figures in the U.S. national security establishment. After appointing notorious warmonger John Bolton as national security adviser, Trump fired him last September. But despite reports that Trump had soured on Bolton because of his interventionist posture toward Iran, Bolton's firing merely opened the door for the equally belligerent Mike Pompeo to take over the administration's Iran policy at the State Department.

Now Pompeo is the public face of the Suleimani assassination, while for his part, the fired Bolton didn't want to be left out of the gruesome victory lap:

Congratulations to all involved in eliminating Qassem Soleimani. Long in the making, this was a decisive blow against Iran's malign Quds Force activities worldwide. Hope this is the first step to regime change in Tehran.

-- John Bolton (@AmbJohnBolton) January 3, 2020
Trump, who had no idea who Qassim Suleimani was until it was explained to him live on the radio by conservative journalist Hugh Hewitt in 2015, didn't seem to need many details to know that he wanted to crush the Iranian state.

Much as the neoconservatives came to power in 2001 after the election of George W. Bush with the goal of regime change in Iraq, Trump in his bumbling way assembled a team of extremists who viewed him as their best chance of wiping the Islamic Republic of Iran off the map.

While Barack Obama provided crucial military and intelligence support for Saudi Arabia's scorched earth campaign in Yemen, which killed untold numbers of civilians, Trump escalated that mass murder in a blatant effort to draw Iran militarily into a conflict. That was the agenda of the gulf monarchies and Israel, and it coincided neatly with the neoconservative dreams of overthrowing the Iranian government. As the U.S. and Saudi Arabia intensified their military attacks in Yemen, Iran began to insert itself more and more forcefully into Yemeni affairs, though Tehran was careful not to be tricked into offering this Trump/Saudi/UAE/Israel coalition a justification for wider war.

Protesters shout slogans against the United States and Israel as they hold posters with the image of top Iranian commander Qassim Suleimani, who was killed in a U.S. airstrike in Iraq, and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani during a demonstration in the Kashmiri town of Magam on Jan. 3, 2020.

Photo: Tauseef Mustafa/AFP/Getty Images The assassination of Suleimani -- a popular figure in Iran who is viewed as one of the major drivers of ISIS's defeat in Iraq -- was one of only a handful of actions that the U.S. could have taken that would almost certainly lead to a war with Iran. This assassination, reportedly ordered directly by Trump, was advocated by the most dangerous and extreme players in the U.S. foreign policy establishment with that exact intent.

Assassination has been a central component of U.S. policy for many decades, though it has been whitewashed and normalized throughout history, most recently with Obama's favored term, "targeted killings." The U.S. Congress has intentionally never legislated the issue of assassination. Lawmakers have avoided even defining the word "assassination." While every president since Gerald Ford has upheld an executive order banning assassinations by U.S. personnel, they have each carried out assassinations with little to no congressional outcry. Read Our Complete Coverage The Iran Cables In 1976, following Church Committee recommendations regarding allegations of assassination plots carried out by U.S. intelligence agencies, Ford signed an executive order banning "political assassination." Jimmy Carter subsequently issued a new order strengthening the prohibition by dropping the word "political" and extending it to include persons "employed by or acting on behalf of the United States." In 1981, Ronald Reagan signed Executive Order 12333, which remains in effect today. The language seems clear enough: "No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination."

As I wrote in August 2017, reflecting on our Drone Papers series from two years earlier, "The Obama administration, by institutionalizing a policy of drone-based killings of individuals judged to pose a threat to national security -- without indictment or trial, through secret processes -- bequeathed to our political culture, and thus to Donald Trump, a policy of assassination, in direct violation of Executive Order 12333 and, moreover, the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. To date, at least seven U.S. citizens are known to have been killed under this policy, including a 16-year-old boy. Only one American, the radical preacher Anwar al-Awlaki, was said to have been the 'intended target' of a strike."

There's no justification for assassinating foreign officials, including Suleimani.
While many Democratic politicians are offering their concerns about the consequences of Suleimani's assassination, they are prefacing it with remarks about how atrocious Suleimani was. Framing his assassination that way ultimately benefits the extremist cabal of foreign policy hawks who agitated for this very moment to arrive. There's no justification for assassinating foreign officials, including Suleimani. This is an aggressive act of war, an offensive act committed by the U.S. on the sovereign territory of a third country, Iraq. This assassination and the potential for a war it raises are, unfortunately, consistent with more than half a century of U.S. aggression against Iran and Iraq.

For three years, many Democrats have told the country that Trump is the gravest threat to a democratic system we have faced. And yet many leading Democrats have voted consistently to give Trump unprecedented military budgets and surveillance powers.

Five months ago, California Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna offered an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have prohibited this very type of action, but it was removed from the final bill. "Any member who voted for the NDAA -- a blank check -- can't now express dismay that Trump may have launched another war in the Middle East," Khanna wrote on Twitter after Suleimani's assassination. "My Amendment, which was stripped, would have cut off $$ for any offensive attack against Iran including against officials like Soleimani."

Trump is responsible for whatever comes next. But time and again, the worst foreign policy atrocities of his presidency have been enabled by the very politicians who claim to want him removed from office . Wait! Before you go on about your day, ask yourself: How likely is it that the story you just read would have been produced by a different news outlet if The Intercept hadn't done it? Consider what the world of media would look like without The Intercept. Who would hold party elites accountable to the values they proclaim to have? How many covert wars, miscarriages of justice, and dystopian technologies would remain hidden if our reporters weren't on the beat? The kind of reporting we do is essential to democracy, but it is not easy, cheap, or profitable. The Intercept is an independent nonprofit news outlet. We don't have ads, so we depend on our members -- 35,000 and counting -- to help us hold the powerful to account. Joining is simple and doesn't need to cost a lot: You can become a sustaining member for as little as $3 or $5 a month. That's all it takes to support the journalism you rely on.

[Jan 04, 2020] Now we have a self-described "West Point Mafia" class of 1986 and a JCS Chairman far more politically motivated than Dunford and Dempsey take over Pentagon

Jan 04, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Harper , 03 January 2020 at 01:06 PM

It has been pointed out to me that until his retirement in October 2019, JCS Chairman Joe Dunford was a factor in tempering neocon fervor for war. The same was true for his predecessor Martin Dempsey. Now we have a self-described "West Point Mafia" class of 1986 and a JCS Chairman far more politically motivated than Dunford and Dempsey. This looks to be to be more dangerous than when Bolton the chicken hawk was running around the West Wing. This is a recent Politico profile of the new Defense team, including Pompeo, Esper and other key national security advisors to Trump.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2019/11/17/west-point-alumni-pompeo-esper-state-department-071212

Jack , 03 January 2020 at 12:51 PM
Rand Paul opposing the nomination of Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State, March 2018: "I'm perplexed by the nomination of people who love the Iraq War so much that they would advocate for a war with Iran next. It goes against most of the things President Trump campaigned on."
Fred -> Harper... , 03 January 2020 at 06:19 PM
Harper,

Thanks for the link. The Trump triumvirate of class of '86 advisors did the minimum time on active duty and left service for greener pastures. The move to politics is reminiscent of the neocons decameron mentioned on the prior thread. It looks like the move to war which only the neocons want is coming on in full force.

robt willmann , 03 January 2020 at 03:07 PM
After around 25 people were killed by a U.S. attack over the weekend, and subsequently the damage was being done to the "embassy" in Iraq, it looked like a real problem was developing. But it seemed as if Iraqi security people had let the demonstrators and attackers into the area where the U.S. embassy is, and then the following day were not letting them in, and so the embassy cleanup would begin. At that time I felt better about the situation. In other words, the Iraqi government, such that it is, allowed the protest and damage at the embassy to occur, and then was stopping it after making the point of a protest.

However, that defusing of the situation by the Iraqi government by shutting down the embassy protest was for naught when the ignorant people in the U.S. government carried out the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, and several others inside Iraq itself. Now there is a real problem.

[Jan 04, 2020] The rule of law has its uses and destroying the structure on which their world rests does have consequences.

Jan 04, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

John Merryman , 03 January 2020 at 06:23 PM

Given the real masters of the universe are the very rich, would the Iranians see them as logical targets?

Sheldon Adelson comes to mind, as he is a primary backer of both Trump and Netanyahu. As well as likely not known, or appealing to Trump's base, so avenging his death wouldn't appeal in the same way as soldiers or diplomats. Especially leading up to the election. Not only that, but if the very rich were to sense their Gulfstreams are somewhat vulnerable to someone with a Stinger at the end of the runway in quite a few tourist destinations, Davos, etc, the pressure from the People Who Really Matter might be against further conflict.

The rule of law has its uses and destroying the structure on which their world rests does have consequences.

[Jan 04, 2020] The US controls "Israel". Thinking that "Israel" set up a think tank to trick or manipulate Trump into declaring war on Iran confuses the situation. Iran has been a target of Western interests stretching back to the 1920s -- way before Israel was even founded. It was the US/British who toppled its gov in '53, and there are plenty of other examples of egregious interference in other MENA countries before '67

Who control whom is probably more complex question that the author assumes taking into account Israel lobby and Adelson money
Jan 04, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
David , Jan 4 2020 18:03 utc | 10
b, the US controls "Israel". Thinking that "Israel" set up a think tank to trick or manipulate Trump into declaring war on Iran confuses the situation. Iran has been a target of Western interests stretching back to the 1920s -- way before Israel was even founded. It was the US/British who toppled its gov in '53, and there are plenty of other examples of egregious interference in other MENA countries before '67.

The US ruling class -- large banks, oil companies, mining companies, arms manufacturers -- wants a war on Iran in a vain attempt to recover the general rate of profit
when its economy is about to default in the coming recession.

expat , Jan 4 2020 18:06 utc | 11

Hey Zanon,

When on the previous thread I posted something about what Magnier had said regarding Trump trying to get Iran to temper its response, you said of this information "its fake of course".

Now, b above has reproduced the same extract from Magnier. Care to tell us how you know that it's fake?

Lozion , Jan 4 2020 18:07 utc | 12
My @6 was meant for @1..

Here is Paveway IV's post for the prior thread to complement b on the red flag symbolism:

"The Shia Red Flag was raised on the top of the Jamkaran Mosque in the Iranian city of Qom, second largest in the Persian country, after General Qassem Soleimani, head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps' (IRGC's) elite Quds Force, was assassinated in an aerial attack when his vehicle was targeted in the Baghdad International airport. The Red Flag is the flag of Imam Hussein and marks the colour of blood which, many say, symbolises revenge and an impending severe battle."

I wonder what Sheik Imran Hosein makes of this..

oldhippie , Jan 4 2020 18:11 utc | 13

Sitting in coffee shop in Chicago listening to Americans. The general sentiment is they had it coming and Iran should be nuked.
Glass parking lot is the desired end.

This sentiment is bottom to top in America. Measured response? No way can Iran 'measure' a response.

More generally the sentiment is that a little war in Iran, a few nukes, is not even a big thing. Football scores more important.

Sasha , Jan 4 2020 18:21 utc | 15 Isabella , Jan 4 2020 18:22 utc | 16
"Sitting in coffee shop in Chicago listening to Americans. The general sentiment is they had it coming and Iran should be nuked.
Glass parking lot is the desired end."

That's pretty much the picture i get from reading responses in UK MSM, not only from English, but many giving American addresses. They are all pretty much thoroughly brainwashed, believing as gospel the lies they've told, and still think that they are the "White hatted, good guys, who do good things for the places they bomb and invade".

it seems they will be supportive of an attack on Iran, and if their maniac "leaders", the basement crazies who got out of the basement, realise this, it increases substantially the chances of a "hot" war. In that case, should it escalate out of control, your Chicago coffee deadheads will get the Glass parking lot they want. It just wont be in the ME. Or Russia. They can have their very own, in their own back yard.

[Jan 04, 2020] Adelson money at work: Trump threatens to bomb 52 sites in Iran

That's probably not Trump. That's probably Adelson money.
Jan 04, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Passer by , Jan 5 2020 0:36 utc | 132

... So what happened to the naive people who were putting their peace hopes in Trump? He just said he will strike important sites in Iran, including cultural sites.

[Jan 04, 2020] Trump threatens to bomb 52 sites in Iran

Notable quotes:
"... It is time b and the others admit that they made a mistake. b has been supportive of keeping Trump in power and his reelection. This is a mistake. karlo1 also expressed some support for Trump, which is naive, and inexcusable, for such an intelligent person. ..."
"... Let's make a bet that all of those who somehow supported Trump here will eat their words this year. ..."
"... It is time for people to think very carefully and deeply about things. Do not be naive. Think very carefully. Get your brains working, please. ..."
Jan 04, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Passer by , Jan 5 2020 0:36 utc | 132

Trump threatens to bomb Iran.

So what happened to the naive people who were putting their peace hopes in Trump? He just said he will strike important sites in Iran, including cultural sites.

It is time b and the others admit that they made a mistake. b has been supportive of keeping Trump in power and his reelection. This is a mistake. karlo1 also expressed some support for Trump, which is naive, and inexcusable, for such an intelligent person.

Let's make a bet that all of those who somehow supported Trump here will eat their words this year.

It is time for people to think very carefully and deeply about things. Do not be naive. Think very carefully. Get your brains working, please.

psychohistorian , Jan 5 2020 0:44 utc | 133

Asymmetrical warfare may come from China.

If I were China at this point, watching the schoolyard bully beating up on a fellow citizen, I might just want to take the Bully's focus off the fellow citizen and, with Russia's backing, tell the bully to pick on someone their own size.

Given the brazenness of the threats and provoking going on to start some military conflict, maybe China needs to play the "I won't sign the trade deal and I want to cash in my US Treasuries." cards to redirect the narrative and focus.

I like the silence of nations watching the bully trying to goad the world into military war. It speaks volumes that Trump is being the biggest bully he can to incite military warfare which they would lose if they don't go nuclear.

I find it saddening that so many commenters here don't seem to grasp that asymmetrical warfare that is needed now is not the eye for eye type. Military warfare is the problem, not the solution.

Really?? , Jan 5 2020 0:47 utc | 134
"Trump: "We targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!"

Threats! I.e., Trump to Iran: If you don't let us off the hook for what we did to you, you will be sorry!! Wouldn't this also be a war crime per . . . Geneva? Nuernberg? Destruction of cultural sites?

The man is really a terrifying nutter who thinks nothing of destroying ancient cultures while sitting in his gauge, glitzy digs in the Trump Tower or Mar-a Lago.

chu teh , Jan 5 2020 0:48 utc | 135
Son of Daddy Warbucks
Raised by liars
Surrounded by minders
His spark a prisoner
Trapped.
div> Come Monday, Iran can wait a day, a week, 10 months. Meanwhile Trump will wither away of fear.

Posted by: bjd , Jan 5 2020 0:55 utc | 137

Come Monday, Iran can wait a day, a week, 10 months. Meanwhile Trump will wither away of fear.

Posted by: bjd | Jan 5 2020 0:55 utc | 137

juliania , Jan 5 2020 0:57 utc | 138
Thanks to Really @ 124 - Yes, I do know that Iran is not Arabic - the interview I was remembering was in Qatar in October after a meeting that Zahir had addressed concerning his HOPE initiative, and that interview had been posted on twitter - I could not find it in my search just now, but my confusion was due to, I believe, his mentioning Arabic countries at one point. Apologies for the misstatement. You are correct that the initiative is aimed more widely than that.
PavewayIV , Jan 5 2020 1:00 utc | 139
Lozion@62 - Re: Your Magnier quote, "The US did not plan to kill the vice commander of the Iraqi Hashd al-Shaabi brigade Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes when it assassinated Iranian Brigadier General Qassem Soleiman"

The light bulb above my chimpanzee brain just flickered (briefly). Somewhere on SST (maybe Lang?): something to the effect of 'Never underestimate US gov/mil incompetence'. Maybe it was the opposite of what Magnier thought really took place.

Treasonous, dual-citizen chickenhawks of the US possibly targeted Hashd al-Shaabi vice-commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes . They were trying to kill him because they found out from some snitch that he just showed up at the airport for some reason. The all-seeing US didn't realize Soleimani was even there . I guess because the sneaky Soleimani flew commercial into Baghdad and probably carried his bags to the waiting SUVs. Who would have expected that ? How devious!

This seems entirely plausible to me. Soleimani was too expensive a target - end of the State of Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UAE and all. But whacking a vice-commander of Hashd al-Shaabi with a quarter-million dollar JAGM? Hell YEAH! We live for this kind of preventative assassination heroism in the US. Especially if accompanied by colorful graphics.

The awkward and delayed response of the usual US mil/gov mouthpieces makes this ridiculous scenario even more believable. I have thoroughly convinced myself that this was a US screw-up of EPIC proportions. In case the US government is reading MoA, this was all Lozion's doing. I'm an innocent conspiracy primate.

Really?? , Jan 5 2020 1:05 utc | 140
Really?? 134
"gauge, glitzy digs"

Uh, that was supposed to be "gauche."

Jackrabbit , Jan 5 2020 1:10 utc | 141
I don't trust Magnier's reporting about an offer made by USA to Iran and his speculation that Trump "offering the life of a 4-star general" is as nonsensical as it is irresponsible.

In the past I've found Magnier to be unreliable - like when he has lauded Israel and hinted that Iran was behind the tanker attacks. It sometimes seems to me that Magnier relishes the possibility of a war with Iran.

Magnier's reporting is inconsistent with Trump Administration actions now and in the past. Trump was "locked and loaded" for war with Iran in September! So why would Trump offer to lift sanctions and strike a nuclear deal now EXCEPT AS A RUSE.

We should also be mindful that the Iranians have refused to negotiate while sanctions are in place. This has been Iran's position for quite some time. Reporting about an rebuffed offer without noting this is irresponsible and a disservice to readers.

PS Why does Magnier's site track users via graph.facebook?

<> <> <> <> <> <>

I find it highly doubtful that Iran brought down PanAm 103 .

Such speculation only plays into USA's depiction of Iran as a terrorist state.

!!

juliania , Jan 5 2020 1:10 utc | 142
I know we are not to feed the trolls, but this is a meme worth commenting on:

"...So what happened to the naive people who were putting their peace hopes in Trump?..."

Many here are emphasizing this doubtful implication (even Circe, whom I praised for a stellar observation on the subject of Iran - and it even crept into my own cut and paste of Suilimani's attributes.

We do not know (and I'm grateful to Pepe for entering this into his recent article) how much of this is being orchestrated by Trump of his own unadulterated initiative. We agree it's a mafia operating. Is he the boss of it? That's speculation. What is important is that those (and we've seen how they operate) in 'power' are calling the shots.

So I'm viewing with suspicion any post (including mine) that accidentally or not inserts this meme.

Patroklos , Jan 5 2020 1:12 utc | 143
Posted by: bevin | Jan 4 2020 23:17 utc | 97

Bin Laden, Al Baghdadi, etc were not beloved state officials or state actors of any kind. Qaddafi, like Saddam, was toppled in actions that were designed to look like regime change from below -- but I agree to some extent that his death comes close, but was Qaddafi singled out by a precision hit in the precise fashion we are seeing here. But my point is that a bridge has been crossed here in terms of scale, brazenness, and the extent to which no attempt was made to conceal that it was a hit ordered directly by POTUS. It is an unprecedented shift in international relations where a host of other covert tactics were fully available and would have achieved the same outcome.

A User , Jan 5 2020 1:15 utc | 144
I guess I'm the only human round here who finds the child like refusal by so many to believe that Iran played a payback card with Lockerbie, a very small stunt that didn't require much at all in the way of participants, while they lap up lurid (& frequently white supremacist at heart) nonsense conspiracies such as that 911 was a deliberate strategy (one that would have required a cast of hundreds if not thousands, all staying schtum for evermore) - f++king ludicrous.
The Iranians had to teach amerika that shooting down a passenger jet had major consequences. They did that while benefiting from real world politics where amerika needed to have Iran & Syria (who had assisted) onside for gulf war 1. Libya got stitched up because they were convenient mugs who lacked friends in the ME because the colonel had no time for pretty much every other ME leader - his interest had always been Africa.
This is pretty typical of people who have a need to see everything in black or white. Don't say anything bad about Iran or Syria because they are enemies of fukasi eh. What use are nations such as Iran or Syria if they are not prepared to get their hands dirty once in a while? No use.
The fact that Iran got just the right payback in a just way then stopped is something people should be proud of Iran for, rather than squealing "No No they wouldn't they couldn't do that."
I can remember celebrating down the workers' club on the day news of the Lockerbie bombing came out. What had occurred was obvious, sure a few innocents died, that happens in war, the war amerika had kicked off and if that plane hadn't gone down most of the passengers would have been sitting in a coffee shop today with half a chubbie in their pants at the thought amerika had showed that 'Sullymanny' who was the boss.

b is correct to bring up that action because it encapsulates exactly how Iran is, truth and justice are at the heart of everything Iran's leadership believes & does. It wasn't Iran who fitted up Libya - amerika & england did that. Iran had merely insisted that the entire plane saga be buried if amerika wanted any assistance with Saddam Hussein, who let's face as far as Iran was concerned deserved everything he got. George H Bush showed himself to be at least as silly as his son - neither had any comprehension of what would happen should Ba'ath be removed from power in Iraq, that Iran would be the major beneficiary.
That I reckon is a major part of why amerikan leaders & their zionist proxies get so hot on Iran. Iran played them like a bitch and now they know it.

arata , Jan 5 2020 1:22 utc | 145
@130

If Lockerbie incident substantiated with Rober Fisk stories or world powers intelligence evidences, Iran definitely would be sanctioned and would pay very high price, would be tried in international criminal court.
Why they did not brought Gadhafy to the court? Because they did not have clear evidence.
Look other works of Robert Fisk, how is Independent now? What color is it now?

Passer by , Jan 5 2020 1:25 utc | 146
Posted by: juliania | Jan 5 2020 1:10 utc | 142

My view about Trump is based on my psychological portrait of Trump. He is a US supremacist, plus a military (see their presence around him and the large increase in mil budgets) and a zionist (see his family) puppet.

I see him as an aggressive animal. He will start a war if he can get away with it. He also likes to grandstand, so he hates the US decline in the world. He wants to brag how great he (and by proxy the US) is. It is also known that he does not like muslims. No way for him to have good relations with Iran.

He is a gambler. He will push and push, as long as he could get away with it. In international relations though, especially in the relations with some countries, who have strong grievances against the US, this could lead to war.

Trump said that he could nuke Afghanistan is necessary. Sorry, but i do not see in this talk his advisors behind him, but only his own animalistic nature.

Truth is, i was supportive of Trump in the past, but with time i changed my opinion. After careful observation. And i'm glad i did. It shows that my mind is still flexible, and will accept even the unpleasant truth, as long as it is the truth.

If i'm calling now a person that i was relatively supportive in the past "an animal" you can imagine my disappointment.

Patroklos , Jan 5 2020 1:27 utc | 147
Addendum to @143
Unless of course the lack of concealment was a deliberate provocation to incite a real war. In which case Iran must choose asymmetry. Hit KSA and close the Gulf. The world will sideline the US in a panicked scramble to quieten everything down. But I don't see evidence that the markets believe this will happen. Oil not really moving up that much. A good analysis of the financial markets' view on this would shed some light.

Also, does anybody have an accurate summary of the current structure of the Iraqi parliament, someone who can crunch the numbers? The US would surely have been preparing well in advance to prevent a spill to evict them, but is it in the bag or is it fluid? I wonder what the bookies are offering...

Really?? , Jan 5 2020 1:33 utc | 148
Paveway IV 139

An "Oh, shit" moment, big-time.

Canthama , Jan 5 2020 1:37 utc | 149
Too much noise from the US, as usual, threats blah blah, there are simply not enough fire power in the Gulf to go to war against Iran, just recall what took from many countries to invade Iraq, so no WWIII, no major confrontation is expected. The Orange Man is clearly agitated, his few TV appearances, are showing a very disturbed person, not the usual Trumpest we know about.
The backstage is intense, Iran has to retaliate, the US gets that, but it is trying to reduce the impact, this is definitively what is being dealt in the Swiss, Oman and Qatar meetings in the past 24 hrs. There will be more contacts until this whole mess is done.
Iranians and Iraqis are not afraid, they want confrontation, it will be hard for their leaders to hold them at bay, but I believe the payback is coming slowly, in pieces, not once, but in several blows, a masterpiece could be against American allies in the region, since the US will have hard time re retaliate, and the damage to the US will be done as it was with the tankers, agains KSA etc... We should also expect IEDs to kill many soldiers and US mercenaries, the later will be focused for sure, and that means in Iraq and Syria.

Would like to share with the SyrPers visiting MoA, that until the site is not back on line, we are trying to gather at Platosgun.com, at Taxi's place, so far we managed to some Syrpers there and get out comment section back to live in a different address, at least for while. See you there SyrPers.

chu teh , Jan 5 2020 1:41 utc | 150
Have we missed an obvious explanation for shocking behavior?

That control of Iran is needed to enable the Crown to do Brexit and flourish? That middle-east oil/gas and the politics of global availability are crucial to the Crown's survival as elitist Royalty.

The US.gov has acted as the Crown's proxy for a very long time, knowingly or unknowingly.

Look at a global map of Planet Earth. Look at England [if you can find it]. And don't confuse it with Japan, which also knows something about needing/wanting proxies...knowingly or not.

Now, go do Brexit without guaranteed [under control] sources of energy and other plunder.

Beibdnn , Jan 5 2020 1:49 utc | 151
People have lost their fear of Nuclear weapons. If the U.S. use Nukes against Iran, the radioactive cloud will be blown across the Atlantic Ocean and land where?
Quite apart from the fact that if the U.S. use Nukes without a serious retaliation, nowhere is safe. Putin has been quoted that any form of nuclear weapon used on any of it's allies will be considered as a nuclear attack on Russia itself and will be responded to by a full scale retaliatory strike.
As the U.S. has no defense against the latest Russian weaponry, they will realize that indeed, the living will envy the dead.
I have no idea as to what the attack strategy of Russia will be but I doubt it will be to kill millions of people. Far more effective Is to wipe out major infrastructure, transport, water and energy systems and then see what 340 million people do to survive.
Patroklos , Jan 5 2020 1:53 utc | 152
jadan | Jan 4 2020 23:48 utc | 112

Well put. We in Australia have a mini-Trump for PM (an embarrassing fawning dog licking Trump's balls on his recent visit to the US) who is currently mismanaging our bushfire catastrophe due to a total lack of empathy. A former marketing manager, Scott Morrison is a sociopath who makes bullies look like Mother Teresa. The combination of self-righteous evangelism with fanatical neoliberal ideology, when wedded to a lust for power at all costs and the crushing of any dissent (usually through awful marketing-school cynicism), makes for extreme social and political toxicity. He adores Trump and actually took notes at an Ohio rally (I kid you not). As the east coast burns like never before (a region the size of Texas gone, 1500 homes, 20+ lives lost) he went on holiday to Hawaii (staying in a Trump hotel). When he returned he was greeted by visceral hostility (enormously satisfying to watch here ). His instinct was to make an ad explaining how great his leadership is(n't). His position is owed to his commitment to Australia's only three sources of wealth: selling coal and iron ore to China, real estate (ponzi scheme), banking (even bigger ponzi scheme). I would drone strike him and Trump in a New York minute

AntiSpin , Jan 5 2020 1:56 utc | 153
@ Helmut | Jan 4 2020 20:30 utc | 65

"A new California law fines you $1,000 if you shower and do 1 load of laundry in the same day. And if the Gov declares a drought, the fine goes up to *$10,000*."

That is completely and utterly false. Here is the truth:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/correct-information-california-water-efficiency-222625943.html?guccounter=1

Lozion , Jan 5 2020 1:58 utc | 154
@139 PWIV. My take here from before Magnier's post:

Posted by: Lozion | Jan 4 2020 2:25 utc | 363

"Killing Mohandes was not part of the plan imo. Note how he is never mentioned in Western press? The US will now have to contend with an extraordinary parliament session this Sunday and likely a vote for US troop ousting will be made. Surely that's not what the US wanted though it had to be anticipated if Mohandes got hit. Either they ignored he was present or decided it was worth the risk. Now its blowback time. Lets see what Sadr's block will vote. He will finally reveal is true colors by making or breaking the vote (53 MP's).."

You may be right though and it is the opposite but I think IL leaked the info on Soleimani going to Baghdad for the funeral of the martyred PMU soldiers and the hit was greenlighted..

Sasha , Jan 5 2020 1:59 utc | 155
@Posted by: Really?? | Jan 5 2020 0:47 utc | 134

And this way we already can test who inspired the US/Israel sponsored terrorists in Syria and Iraq to destory all the cultural heritage there...sicne The Donals just confess this was in their strategic manuals....The Syrian government should keep a capture of that Twitt for further claims on compensations at ICC...

Obviously, nobody swallowed that was an ingenious occurence of those brutes to the eyebrows of Captagon...Someon wanted those treasure destroyed and payed to smugle those able to be so..

Robert Snefjella , Jan 5 2020 1:59 utc | 156
Iran has already been under attack: And much lied about:

From Oct. 2019 Iran claims two explosions on board the Iranian Sabiti oil tanker were caused by a missile attack in the Red Sea

Sept 2018 At least 29 people, including children, have been killed in a terrorist attack on a military parade in south-west Iran, responsibility claimed by Islamic State and a separatist group.

Aug 2015 "Israel's defense minister hinted on Friday that the Jewish state's intelligence services were behind the rash of killings of Iranian nuclear scientists."


And then there are the false accusations: June 2019 Hours after the U.S. released video footage that 'showed' an Iranian boat removing an unexploded mine from the side of an oil tanker, the Japanese owner of that vessel said that the ship was likely damaged by a "flying object" and dismissed claims of a mine attack as "false."

arata , Jan 5 2020 2:09 utc | 157
@141 Jackrabbit

The news was distorted and interpreted, hand-to-hand differently.
Swiss Ambassador in Tehran was summoned for Solaimani assassination, he went to Iran foreign ministry, yesterday morning ( Swiss is represent and protect USA affairs in Iran). At the same visit he delivered a letter from USA to Iran. What is the content of the letter is not known to public. The Sepah commander in his speech hinted that American ( through a country) has requested to set a limit ( or ceiling) for retaliation and Iran has reject the request. ( who was the third country? Nobody knows, many countries are trying to mediate every hour).
In an interview Zarif explained that Swiss ambassador was summoned, he came in the morning, in the same session he delivered an indecent letter from USA. He was summoned in the afternoon, came and received our sturdy an tough written response.
A 4 star general or like that are logical interpenetration. Why you do not look Chris Morphy's speeches?
He ( Morphy) said equivalent to Solaimani is American secretary of defense. Would you satisfy with Morphy interpretation?

Passer by , Jan 5 2020 2:09 utc | 158
Posted by: Patroklos | Jan 5 2020 1:27 utc | 147

>>Also, does anybody have an accurate summary of the current structure of the Iraqi parliament, someone who can crunch the numbers? The US would surely have been preparing well in advance to prevent a spill to evict them, but is it in the bag or is it fluid? I wonder what the bookies are offering...

In the iraqi parliament, sunnis and kurds are against expelling the US. They are a minority though. There are also two small shia factions who are against that.

But the expellers will have the majority if Muqtada al Sadr supports them. So by the coming vote, it will become clear who is a US agent in Iraq, and who is not.

My bet is a 70 % probability for a vote to expell the US from Iraq.

CogintiveDissonance , Jan 5 2020 2:14 utc | 159
@Moon
Fitst, as others have pointed out, it is unclear who was responsible for the downing of Pan AM 103 . Many took credit for it and ultimately it may have been the CIA itself.

Second, Iran has always been of strategic interest to great powers even before Israel existed or oil was discovered there. To suggest that the US would have no strategic interest in controlling Iran if it were not for Israel is ridiculous. The US deep state has been trying to reclaim Iran since Carter lost it. Also, note that Israel supplied weapons to the Islamic Republic of Iran during the the Iran-Iraq war.

If want to look to past history of what Iran will do, you only need to look back to the Iran-Iraq war. After the US wiped out all Iranian oil platforms and the Iranian navy in operation Praying Mantis, a ceasefire and peace was negotiated soon afterwords. Trump and Lindsey Graham have warned Iran that they will lose all their oil refineries if they attempt retaliation. Iran no longer has any doubts that Trump will make good on that threat. To suggest that Iran will act irrationally and retaliate regardless of US consequences is the height of racism.

Also to think that China or Russia will somehow defend Iran against US attacks is wishful thinking,


dltravers , Jan 5 2020 2:16 utc | 160
Trump is the perfect man, in the perfect position, at the perfect time, to finally get their wish and attempt to smash up Iran. He is no more than a front man. Every president is backed by some interests and competing interests back various candidates.

If he (they) think he (they) can play the "rocket man" game against the Persian he (they) are sadly mistaken. Obviously Obama took a much different tack with Iran while smashing up some of the old Arab secular countries at the same time. I would not know how to begin to think through this madness of Empire regime planning.

psychohistorian , Jan 5 2020 2:16 utc | 161
Below is a Reuters article, so you know it is low balling the numbers but, admitting that not ALL Americans are on board with the Iran/Iraq attack

"
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Groups of protesters took to the streets in Washington and other U.S. cities on Saturday to condemn the air strike in Iraq ordered by President Donald Trump that killed Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani and Trump's decision to send about 3,000 more troops to the Middle East.

"No justice, no peace. U.S. out of the Middle East," hundreds of demonstrators chanted outside the White House before marching to the Trump International Hotel a few blocks away.

Similar protests were held in New York, Chicago and other cities. Organizers at Code Pink, a women-led anti-war group, said protests were scheduled on Saturday in numerous U.S. cities and towns.

Protesters in Washington held signs that read "No war or sanctions on Iran!" and "U.S. troops out of Iraq!"

Speakers at the Washington event included actress and activist Jane Fonda, who last year was arrested at a climate change protest on the steps of the U.S. Capitol.

"The younger people here should know that all of the wars fought since you were born have been fought over oil," Fonda, 82, told the crowd, adding that "we can't anymore lose lives and kill people and ruin an environment because of oil."

"Going to a march doesn't do a lot, but at least I can come out and say something: that I'm opposed to this stuff," said protestor Steve Lane of Bethesda, Maryland. "And maybe if enough people do the same thing, he (Trump) will listen."

Soleimani, regarded as the second most powerful figure in Iran, was killed in the U.S. strike on his convoy at Baghdad airport on Friday in a dramatic escalation of hostilities in the Middle East between Iran and the United States and its allies.

Public opinion polls show Americans in general have been opposed to U.S. military interventions overseas. A survey last year by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs found 27% of Americans believe military interventions make the United States safer, and nearly half said they make the country less safe.
"

Richard Steven Hack , Jan 5 2020 2:18 utc | 162
One point: Since Iran now knows that it will be blamed for *anything* that happens in the Middle East - witness the Houthis attack on the Saudi oil fields, it does not have much incentive to keep its retaliation "plausibly deniable." So I suspect Iran will make it clear that it is responsible for whatever retaliation it conducts. It will only keep such retaliation at a level below a direct strike against senior US officials such as Pence, Pompeo, or the Joint Chiefs.

My guess would be a strike against a division level or regional US military officer in the region - possibly via car bomb in the UAE or even Europe. Or an equivalent strike against an Israeli officer or diplomat via Hezbollah - although that might difficult due to limited access. That will make it obvious that is was Iran, but Iran may still use a cut-out such as Hezbollah or Shia elsewhere so no Quds Force operative can be identified as being involved.

"Military security" is an oxymoron, as SEAL Richard Marcinko demonstrated with his Red Cell team decades ago. Every US military member in the world is now at increased risk for assassination and every US base in the world is at risk for a serious attack similar to the Marine Barracks bombing.

I'd hate to be any US official flying into any airport in the Middle East - given that an equivalent drone strike can be done by almost every militant group in the Middle East, now that the Houthis have demonstrated how.

psychohistorian , Jan 5 2020 2:19 utc | 163
Below is another Reuters article, this one about the lying, boot licking and obfuscating UK

"
LONDON (Reuters) - Britain urged all parties to show restraint on Saturday after the United States killed Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani in an air strike, but said its closest ally was entitled to defend itself against an imminent threat.

Defence minister Ben Wallace said in a statement that he had spoken to his U.S. counterpart Mark Esper, adding: "We urge all parties to engage to de-escalate the situation.

"Under international law the United States is entitled to defend itself against those posing an imminent threat to their citizens," he added.
"

Cyrus Safdari , Jan 5 2020 2:28 utc | 164
LYSSANDER the only suspect for the bombing of Capt William Roger's wife's van was a former family friend involved in some sort of personal dispute over a divorce.

> Grudge, not terrorism, seen in Rogers bombing
> Joe Hughes
> Tribune Staff Writer
>
> 10/02/1989
> The San Diego Union-Tribune
>
> TRIBUNE; 1,2,3,4,5
> A-1:1,2,3,4; B-1:5
> (Copyright 1989)
>
>
>
> Federal investigators have turned away from
> terrorism as a motive for the
> pipe-bombing of a van driven by the wife of Navy
> Capt. Will C. Rogers III
> and are looking at an American believed to have a
> grudge against Rogers,
>

Patroklos , Jan 5 2020 2:31 utc | 165
@158 Passer By

Thanks for the succinct summary. That seems to accord with the balance across the country. It's hard to tell in Iraq whether religion (Sunni v Shi'a) means more than ethnicity (Arab v Persian). Like all these artificial nations created after the collapse of the Ottoman empire the ethno-tribal, religious and class breakdown is impenetrable and mercurial. It always reminds me of Frank Herbert's masterpiece Dune. 70% eh? I like those odds.

In passing, it reached 49 degrees celsius where I live in western Sydney yesterday (a Sydney record) and the smoke haze is now so bad from multiple fire fronts on the edges of the city that driving is dangerous and motorways are closing. With heavy water restrictions in place my garden is dead. All my capsicums burnt on the stem yesterday as the road bitumen melted outside. This is the case from Queensland to South Australia, a coastline 2000km long. Plus Australia currently has the worst air quality in the world. And this is only one month into a 3 month fire season. Very depressing.

[Jan 04, 2020] Nothing new under the sun

Jan 04, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

chu teh , Jan 5 2020 0:26 utc | 123

bevin | Jan 4 2020 23:17 utc | 97
The only new thing about this is that the victim was a person of power and eminence."

Ghadaffi was not person of power and eminence?

[Jan 04, 2020] Why Iraq is Much Worse than 'Trump's Benghazi' W. James Antle III

Jan 03, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com
"The anti-Benghazi!" President Donald Trump replied after liberals referred to the storming of the U.S. embassy in Baghdad as his Benghazi, referencing the assault on the American consulate in Libya under the previous administration. Trump, supporters maintained, did not hesitate to repel the attack. In fact, in breaking news Wednesday night it was reported that the U.S. military, at the direction of President Trump, killed the leader of the Iranian Quds Force, General Qassem Soleimani, in an airstrike at Baghdad's international airport.

The United States has a right to defend its embassies and military bases overseas as well as the duty to protect Americans and other personnel. But the partisan finger-pointers are overlooking the real significance of Benghazi: it was the symbol of a failed military intervention for which Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton bore greater culpability than the grisly murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens and his colleagues. The regime change war Washington launched left Libya teeming with terrorists, full of territory that was chaotic, violent and unsafe.

So too the war in Iraq, which initially created a power vacuum that empowered radicals who resemble the militant forces that attacked America on 9/11. In recent years, our focus has been on fighting ISIS rather than nation-building. But the longer-term result of the Iraq misadventure was to overthrow the Sunni state that controlled Baghdad and replace it with a Shiite government that would inevitably mean greater Iranian influence. The toppled Iraqi government was Iran's main counterweight in the region.

Candidate Donald Trump understood that Iraq was a grievous -- "big, fat" -- mistake. "We've destabilized the Middle East and it's a mess," he said in 2015. It "may have been the worst decision" in U.S. history. "It started ISIS, it started Libya, it started Syria," Trump said as George W. Bush's brother looked on. "Everything that's happening started with us stupidly going into the war in Iraq . and people talk about me with the button. I'm the one that doesn't want to do this, okay?"

Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference in his first year as president of the United States, Trump laid into the Mesopotamian mishaps. "We've spent trillions of dollars overseas, while allowing our own infrastructure to fall into total disrepair and decay. In the Middle East, we've spent as of four weeks ago, $6 trillion. Think of it," he said. "And by the way, the Middle East is in -- I mean, it's not even close, it's in much worse shape than it was 15 years ago. If our presidents would have gone to the beach for 15 years, we would be in much better shape than we are right now, that I can tell you."

"Great nations do not fight endless wars," Trump declared in his State of the Union address just last year. "Our brave troops have now been fighting in the Middle East for almost 19 years. In Afghanistan and Iraq, nearly 7,000 American heroes have given their lives. More than 52,000 Americans have been badly wounded. We have spent more than $7 trillion in the Middle East."

Yet Iran has always been the unprincipled exception to Trump's skepticism of regime change. In his zeal to reverse Obama's legacy, he risks repeating Obama's folly. For the 44th president also owed his election to the fact that he recognized Iraq was a "dumb war." He left office with the U.S. mired in more wars of choice than before, including interventions in Libya, Yemen and Syria that have to varying degrees kept smoldering under Trump.

Trump's foreign policy team is replete with advisers ready to turn proxy wars with Iran inside Iraq into a wider conflict, people whose vision of "America First" is indistinguishable from the vision that gave us endless wars in the first place. So far, the president has held them off . But his present course creates a high risk of war with Iran, and a resumption of hostilities in Iraq not limited to the fight against ISIS, whether he knows it or not.

At the very least, Trump may cede the war issue to the Democrats. "We should end the forever wars, not start new ones," tweeted Elizabeth Warren, the liberal presidential candidate who trails Trump in the battleground states and is even losing to him in Virginia, according to the latest Mason-Dixon poll, which hasn't voted for a Republican White House aspirant since 2004. Why throw her a lifeline by implementing the foreign policy of candidates he defeated in 2016?

Trump was elected to guard American borders. Patrolling the Iran-Iraq border will not get him reelected.

W. James Antle III is the editor of The American Conservative.

[Jan 04, 2020] US Kick Starts Raging '20s Declaring War on Iran by PEPE ESCOBAR

Jan 04, 2020 | consortiumnews.com

I t does not matter where the green light for the U . S . targeted assassination in Baghdad of Quds Force commander Major General Qassem Soleimani and the Hashd al-Shaabi second-in-command Abu Madhi al-Muhandis came from.

This is an act of war. Unilateral, unprovoked and illegal.

President Donald Trump may have issued the order. The U . S . Deep State may have ordered him to issue the order. Or the usual suspects may have ordered them all.

According to my best Southwest Asia intel sources, "Israel gave the U . S . the coordinates for the assassination of Qassem Soleimani as they wanted to avoid the repercussions of taking the assassination upon themselves."

It does not matter that Trump and the Deep State are at war.

One of the very few geopolitical obsessions that unite them is non-stop confrontation with Iran – qualified by the Pentagon as one of five top threats against the U . S . , almost at the level of Russia and China.

And there cannot be a more startling provocation against Iran -- in a long list of sanctions and provocations -- than what just happened in Baghdad. Iraq is now the preferred battleground of a proxy war against Iran that may now metastasize into hot war, with devastating consequences.

Please Make a 25th Anniversary Winter Fund Drive Donation Today.

We knew it was coming. There were plenty of rumbles in Israeli media by former military and Mossad officials. There were explicit threats by the Pentagon. I discussed it in detail in Umbria last week with sterling analyst Alastair Crooke – who was extremely worried. I received worried messages from Iran.

The inevitable escalation by Washington was being discussed until late Thursday night here in Palermo, actually a few hours before the strike. (Sicily, by the way, in the terminology of U.S. generals, is AMGOT: American Government Occupied Territory.)

Once again, the Exceptionalist hands at work show how predictable they are. Trump is cornered by impeachment. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been indicted. Nothing like an external "threat" to rally the internal troops.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei knows about these complex variables as much as he knows of his responsibility as the power who issued Iran's own red lines. Not surprisingly he already announced, on the record, there will be blowback: "a forceful revenge awaits the criminals who have his blood and the blood of other martyrs last night on their hands." Expect it to be very painful.

Qasem Soleimani (left) with Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis (right) at a 2017 ceremony commemorating the father of Soleimani, in Mosalla, Tehran. (Fars News Agency, CC BY 4.0, Wikimedia Commons)

Blowback by a Thousand Cuts

I met al-Muhandis in Baghdad two years ago -- as well as many Hashd al-Shaabi members. Here is my full report . The Deep State is absolutely terrified that Hashd al-Shaabi (Popular Mobilization Forces) , a grassroots organization, are on the way to becoming a new Hezbollah, and as powerful as Hezbollah. Grand Ayatollah Sistani, the supreme religious authority in Iraq, universally respected, fully supports them.

So, the American strike also targets Sistani -- not to mention the fact that Hash al-Shaabi operates under guidelines issued by the Iraqi Prime Minister Abdel Mahdi. That's a major strategic blunder that can only be pulled off by amateurs.

Major General Soleimani, of course, humiliated the whole of the Deep State over and over again -- and could eat all of them for breakfast, lunch and dinner as a military strategist. It was Soleimani who defeated ISIS/Daesh in Iraq -- not the Americans bombing Raqqa to rubble. Soleimani is a super-hero of almost mythical status for legions of young Hezbollah supporters, Houthis in Yemen, all strands of resistance fighters in both Iraq and Syria, Islamic Jihad in Palestine, and all across Global South latitudes in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

There's absolutely no way the U.S. will be able to maintain troops in Iraq, unless the nation is re-occupied en masse via a bloodbath. And forget about "security": no imperial official or imperial military force is now safe anywhere, from the Levant to Mesopotamia and the Persian Gulf.

The only redeeming quality out of this major strategic blunder cum declaration of war may be the final nail in the coffin of the Southwest Asia chapter of the U.S. Empire of Bases. Iranian Prime Minister Javad Zarif came out with an appropriate metaphor: the "tree of resistance" will continue to grow. The empire might as well say goodbye to Southwest Asia.

In the short term, Tehran will be extremely careful in their response. A hint of -- harrowing -- things to come: it will be blowback by a thousand cuts. As in hitting the Exceptionalist framework -- and mindset -- where it really hurts. This is the way the Roaring, Raging Twenties begin: not with a bang, but with the release of whimpering dogs of war.

Pepe Escobar, a veteran Brazilian journalist, is the correspondent-at-large for Hong Kong-based Asia Times . His latest book is " 2030 ." Follow him on Facebook .

[Jan 04, 2020] Still lots of silence from Russians and Chinese

Jan 04, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Abe , Jan 5 2020 0:24 utc | 122

@107 karlof1

> Still lots of silence.

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."

[Jan 04, 2020] VIPS MEMO Doubling Down Into Yet Another 'March of Folly,' This Time on Iran by Ray McGovern

This was an act of war. Unilateral, unprovoked and illegal.
Notable quotes:
"... For the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity: ..."
Jan 04, 2020 | consortiumnews.com

T he drone assassination in Iraq of Iranian Quds Force commander General Qassem Soleimani evokes memory of the assassination of Austrian Archduke Ferdinand in June 1914, which led to World War I. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was quick to warn of "severe revenge." That Iran will retaliate at a time and place of its choosing is a near certainty. And escalation into World War III is no longer just a remote possibility, particularly given the multitude of vulnerable targets offered by our large military footprint in the region and in nearby waters.

What your advisers may have avoided telling you is that Iran has not been isolated. Quite the contrary. One short week ago, for example, Iran launched its first joint naval exercises with Russia and China in the Gulf of Oman, in an unprecedented challenge to the U.S. in the region.

Cui Bono?

It is time to call a spade a spade. The country expecting to benefit most from hostilities between Iran and the U.S. is Israel (with Saudi Arabia in second place). As you no doubt are aware, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is fighting for his political life. He continues to await from you the kind of gift that keeps giving. Likewise, it appears that you, your son-in-law, and other myopic pro-Israel advisers are as susceptible to the influence of Israeli prime ministers as was former President George W. Bush. Some commentators are citing your taking personal responsibility for providing Iran with a casus belli as unfathomable. Looking back just a decade or so, we see a readily distinguishable pattern.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon payed a huge role in getting George W. Bush to destroy Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Usually taciturn, Gen. Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, warned in August 2002 that "U.S. action against Iraq could turn the whole region into a cauldron." Bush paid no heed, prompting Scowcroft to explain in Oct. 2004 to The Financial Times that former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had George W. Bush "mesmerized"; that Sharon has him "wrapped around his little finger." (Scowcroft was promptly relieved of his duties as chair of the prestigious President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.)

In Sept. 2002, well before the attack on Iraq, Philip Zelikow, who was Executive Secretary of the 9/11 Commission, stated publicly in a moment of unusual candor, "The 'real threat' from Iraq was not a threat to the United States. The unstated threat was the threat against Israel." Zelikow did not explain how Iraq (or Iran), with zero nuclear weapons, would not be deterred from attacking Israel, which had a couple of hundred such weapons.

Zombie Generals

When a docile, Peter-principle, "we-are-still-winning-in-Afghanistan" U.S. military leadership sends more troops (mostly from a poverty draft) to be wounded and killed in hostilities with Iran, Americans are likely, this time, to look beneath the equally docile media for answers as to why. Was it for Netanyahu and the oppressive regime in Israel? Many Americans will wake up, and serious backlash is likely.

Events might bring a rise in the kind of anti-Semitism already responsible for domestic terrorist attacks. And when bodybags arrive from abroad, there may be for families and for thinking Americans, a limit to how much longer the pro-Israel mainstream media will be able to pull the wool over their eyes.

Those who may prefer to think that Gen. Scowcroft got up on the wrong side of the bed on Oct. 13, 2004, the day he gave the interview to The Financial Times may profit from words straight from Netanyahu's mouth. On Aug. 3, 2010, in a formal VIPS Memorandum for your predecessor, we provided some "Netanyahu in his own words." We include an excerpt here for historical context:

"Netanyahu's Calculations

Netanyahu believes he holds the high cards, largely because of the strong support he enjoys in our Congress and our strongly pro-Israel media. He reads your [Obama's] reluctance even to mention controversial bilateral issues publicly during his recent visit as affirmation that he is in the catbird seat in the relationship.

During election years in the U.S. (including mid-terms), Israeli leaders are particularly confident of the power they and the Likud Lobby enjoy on the American political scene.

Netanyahu's attitude comes through in a video taped nine years ago and shown on Israeli TV, in which he bragged about how he deceived President Clinton into believing he (Netanyahu) was helping implement the Oslo accords when he was actually destroying them.

The tape displays a contemptuous attitude toward -- and wonderment at -- an America so easily influenced by Israel. Netanyahu says:

" America is something that can be easily moved. Moved in the right direction. They won't get in our way Eighty percent of the Americans support us. It's absurd."

Israeli columnist Gideon Levy wrote that the video shows Netanyahu to be "a con artist who thinks that Washington is in his pocket and that he can pull the wool over its eyes," adding that such behavior "does not change over the years."

Recommendation

We ended VIPS' first Memorandum For the President (George W. Bush) with this critique of Secretary of State Colin Powell's address at the UN earlier that day:

"No one has a corner on the truth; nor do we harbor illusions that our analysis is "irrefutable or undeniable" [as Powell claimed his was]. But after watching Secretary Powell today, we are convinced that you would be well served if you widened the discussion beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic."

We are all in a limina l moment. We write with a sense of urgency suggesting you avoid doubling down on catastrophe.

For the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity:

William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)

Marshall Carter-Tripp, Foreign Service Officer and Division Director, State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (ret.)

Graham Fuller, former Chairman, National Intelligence Council (ret.)

Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)

Mike Gravel, former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence Service; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator

Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC Iraq; Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan (associate VIPS)

Michael S. Kearns, Captain, USAF (ret.); ex-Master SERE Instructor for Strategic Reconnaissance Operations (NSA/DIA) and Special Mission Units (JSOC)

John Kiriakou, former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former Senior Investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee

Karen Kwiatkowski, Lt. Col., US Air Force (ret.), at Office of Secretary of Defense watching the manufacture of lies on Iraq, 2001-2003

Edward Loomis, NSA Cryptologic Computer Scientist and Technical Director (ret.)

Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA presidential briefer (ret.)

Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East & CIA political analyst (ret.)

Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)

Scott Ritter, former MAJ., USMC, former UN Weapon Inspector, Iraq

Coleen Rowley, FBI Special Agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel (ret.)

Sarah Wilton, Commander, U.S. Naval Reserve (ret.) and Defense Intelligence Agency (ret.)

Robert Wing, former U.S. Department of State Foreign Service Officer (Associate VIPS)

[Jan 04, 2020] Cattle, pot, black -- Note to DemoRats who condemn Trump misadventure with assassinating General Suleimani

Jan 04, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

themistakenpresident , Jan 4 2020 23:46 utc | 111

NOTE TO DEMOCRATS: Obama Launched 2,800 Strikes On Iraq, Syria Without Congressional Approval
https://www.dailywire.com/news/note-to-democrats-obama-launched-2800-strikes-on-iraq-syria-without-congressional-approval

[Jan 04, 2020] Will Trump welcome the ejection of the US from Iraq - He should by Colonel Lang

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Somehow the Ziocons around Trump have forgotten that the present state of Iraq refused to yield to Obama's demands for a SOFA and in effect expelled the US from the country. ..."
"... The Iraqi parliament is going to vote in emergency session over the issue of the death of al-Muhandis. Will they vote to expel the US from their country? ..."
"... What a lot of commentators seem to overlook is that America has basically declared war on Iraq, while our soldiers are hosted on joint bases with Iraqi soldiers. ..."
"... "We need to get out of Iraq and Syria now. That is the only way that we're going to prevent ourselves from being dragged into this quagmire, deeper and deeper into a war with Iran." Tulsi Gabbard. ..."
"... Assassination of generals, one from an allied country, one from a country with which we have no declared war, and both assassinations performed on the territory of an allied, sovereign country without permission? This is piracy. Why should anyone trust the word of a country which does not honor the most basic of international law? ..."
"... Will we go if they vote that way? I'll go with no. The Neocons desperately want us in Iraq to protect Israel and stick it to Iran as much as possible. They have a laundry list of prepared arguments and we have the dumbest, most compliant, state media in recorded history. We also have a President who believes that intnl law is for weaklings and loves saying 'take the oil'. ..."
"... Take a look at this interview to David Petraeus by FP on yesterday´s summary executions...What you make of this? https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/03 He sounds as if he were the brain behind this operation on summary executions..along some other think tankers.. ..."
"... Whoever is President we will have war. The President is just a feckless puppet controlled by the Zionist. I'll never vote again. It's a waste of time and a farce. Hillary or Donald no different just a matter of timing. Obama destroyed Libya and Syria. Bush II the simpleton and his fairy tale WMD lie. I've lost all respect for whatever "the republic" is suppose to be. On top of that the masses are too stupid for democracy to work. ..."
Jan 03, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Qasem Soleimani was an Iranian soldier. He lived by the sword and died by the sword. He met a soldier's destiny. It is being said that he was a BAD MAN. Absurd! To say that he was a BAD MAN because he fought us as well as the Sunni jihadis is simply infantile. Were all those who fought the US BAD MEN? How about Gentleman Johhny Burgoyne? Was he a BAD MAN? How about Sitting Bull? Was he a BAD MAN? How about Aguinaldo? Another BAD MAN? Let us not be juvenile.

The Iraqi PMU commander who died with Soleimani was Abu Mahdi al Muhandis. He was a member of a Shia militia that had been integrated into the Iraqi armed forces. IOW, we killed an Iraqi general. We killed him without the authorization of the supposedly sovereign state of Iraq.

We created the present government of Iraq through the farcical "purple thumb" elections. That government holds a seat in the UN General Assembly and is a sovereign entity in international law in spite of Trump's tweet today that said among other things that we have "paid" Iraq billions of US dollars. To the Arabs, this statement that brands them as hirelings of the US is close to the ultimate in insult.

Somehow the Ziocons around Trump have forgotten that the present state of Iraq refused to yield to Obama's demands for a SOFA and in effect expelled the US from the country.

The Iraqi parliament is going to vote in emergency session over the issue of the death of al-Muhandis. Will they vote to expel the US from their country?

Will we go if they vote that way? We should. If we do not, then we will be exposed as imperialist hypocrites.

Trump should welcome such a vote. He wants to get out of the ME? What greater opportunity could we have to do so?

Let us leave if invited to go. Let the oh, so clever locals deal with their own hatreds and rivalries. pl

phodges , 03 January 2020 at 02:20 PM

What a lot of commentators seem to overlook is that America has basically declared war on Iraq, while our soldiers are hosted on joint bases with Iraqi soldiers.
Elora Danan , 03 January 2020 at 02:39 PM
Thank you, Pat!

But...Elora guesses you are being rhetorical here...because... if he would have died by the sword...would not have he had the opportunity to defend himself against his enemy/opponent?
Instead...he was caught on surprise...unarmed...and hit by an overwhelming force...he was going to some funerals...

Cameron Kelley , 03 January 2020 at 02:56 PM
Thank you, Colonel. We don't know, we don't care, but we can kill - that's not a recipe for success.
Jack , 03 January 2020 at 04:09 PM
"We need to get out of Iraq and Syria now. That is the only way that we're going to prevent ourselves from being dragged into this quagmire, deeper and deeper into a war with Iran." Tulsi Gabbard.

https://twitter.com/tulsigabbard/status/1213168223127949313?s=21

Would we get out if Iraq asks us to do so? I don't think so. There will be a hue & cry about appeasement of terror!

ex PFC Chuck -> Jack... , 03 January 2020 at 05:25 PM
It took Tulsi about 18 hours to get that brief statement out. Can't help but wonder what that delay was all about.
Elora Danan , 03 January 2020 at 04:14 PM
Some impressive images worth thousands words...just to remember everybody that this man was an appreciated human being...doing his duty....for his motherland...and his God....
Elora Danan said in reply to Elora Danan... , 03 January 2020 at 05:07 PM
To better understand the pain of that elderly yazidi woman in the video, some testimony by Rania Khalek on the role of Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis ( the other militia commander killed who is being as well slandered as terrorist along Soleimani ...) in stopping yazidi genocide in Iraq when nobody else was giving a damn, less any help, for this people...

https://twitter.com/RaniaKhalek/status/1213198497668833280

divadab , 03 January 2020 at 04:17 PM
Assassination of generals, one from an allied country, one from a country with which we have no declared war, and both assassinations performed on the territory of an allied, sovereign country without permission? This is piracy. Why should anyone trust the word of a country which does not honor the most basic of international law?

And am I alone to be disgusted to see the senior members of our government lie blatantly and constantly, when they're not fellating the nearest likudnik....

Elora Danan , 03 January 2020 at 04:20 PM
Tulsi...may be our last hope...

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1213168223127949313

Tulsi for president!

ISL , 03 January 2020 at 04:27 PM
Dear Colonel, seems you find yourself in Tulsi's (good) company.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=28&v=kToUJaOVgTA&feature=emb_logo

prawnik , 03 January 2020 at 04:32 PM
Trump should, but he won't. Might as well quote Bible verses to a robber.
turcopolier , 03 January 2020 at 04:38 PM
ISL

I have been giving her money every month.

Factotum , 03 January 2020 at 04:57 PM
We go where we are wanted and appreciated. We have no skin in Iraq. Build the Wall and protect our own borders. Concentrate our resources on cyber-security.
A. Pols , 03 January 2020 at 05:48 PM
Tulsi makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately that disqualifies her for the presidency, not because she couldn't execute the functions of the presidency, but because neither the party apparatchiks nor the voters would give her the chance. These days either nationalistic claptrap or promises of more freebies are what carry the day. Quelle domage, eh?

As for the Iraqi parliament voting to expel U.S. forces? That's an interesting question. If they did, they'd better vote to expel the "den of spies" at the embassy and insist on our having a normal sized legation (as all countries would be well advised to do). But if they do, would we leave? I personally doubt it even though it would be best if we did and let the Iraqis do what they will, which would probably be reverting back to some sort of strongman govt, of a type more suited to their cultural traditions and inclinations. It's high time we afforded the rest of the world the type of cultural and political autonomy we claim to revere so much.

So, we leave? A good thing for us and for them and the world at large.

Or, we don't? Then we expose the truth the rest of the world already knows, but we at least expose the truth to our own people who have been fed a steady diet of mendacious BS about what we've been doing over there all these years.

That attack on the "airport limo" vehicles leaving Baghdad airport sure took some nerve on our part to think that we could sell something like that...

And, did Trump actually order it, or did someone else in the MIC order it first and Trump laid claim to it afterwards? Uncle Joe, if he had ordered it, would have afterwards announced the execution of a fall guy and denied any complicity! If Trump didn't order it, he should throw whoever did under the bus instead of crowing and wrapping himself in the flag. I wonder about what actually happened in planning this hit job on prominent military people on their way to a funeral for 31 people who may or may not have had anything whatsoever to do with the death of a single American mercenary in Iraq in an attack by persons unknown on a small outpost.

J , 03 January 2020 at 06:01 PM
It's times like this I wish I was a fly on the wall, listening to what the Russian General Staff conversations regarding this assassination are at this moment.

Trump IMHO would do well to seek Putin's counsel on how to exit the corner that Trump has backed US into. While this spells problems for our US, it also creates additional problems for Russia in the ways that could cause them MAJOR problem as well as in a full blown Mideast War with many players in the mix. Not a good mix either.

Israel can't handle a full blown Mideast War, no matter how much their narcissistic national psyche thinks they can. Israel is a mere postage stamp in a sea of rage, which tsunami waves could very easily consume them. Sheldon Adelson and his Likud/NEOCON blowhards have no concept of what is on the short horizon, that can go one way or the other.

I'm glad I'm retired in this instance. My glass of bourbon is more palatable than the grains of Mideast sand that fixing to get stirred up.

God help us all.

Pat, why does the US military always get left with the shit-storms to clean up after? Why?

Christian J Chuba , 03 January 2020 at 06:32 PM
Will we go if they vote that way? I'll go with no. The Neocons desperately want us in Iraq to protect Israel and stick it to Iran as much as possible. They have a laundry list of prepared arguments and we have the dumbest, most compliant, state media in recorded history. We also have a President who believes that intnl law is for weaklings and loves saying 'take the oil'.

I can hear the talking points already ...
1. 'Obama made the same mistake and it created ISIS.'
2. 'Iran has taken over Iraq, it's not a legitimate request' (look at how we selectively recognize govts in South America and no one blinks).
3. 'Iran will use Iraq as a base to attack us' (yeah, its about 100 miles closer).

I can't stand what we have become, the jackals have taken over and the MSM attacks the very few who are not jackals.

turcopolier , 03 January 2020 at 07:05 PM
A Pols

OK. Who do you think would have had the power to order the strike? Not the CIA, the military would not accept such an order. Not the chairman of the JCS, he is not in the chain of command. That leaves Esper, SECDEF. Really? He looks like a putschist to you? You are ignorant of the American government.

Elora Danan , 03 January 2020 at 07:18 PM
Take a look at this interview to David Petraeus by FP on yesterday´s summary executions...What you make of this? https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/03 He sounds as if he were the brain behind this operation on summary executions..along some other think tankers..
Harlan Easley , 03 January 2020 at 07:20 PM
Whoever is President we will have war. The President is just a feckless puppet controlled by the Zionist. I'll never vote again. It's a waste of time and a farce. Hillary or Donald no different just a matter of timing. Obama destroyed Libya and Syria. Bush II the simpleton and his fairy tale WMD lie. I've lost all respect for whatever "the republic" is suppose to be. On top of that the masses are too stupid for democracy to work.

[Jan 04, 2020] Talking about revenge is stupid and juvenile: Iran needs to pull back and focus on making themselves stronger in economy and technology and for strong ties with other responsible players

Highly recommended!
Iran should probably be very careful not to overplay his hand. The time in working it its favor.
Notable quotes:
"... Lavrov said in June 2019 "Those who rely on inciting tension between Arabs and Persians, Arabs and Kurds, and inside the Arab world – between the Sunnis and the Shiites, are not guided by the interests of the peoples of the region, but by their own narrow geopolitical motives." ..."
"... USA has not legally declared war on Iran. This is murder. Murder of an Iranian Government employee. He may also have been covered by a diplomatic passport. If he is (I don't know) this has major repercussions for Diplomatic immunity. ..."
"... The USA 'new' unilateral principle is that any official in any country may now be murdered by the USA government at the whim of the President of the day. ..."
"... The United States launched a war of aggression, the supreme crime, upon Iraq in 2003, based on blatant lies, and are still there. Prior to that, they helped foment the war between Iraq and Iran, then attacked Iraq in 1991, and on top of the overt warfare there was the economic sanctions warfare. ..."
Jan 04, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

powerandpeople , Jan 4 2020 18:43 utc | 27

The subject is 'revenge' and what Iranian authorities may or may not do.

The 'big picture' is re-building the security (and well-being) of ordinary Iranian, Syrian, Iraqi, Yemeni people - and all other decent people of the Middle East and beyond.

Tribal reaction is deep and strong. We all know and experience that. But to achieve 'the big picture' the first instinctive hind-brain reaction must be set aside - or at least, allowed to 'recede'. Of course there must be re-balancing, which carries with it a feeling of vindication, if not revenge.

Lavrov said in June 2019 "Those who rely on inciting tension between Arabs and Persians, Arabs and Kurds, and inside the Arab world – between the Sunnis and the Shiites, are not guided by the interests of the peoples of the region, but by their own narrow geopolitical motives."

Well the USA Government is guilty must apologise publicly and humbly. Compensation must be paid.

Dialogue started.

USA has not legally declared war on Iran. This is murder. Murder of an Iranian Government employee. He may also have been covered by a diplomatic passport. If he is (I don't know) this has major repercussions for Diplomatic immunity.

The USA 'new' unilateral principle is that any official in any country may now be murdered by the USA government at the whim of the President of the day.

Clearly, decent people in USA need to campaign to limit Presidential powers. Revenge creates a spiral of escalation which becomes a vortex of destruction, perhaps global. How does that improve peoples daily lives?

The duty of government is ensuring the security of its people. Does 'revenge' achieve this in the years ahead? It is the instinctive option, yes, but is it the BEST long term option?

In the end, parties must meet, compensation paid, and the hard slow work of building acceptable inter-state relations based on rule of law and the UN Charter re-commenced.

In my view, there is no other option that meets the long term need of ordinary people.

But building this requires special people. Not wreckers and haters.

Will the urgency of the situation see them emerge?

jared , Jan 4 2020 23:05 utc | 94

@ Posted by: psychohistorian | Jan 4 2020 22:18 utc | 84

Thank you. Someone making sense. Most are talking about this like it's halftime in a sporting match - completely juvenile.

Iran needs to pull back and focus on making themselves stronger in economy and technology and for strong ties with other responsible players. They have opportunities with many countries which are increasingly disenchanted with the west. And the west is headed for an economic beating - which explains the desperate behavior.

Even if Iran is very careful in their behavior Irael is going to continue to press for war - the psychotic fears most those that he has attacked.

But maybe with careful behavior and planning and efforts to repair and maintain ties the Iraninans could be ready for that eventuality.

max , Jan 4 2020 23:27 utc | 104
Espen and Trump have made it clear that they will hold Iran responsible for whatever may happen in the region and that they will strike in response or preemptively. Essentially, that makes the real Iranian reaction largely irrelevant. And Israel could create a false flag incident #a la USS Liberty. Or some rogue groups that Iran cannot control might attack US troops or installations. Whether by design or accident, there will be a pretext to base another military strike against Iran on. And then another, until a full blown US-Iran war erupts which Bibi, Lieberman & co so desperately want.
Years of relentless demonization of Iran in the US and the UK have brainwashed large swaths of the population. They will accept a war against Iran, albeit reluctantly, as long as not too many Americans get killed in its wake.

I don't believe for a second that the US would "accept" a limited retaliation. They will jump at any opportunity. Lindsey Graham stands between Trump and impeachment and that warmonger is on record for seeking to bomb Iran's oil refineries. Incidentally, he was the only senator who Trump consulted prior to the murder. Could well be that Graham is right now the real P0TUS , at least until the senate has voted on impeachment. Conveniently, pelosi has put the impeachment on hold, thereby prolonging that situation. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Maybe the Israelis/neocons fear that Trump might lose in November and want to start the war while Bibi's favorite lapdog is still P0TUS. Not, that the Democrats are peacelovers (except for Sanders and Gabbard). But they might be more afraid of a negative reaction by the electorate.
Murdering Suleimani NOW was not some hasty decision without a plan. I am afraid, it was done to get THE ultimate war in the middle east going, no matter if and how much restraint Iran will show.

I do think, btw that Trump blew his reelection by killing Suleimani. Another warmonger will assuredly take his place.

tspoon , Jan 4 2020 23:45 utc | 110
After reading what Magnier has to say, a reasonable guess is that although emotions are running high currently, Irans leadership will likely concentrate omn the work that must be done during such a period, which is to (attempt to) influence the Iraqi parliamentry vote on the continued presence of United States forces. As some have pointed out, this may lead to a US retreat to the Kurdish areas, but even that can only be considered a victory, with consequent practically free movement of Iranian military supplies to their allies in Syria and Lebanon. With this development hopefully secured there is then plenty of time to precisely calibrate any further responce to a level where dignity is preserved, without necessarily bringing the wider ME area into further strife. Any waiting period is also useful in further building up capability where needed, specifically in the case where US aggression continues as it has done so far. US leaders seem not to appreciate that their showy applications of force don't win them friends locally, and could eventually succeed in unifying Iraq in a way Iran never could on its own.
juliania , Jan 5 2020 0:05 utc | 115
This may have been referenced before, and b's previous post begins with a description of the importance of Soleimani, but here is a further link for those who are still in doubt as to his significance for everyone in the region:

qasem-soleimani-was-an-absolute-hero-and-his-death-is-both-a-travesty-and-a-tragedy/

I will also add from a post by Active Patriot at the Saker site: "...if Iran is a friend and ally to Iraq and Syria they would not craft a response which drags either of those 2 countries deeper into more war and hardship."

Really?? , Jan 5 2020 0:19 utc | 119
Circe #72

Solameini's martyrdom is surely recognized as such by all in the ME who have suffered and are suffering the century-long occupation/meddling/manipulating/lying that Western powers have inflicted on the whole ME since before the Great War---now with the USA in the lead. (One of Churchill's war aims in WW1 was to destroy the Ottoman Empire and grab as much of it as Britain could grab. Then of course there was the Balfour Declaration crime.)

What is the "purpose" of martyrdom if it is not to galvanize action of some kind? To galvanize a dramatic quantum leap in consciousness of the meaning of the martyr's sacrifice---of his martyrdom. Surely Solameini will be seen to have died *for* something. For what?

Perhaps to inspire a new setting aside of existing local conflicts to form an effective front to *eject* the foreign virus from the body of the whole ME? To create a new coalition among all citizens of all faiths in all of the besieged ME countries to oust the "crusaders"? Didn't Nasser aspire to take charge of his region via the United *Arab* Republics? What about United Sovereign Nations from the Levant to the Hindu Kush. And, make things uncomfortable for Erdogan if he continues to host American Air Force?

Just wondering.

Also, what is Kurdish reaction to this murder? Kurds seem to be an element standing in the way of unity of purpose in the ME.

Dr Wellington Yueh , Jan 5 2020 0:22 utc | 120
OT but I think timely:

1) Get a list of your favorite sites, then do a DNS lookup on their names, and put those IP addresses in a HOSTS file . If a site appears to go offline, try the IP address. If that doesn't work either, well...

2) I have an old laptop that has wifi and an ethernet port, and it runs an older version of Linux Mint. I wish I had an older version, and I may start looking. The more recent the operating system (any!), the more likely it will have backdoors or some other 'critter' running about and working against you.

3) If you have the hardware and some friends nearby, start an out-of-band neighborhood network. This, as I envision it (with limited oracular ability, mind you), can be like the Little Free Library - just an accumulation of stuff each person has saved over the years, or whatever can be obtained, and scanned if necessary. Wifi can work for this short-term, but plan to bury multiple cables eventually. DO NOT EVER (knowingly) CONNECT THIS NETWORK TO THE INTERNET!!!

4) Start planning for long-term storage of important books. Niven's novel Lucifer's Hammer describes one character's efforts in this direction - he sunk a huge library of important 'civilization cranking' books in a cesspool on a neighbor's property.

There's more, but we've a broad spectrum of things to consider at the moment, so I'll not hog the thread.


As a matter of standing up and showing some jackasses in this thread that US citizens aren't all Rambo...

I, Thomas James Kenney, hereby publicly state that it is my opinion the only way out of this mess (and the only chance to save some semblance of a country) is to very publicly try and imprison these vermin for high treason. They have committed an act that runs counter to every attempted description of civilized behavior ever written.

It is also my considered opinion that it is not necessary for Iran to do anything at all. Simply stay the course. We are almost bled out in this disintegrating 'republic', and people around me are conversing about ways to disconnect from some of the toxic facets of this society. There is not much support for a war, despite what the 'required 20%' continue to scream.

Robert Snefjella , Jan 5 2020 0:22 utc | 121
The United States launched a war of aggression, the supreme crime, upon Iraq in 2003, based on blatant lies, and are still there. Prior to that, they helped foment the war between Iraq and Iran, then attacked Iraq in 1991, and on top of the overt warfare there was the economic sanctions warfare.

The death and maiming and poisoning of millions of Iraqis has been the American contribution to Iraq, over the last several decades. What for? How has this helped the United States? Or Europe? The main advocates for this supreme criminality has been the Israel lobby, Israel, and the supporters of Israel.

The American Apache helicopters are still buzzing around over Baghdad, dealing out terror and intimidation and death. The murder by the United States of yet more Iraqi soldiers and officials recently has been largely absent from the propaganda narratives. But could those be 'the final straw'?

As far as Trump's 52 target threat, this comes after the apparent please don't escalate and we'll make a deal - good cop-bad cop routine.

The 52 number was used to remind mind-controlled Americans that the evil Iranians outrageously took 52 Americans hostage. American's don't just take people hostage; they give them orange suits and torture them, unless they kill them. Apart from murdering and maiming by the millions, they even stage fictional killings, like Osama bin laden, to entertain the zombies, and stick out their chests, hand out medals and the like.

Really?? , Jan 5 2020 0:28 utc | 124
Juliania #95

Just a reminder: Iran is not an Arabic country.
And many non-Arabs and non-Muslims live in ME countries (I am not counting Is as an ME country in this context).
Which is why I express hope of perhaps a broader regional coalition.

Inkan1969 , Jan 5 2020 0:35 utc | 131

The shooting down of flight 655 was a criminal act of manslaughter that should've brought charges against the people responsible. But does b really consider destroying another plane of civilians a justified retribution?

I wonder if Putin will force Trump to stop the escalation and show remorse to Iran before any revenge happens.

[Jan 04, 2020] Looks like Israel requested this hit. And iether Trump or Pentagon chief or both were stupid enough to oblige.

Notable quotes:
"... Trump's closeness to Benjamin Netanyahu also plays into this scenario. I won't fall-off my bar stool in shock and surprise should such a joint operation prove to be true. ..."
"... "America is something that can be easily moved. Moved in the right direction. They won't get in our way Eighty percent of the Americans support us. It's absurd." Benjamin Netanyahu ..."
"... CNN is desperately pushing the trope that 'Trump and his military commanders hastily assembled a situation room at Mar-a-Lago.' No evidence, no eye witnesses, no communique with WADC, no confirmation from Trump himself. Check, and mate. ..."
"... The Neocons did it. They really did it! Any cogent political world analysis is drawn into a cauldron and destroyed. Everything devolves to 'Trump, Russia and Iran' now. Deep State wins! ..."
"... Maybe the Israelis/neocons fear that Trump might lose in November and want to start the war while Bibi's favorite lapdog is still P0TUS. Not, that the Democrats are peacelovers (except for Sanders and Gabbard). But they might be more afraid of a negative reaction by the electorate. Murdering Suleimani NOW was not some hasty decision without a plan. I am afraid, it was done to get THE ultimate war in the middle east going, no matter if and how much restraint Iran will show. ..."
Jan 04, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

GeorgeV , Jan 4 2020 18:33 utc | 24

When President Trump announced the assassination of General Qassim Soleimani, he said that there was "unambiguous" information that Soleimani was planning attacks on US forces in Iraq and Syria. My first thought was what were the sources of that "unambiguous" information?

I'll bet dollars to donuts that it was Israel's Mossad. The sheer precision and timing of that "hit" had all the smell and feel of a Mossad operation. While the US did the actual killing, the Israelis did the 'fingering.'

Trump's closeness to Benjamin Netanyahu also plays into this scenario. I won't fall-off my bar stool in shock and surprise should such a joint operation prove to be true.

joetv , Jan 4 2020 18:36 utc | 25

"America is something that can be easily moved. Moved in the right direction. They won't get in our way Eighty percent of the Americans support us. It's absurd." Benjamin Netanyahu

This bold statement of Israeli/Jewish hubris remains as true today as it was when he said it, over 20 years ago. This fact is only understood by examining 'who' controls the media.

Jose Garcia , Jan 4 2020 18:43 utc | 26
Israel requested this hit. And the Americans were stupid enough to oblige.
Joerg , Jan 4 2020 18:49 utc | 31 Paul Leibowitz , Jan 4 2020 18:51 utc | 32
CNN is desperately pushing the trope that 'Trump and his military commanders hastily assembled a situation room at Mar-a-Lago.' No evidence, no eye witnesses, no communique with WADC, no confirmation from Trump himself. Check, and mate.

Having 'beheaded' Trump and launched what will be enormous death and destruction, the PNAC pesharim and their Neocon noodniks are desperate to deflect responsibility onto Trump, essentially they are 'necklacing' Trump and the Republican administration using the compliant poodled MSM.

This allows the DNC WarHogs to pretend to be the 'People's Populist Party of Peace' at their Convention in July, and bring about the final Bolshevik takeover that Brexit and Hong Kong and a 1,000,000 man Deplorable march on Milwaukee had threatened to defeat.

The high crimes of the Biden's, Kerry's and Pelosi's in Ukraine, and the genocidal crimes against humanity of Maidan itself, are now ink-blotted out of history.

The Neocons did it. They really did it! Any cogent political world analysis is drawn into a cauldron and destroyed. Everything devolves to 'Trump, Russia and Iran' now. Deep State wins!

Zanon , Jan 4 2020 18:52 utc | 34
David

Ridiculous attempt to protect the israelis,

Trump puts Israel first,

Congress did not get advance notice of the assassination of Suleimani, but Israel did:
https://twitter.com/mattdpearce/status/1213209701321719811
Zico , Jan 4 2020 19:42 utc | 53

The Iranians know who the real enemy is. The US(Trump) is just the dumb executioner - they'll get their response in due time. In the mean time, the 1st response will be felt in Tel Aviv.

Since coming to office, pompous Pompeo's been tripping back-n-forth between Tel Aviv and DC, taking his mad orders from Bibi.

One thing for sure, US presence in the ME is on borrowed time.

Zico , Jan 4 2020 19:42 utc | 53
The Iranians know who the real enemy is. The US(Trump) is just the dumb executioner - they'll get their response in due time. In the mean time, the 1st response will be felt in Tel Aviv.

Since coming to office, pompous Pompeo's been tripping back-n-forth between Tel Aviv and DC, taking his mad orders from Bibi.

One thing for sure, US presence in the ME is on borrowed time.

Oriental Voice , Jan 4 2020 19:50 utc | 56
Israel wanted USA to go to war with Iran even well before the Syria debacle. Consequential considerations of such an event caused the US to hesitate, especially after UK parliament voted against being a partner to such a shenanigan. Now a US-Iran War may well be at hand. Whether this would conflagrate the whole ME, and later the whole world, remain to be seen.
RST , Jan 4 2020 20:05 utc | 58
US soldiers ready to die for Israeli interests under Israeli command:

"The United States and Israel enjoy a strong and enduring military-to-military partnership built on a trust that has been developed over decades of cooperation," said USAF Third Air Force commander Lt.-Gen. Richard Clark, who also serves as the commander for the deploying Joint Task Force – Israel.

...

According to Clark, the US and Israeli troops will work side-by-side under each other's relevant chain of command.

"As far as decision-making, it is a partnership," he continued, stressing nonetheless that "at the end of the day it is about the protection of Israel – and if there is a question in regards to how we will operate, the last vote will probably go to Zvika [Haimovitch]."

Washington and Israel have signed an agreement which would see the US come to assist Israel with missile defense in times of war and, according to Haimovitch, "I am sure once the order comes we will find here US troops on the ground to be part of our deployment and team to defend the State of Israel."

And those US troops who would be deployed to Israel, are prepared to die for the Jewish state, Clark said.

"We are ready to commit to the defense of Israel and anytime we get involved in a kinetic fight there is always the risk that there will be casualties. But we accept that – as every conflict we train for and enter, there is always that possibility," he said.

https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Juniper-Cobra-begins-with-US-and-IDF-troops-simulating-missile-attacks-544598

Curtis , Jan 4 2020 20:40 utc | 70
George V 24
Same here. A drone/missile strike to take out a leader, claim he's responsible for many deaths ("millions" DJT), and then claim innocence at any response is a classic Israeli tactic. They did this to test Iron Dome. There had been a ceasefire with Hamas, Israel killed a Hamas leader they claimed responsible for an attack 6 months earlier, and then pointed out Hamas when the usual rockets were launched.
arata , Jan 4 2020 20:42 utc | 71 Circe , Jan 4 2020 20:46 utc | 72
First I want to express admiration of Iranian courage in resisting the corrupting influence of Zionist expansionism and condolences for the immense loss of a brave hero and unparalleled military leader, Soleimani, who was not a general's general, but a soldier's general admired by many.

Iran is a bastion of resistance against Zionism and therefore the number one target and enemy of Zionists. Despite, the invasion of Iraq, Israeli assault on Lebanon, proxy invasions of Syria and Yemen, and the severest of sanctions, the Iran domino remains standing. For this reason, Zionist Trump came into power guns blazing against Iran, intent on its destruction. There was no doubt on that, and his assassination of Iran's most revered general removes all doubt on his intent. The murder of Soleimani represents a cowardly act typical of a coward like Trump not to have to face a foreign opponent and military leader like Soleimani leading the Iranian offensive against Zionism and the looming war on Iran. But mark my words, Soleimani's spirit will be there on the battlefield of any war initiated by Trump and his cabal.

Trump, the jackass liar that he is, justifies his barbaric act as a response to an imminent threat against U.S. forces and personnel. THIS IS A BALD-FACED LIE. If the threat were imminent then the logical urgent step would have been to sabotage the ACTUAL threat mounted as Soleimani did not arrive in Iraq to carry out any attack himself. This proves Trump is lying when he bragged this lie to the crowd at yesterday's rally. The truth is really that Trump wanted a shrewd Iranian general and formidable opponent out of the way to facilitate the Zionist goal to take on Iran. Trump resorted, as usual, to his con way of fooling everyone with this fabrication. Also, Soleimani had the stature to become the next President of Iran, and this was a sobering thought feared by the Zionist Trump cabal. Imagine a man of strength and intelligence, feared by many but loved by more, ruling Iran. Gutless, crass Trump killed that potential. As I wrote previously, Trump killed the albatross and misery will follow him for it. All said, Iran did have every right to avenge the killing of numerous militia by the U.S.; the funeral of which Soleimani was to attend in Iraq, making the act perpetrated on him from a drone all the more repulsive and dishonorable. It was as if yellow-belly Trump shot Soleimani in the back robbing him of the dignity of death in battle he deserved as a warrior of his calibre, albeit not of the glory that will never be Trump's.

IMHO, Iran should first and most importantly, ferret out TRAITORS not loyal to the cause of resistance who delivered Soleimani to the enemy. Iran needs to tighten its security and scrutinize, clean up and enhance its intelligence network especially in view of escalating momentum towards war. It must use this time of mourning to rally public sentiment both in Iran and Iraq and strengthen its alliances great and small to the cause of resistance to imperial domination and, regionally, OCCUPATION--Zionist U.S. OCCUPATION in the Middle East. Unifying, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, even Palestine to the cause of ending ZIONIST U.S. OCCUPATION and ousting America from the Middle East and derailing corrupt Zionist expansion and influence should be PRIORITY NUMBER ONE. This means decrying high and low the monumental destruction, corruption and evil that this occupation has wrought on the entire Middle East and the hardship of massive displacement suffered and being suffered by millions.

That is the fundamental goal, however, ending the occupation in Iraq by U.S. forces first is Iran's domino to victory . As far as retaliation, in my view, the multi-pronged strategy (death by a thousand cuts) I hear and read Iran might be contemplating would be more effective than one spectacular event, because it would make clear the ubiquitous nature of Iran's reach, and make the Zionist American opponent think twice about attacking Iran with deadly tentacles that will activate and mobilize anywhere to the detriment of its enemy.

frances , Jan 4 2020 22:22 utc | 85
My first thought with all of this has been, why now? After reading I have a possible answer.
Background:1. The Russians have been building up in Syria for a major assault on remaining ISIS on the Syrian/Iraq border, the Iraqi/Iran forces announced that the planned assault would begin hours before the five Iraq/Iran military bases were hit. 2. Israel just suffered a defeat when they launched six missiles at Syria and five were taken out by Syria using Russian supplied weaponry. The sixth missile fell in the desert, was recovered by Syria and given to Russia.
These two events are key; the US/Israeli ISIS teams in Syria and on the Iraqi border were about to be wiped out and control of the border by Syria leaving the US northern Syria installations without a supply line. The Israeli failed attacked showed that the Syrian defense systems were now fulling integrated with Russia and that the upcoming attack on ISIS would probably end them as well as Israel's ability to destroy Syrian/Iranian sites in Syria.
I think the US military and Pompeo panicked, they came up with a quick casus belli by having one of their proxies lob missiles at a US encampment with the intent of killing a US citizen. They then hit the Iraqi/Iran teams that were part of the planned Russian assault shutting down the planned Russian attack. Pompeo and the Generals immediately flew to Fla to tell Trump what they had done. Silence from Trump,why? Because he knew that this decision was a trap to damage his reelection, he saw the plot which is why he stayed in Florida.
Then things really went sideways IMO. Israel seeing it's chance in the confusion, used it's pawn Pompeo to order a hit on the airport killing the General, you will note that Israel says it was told before the hit, my guess is no, they told Pompeo to take the hit and he did.
Israel immediately said it had nothing to do with the decision, Pompeo immediately said Trump ordered it. Trump was forced to say it was his decision and defend it IMO.
Yes it is possible that Trump was told of an opportunity to take out the General but the MIC/Pompeo know Trump historically pulls back from attacks, remember the Bolton fiasco with the tankers, with the drone, they couldn't get Trump to attack then, why would he now attack a Iraqi airbase when the attack on the Iraq/Iran bases was such a disaster for US Iraqi relations? Why would they bother to ask him now after having put him in a box with the first strikes?
Now there is talk that Trump has sent a Qatar rep to Iran to cut a deal. THAT is his initiative, none of the prior events are his initiatives. Could be wrong, and for all that is not to like about Trump he is not stupid, his goal is to win a Pulitzer prize as the peace president.
Yes he rants about Iran, the guys who finance his campaign demand that, but push come to shove, who the hell wants to be remembered as the guy who started a nuclear war...and lost??


Veritas X- , Jan 4 2020 22:28 utc | 86
Told you all it's Nutandyahoo who is in charge of jUSA. The Tronald is only his stooge:

Patriot Ali
‏ @LogicalAnalys1s

Viral video shows official from SaudiArabia congratulating Israel pm Netanyahu over the death of #Qasem_Suleimani . Video is spreading like wildfire in pro #Iran accounts 😡
World OSINT
/>
1:04
8:44 AM - 4 Jan 2020
https://twitter.com/LogicalAnalys1s/status/1213501484790407171

X-

SharonM , Jan 4 2020 22:33 utc | 87
Superior analysis! Thank you:)
jared , Jan 4 2020 23:05 utc | 94
@ Posted by: psychohistorian | Jan 4 2020 22:18 utc | 84

Thank you. Someone making sense.
Most are talking about this like it's halftime in a sporting match - completely juvenile.
Iran needs to pull back and focus on making themselves stronger in economy and technology and for strong ties with other responsible players. They have opportunities with many countries which are increasingly disenchanted with the west. And the west is headed for an economic beating - which explains the desperate behavior.
Even if Iran is very careful in their behavior Irael is going to continue to press for war - the psychotic fears most those that he has attacked.
But maybe with careful behavior and planning and efforts to repair and maintain ties the Iraninans could be ready for that eventuality.

juliania , Jan 4 2020 23:08 utc | 95
In all of this, and the many comments, I must praise Circe for this final one @ 72. It strikes a definitive chord:

"...That is the fundamental goal, however, ending the occupation in Iraq by U.S. forces first is Iran's domino to victory. As far as retaliation, in my view, the multi-pronged strategy (death by a thousand cuts) I hear and read Iran might be contemplating would be more effective than one spectacular event, because it would make clear the ubiquitous nature of Iran's reach, and make the Zionist American opponent think twice about attacking Iran with deadly tentacles that will activate and mobilize anywhere to the detriment of its enemy."

It is clear that Qasseem Soleimani was of a stature for Iran that his legacy will be part of the determination for what follows in the eyes of his dedicated compatriots. I agree with Circe here - what will immediately follow is important. It might even include the extraction from Syria of American influence, which would require the cooperation of Assad. I am remembering that Iraq's foreign minister recently gave a speech concerning the unification of Arabic countries toward a peaceful end. That now must include the departure of US troops and is the antithesis to war, something that would make a commendable legacy for both generals who have now had their funeral at an important spiritual center.

War is not on. The fall of the black domino is. But this is not retribution; that will come. Bravo Circe; good post.

bevin , Jan 4 2020 23:17 utc | 97
" I cannot recall an act of this kind in the last 50 years especially in the extent to which it seems to take for granted an underlying legitimacy and thus an naive openness, almost childlike in its self-belief..."
patroklos @77
Doesn't Osama bin Laden count? Obama ordered and took open credit for the assassination of dozens of individuals, many of them later shown to have been totally innocent of any involvement in politics, many children etc.
And then, of course there was one Colonel Ghadaffi publicly assassinated, after his surrender, with extreme brutality.
The only new thing about this is that the victim was a person of power and eminence.
Thom Prentice , Jan 4 2020 23:19 utc | 99
Pepe Escobar: "According to my best Southwest Asia intel sources, "Israel gave the US the coordinates for the assassination of Qasem Soleimani as they wanted to avoid the repercussions of taking the assassination upon themselves."
https://thesaker.is/us-starts-the-raging-twenties-declaring-war-on-iran/
max , Jan 4 2020 23:27 utc | 104
Espen and Trump have made it clear that they will hold Iran responsible for whatever may happen in the region and that they will strike in response or preemptively. Essentially, that makes the real Iranian reaction largely irrelevant. And Israel could create a false flag incident #a la USS Liberty. Or some rogue groups that Iran cannot control might attack US troops or installations. Whether by design or accident, there will be a pretext to base another military strike against Iran on. And then another, until a full blown US-Iran war erupts which Bibi, Lieberman & co so desperately want.
Years of relentless demonization of Iran in the US and the UK have brainwashed large swaths of the population. They will accept a war against Iran, albeit reluctantly, as long as not too many Americans get killed in its wake.

I don't believe for a second that the US would "accept" a limited retaliation. They will jump at any opportunity. Lindsey Graham stands between Trump and impeachment and that warmonger is on record for seeking to bomb Iran's oil refineries. Incidentally, he was the only senator who Trump consulted prior to the murder. Could well be that Graham is right now the real P0TUS , at least until the senate has voted on impeachment. Conveniently, pelosi has put the impeachment on hold, thereby prolonging that situation. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Maybe the Israelis/neocons fear that Trump might lose in November and want to start the war while Bibi's favorite lapdog is still P0TUS. Not, that the Democrats are peacelovers (except for Sanders and Gabbard). But they might be more afraid of a negative reaction by the electorate.
Murdering Suleimani NOW was not some hasty decision without a plan. I am afraid, it was done to get THE ultimate war in the middle east going, no matter if and how much restraint Iran will show.

I do think, btw that Trump blew his reelection by killing Suleimani. Another warmonger will assuredly take his place.

Really?? , Jan 4 2020 23:39 utc | 109
"CNN is desperately pushing the trope that 'Trump and his military commanders hastily assembled a situation room at Mar-a-Lago.' "

Leibowitz # 32

Why would they do this *after* the strike?
That sounds kind of silly. And "hastily" sounds as though they were taken unawares . . . They were surprised to hear that Solameini had been taken out?????

PavewayIV , Jan 5 2020 1:00 utc | 139
Lozion@62 - Re: Your Magnier quote, "The US did not plan to kill the vice commander of the Iraqi Hashd al-Shaabi brigade Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes when it assassinated Iranian Brigadier General Qassem Soleiman"

The light bulb above my chimpanzee brain just flickered (briefly). Somewhere on SST (maybe Lang?): something to the effect of 'Never underestimate US gov/mil incompetence'. Maybe it was the opposite of what Magnier thought really took place.

Treasonous, dual-citizen chickenhawks of the US possibly targeted Hashd al-Shaabi vice-commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes . They were trying to kill him because they found out from some snitch that he just showed up at the airport for some reason. The all-seeing US didn't realize Soleimani was even there . I guess because the sneaky Soleimani flew commercial into Baghdad and probably carried his bags to the waiting SUVs. Who would have expected that ? How devious!

This seems entirely plausible to me. Soleimani was too expensive a target - end of the State of Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UAE and all. But whacking a vice-commander of Hashd al-Shaabi with a quarter-million dollar JAGM? Hell YEAH! We live for this kind of preventative assassination heroism in the US. Especially if accompanied by colorful graphics.

The awkward and delayed response of the usual US mil/gov mouthpieces makes this ridiculous scenario even more believable. I have thoroughly convinced myself that this was a US screw-up of EPIC proportions. In case the US government is reading MoA, this was all Lozion's doing. I'm an innocent conspiracy primate.

[Jan 04, 2020] Tulsi on Trump assasignation of Iran military commender in Bahdad

Jan 04, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Elora Danan ,

Tulsi...may be our last hope...

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1213168223127949313

Tulsi for president!

ISL , 03 January 2020 at 04:27 PM
Dear Colonel, seems you find yourself in Tulsi's (good) company.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=28&v=kToUJaOVgTA&feature=emb_logo

A. Pols , 03 January 2020 at 05:48 PM
Tulsi makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately that disqualifies her for the presidency, not because she couldn't execute the functions of the presidency, but because neither the party apparatchiks nor the voters would give her the chance. These days either nationalistic claptrap or promises of more freebies are what carry the day. Quelle domage, eh?

As for the Iraqi parliament voting to expel U.S. forces? That's an interesting question. If they did, they'd better vote to expel the "den of spies" at the embassy and insist on our having a normal sized legation (as all countries would be well advised to do). But if they do, would we leave? I personally doubt it even though it would be best if we did and let the Iraqis do what they will, which would probably be reverting back to some sort of strongman govt, of a type more suited to their cultural traditions and inclinations. It's high time we afforded the rest of the world the type of cultural and political autonomy we claim to revere so much.

So, we leave? A good thing for us and for them and the world at large.

Or, we don't? Then we expose the truth the rest of the world already knows, but we at least expose the truth to our own people who have been fed a steady diet of mendacious BS about what we've been doing over there all these years.
That attack on the "airport limo" vehicles leaving Baghdad airport sure took some nerve on our part to think that we could sell something like that...

And, did Trump actually order it, or did someone else in the MIC order it first and Trump laid claim to it afterwards? Uncle Joe, if he had ordered it, would have afterwards announced the execution of a fall guy and denied any complicity! If Trump didn't order it, he should throw whoever did under the bus instead of crowing and wrapping himself in the flag. I wonder about what actually happened in planning this hit job on prominent military people on their way to a funeral for 31 people who may or may not have had anything whatsoever to do with the death of a single American mercenary in Iraq in an attack by persons unknown on a small outpost.

[Jan 04, 2020] Bryan Hemming

Jan 04, 2020 | bryanhemming.wordpress.com

| Jan 3 2020 9:53 utc | 13

"The U.S. has won nothing with its attack but will feel the consequences for decades to come. Others will move in to take its place."

Wait for awhile on that one. Iraq will have to take some major hits if it tries moving to the Russia China sphere. And it will have to deal with the fith column which are strong. Iraq will have to go through the fire - like Donbass, Syria ect until it is distilled to a solid core and then they will get support that will drive back the yanks.

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Jan 3 2020 9:53 utc | 14
To summarize b: The US doesn't gain anything, and potentially loses everything they sought out to do in Iraq (and by extension; Syria), from the killing of Soleimani.

So why do it? Was Soleimani really the target? Who benifits by drawing the US and Iran closer war?

I wouldn't be surprised if an article about 'bad intel received from a 3rd party' pops up in the NYT in a few months time.

The price of crude oil has jumped over $2 USD on the world markets since the news

I expect the US to fully resist being booted out of Iraq (which would also make it's two major positions in Syria highly untenable). who could now believe that US troops in Iraq and Syria won't come under sustained attack now, by the many allies Iran has in the area?

Elijah gives breaking news
https://twitter.com/ejmalrai/status/1213032002682867715

Grand Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Sistani considers "the #US attack against the #BaghdadAirport is a clear violation of #Iraq sovereignty".

That is clear support for the US withdrawal from #Iraq.

AND

S Sistani condemns the "attack against Iraqi (not Iranian-militia) position on the borders killing our Iraqi sons to the hateful attack on #BaghdadAirport is a violation and internationally unlawful (US) act against anti-#ISIS hero(s) leading to difficult times for #Iraq".

Posted by: michaelj72 | Jan 3 2020 10:05 utc | 19

Posted by: never mind | Jan 3 2020 9:54 utc | 15
Nice one, b, thanks...

I've been following Elijah M. and several others on twitter, as well as more mainstream sources for several hours after learning of these assassinations.

the absolute stupidity, maliciousness and wickedness of the US Political and Military Elites is truly astonishing. They have misjudged every single thing in that part of the world since 9/11 and the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and then Iraq - and spent/wasted well over $5 trillion. not to mention the horrific loss of life everywhere from Syria to Iraq and Yemen. And we are now looking at another even more catastrophic war.
it is unbelievable

Posted by: michaelj72 | Jan 3 2020 9:59 utc | 18
Kurious

"This was not Trump`s decision. Trump had to take responsibilty to show he is in command. He will soon realize that he was played by the CIA and the Israelis."

Dont exempt Trump
but that Trump is getting fooled by Israel is obvious:
Tillerson says Netanyahu skillfully 'played' Trump using misinformation
https://www.timesofisrael.com/tillerson-says-netanyahu-skillfully-played-trump-using-misinformation/

Posted by: Zanon | Jan 3 2020 11:21 utc | 44
Posted by: Peter AU1 | Jan 3 2020 11:18 utc | 43

I'd expect the Iranians to be more subtle than that. I don't think there's any advantage for the Iranians to directly attack the US position in the ME.

Posted by: Laguerre | Jan 3 2020 11:35 utc | 49

[Jan 04, 2020] By killing Soleimani, the US takes a dramatic step with unknown consequences

Jan 04, 2020 | www.timesofisrael.com

At this early stage, it is not clear how Iran's retaliation will be carried out. Due in large part to Soleimani's own efforts over the past 20 years, Tehran has many options and venues at its disposal for reprisals through its proxies in the Middle East -- Shiite militias in Iraq and Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen.

While the United States claimed direct responsibility for the airstrike, Tehran or its proxies may seek their vengeance by striking US allies like Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Speaking to Iranian state media, IRGC spokesman Ramezan Sharif explicitly threatened the State of Israel with retaliation.

"The fleeting happiness of the Americans and the Zionists will in no time turn into mourning," Sharif said.

Though Iran has typically refrained from launching large-scale strikes directly from its territory for fear of direct retaliations against the country itself, preferring instead to conduct attacks from the countries in which its proxies operate -- such a strike is by no means outside the realm of possibility.

In addition to any physical reprisals, Tehran could bring to bear its extensive offensive cyber capabilities against the United States and its allies.

The fleeting happiness of the Americans and the Zionists will in no time turn into mourning

Iran, which was already expected to announce a further violation of the JCPOA next week, may also decide to further step up its uranium enrichment as a response to Soleimani's assassination.

However, nothing is inevitable or certain. Though Soleimani was undoubtedly a key figure in the region and the US killing him presents serious potential for a wider and deadlier conflict between the American and Iranian alliances, recent Middle East history contains several cases of hugely important officials being killed without earth-shattering retaliations.

[Jan 04, 2020] Reprisals against US to come at time and place of Iran's choosing

Jan 04, 2020 | www.theguardian.com

The threat to America and its allies is greatest in the Middle East, but Tehran has ample options when it comes to taking revenge

Julian Borger in Washington

Fri 3 Jan 2020 12.29 EST Last modified on Fri 3 Jan 2020 17.32 EST Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via Email The constant sense of insecurity that Americans and allies will feel will be part of the revenge. Photograph: Nazanin Tabatabaee/Wana/Reuters Iran has spent decades preparing for a moment like this , developing methods and networks around the world that give Tehran the widest possible choice when it comes to taking revenge.

In the weeks immediately after the airstrike that killed Iran's most powerful general , the threat against Americans and their allies will be greatest in the Middle East, but the risk will balloon out across the globe over the months and years to come.

Any US outpost in Syria and Iraq, military or diplomatic, is vulnerable to attacks, likely to come from Iranian-backed militias linked to Kata'ib Hezbollah , which has served as Tehran's most reliable fist in Iraq. In Iraq, there will be even less protection from the state, which is furious about the attack outside Baghdad airport.

The second ring of possible reprisals could follow an already familiar path, targeting oil shipments through the Persian Gulf. The leadership in Tehran will be conscious that one avenue of revenge against Donald Trump would be strike at his chances of re-election. An oil price spike, coupled with a backdrop of global instability and US vulnerability, would certainly hurt his campaign.

In Afghanistan, Iran has longstanding ties with Hazara militias and solid basis for operations in Herat.

In Lebanon, Hezbollah has long been Iran's right arm, and can strike Israel and US regional interests at any time. And Hezbollah has networks much further afield where there are pockets of Lebanese Shia diaspora, for example in Latin America and West Africa.

Iranian intelligence has carried out assassinations in Europe, and there are a string of other attacks globally in which Iran or Hezbollah is suspected but not proven to be involved.

US intelligence certainly believes Hezbollah was behind the bombing of an Israeli-Argentinian cultural centre in Buenos Aires in 1994, and the bombing of a bus full of Israeli tourists in Burgas, Bulgaria, in 2012. The CIA was also convinced that Iran was involved in the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in 1988 , in reprisal for the accidental downing of an Iranian airliner , Iran Air 655, five months earlier.

While Tehran has ample choices, it also has limitations. It will want to avoid triggering an all-out war with the US and its allies. It may now decide to build up a covert nuclear arsenal, no longer bound by the 2015 nuclear deal which Donald Trump walked out of. It would be harder to go down that road in the middle of a firefight. And each act of retribution could use up the political capital Iran has around the world, most importantly backing from Russia and China.

ss="rich-link"> Iran vows revenge for US killing of top general Qassem Suleimani Read more

But while Iran is likely to choose its targets carefully, with an eye to deniability, there is little doubt that reprisals will come at a time and place of Tehran's choosing. The constant sense of insecurity that Americans and allies will feel will be part of the revenge.

"I frankly have never seen the Iranians not respond – tit for tat. It's just never happened," said Robert Baer, a former CIA officer. "It's so in their DNA, [as is using] a proxy, which makes it more difficult to respond to. And their options are unlimited."

Topics Iran

[Jan 04, 2020] Russia is unlikely to tolerate the destruction of Iraq yet again and it's descent into Libya-like chaos

Jan 04, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

BM , Jan 4 2020 18:31 utc | 22

Russia is unlikely to tolerate the destruction of Iraq yet again and it's descent into Libya-like chaos - which is what could happen if the US refuses to leave. Russia is unwilling to see a repeat of Libya. My speculation is that Russia might have issued very severe warnings to the US with respect to this to deter such conduct, similar to what seems to have happened when the US threatened Venezuela. One example of such a possible threat that I see as plausible might be that if the US takes further action in Iraq likely to result in civil war, Russia will totally destroy every US base in Syria (which on the invitation of the Syrian President they are legally entitled to do at any time).

The alleged recent movement of Russian strategic command aircraft to Syria, capable of controlling the launch of strategic ballistic missiles, might be directed either to assist Russia in controlling any escallation connected with the destruction of US bases in Syria, or it could be to control the threat of Israel launching a nuclear attack against Iran, in the event of a war against Iran and Iran's inevitable reprisals against Israel.

Russia repeatedly emphasises that it is not the world policeman, which is why Russia is normally very restrained in responses to US aggression, and responds only in relation to threats to Russian national security; nevertheless the breakdown of Iraq due to the refusal of the US to leave would certainly pose serious threats to Russian national security, and President Putin has been signalling recently that Russia's tolerance for US lawlessness is coming to an end.

Les7 , Jan 4 2020 19:10 utc | 40

In traditional Arab culture, a mediator - someone with the trust of both parties, objective, and who has the stature and ability to force compliance should a possible agreement be abrogated - brokers a 'pause', consults with both parties, to convey expectations.

If the mediator considers the parties 'reconcilable' he arranges a "sulha" - a meeting where the leaders concerned meet face to face to to haggle out the details.

Only Putin or Xi has such stature, only Putin may be able to enforce agreement.

Reconciliation requires a level of respect for the other. The US respects no one, not even Putin.

Iran has zero reason to trust any US agreement (JCPOA?)

The US brings $ to its negotiations(offer to lift sanctions) reflecting its values-$, Iran looks for justice(punishment of those who did the deed), reflecting its value of life.

The red flag says there is no possibility of reconciliation.

Robert Snefjella , Jan 5 2020 0:22 utc | 121
The United States launched a war of aggression, the supreme crime, upon Iraq in 2003, based on blatant lies, and are still there. Prior to that, they helped foment the war between Iraq and Iran, then attacked Iraq in 1991, and on top of the overt warfare there was the economic sanctions warfare. The death and maiming and poisoning of millions of Iraqis has been the American contribution to Iraq, over the last several decades. What for? How has this helped the United States? Or Europe? The main advocates for this supreme criminality has been the Israel lobby, Israel, and the supporters of Israel.

The American Apache helicopters are still buzzing around over Baghdad, dealing out terror and intimidation and death. The murder by the United States of yet more Iraqi soldiers and officials recently has been largely absent from the propaganda narratives. But could those be 'the final straw'?

As far as Trump's 52 target threat, this comes after the apparent please don't escalate and we'll make a deal - good cop-bad cop routine.

The 52 number was used to remind mind-controlled Americans that the evil Iranians outrageously took 52 Americans hostage. American's don't just take people hostage; they give them orange suits and torture them, unless they kill them. Apart from murdering and maiming by the millions, they even stage fictional killings, like Osama bin laden, to entertain the zombies, and stick out their chests, hand out medals and the like.

[Jan 04, 2020] Trump is weak, reckless and easily manipulated. This has long been obvious. He does not deserve to be reelected. But who befor him was?

Notable quotes:
"... He fired missiles into Syria on the basis of false propaganda and while he's ostensibly ordered troops out of Syria, it's like the Pentagon is thumbing their nose at him, while he tweets ..."
"... In many ways Trump seems like Governor William J. Le Petomane, in Blazing Saddles. ..."
"... Bush & Cheney supported by both parties invaded Iraq and created the ascendancy of Iran. Then Obama comes along and aids & abets Al Qaeda to head-chop Christians in Syria, once again with support from both our political parties. ..."
"... Trump comes along as the "no more wasting money in the Middle East" guy. But surrounds himself with all neocons including his daughter & son-in-law. And he has shown to be generally clueless on anything beyond one slide on a Powerpoint. He thinks he's still on the set of The Apprentice. ..."
"... I'd like to say that the US is no longer a Constitutional Republic. We have law enforcement & intelligence who ran a coup attempt and half the country thinks that was a good thing. We have coteries that lie and propagandize us into war that has cost the American people several trillion that they've had to borrow from future generations. With the Patriot Act, FISA and all kinds of other "anti-terrorist laws", we essentially have a lawless national security surveillance state. ..."
"... the reason for Suleimani to be in Iraq early on Friday morning: to attend the funeral of the Iraqi soldiers who died during those strikes neal al-Qaim. ..."
Jan 04, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

prawnik , 03 January 2020 at 09:53 AM

Trump is weak, stupid, reckless and easily manipulated. This has long been obvious.

That is not an argument in favor of Team D, the Resistance, the Deep State, the Blob or whatever (if anything it is an argument against their conspiracy theories), but Trump is what he is.

Renae -> Jack... , 03 January 2020 at 01:49 PM
I don't believe Trump ordered this attack. I believe that the neocons/neolibs are afraid they would lose power when the coup plot is revealed. So, this is a pre-emptive action against Trump winning re-election. It seems Nancy Pelosi was consulted by Secretary of Defense Esper first, although she denies she was briefed about the asassination. Well, we all know where to stick her denials, don't we? https://www.enmnews.com/2020/01/03/pelosi-briefed-thursday-night-after-strike-killing-soleimani/
turcopolier -> Renae... , 03 January 2020 at 04:58 PM
Renae

You don't understand how the US government works. The armed forces would not accept such an order from anyone else but the CinC.

Jack -> Eric Newhill... , 03 January 2020 at 12:40 PM
"Trump inherited the mess. Perhaps he is trying to salvage something out of it."

Admittedly he did inherit this mess. However, IMO, he's done nothing to salvage it. He fired missiles into Syria on the basis of false propaganda and while he's ostensibly ordered troops out of Syria, it's like the Pentagon is thumbing their nose at him, while he tweets.

And rather than putting in place a plan and executing on getting out of the wars that have cost us trillions of dollars and destabilized the entire Middle East he's just aggravated it further by blowing up people on the Iraqi/Syrian border. And now he's escalated it further.

The bodybags still keep coming home from Afghanistan, where we know with certainty that we'll have to exit and that it will revert back to its natural state. I'm afraid he just went along to get along with the neocon warmongers that he's ensconced in all the top places in his administration.

In many ways Trump seems like Governor William J. Le Petomane, in Blazing Saddles.

blue peacock said in reply to Larry Johnson ... , 03 January 2020 at 11:08 AM
Well said Larry.

Yours is precisely the point. Iraq was a secular country under the "tyrannical" Saddam's Baathist regime. So is Syria a secular country under Assad. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. The Saudis did. He would have been a natural counter-weight to Iran. Of course he may have kicked out the Al Sauds soon enough to hang out in London, New York and Paris after he consolidated Kuwait. That may have been a good thing in hindsight.

Bush & Cheney supported by both parties invaded Iraq and created the ascendancy of Iran. Then Obama comes along and aids & abets Al Qaeda to head-chop Christians in Syria, once again with support from both our political parties.

Trump comes along as the "no more wasting money in the Middle East" guy. But surrounds himself with all neocons including his daughter & son-in-law. And he has shown to be generally clueless on anything beyond one slide on a Powerpoint. He thinks he's still on the set of The Apprentice.

I'd like to say that the US is no longer a Constitutional Republic. We have law enforcement & intelligence who ran a coup attempt and half the country thinks that was a good thing. We have coteries that lie and propagandize us into war that has cost the American people several trillion that they've had to borrow from future generations. With the Patriot Act, FISA and all kinds of other "anti-terrorist laws", we essentially have a lawless national security surveillance state.

We are fucked because so many of our fellow citizens fall for the black & white Rambo movie plot, while their ass is being taken to the cleaners.

Skip Molander said in reply to blue peacock... , 03 January 2020 at 01:57 PM
Amen! Most Americans are ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL. They don't know which way is UP! They haven't a clue. They are easy prey to the progandists in the US government (dominated by Zionists/Israel-Firsters) and in the US media (also dominated by the Zionist narrative).
The Beaver said in reply to Larry Johnson ... , 03 January 2020 at 11:10 AM
Mr Johnson,

In addition Eric forgot what happened on December 29th and the reason for Suleimani to be in Iraq early on Friday morning: to attend the funeral of the Iraqi soldiers who died during those strikes neal al-Qaim.

Terry said in reply to Eric Newhill... , 03 January 2020 at 11:19 AM
Do other countries have any right to self determination? How would Americans react to foreign powers controlling our country and killing our citizens at will?

When we instilled a democracy in Shiite majority Iraq who would get voted into power? What was the result of disbanding the Arab baathist Iraqi army?

We handed Iraq to Iran.

Factotum said in reply to Terry... , 03 January 2020 at 12:11 PM
Narco-controlled foreigners now run rough shod over much of California. How does that example work for context.
Terry said in reply to Factotum... , 03 January 2020 at 02:56 PM
As context, nothing to do with the current topic.

The cartels should be declared terrorists along with domestic gangs, antifa, and the muslim brotherhood.

The border should be controlled by our government.

ISL -> Eric Newhill... , 03 January 2020 at 11:31 AM
There is a reason civilized nations do not do assassinations, but then you may have forgotten how WW1 started.

I shudder at the world you plan to leave our children, but empires do not last forever (or much longer with an easily manipulated moron in charge) and you may live to see assassinations of Americans on US soil as common "geopolitics."

Fred -> ISL... , 03 January 2020 at 12:00 PM
ISL,

"forgotten how WW1 started"

So Soleimani was heir apparent to the Supreme Leader?

JohninMK said in reply to Fred ... , 03 January 2020 at 01:12 PM
No but he could well have gone to the top in their politics as his next career move. With a satisfaction rating over 80% he was a probable future President.
ISL -> Fred ... , 03 January 2020 at 02:03 PM
Unintended consequences of a high level assassination.

No good pathway to de-escalate for any side once open hostilities start.

Block heads running things (President f---ing moron - quote Tillerson), born again fundamentalists believing in the second coming calling the shots on one side and the Mahdi on the other.

But if you want to focus on a title, I guess nothing to see.

vig -> ISL... , 03 January 2020 at 02:05 PM
EN: So you, like many here, are fine with people that organize attacks on our embassies?

I fully agree, outrageous! Simply outragepus! Now of course I have to reflect in what ways those men could have joined Americans in celebration of the dead of their comrades.

ISL: There is a reason civilized nations do not do assassinations

didn't Trump suggest somewhere that the Geneva Convention is obsolete anyway? Not that it matters anyway anymore, other then to US soldiers maybe? Some of them? ... The US writes the rules for to its own convience anyway?

prawnik said in reply to Eric Newhill... , 03 January 2020 at 12:28 PM
Evidence, please.
Artemesia said in reply to Eric Newhill... , 03 January 2020 at 12:58 PM
Please don't laugh or pooh-pooh if I introduce Christian preacher - activist Rick Wiles' assessment of the penetration and protests at the US embassy in Baghdad: Wiles, whose colleague spent time in Iraq w/ US military, asked how it was that "Iraqi" protesters could get inside the Green Zone, apparently protected by a 10 mile perimeter, and also inside the building itself, to cause damage.

How is it Reuters was on the scene to photograph the protests and the damage?

How is it the protesters were so quickly called off by a word from the PM?

US military guards the embassy, right?

If one argued that Iraqi soldiers permitted Iraqi protesters to gain access, that could make sense: didn't Russian soldiers refuse to fire upon citizens who stormed the Czar's palace?
But that is apparently not what happened.

So Wiles conjectures that US military allowed the penetration and destruction of US embassy, in order to blame it on _____ . Callers to C Span Washington Journal this morning raised the issue of "Iranians took our embassy in 1979." Do tell.

https://www.trunews.com/stream/ghislaine-maxwell-which-spy-agency-is-hiding-her
~ 40 min.

Dr. George W Oprisko -> Eric Newhill... , 03 January 2020 at 02:08 PM
Solemeni was in Iraq to attend the funeral of the PMU soldiers killed by
the US last week.

He was there with the full support of the Iraqi government.

He was on a diplomatic mission.

The US killed an Iranian Diplomat on a diplomatic mission.

That is the way the Iranians and Iraqi people will see this.

Also, the base attacked was an Iraqi and PMU base. 107mm rockets of the kind the US gave ISIS were used.

This kerfluffle began over an ISIS attack for the purpose of taking advantage of Iraqi disarray to steal Iraqi oil.... likely for sale to Israel...

INDY

LA Sox Fan -> Eric Newhill... , 03 January 2020 at 02:22 PM
Eric, you make many assertions, but provide no facts to support them. For example, you claim Soleimani was planning attacks on both US troops and our embassy. You also claim Iran took over our embassy. However, you provide no facts supporting those assertions and I am not aware of any. So tell us, what evidence or facts do you have proving your claims?

Additionally, you seem to have skipped over the part where Bush agreed all US troops would withdraw from Iraq and Obama was unwilling to agree to have US troops remain if they would be subject to the Iraqi justice system. So all of them left, only for some to be allowed back when ISIS threatened.

Obviously, when all US troops left Iran did not take over Iraq. When all US troops leave again, which Trump just about insured will happen very soon, Iran will again not take over Iraq. They will remain allies, but one will not rule the other.

Mark -> Eric Newhill... , 03 January 2020 at 03:30 PM
You and Trump have something in common. Ypou are both short of brains and common sense. A couple of zionist neocon puppets.
prawnik said in reply to Eric Newhill... , 03 January 2020 at 04:35 PM
"I'm a 100% isolationist personally, but if you're not, you have to do something to keep Iran in its place. I recognize that there's a lot I don't understand about reasons to not be an isolationist and maybe there are good reasons."

Tell me, if you are a "100% isolationist" why must Iran be kept "in its place"? Then, tell me how many countries Iran has invaded in the last 100 years? (The answer is - ZERO!)

It's good that you recognize that there are things that you don't know or understand. Blindly following Trump will not lead you to greater understanding. Nor will making excuses for people when they betray you.

Something To Think About -> Eric Newhill... , 03 January 2020 at 04:58 PM
"Soleimani was in Iraq architecting attacks on the US embassy and on Americans."

Wrong, actually, but don't let facts get in the way.

Soleimani was in Iraq to attend the funeral of Iraqi soldiers killed by US airstrikes. That is a fact.

So the US took the opportunity to kill him. Via airstrike. That is also a fact.

Perhaps you should take off those blinkers for once and consider this possibility: most of what you think you understand about this has been brought to your attention by people who have made a career out of lying to you.

Eric Newhill said in reply to Something To Think About... , 04 January 2020 at 12:48 AM
You know all of that how exactly? Who's propaganda are you and your fellow travelers thoughtlessly consuming and spreading?
Terry , 03 January 2020 at 10:32 AM
When anti-Syria propaganda was running strongest, "Assad must go" I always asked "Then what? What comes next?"

We have a big stick but we need more than running around clubbing others. We never should have abandoned the international law we helped to create.

We can create fear, most people fear a powerful bully but they don't respect them and will work to undermine them. It is a weak form of power and sooner or later you end up isolated.

All stick and no carrot, hard power and no soft power just isn't a vision you can build on. So, Now what? What comes next? What comes after a war with Iran?

Artemesia said in reply to Terry... , 03 January 2020 at 01:12 PM
O/T, perhaps: Machiavelli wrote in The Prince that the effective leader must be feared AND loved: were he only feared, the people would turn against him as quickly as an opportunity emerged.

I donated a significant sum (all things being relative) to my local library and requested that it be used to teach the mostly-Black and impoverished young people who frequent that library, about Machiavelli: I'd just read about a very wealthy community in my state where high school students participated in an essay contest on Machiavelli. They will be the next generation's leaders. I though the poor kids in my neighborhood should have the same opportunity.

Library administrators all the way up and down the line resisted my proposal: "Our kids are not capable of such a project."

Instead, the library system is proliferating Drag Queen Story Hours.

They want me to put my gift in the hands of the local librarians who introduced this program to the library system.

"So, Now what? What comes next?"

Drag Queen Story Hours for your 1 yr to 5th grade children and grandchildren.
Your son - grandson dressed in high heels, chiffon, and a wig.
Your little girl telling you she needs drugs and surgery because she "feels like a boy."

That's what comes next.
Weimar 2.0

Diana C said in reply to Artemesia... , 03 January 2020 at 02:02 PM
When I had to move out of a large house into a small apartment recently, I donated over 900 books from my personal library to the local university library. My books reflected my major and minor areas of study: Literature from all periods of English and American authors, many books on the theories and research about linguistic theory and often brain research in regard to linguistics. I also had many books from my minor in German.

I was an avid user of libraries from the time I was quite young. My mother dropped me and my siblings off at the local library while she did the Saturday shopping and bill paying. The librarians never directed us in regard to what we should study. They helped us to find resources on each of our varied interests. My brother and two sisters had quite different interests from mine. I was then studying all I could in Greek and Roman mythology and in the Acient history of Greece and Rome.

It's the old, You can take the horse to the water, but...." Expose children to the rewards they get from reading and studying, but let their own personal interests determine what they read.

Our problem is not that our students now "should" be reading ......(fill in the space. Our problem is currently that our children are now totally unacquainted with reading much in depth. They want sound bites and quick Google searches.

As for the topic of Larry's post, I'm convinced that few Americans are even aware of the event or have any idea of why it happened and no opinion about whether it should have happened.

I hold my breath every day, hoping that we don't become involved in another big mess that will cause the life and maiming of our young people in the military and of the people on the ground in the places they are sent to.

But I have no opinion of why or whether Trump's decision was right or wrong. All I can do is pray fervently that really God is ultimately in charge and God will control it for His purposes. I never assume that God is always on "our side." I just put my faith that it is all in God's hands, no matter what the personal price I or anyone else will have to pay for His decisions.

I also pray that Trump will always make his deicisions based on good and sound advice and on his own sense of right and wrong. It must be hard picking and choosing from the many people who surround him and from their various ideas of what is right or what is wrong to do.

I certainly did not want the previous Middle East War and do not want another.

prawnik said in reply to Artemesia... , 03 January 2020 at 04:38 PM
If it makes you feel better, the only thing that Machiavelli will do for the more clued-in sort of mostly Black poor people is put in words what they already know deep down.

The Prince caused such an outrage because Machiavelli merely described how rulers actually behave.

Artemesia said in reply to prawnik... , 03 January 2020 at 11:30 PM
prawnik, In my Machiavelli proposal to the library I urged that the works of Machiavelli scholar Maurizio Viroli be offered to the young people. Viroli maintains that the key chapter in The Prince is the final chapter -- classical rhetoricians know that the most powerful theme must come last, as that is what the audience will remember. Chapter 26 is nearly a prayer (Machiavelli was deeply Christian, tho he hated the Roman Catholic papacy), a prayer for a courageous leader - redeemer, like Moses, Cyrus, Theseus, who would deliver Florence, which he loved "greater than my soul," from "barbarous cruelties and oppressions" to a life of republican self-government.
The critical concept is his deep love for Florence.
I hoped that the young people could be moved beyond the CliffNotes version of The Prince to an understanding that would arouse passion, pride and patriotism.
Theymustbemorons , 03 January 2020 at 10:33 AM
We did not ask the Iraqi government for permission and we are obligated to do so, yes? Is it possible the Iraqi government will tell us to pick up our personnel and all our stuff and leave -- and never come back?
turcopolier -> Theymustbemorons... , 03 January 2020 at 04:59 PM
theymustbemorons

Yes they can, but will we go?

Something To Think About -> turcopolier ... , 03 January 2020 at 10:25 PM
Colonel, that is a very interesting question.

If the USA refuses to go then... what happens next?

I assume it is not under dispute that if those US forces refuse to go then the Iraqis have a right under international law to attempt to eject them. After all, it is their territory.

This isn't 2003 and the US forces inside Iraq do not number in the hundreds of thousands. Something in the region of 5,000 is my understanding, with another 4,000 on standby. Is that enough?

casey , 03 January 2020 at 11:09 AM
Thank you, Mr. Johnson, for your always pointed and concise analysis. If I understand correctly, the US/Israel bloc believes it has Iran in checkmate. If Iran retaliates (or if some provocation is arranged that can plausibly be blamed on Iran), then the Empire launches a full-on attack. If Iran doesn't retaliate (or a provocation doesn't arise), Iran looks weak and unable to defend itself and limps to the negotiating table, where its carcass will be picked apart.

The only way this makes sense is if the Empire is convinced it can flatten Iran and pick apart its carcass without taking significant losses. Is that delusional and, possibly, "terminally stupid?"

Dan -> casey... , 03 January 2020 at 06:17 PM
I wouldn't use the term checkmate but I do agree that the situation is precarious for Iran...this was a pointed provocation and they are forced to respond. But that response has got to be well-calibrated to not bite off more than it can chew in terms of escalation. They need a spectacle more than anything.
Luther Bliss , 03 January 2020 at 11:11 AM
When James Woolsey was Trump's spokesthingie during the 2016 election, I placed multiple bets that "Trump attacks Iran to be a 'war-time president' for 2020 election."

I've endured mocking phonecalls as Trump wildly vacillated but his NSC choices (all 4 or 5 of them...) were all NeoCons. And if you bed with the NeoCons, you catch their disease.

I haven't watched the news in the last 3 years but the phone-calls are starting again, but the attitude is all different.

If thing keep going this way, I guess this hippie socialist is about his win bet with a bunch of pollyanna veterans and bubble-headed conservatives who could not face reality.

prawnik said in reply to Luther Bliss... , 03 January 2020 at 12:29 PM
Was it not written that "personnel is policy"?
Nathan , 03 January 2020 at 11:35 AM
I can't imagine a war scenario that is positive for the US, except for the neo-con fantasy that the oppressed Iranian people will rise up and overthrow the wicked mullahs when things get bad enough. I don't know anything about the internal politics of Iran, but I'm not so sure how well America holds up after gas prices triple at the pump. Of course by that time they'll be a draft and rationing. The only way to avoid that outcome would be to nuke 'em, which is something I wouldn't put pass the Israelis or Trump.

I don't believe our leaders are thinking long-term, but acting out of a combination of financial self interest for war spending in general and contracts within Iraq in particular; and emotional self satisfaction: for powerful Boomers this kind of belligerance somehow makes them feel like worthy sucessors to their dead "Greatest Generation" parents.

Andrei Martyanov (aka SmoothieX12) -> Nathan... , 03 January 2020 at 01:19 PM
except for the neo-con fantasy that the oppressed Iranian people will rise up and overthrow the wicked mullahs when things get bad enough

In the last around 20 years or so this was a foundation for operational planning in the US. This is not to mention a key fact of neocons being utterly incompetent in warfare with results of this lunacy being in the open for everyone to see.

ISL , 03 January 2020 at 11:50 AM
Dear Larry Johnson,

Please add to your list the assassination of US high level personnel (diplomat or military) in Europe by sleeper cells.

Interestingly (as in stupidly), the US also arrested the head of the Iraqiya MP who heads the largest block in the Iraqi parliament - apparently he had the audacity to appear at a protest of the US bombing without authorization Iraqi citizens. One suspects that Iran will have full Iraq support in retaliation. The big question is whether Turkey makes a play and bans flights from Incirlik. Note US carrier groups are not in the gulf or even nearby to fly support missions...

https://worldview.stratfor.com/topic/tracking-us-naval-power

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-violence-idUSBRE9BR03120131229 - no mention largest bloc in Parliament.

That said, I expect Russia and China will offer unlimited weapons to Iran to bog the US down long term.

Factotum , 03 January 2020 at 12:07 PM
If we are that vulnerable to iranian retaliation on so many levels as you just set out, best we start dealing with this extortion threat right here now. Lance the festering boil and build t a new line of defenses.

No matter what the triggering incident, we might as well accept we needed a reality check regarding this level of global threat. Not pretty, but apparently necessary if the Iranians are as capable of global disruption as you just present.

It did not take an assassination in Sarajevo to set of WWI, it was festering well before and was an inevitable march off the cliff regardless. If we are that vulnerable to cyber terrorism and infrastructure terrorism, does it matter what finally lights the match?

Factotum , 03 January 2020 at 12:27 PM
If the world powers are gunning for an all out war, it will happen regardless. Mind your narratives. They are far scarier than the facts on the ground. Was this bad guy "assassinated", or taken out by a good guy with a gun as he was poised to strike.

Why have Democrats spent the past three years saber-rattling over Russia, Russia, Russia, as if any hint of favor or benign contact was high treason. C'mon people, what is really going on in this world today. Who has really created this current scenario of being a nation in imminent peril from nefarious foreign threachery by even the flimsiest of implications.

Just a few days ago our entire national security was predicated on Trump delaying arms to Ukraine by a few weeks. Ukraine, fer crisssakes which few can even find on a map. Isn't that the jingoist frothing we were just asked to believe by our loyal opposition party to the point of initiating impeachment proceedings due to Trump's alleged risking of our entire nation's place of honor on this entire planet?

We suffer from internal hyperbole, as much as outside bad actors. A world who wants war, will get it. A world who wants peace will get that too. Running off to the corner pouting and hand-wringing brings neither.

luke8929 , 03 January 2020 at 12:38 PM
I will take the other side of the Russians will help coin, if anything I would suggest the Russians may have even provided intel to the Americans on Qasem Soleimani location and movements, Putin was recently in the news thanking Trump for providing intel stopping a Terrorist attack in St Petersburg recently, I still think the Russians provided intel on the whereabouts of the head of the head of the Islamic state Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to the Americans and Putin did nothing about the deaths of the 20 Russian airmen or the cruise missile attacks on Syria, as bad a Ally as the USA is the Russian Federation is clearly worse, the Russians clearly can't be trusted.
ISL -> luke8929... , 03 January 2020 at 02:08 PM
why do you think the US could not have this intel on its own? A high level visit to a friendly nation by a top military and you have to posit Russians? You insult US Intel.
luke8929 , 03 January 2020 at 12:47 PM
The Russians aren't going to do anything, Putin does whats best for Russia, he is clearly not interested in confronting the Americans and if anything would probably like to see Iranian influence in Syria diminished. 20 dead airmen, cruise missile attacks in Syria and he didn't do anything. If anything my money is on the Russians providing intel to the US on Qasem Soleiman's location and movements. I still think they provided intel on the location of the Islamic state leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and last week Putin was thanking Trump for intel that stopped an attack in St Petersburg, so perhaps rolling over on Soleiman was his way of saying thanks to Trump. I don't think the Russians intentions are as pure as people think. As untrustworthy as the USA is the Russians are worse.
Andrei Martyanov (aka SmoothieX12) -> luke8929... , 03 January 2020 at 02:22 PM
I still think they provided intel on the location of the Islamic state leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and last week Putin was thanking Trump for intel that stopped an attack in St Petersburg,

What a fantastically convoluted scenario. Russia and the US are cooperating on terrorism threats for years now, and the latest on St. Petersburg was not the first one issued by the US. Russia wouldn't mind some limits to Iranian influence in Syria but not at the price of surrendering a man who was to a large degree responsible for getting Russia into Syria and cooperating with her there, which was a crucial factor in success of the campaign. I also do not see problems with US "developing" own targeting on Baghdadi w/o any Russia's help.

Jack , 03 January 2020 at 12:51 PM
Rand Paul opposing the nomination of Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State, March 2018: "I'm perplexed by the nomination of people who love the Iraq War so much that they would advocate for a war with Iran next. It goes against most of the things President Trump campaigned on."
Jack , 03 January 2020 at 01:00 PM
Deja whoops

https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1213127647489863681?s=21

History doesn't repeat...

https://twitter.com/andreassteno/status/1213015271088242693?s=21

Harper , 03 January 2020 at 01:06 PM
It has been pointed out to me that until his retirement in October 2019, JCS Chairman Joe Dunford was a factor in tempering neocon fervor for war. The same was true for his predecessor Martin Dempsey. Now we have a self-described "West Point Mafia" class of 1986 and a JCS Chairman far more politically motivated than Dunford and Dempsey. This looks to be to be more dangerous than when Bolton the chicken hawk was running around the West Wing. This is a recent Politico profile of the new Defense team, including Pompeo, Esper and other key national security advisors to Trump.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2019/11/17/west-point-alumni-pompeo-esper-state-department-071212

Fred -> Harper... , 03 January 2020 at 06:19 PM
Harper,

Thanks for the link. The Trump triumvirate of class of '86 advisors did the minimum time on active duty and left service for greener pastures. The move to politics is reminiscent of the neocons decameron mentioned on the prior thread. It looks like the move to war which only the neocons want is coming on in full force.

Elora Danan said in reply to Fred ... , 03 January 2020 at 07:24 PM
For not to mention that neither of them arrived at top office by own merits, but by lobbying into each other ...

Typical arribistas ...a scourge for any nation...and the most corruptible...

Fred -> Elora Danan... , 03 January 2020 at 07:36 PM
Elora,


It must be late in Spain. The trio left active duty in the early 90s; that's almost 3 decades ago and plenty of time to "earn their own merits" but not necessarily enough to earn wisdom.

Elora Danan said in reply to Fred ... , 03 January 2020 at 08:02 PM
It´s indeed too late in Europe...thanks, Fred, for to remind Elora she must go to bed...

She is just exhausted...to be honest...

G´night to all!

robt willmann , 03 January 2020 at 03:07 PM
After around 25 people were killed by a U.S. attack over the weekend, and subsequently the damage was being done to the "embassy" in Iraq, it looked like a real problem was developing. But it seemed as if Iraqi security people had let the demonstrators and attackers into the area where the U.S. embassy is, and then the following day were not letting them in, and so the embassy cleanup would begin. At that time I felt better about the situation. In other words, the Iraqi government, such that it is, allowed the protest and damage at the embassy to occur, and then was stopping it after making the point of a protest.

However, that defusing of the situation by the Iraqi government by shutting down the embassy protest was for naught when the ignorant people in the U.S. government carried out the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, and several others inside Iraq itself. Now there is a real problem.

TeakWoodKite , 03 January 2020 at 03:07 PM
I am curious LJ. Some lateral drift on my part. Been reading that much of the funding for these proxies are from coming Iran. According to the Treasury. So the following is BS from State?

(Nov 2019)

"The State Department's most recent Country Reports on Terrorism, released Friday, stated that Iran is still the "world's worst state sponsor of terrorism," spending nearly $1 billion per year to support terror groups including Hezbollah, Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad."

There is much nashing of proverbial teeth in our media. Peeps like Sen Graham saying "the Iraqi's need to choose between us or Iran."
(That choice is a Sunni sandwich with Kurdish Bread and Shia Mayo)

There critical mass in 72 hours and the straight of Hormuz will be closing soon.

LJ are you stating that there was no Intel on emerging threats from Iran? Or the strike Saudi oil plant was not via Iran?
Seems to me China and Russia have to much $$$ invested in Iran to see it go up in smoke.

John Merryman , 03 January 2020 at 06:23 PM
Given the real masters of the universe are the very rich, would the Iranians see them as logical targets?
Sheldon Adelson comes to mind, as he is a primary backer of both Trump and Netanyahu. As well as likely not known, or appealing to Trump's base, so avenging his death wouldn't appeal in the same way as soldiers or diplomats. Especially leading up to the election. Not only that, but if the very rich were to sense their Gulfstreams are somewhat vulnerable to someone with a Stinger at the end of the runway in quite a few tourist destinations, Davos, etc, the pressure from the People Who Really Matter might be against further conflict.
The rule of law has its uses and destroying the structure on which their world rests does have consequences.

[Jan 04, 2020] Soleimani assassination by US 'an adventurous move' that will flare up tensions in Middle East Moscow -- RT World News

Jan 04, 2020 | www.rt.com

The US airstrike that killed a senior Iranian commander near Baghdad will exacerbate tensions throughout the Middle East, the Russian foreign ministry has warned. Qassem Soleimani, the commander of Iran's Quds Force, was killed in a US operation at Baghdad International Airport on Friday morning. Moscow considers the operation "an adventurous move that will lead to an escalation of tension throughout the region," the ministry said.

"Soleimani served devotedly the cause of defending the national interests of Iran. We express our sincere condolences to the Iranian people," the short statement said.

Also on rt.com US killing of Iranian commander on Iraqi soil violates terms of US stationing troops in the country – Iraqi PM

The Russian Defense Ministry slammed the US airstrike that targeted the Iranian general as "short-sighted," warning that it would lead to a "rapid escalation" of tensions in the Middle East and would be detrimental to international security in general.

The ministry also praised Soleimani's efforts in fighting international terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq by saying that his achievements in the fight against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) in Syria are "undeniable."

The targeted assassination has sparked anger in Iran and Iraq. Officials in Tehran pledged to avenge the death of the high-profile member of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) while Iran's caretaker prime minister called it an act of aggression against his country that violates the terms under which American troops are hosted on Iraqi soil.

Also on rt.com Killing of Quds commander is another sign of US frustration and weakness in the region – Iran's Rouhani

Washington considers the IRGC a terrorist organization and claims Soleimani was plotting attacks on American citizens. The killing comes days after Iran-backed Iraqi militias staged a riot at the US embassy in Baghdad, a response to US retaliatory airstrikes at militia forces.

If you like this story, share it with a friend!

[Jan 04, 2020] US murders leading Iranian General Qassem Soleimani OffGuardian

Military commanders are in dangerous occupation and the death is always lurking around. Loss of one, even extremely talented, general does not mean much for Iran army. Acquiring a military new technology is of higher priority then retaliation. Larger geopolitical realities should be given top considerations. Right now conflict with the USA means compete destruction of the Iran. The decision to go ahead with the construction of nuclear bomb is credible option as it will protect the country from the direct invasion and devastating air strikes.
And while the US action violated international norms, the decision to retaliate immediately at the US forces in Iraq and elsewhere is stupid and shortsighted.
Actually alliance of Iran with Syria and Iraq (82 million, 40 million, 17 million) would be very formidable military alliance, which is capable to protect itself from anybody but the USA, Russia and China. If they add nuclear armed Pakistan, even the USA would think twise attacking any of the country.
See also Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq coalition - Wikipedia and Syria’s Assad Stresses Importance of Alliance With Russia, Iran, Iraq - WSJ
Jan 03, 2020 | off-guardian.org

Jan 3, 2020 Admin

The US govt has confirmed it deliberately targeted leading Iranian general Qassem Soleimani in its missile (some say drone) attack near Baghdad airport that killed 10 people, including Soleimani and leaders of the Iraqi Shia militia.

The Pentagon has made a public statement justifying the action as a 'defensive' act aimed at protecting US servicemen from future attacks, claiming the general was behind recent attacks on the US embassy in Baghdad and adding:

General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region

There's no way this can be verified of course, and even if true, does not excuse what amounts to an extraordinary act of terrorism against a sovereign nation with whom no state of war existed.

The apparent craziness here is off the charts.

Quick recap. The most insane & deluded of the war-profiteers/sadists/mad ideologues have been begging for a move against Iran since around 2005. It's the seventh and final country in Wes Clarke's famous ' seven countries in five years ' story. But so far it has never been attacked directly by the US.

The reason for this is the realists in the Pentagon know they could easily lose that war.

Iran isn't Iraq. Iran isn't Syria. Iran is a wealthy, organized state, with a well-trained and fearsome military well capable of defending itself.

The non-crazies in the Pentagon know this and know a war with these people could end up wiping the US out in the Middle East, to say nothing of escalating wildly, up to and including direct confrontation with Russia, that has its own powerful reasons for not wanting to see Iran become a chaotic US vassal.

This is why, after fifteen years of talking the talk, no US administration has ever dared to actually walk the walk. The non-crazy generals have vetoed it, spelled out what a disaster it could become, made it clear the risks are not worth the gains.

So it always has been for 15 years – until now.

At the direction of the President, the U.S. military has taken decisive defensive action to protect U.S. personnel abroad by killing Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, a US-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization.

-- The White House (@WhiteHouse) January 3, 2020

On the face of it the murder of Soleimani and the Pentagon statement of intent appears to be some kind of coup for the lunatics. Do the war-profiteers/sadists and ideologues who seem to have grabbed the initiative really understand what they have done?

Is Dominic Raab remotely cognizant of where his alleged rubber-stamping of Pompeo's lunacy might lead? (Dom himself hasn't verified Pompeo's bombast yet, which may or may not be signficiant).

Discussed with @DominicRaab the recent decision to take defensive action to eliminate Qassem Soleimani. Thankful that our allies recognize the continuing aggressive threats posed by the Iranian Quds Force. The U.S. remains committed to de-escalation.

-- Secretary Pompeo (@SecPompeo) January 3, 2020

Let's hope they are all privy to some important info we don't have that means this is not the apocalyptic suicide bid it looks like.

Time will tell.

Meanwhile " WW3 " is a trending hashtag on Twitter, which is a little premature perhaps, but sells the sense of horror and disbelief people are feeling. Here are some examples

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praises Donald Trump for killing top Iranian general and says US has a 'right to defend itself' https://t.co/ZJasi2GFxX

-- ExposeTheMedia.com (@ExposeTheMedia) January 3, 2020

this is a fucking lie pic.twitter.com/HmS32o5F3D

-- 🌹Sean Duffy🌹 (@seanduffy_) January 3, 2020

For all intents & purposes, any talk inside #Iran of negotiation with the US, or in choosing a more peaceful policy in the region is now over. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, has vowed vengeance for this attack, and it will be very bitter. https://t.co/lKIjvHKljC By @karimsh89

-- AHTribune (@AHTribune) January 3, 2020

Possibly significant and interesting take by blue tick John Simpson

Killing #Soleimani isn't like killing bin Laden, who had masterminded the worst terrorist attack against America. Soleimani was a competitor, who was highly effective in fighting ISIS as well as American interests. Assassinating him seems like a step back to a more savage past.

-- John Simpson (@JohnSimpsonNews) January 3, 2020

Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the Labour Party, talking a certain amount of sense:

The US assassination of Qasem Soleimani is an extremely serious and dangerous escalation of conflict with global significance. The UK government should urge restraint on the part of both Iran and the US, and stand up to the belligerent actions and rhetoric coming from the US.

-- Jeremy Corbyn (@jeremycorbyn) January 3, 2020

Keir Starmer, potential future leader of the Labour Party, is also not convinced:

The Government's response to Donald Trump's actions is not good enough.

The UK Government should hold him to account for his actions and stand up for international law, not tacitly condone the attack. https://t.co/3OCyiuphRt

-- Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) January 3, 2020

Susan Sarandon retweeting Bernie. Did he actually oppose invasion of Iraq? But the sentiment is a good one

NO WAR WITH IRAN https://t.co/iKFlADmS1c

-- Susan Sarandon (@SusanSarandon) January 3, 2020

Lindsey Graham talking idiotic smack to the surprise of no one:

President @realDonaldTrump took decisive, preemptive action to foil a plot directed at American personnel.

As to what happens next: It should be clear to Iran that President Trump will not sit idly by if our people and interests are threatened.

-- Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) January 3, 2020

The Guardian being the Guardian

US and allies on high alert as Iran threatens retaliation https://t.co/sHoqGb9T0f

-- Guardian news (@guardiannews) January 3, 2020

And just, well, disturbing frankly

ABSOLUTELY BEAUTIFUL!

An Iranian family celebrating the killing of #Iran 's IRGC Quds Force chief Qasem Soleimani.

"Death to Dictator!" they are heard chanting. #FreeIran2020 pic.twitter.com/3EgOUqizat

-- Heshmat Alavi (@HeshmatAlavi) January 3, 2020

Facebook Twitter Reddit Pinterest WhatsApp vKontakte Email Filed under: featured , Iran , latest , United States Tagged with: Donald trump , Iran , Qassem Soleimani , terrorism , US can you spare $1.00 a month to support independent media

OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial backers. We are not funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only means of income. Even the smallest amount of support is hugely appreciated.

Connect with Connect with Subscribe newest oldest most voted Notify of

Antonym ,

The Anglo's are favoring Sunni Muslims since long time:

Yes, planning for Operation Gulmarg started way back in 1943. The British were certain Kashmir would go to Pakistan  and pulled out all the stops in advance to ensure this.

https://conradcourier.com/how-the-british-schemed-to-give-kashmir-to-pakistan/24103.html

richard le sarc ,

Whereas the Zionists prefer setting all sides at each others' throats, as they did in Lebanon during the Civil War, or when they promoted Hamas to oppose the PLO, or the terrorist death-squad South Lebanese Army to attack Hezbollah etc, or al-Nusra Front, in particular, during the salafist attack on Syria. Not to forget the partition of Sudan, a long-term Zionist project.

Antonym ,

The Australian-born Major-General Robert "Bill" Cawthome, once a British Army officer who had later joined the Pakistan Army, remains the longest-serving Director General of the Inter-Services Intelligence Agency (ISI) for over nine years from 1950 to 1959.

https://www.thenews.com.pk/archive/print/526965-maj-gen-robert-cawthome-was-the-longest-serving-isi-chief

Jack_Garbo ,

I don't buy it, without real proof. The bloody hand with a similar ring isn't enough. Soleimani is a master strategist and tactician, his intelligence service is way better than the Americans'. I don't see him, with another high ranking official, in the same vehicle, exposed to attack. Too careless for a very careful man.
So, Iranian false flag trick? Leak a fake rendez-vous, hide their VIG Soleimani for the next operation, divert Iranian public anger outward at the US, unite Iraqi and Iranian resistance against the US? Sounds more believable. Let's see

tonyopmoc ,

It seems to me, that no-one I know, noticed any news whatsoever today, nor showed the slightest interest, when I tried to mention it. So www 3 is extremely unlikely, cos no one gives a sh1t. So I reckon its best to ignore it. They will go back into their holes. propaganda too much – like when you couldn't stand mustang sally again 10 years ago, and for a special occasion they do it again, and you still think its a crap song, but join in cos its a party, and to be polite, but you can't stand it for a 3rd time, well past its 2nd death.

Can our Leaders please start making sense. That is what we employ you for. To represent our best interests – not yours. You volunteered for the job, so now you have got it, do what we elected you and told you to do.

That is Your Job. You are a Member of Parliament now.

We elected you.

Please Get on with it.

Do your Job.

Thanks.

Tony

Estompista ,

Iran isn't going to do shit.

Antonym ,

Sorry, was Qassem Soleimani some kind of saint? Did he never organize any mass suicide bombing/ assassination of an opponent in Irak, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon or elsewhere?

Going against Sunni Arab KSA was kind of natural for a Persian Shia, working against Israel was good for brownie points among Muslims and Western Leftovers but ultimately dumb.

richard le sarc ,

Compared to Netanyahu, Sharon, Shamir, Begin, Peres, Rabin etc, yes he was a veritable saint.

tunde ,

Trump has had years to drone Soulemani. QS' morale visits to the frontlines in Syria and Iraq were extensively documented on social media by Iranian proxies and allies. No doubt Israel noticed them as well but passed on striking at him.
My only conclusion is to Trump's rationale is to speculate that Trump calculates Iranian backlash is limited and a double win for him; In rallying support around the flag for electoral purposes (what impeachment?) and providing a causus belli for a range of punishing strikes across a wide variety of targets across Iran. The economic toll on Iran would be crushing on top of the sanctions. Trump's khaki election gambit ?

MASTER OF UNIVE ,

When a corporation such as the United States of America falls into debt to the tune of $23 trillion USD heading into certain long term recessionary headwinds they have no alternative but to start bombing antiquated economically challenged countries that are struggling to survive. This allows the American bullies to feel empowered & respected through fear of their mass text book Psychopathology that they peddle to the populations for purposes of creating unease & fear, or terror, whatever the case may be.

The Central Intelligence Agency has been doing this sort of regime change gig forever where they first utilize Economic Hit Men to entice leadership to acquiesce to CIA demands. If the Economic Hit Men fail the mission the jackals are sent in to assassinate. If assassination fails & Economic Hit Men fail, it falls to the generals & war planners in the bureaucracy.

The end game superordinate goal for all Americans in the mix of state is to murder the competition even if it means destroying entire regions of the world to do it.

And never forget the Queen of Mean stating that 'only the little people pay taxes'. Believe me when I state that Leona Helmsley would push you down a flight of stairs in a wheelchair if you were an invalid much like Richard Widmark did in The Kiss of Death.

Warmongers ain't benevolent & Charley don't surf.

MOU

Gezzah Potts ,

What the United States has done is completely insanity. And for Pompeo to be tweeting that the United States 'is committed to de-escalation' is cloud cuckoo land stuff.
I've been following this on various other sites as well. Iran is officially in mourning, and after that is completed, they will respond
We will soon find out what that response is.
We now face the very strong likelihood of a cataclysmic war in the Middle East.
This is an incredibly dangerous situation.
My gut feeling is this is also the beginning of the end for this truly evil, parasitical Empire.
They cannot see the consequences of what they have done with this act of terrorism.
They are fully blinded by their sheer arrogance and hubris.

RobG ,

I can't back this up with any links, so all I can say is that I'm hearing murmurs that the Iranians have now told the Americans to pull all of their warships out of Middle Eastern waters by this time next week, otherwise American warships will be attacked and sunk.

The Iranians are quite capable of doing this in the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz and the Oman Gulf (which 35% of the world's tanker oil moves through). Iranian missiles can also quite easily hit Saudi oil fields. Who's going to buy shares in ARAMCO? The price of oil is already going through the roof. How much do you want to pay to fill up your vehicle? or do you believe all the MSM bullshit about twerrorists?

Anyhows, this is still all just rumour at the moment; but if it's true it's a very smart move by the Iranians.

Gezzah Potts ,

I was going to reply to your other comment, but breaking news that the United States has launched more airstrikes in Iraq apparently killing 6 Shia militia leaders.
Pompeo is a raving liar and lunatic.
If this news is true, the bastards want war.
More insane provocations.
Just about to check some sources to verify this. Yes, I commented to you first before I checked
Buckle up, things are getting very rocky.

MASTER OF UNIVE ,

Americans have wanted control over the entire Gulf of Oman since before I was born.
The Gulf of Oman oil fields are the best in the entire world for really top grade oils. It's a massive oil field.

Americans are corporate pirates not unlike fiction. Brig Gen Smedley Butler bragged of having more territory than Al Capone. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson owns Al Capones old gun that he purchased at auction.

MOU

JudyJ ,

For information – RT News has just reported that they are receiving reports that the US have attacked another vehicle convoy just north of Baghdad. They have no more details at present.

richard le sarc ,

It's just Bibi and his pet goy appealing to their 'bases'. Killing is their religion, quite literally.

JudyJ ,

Reports now say that convoy was attacked by an airstrike at 1 a.m. local time, 6 Iranian backed Shia militia leaders killed and 5 others injured. As a US peace activist just said on RT, 'this attack is on local Iraqis who have been fighting against ISIL and are on their home territory; and such attacks are totally inexcusable'.

Gezzah Potts ,

Thanks Judy. Just heard that news over at The Saker and was about to check, but you confirmed this.
The lunatics have taken over the asylum.
And they're like a chimpanzee playing with a live grenade inside a small room.
And the Chimps between you and the door.
This is fecken madness.

nottheonly1 ,

How prophetic of myself to have foreseen the end of my online commenting for all the wrong reasons. Can't take all the shit anymore. It is indeed like the 80's Fun Boy Three hit "The lunatics have taken over the asylum" and the meds have run out a few weeks ago.

Nobody has even the slightest idea what is unfolding now. To that end, I will state it once more:

How long is the window of opportunity open for those who attempt a global takeover? Will they allow Russia and China to get even more advanced weaponry?

No. It is 'now or never again' and they are going for it. Either in utter derangement, or infinite stupidity, the people behind this takeover do believe that they can win WW3 and after some cleanup enjoy their United States of Earth.

On the other hand, what if some folks studied STUXNET and are now preparing a number of NPP in the West to shut off their cooling pumps and generators. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? This time although, it will be Karma for all the shit the West has done to the people of the Near/Middle/Far East.

richard le sarc ,

The USA created Daash, as they did al-Qaeda, along with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf despotisms and Israel, so they are bound to act 'kinetically' to assure that it is revitalised in Iraq, to attack Central Asia and the BRI.

Gall ,

I went to the tweets cited and noted that many blood thirsty war pigs were happily oinking their approval for the Imperial Death Stars latest act of terrorism ludicrously called a "defensive" action by the Terrorist and Thief who turns out to be just another lying sack of shit.

Ian Beeby ,

So Donald Duck has confirmed to the whole world that he ordered this act of terrorism and murder. Not only that but as it was a murder/terrorist act in another country that also makes it a war crime. So when are we going to see him and cronies including those in the UK facing the international criminal court for war crimes.

Jack_Garbo ,

Didn't they tell you? The US & UK do not recognize the ICC. Next

richard le sarc ,

They don't recognise it, but they control it, and their pet Aunty Tom, Bensouda.

richard le sarc ,

Well this is plainly Trump, the premier Sabbat Goy, doing his Master, Sheldon Adelson's, bidding. Killing is central to Judaism and Zionism and American Exceptionalism. Just recently Trump, as he obsequiously groveled to one of the alphabet soup of Zionist groups, the Israeli American Council, that control US politics, congratulated Jews for being ' brutal killers-not nice people at all'. The anti-Trump Zionists proclaimed that 'antisemitism', not realising it was intended as a compliment.
Perhaps they were worried, as well, that it might be too revelatory of the lust for murder that lies at the heart of Judaism. As the highly influential 'Yesha Council of Rabbis and Torah Sages' declared in 2006, as Israel was bombing Lebanon back to the Stone Age, targeting, schools, mosques, power stations, hospitals and fleeing civilians, under Judaic Law killing civilians is not just permissible, but is considered a mitzvah, or good deed. International Humanitarian Law to the contrary was contemptuously dismissed as mere 'Christian morality'.
The Godfather of Likudnik Zionism, Jabotinsky, bluntly stated the ideological equivalent of that doctrine-'We will kill anyone who gets in our way'. And Israeli PMs Begin, Shamir, Sharon and Rabin all had plenty of the blood of innocents on their paws. Last year a book appeared, 'Rise and Kill First' that listed the huge series of assassinations of resistance leaders, often with their families ('Down to the fourth generation' as the Talmud demands)or mere bystanders and neighbours, committed by Israel, and it was generally lauded and the author treated with mandatory sycophancy.
The French Jewish intellectual, Bernard Lazare, noted, late in the 19th century, that Jews had experienced conflict with the local communities almost everywhere they had settled, despite the differences of social arrangements, religions, histories etc, and he, a firm opponent of Judeophobia and supporter of Dreyfuss, simply observed that 'Israel' (ie Jews) must bear at least some blame for those events. That, of course, is the very essence of really existing 'antisemitism' today-to assert that any Jew, anywhere, has ever done a bad, or wrong, or even mistaken thing. These are, after all, as Begin used to declare, 'Gods upon the Earth'. However, this time, they surely have gone too far. Both the corrupt thug Netanyahu, and the simple thug, Trump, need diversions, and they will soon get them, in spades. Pity the poor innocents who will suffer for them indulging their blood-lusts.

Estompista ,

"Central to Judaism." And boom: there goes your mask.

richard le sarc ,

Central to Talmudic, Orthodox Judaism-unarguable. Bang goes your mask. Many Jews reject the murderous xenophobia at the heart of Talmudic Judaism, hence the Reform and Liberal tendencies, (and non-religious Jews), which are NOT recognised as true Judaism in Israel, which is controlled by the Orthodox goy-haters. Learn something about your own religion before you start pontificating and smearing.

Tallis Marsh ,

Hi OffG, I wondered if it would be possible to get an article on the Australian fires – to get a plethora of views on the situation? Tens of thousands are being urged to evacuate the South-East now, apparently.

Off the top of my head – a few questions to set the ball rolling if we do get an article:

What is actually happening; how are the fires being started? Who is starting them? Why are firefighters having trouble with all of it?

Years & years of deliberate mismanagement? Arson? Sabotage? D.E.Ws/Scalar/Smart Meters?

Coup against current leader, Scott Morrison (maybe because he did not play ball withe the climate change people)?

Agenda 21/2030 in motion? SDGs being rolled out etc – deliberate displacement of people (ultimately off rural & suburban areas and into cities (I think the UN name it something like City-densification)?

People don't need to agree – just get their views, observations and hopefully some evidence. Anyway, just putting some thoughts out there

richard le sarc ,

It's anthropogenic climate destabilisation, as all the local fire chiefs and many of the recently retired, have declared, for some time. Predicted twenty and thirty years ago by science, and here, now, a few decades ahead of expectations.

Tallis Marsh ,

Interesting. I am not fully on board with the idea of human-induced climate change (anthropogenic climate change). I need much more convincing than what is available out there currently. Maybe humans cause an extremely teeny amount but not anyway near enough to change our environment? Really, is anthropogenic climate change causing all the current things like flooding, 'wildfires' landslides etc that are suddenly all happening in many different places at the frequency & level over this last decade or so ,and suddenly being plastered all over our MSM, press, tv etc ad nauseum without any differing views allowed to be aired without ridicule or slap-downs or censorship?

Who are XR's funders, allies and founders? What are their deeper motives?

What about the fact that the Earth's climate naturally goes through cycles; some people tend more towards the climate experts who believe we are now entering the cooling period, the Maunder Minimum? People like Piers Corbyn have been correctly predicting long-range weather and climate cycles for many years?

Also, CO2 is important for plant/tree growth? We cannot have life without carbon in its many forms?

All these questions and more need to be explored and debated by many different experts who have alternative views (not solely the same views espoused in the corporate media) before I can come to any firm conclusions. For now, I feel like the establishment is hammering the public with a cult-like religion of 'climate emergency' and suspect they want to use it for ulterior motives rather than help the environment & humans – probably part of the agenda to control the planet including humans?

Tallis Marsh ,

* Should say: " probably part of the agenda to take complete control of the planet including humans?"

richard le sarc ,

The 'evidence out there' is enough to convince EVERY Academy of Science and scientific society on Earth, all of whom concur with the theory. The natural weather and climate disasters are, in the main, either being caused, or made worse, by the injection of added energy into the Earth system that is caused by the increased level of heat trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. XR's backers are irrelevant to the science. The world's climate does exhibit many cycles, but they are being disturbed and exacerbated by the added energy trapped in the Earth system. There is no 'Grand Minimum' just the end of cycle 24 of sunspot activity. Piers Corbyn is NO climate expert-if you rely on him rather than the 99% of real climate scientists who agree with the theory then you are very much mistaken, in my opinion. CO2 is essential for plant growth, but it's levels need to be constant, or slowly changing, for plants to adapt, not increasing by 50% in 200 years. Moreover climate destabilisation brings high temperatures, floods, deluges and other manifestations that are very deleterious to plant growth and well-being. These facts have been debated for 200 years, and the science is 'settled'. Your proposition for further debate, as the climate rapidly destabilises, is, in my opinion, akin to 'debating' the harms of sarin gas, as the victim convulses before our eyes.

MLS ,

How exactly is AGW causing these fires? What is the mechanism?

Is the climate in NSW hotter, drier than before?

By how much if so?

How much worse is the burning?

Since the bush in that part of the world is 'designed' to burn periodically (many local plants need fire in order to set seed), how do you separate the alleged AGW effect from other natural causes and other non-AGW variables, such as reduction in pre-emptive burns over recent years?

Tallis Marsh ,

Yes, all very good questions that need answering and debating by experts with differing stances (not just cookie-cutter experts agreeing with each other with their official, scripted stance of "it's part of the 'climate crisis!").

richard le sarc ,

They have ALL been debated for decades by real scientists, not fossil fuel denialist industry paid disinformers. I can tell you that here in Australia, as the country burns, demanding more phony 'debate' is NOT a popular opinion

Tallis Marsh ,

"I believe you, trillions wouldn't!"

This debate you speak of must have passed me by somehow! If it did happen it must have happened before my time because all I've seen/heard in the press/tv/radio/school text books was/is anthropogenic climate change-based.

Estompista ,

I swear, this guy: "The world is burning. Let's have another debate in case we accidentally save the plamet!"

richard le sarc ,

You obviously don't live in Australia where denialism controls much of the MSM. Totally in the Murdoch cancer. much of the time elsewhere, but it has no reputable scientific supporters, just a cabal of aged renegades, fossil fuel stooges and share-holders in coal mines. The 'debate' was OVER thirty years ago, and the rest has been fossil fuel propaganda and the Dunning-Krugerites ventilating their lovely combination of idiocy, malice and arrogant egotism.

richard le sarc ,

The drought in the east of Australia is unprecedented in the 200 years of White occupation. It is almost certainly driven, to extremes of aridity, by increased average and maximum temperatures, lack of rainfall and other depredations like widespread vegetation clearance by Rightwing 'farmers' who hate Greenies. Every single fire fighting commissioner and other leaders have openly stated that these fires are worsened by anthropogenic climate destabilisation, and requested a meeting with the PM months ago, but were ignored by our PM, a denialist religious fanatic.

MLS ,

Sorry but we need data not rhetoric.

What is the measured increase in temps in the fire-hit regions?

What is causing the drought?

What is the source for it being unprecedented? By how much?

Why would clearing vegetation increase fire risk?

I have also seen it said it's the absence of clearing – due to misguided or fake 'Green' policies – that has been exacerbating the current fires.

How can we tell which is true?

What of the claims of politically motivated arson?

Admin ,

Climate change & Australian bushfires are way off topic. No more of that here please. We may well open a discussion of the latter soon.

richard le sarc ,

Rightio-forgive the last contribution, above.

richard le sarc ,

It is NOT 'rhetoric'. The facts are easily discoverable, at the BOM, CSIRO and the Climate Council, for starters. Kindly look them up yourself.

Jen ,

My observation among others is that most bushfires are occurring in areas that never had any before, or in recent memory anyway.

The state of Victoria always seems to have more severe annual bushfire events than other states, even though other states are much drier and have more extreme weather. This might suggest Victorian state govt bushfire emergency response policies might be wanting, to say the least.

I don't live in Victoria but I'd be curious to know what the state of electricity power lines in rural areas and through forests down there are like. The East Gippsland region in Victoria (which has the worst bushfire crisis at present) is, erm, very forested. Or it was.

Our firefighters can't cope because they're underfunded, they don't have modern firefighting equipment and – this will shock overseas readers – they are not full-time paid professional firefighters, in a country that experiences major bushfire events every year.

Tallis Marsh ,

"they are not full-time paid professional firefighters, in a country that experiences major bushfire events every year."

My! Yes, that is strange & shocking for somewhere like Australia! Who decided that was a good idea; along with the idea of not managing the bush like they used to do for hundreds of years. I read somewhere that the Aborigines used/use managed fires as part of their culture too to maintain and protect the Bush.

richard le sarc ,

The volunteers usually have to work for weeks a year on real, and controllable, local fires. This year threy have faced months, so far, of megafires. As for that favourite denialist canard, that the bush is not being properly 'managed', ALL the fire authorities have REPEATEDLY refuted that, pointing out that hazard reduction burning has increased for years, but the window for safe burning has grown smaller and smaller as the climate has rapidly destabilised, and fires break out even in winter. I hope that has cleared up that misconception for you.

MASTER OF UNIVE ,

CANADA is sending over a hundred skilled firefighters yesterday on top of the fifty we sent first off. CANUCKS will put it out, don't fret. Our outback is much more Boreal forest so we get really bad bush fires as everyone is well aware. We have tons of water bombers too and we are in the off-season for our own bush fires so our gals n' guys will be more than happy to go to Oz for the adventure.

MOU

richard le sarc ,

Most of the fires are burning in areas that have burned regularly, and recently. There have, however, been places burned in recent years, like alpine heath-lands in Tasmania and sub-tropical and temperate rainforests, that have not burned for centuries. The difference this time is that anthropogenic climate change, principally through savage drought, has worsened conditions markedly.

Doctortrinate ,

Taken from – the weekend Australian.

The Black Thursday conflagration of 1851 burned five million hectares and was so ­intense that ships 30km off the coast of Victoria reported coming under ember attack Those fires covered one-quarter of what is now the state of Victoria.
In the summer of 1974-75, the worst bushfire system the ­nation had faced in 30 years the Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience estimates about 15 per cent of Australia's physical landmass, about 117 million hectares, had ­extensive fire damage.
In a review of Queensland's ­recent bushfire experience, the ­Inspector-General of Emergency Management, Iain Mackenzie, had this to say: "The office heard from associations representing bushfire managers who conveyed 'indisputable facts' about vegetated areas and their management.
"Their points were that fires will always start, and that fire management relies on, and must be led by, managing and reducing fuel. Climate change, they said, had not influenced the past build-up of fuel; some fires are best left to burn, and response will only be effective if preparation and mitigation have been effective beforehand.''
"People change farming practices, they change crops they plant. In urban areas people like vegetation between houses, they have bigger houses, bigger roofs.
"These all ­reflect heat into ­vegetation that dries out and you have fuel."
The biggest fires in terms of area burned are actually in low-population areas of the Northern Territory, Western Australia and north Queensland.
It is when fires occur in populated areas that the explosive combination of high fuel load and proximity of homes becomes most apparent.

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -

then there's the money/support – Primonster Morrison et al, wouldn't want to see their budget surplus going up in ashes – no, it wants profit and more, so are limiting Government spending on many essential needs – replaced from the Peoples pocket, by charitable donations and rainy day savings etc .same old story, happy taking short on giving – and as Rural areas are already hit hardest – add just a little more heat, and with volunteer fire service numbers on the decline for many, it'll be back to the concrete jungle.

noseBag ,

You: What is actually happening; how are the fires being started?
Me: Hmmmmm .dryness .heat?
You: Who is starting them?
Me: Hmmmm .the godamnded sun?
You: Why are firefighters having trouble with all of it?
Me: Hmmmm there's a fuck-ton of it?
You: Years & years of deliberate mismanagement?
Me: Yes, spot on, and ..and then
You: Arson? Sabotage? D.E.Ws/Scalar/Smart Meters? .
Me: Can we accuse the sun of arson?
Hmmmm .I'm really not sure, maybe your wisdom could guide me?

Fair dinkum ,

Never fear, the US (of ignorance) can now conquer the universe >>
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/with-space-force-congress-hands-trump-a-major-victory/

Doctortrinate ,

there's billions of us, all we need, is a little food and warmth – all we want, is to get on with our lives, in Freedom and in Peace. It unfortunate then, that there exists a small Cabal of International Interconnected players who employ Governments of the World/ Leaders of Men, instrumentally, to the construction of divisive entanglements . Sadly it seems, the People, generation through generation, have become so accustomed to groupthink falsity, they see themselves collectively responsibile for the ruinous designs of dictatorial maniacs as if the experience of repeatedly being delivered into a madhouse was a natural element of existence.

I accidentally posted this comment under the "Douma narrative crumbles" thread, admin can delete it there , if they like.

Thanks.

Tallis Marsh ,

Yes, I saw your comment on the other article.

Well said and concisely said!

MASTER OF UNIVE ,

.BREAKING.NEWS.ALERT.BREAKING.NEWS.ALERT.BREAKING.NEWS.ALERT

<<<<>>>>

EAT.POPCORN.DRINK.COKE.EAT.POPCORN.DRINK.COKE.EAT.POPCORN

MOU

MASTER OF UNIVE ,

The news alert message was supposed to be between the brackets but somehow it disappeared. The alert msg was supposed to say

Chief BIG Trump little penis declares bombing assassination NOT DECLARATION OF WAR.

MOU

MASTER OF UNIVE ,

And I did not upvote myself above.

MOU

Brian Harry ,

I wonder if the Loonies in the CIA/MIC are currently planning to get rid of "a very important American", and then blame it on Iran, as justification for attacking Iran. I agree that a war against Iran would be a dreadful mistake by the USA, but, with Loonies like Pompeo, Mark Esper, and the likes of Bolton, still lurking in the background, they'll ALL be salivating at the thought of another War with a staggering death count(on both sides) and so will Mr Netanyahu, sitting in Israel, pulling the strings and directing the traffic.
It's what they live and breathe for .deranged psychopaths just cannot get enough War ."Draining the Swamp" was NEVER going to happen ..

richard le sarc ,

Excellent speculation. To get rid of Trump, the obvious 'burnt offering', and get a casus belli for Clinton's much desired 'obliteration' of Iran, Bibi's 'New Purim'-what could be better?

Estompista ,

Pretty desperate stretch.

richard le sarc ,

Then leave yourself alone!

Brianeg ,

"Revenge is a dish best served cold!.

I am sure that America is expecting a quick retaliation and which can be quickly countered. I am sure the Iranians are aware of that and will either carry out something that is deniable or just put pressure on Iraq to kick all the Americans out of their country. What can America do, bomb the whole country into the stone age?

2020 is destined to be a very bloody and long drawn out war of attrition. Whilst the Democrats would appear to be handing Trump his second term on a plate, by his rash and badly planned move, this might be denied him.

I do wonder if nature might intervene. You read about the build up of seismic activity in California and wonder if this might be the year of the "Big One"? If that was to happen then all bets are off and all military activity will subside.

I am reminded of the "Tom and Jerry" cartoon when Buster taking the part of America comes to Jerry's defence when he whistles until that time Buster is carted off to the dog pound.

As Putin's actions always catch me by surprise, can anybody guess what he might do if Iran, Iraq or Syria comes under heavy attack? I am sure in the circumstances that it would always be the right move.

RobG ,

"What can America do, bomb the whole country into the stone age?"

They've already done that in Korea and Vietnam, and to a lesser extent just recently in Syria (which is why Europe has experienced a tidal wave of refugees).

2020 doesn't have to be bloody, as long as most people can get out of the tidal wave of MSM war propaganda.

With regard to Putin, we're fast approaching the stage where Russia and China are going to either have to stand up to America (which means war), or else they'll have to bow down and become part of a rapidly decaying empire (an empire than can't even look after its own people).

With the assassination of Soleimani, I think we're now at this tipping point. I don't believe that Russia and China will bow down to the biggest bunch of criminals/psychopaths that this world has ever known.

richard le sarc ,

They don't need to bomb every village in Iran. Just take out the power stations, communications, hospitals (oops, we are SO sorry)warehouses, roads, water infrastructure (as they did in Iraq)etc and a few Holy spots to indicate the religious/fascist aspect of the assault, and sundry others (they bombed dairy farms in Iraq). Raytheon and Lockheed must be slobbering at the profit expectations, and 'religious' fascist psychopaths, like our own Pentecostal thug PM, 'Smoko' Morrison, drooling as their beloved End Times draw that much closer.

Gaudy ,

As the article says, Iran isn't Iraq or Syria. The Pentagon knows that better than the man in the street, why else has it not been invaded yet? If they start this war they could well fail to win it. Totally different ballgame from anything seen before in the 'war on terror'.

richard le sarc ,

They won't invade-just sit back and bomb.

Loverat ,

The other thing to mention is John Simpson while an establishment buffoon has been to Iran and wrote a book in around 1980. A not completely bad book.

Jen ,

FreeIran2020 seems to be attracting the Mojaheddin e Khalq cult crazies and deluded Pahlavi monarchy restorationists. That tells me the movement must be relying on the same US State Department and National Endowment for Democracy regime-change idiots, and various Washington NGOs, who support the Banderite turds in Ukraine and the Blackshirt thugs in Hong Kong, for money and marketing campaign ads and slogans.

Estompista ,

Blackshirt?

[Jan 04, 2020] US killing of Iranian commander on Iraqi soil violates terms of US stationing troops in the country Iraqi PM

Jan 04, 2020 | www.rt.com

The interim prime minister of Iraq has condemned the US assassination of a senior Iranian commander, calling it an act of aggression against his country. Qassem Soleimani was killed at Baghdad airport.

Soleimani, the commander of the elite Quds Force, was killed after his convoy was hit by US missiles. A deputy commander of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), the Iraqi militia collective backed by Iran, was killed in the same airstrike.

In a statement on Friday, the caretaker leader of Iraq's protest-challenged government, Adil Abdul Mahdi, said the US assassination operation was a "flagrant violation of Iraqi sovereignty" and an insult to the dignity of his country.

Also on rt.com Iran Quds Force commander killed in US strike on convoy at Baghdad airport

He stressed that the US had violated the terms under which American troops are allowed to stay in Iraq with the purpose of training Iraqi troops and fighting the jihadist organization Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS). He added that the killing may trigger a major escalation of violence and result in "a devastating war in Iraq" that will spill out into the region.

The Iraqi government has called on the parliament to hold an emergency session to discuss an appropriate response, Mahdi said.

Also on rt.com Killing of Quds commander is another sign of US frustration and weakness in the region – Iran's Rouhani

The killing of Soleimani marks a significant escalation in US confrontation with Iran. Washington considers the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), to which Quds belongs, a terrorist organization and claimed the slain commander was plotting attacks on American citizens.

Tehran said the Quds commander was targeted for his personal contribution to defeating IS in Iraq and Syria. Soleimani drove Iran's support for militias in both countries that fought against the terrorist force.

[Jan 04, 2020] How the US was hoist by its own petard in Iraq and the wishful thinking of its thinktanks Elijah J. Magnier

Jan 04, 2020 | ejmagnier.com

Posted on 02/01/2020 by Elijah J Magnier By Elijah J. Magnier: @ejmalrai

The United States of America has fallen into the trap of its own disinformation policy, as exemplified by the work of one of its leading strategic study centres, a neocon think tank promoting war on Iran.

During the first weeks of protests in Iraq, a dozen Iraqis burned down the Iranian consulates in Najaf, Karbalaa and Baghdad. Western analysts based their analysis on social media images and YouTube videos, particularly those clips which showed protestors chanting "Iran Barra..Barra. Baghdad Tibqa Hurrah" (Iran out, Baghdad remains free). Analysts and mainstream media -- primarily people sitting thousands of kilometres away from Iraq who have never visited the country, and never mixed with the population long enough to understand the dynamics of the country and how Iraqis really think – reflected and amplified the opinion that Iraq has become hostile to Iran.

However, though every wish can come true, yet prevailing winds can defy our hopes and expectations. Analysts' wishful thinking overwhelmed their sense of reality, notably the possibility of realities invisible to them. They fell into the same trap of misinformation and ignorance that has shaped western opinion since the occupation of Iraq in 2003. The invasion of Iraq was justified by the presence of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" which never existed. An information war was waged against Syria with the goal of overthrowing President Bashar al-Assad. The US supported terrorist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda for this purpose. Mainstream media coverage of the war in Syria- mainly through WhatsApp, social media, Skype, activists and jihadists- unfolded at the expense of destroying its own credibility, and that of western journalism in general.

The shameful irresponsibility of these reporters and analysts became obvious to a large part of the public. There was no accountability for mass media deceptions: virtually all western media were in the same boat, totally lacking the necessary professionalism. Western media became a mockery of the noble and demanding profession of journalism and its mandate to report and share information without manipulation. Journalists were forced to follow newspaper editorial policies and the political views of their owner- he who pays the piper calls the tune!

<img data-attachment-id="8190" data-permalink="https://ejmagnier.com/2020/01/02/hoe-de-verenigde-staten-in-irak-in-eigen-voet-schoten-en-de-wensdromen-van-hun-think-tanks/3ff6b79c-f8fe-4e4d-b843-5efc97e43d0a/" data-orig-file="https://i2.wp.com/ejmagnier.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/3ff6b79c-f8fe-4e4d-b843-5efc97e43d0a.jpg?fit=596%2C397&amp;ssl=1" data-orig-size="596,397" data-comments-opened="1" data-image-meta="{&quot;aperture&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;credit&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;camera&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;caption&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;created_timestamp&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;copyright&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;focal_length&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;iso&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;shutter_speed&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;title&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;orientation&quot;:&quot;0&quot;}" data-image-title="3ff6b79c-f8fe-4e4d-b843-5efc97e43d0a" data-image-description="" data-medium-file="https://i2.wp.com/ejmagnier.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/3ff6b79c-f8fe-4e4d-b843-5efc97e43d0a.jpg?fit=300%2C200&amp;ssl=1" data-large-file="https://i2.wp.com/ejmagnier.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/3ff6b79c-f8fe-4e4d-b843-5efc97e43d0a.jpg?fit=596%2C397&amp;ssl=1" src="https://i2.wp.com/ejmagnier.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/3ff6b79c-f8fe-4e4d-b843-5efc97e43d0a.jpg?w=1000&#038;ssl=1" alt="" srcset="https://i2.wp.com/ejmagnier.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/3ff6b79c-f8fe-4e4d-b843-5efc97e43d0a.jpg?w=596&amp;ssl=1 596w, https://i2.wp.com/ejmagnier.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/3ff6b79c-f8fe-4e4d-b843-5efc97e43d0a.jpg?resize=300%2C200&amp;ssl=1 300w" sizes="(max-width: 596px) 100vw, 596px" data-recalc-dims="1" />

Fortunately, the internet made it possible for people to hunt for alternative sources and analyses. For instance, to a great extent journalistic standards were upheld in Israel, the only place in the Middle East where analysts and reporters have the freedom to tell the truth about their enemies (regardless the military censure), and about the limitations on Israeli power. The Israeli media reported on the weakness of the domestic front in case of war and the huge damage their enemies could inflict on the country through the deterrence policy that Israel has faced in this century.

The Israeli government has a "Council of Risk Evaluation", which predicts the reaction of the enemy in case of a "battle between wars", and estimates the results of Israel hitting a target or even hundreds of targets in Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Yemen and Iraq. That assessment is always very close to reality, unlike that of the US.

Prestigious Western think-tanks like Brookings, Carnegie, Hudson, the Washington Institute, the "Middle East Institute" and others promoted a belief in the protestors' anti-Iran objectives in Iraq and Lebanon. They have advocated a 'weakness of Iran in Iraq', a phenomenon based on a few street comments and a few arson-inspired fires. Most probably these institutions did not mean to distort reality as they revealed their limited understanding of the Middle East. Even after the US bombing of the Iraqi Security Forces on the Iraqi-Syrian borders, some of these analysts hinted Iran would not recover and would not be able to respond, and that "Kataeb Hezbollah" were weaker than ever. Yet the following day their sympathizers broke into the US embassy in Baghdad and mobilised thousands of people, creating panic and fear not only at the embassy but also at the Pentagon and the White House.

There is no doubt President Donald Trump has little foreign policy knowledge and experience. He has never claimed the opposite. But his Foreign and Defence ministries seem hardly more enlightened.

<img data-attachment-id="8191" data-permalink="https://ejmagnier.com/2020/01/02/hoe-de-verenigde-staten-in-irak-in-eigen-voet-schoten-en-de-wensdromen-van-hun-think-tanks/6obco-j5-jpg-medium/" data-orig-file="https://i1.wp.com/ejmagnier.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/6OBco-J5.jpg-medium.jpeg?fit=720%2C960&amp;ssl=1" data-orig-size="720,960" data-comments-opened="1" data-image-meta="{&quot;aperture&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;credit&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;camera&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;caption&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;created_timestamp&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;copyright&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;focal_length&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;iso&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;shutter_speed&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;title&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;orientation&quot;:&quot;0&quot;}" data-image-title="6OBco-J5.jpg-medium" data-image-description="" data-medium-file="https://i1.wp.com/ejmagnier.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/6OBco-J5.jpg-medium.jpeg?fit=225%2C300&amp;ssl=1" data-large-file="https://i1.wp.com/ejmagnier.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/6OBco-J5.jpg-medium.jpeg?fit=720%2C960&amp;ssl=1" src="https://i1.wp.com/ejmagnier.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/6OBco-J5.jpg-medium.jpeg?w=1000&#038;ssl=1" alt="" srcset="https://i1.wp.com/ejmagnier.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/6OBco-J5.jpg-medium.jpeg?w=720&amp;ssl=1 720w, https://i1.wp.com/ejmagnier.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/6OBco-J5.jpg-medium.jpeg?resize=225%2C300&amp;ssl=1 225w, https://i1.wp.com/ejmagnier.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/6OBco-J5.jpg-medium.jpeg?resize=600%2C800&amp;ssl=1 600w" sizes="(max-width: 720px) 100vw, 720px" data-recalc-dims="1" />

What happened last week in Iraq?

On 27 th December 2019, several rockets were fired from unidentified attackers against the K1 Iraqi military base in Kirkuk, north of Iraq. In this base, as in many others, Iraqi and US military are present on the same ground and within the same walls, even if they have different command and control HQs. Two Iraqi policemen and one American contractor were killed and 2 Iraqi Army officers and four US contractors were wounded.

The following day, Defence Secretary Mark Esper called the Iraqi caretaker Prime Minister to inform him of "his decision to bomb Kataeb Hezbollah bases in Iraq". Mr Abdel Mahdi asked Esper to meet face-to-face, and told his interlocutor that this would be dangerous for Iraq: he rejected the US decision. Esper responded that he was "not calling to negotiate but to inform about a decision that has already been taken". Mr Abdel Mahdi asked Esper if the US has "proof against Kataeb Hezbollah to share so Iraq can arrest those responsible for the attack on K1". No response: Esper told Abdel Mahdi that the US was "well-informed" and that the attack would take place " in a few hours ".

In less than half an hour, US jets bombed five Iraqi security forces' positions deployed along the Iraqi-Syrian borders, in the zone of Akashat, 538 kilometres from the K1 military base (that had been bombed by perpetrators still unknown!). The US announced the attack but omitted the fact that in these positions there were not only Kataeb Hezbollah but also Iraqi Army and Federal Police officers. Most victims of the US attack were Iraqi army and police officers. Only 9 officers of Kataeb Hezbollah – who joined the Iraqi Security Forces in 2017 – were killed. These five positions had the task of intercepting and hunting down ISIS and preventing the group's militants from crossing the borders from the Anbar desert. The closest city to these bombed positions is al-Qaem, 150 km away.

What is the outcome of the US bombing of the Iraqi security forces?

<img data-attachment-id="8192" data-permalink="https://ejmagnier.com/2020/01/02/hoe-de-verenigde-staten-in-irak-in-eigen-voet-schoten-en-de-wensdromen-van-hun-think-tanks/olyjr7od/" data-orig-file="https://i2.wp.com/ejmagnier.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/olyJR7OD.jpeg?fit=1100%2C618&amp;ssl=1" data-orig-size="1100,618" data-comments-opened="1" data-image-meta="{&quot;aperture&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;credit&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;camera&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;caption&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;created_timestamp&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;copyright&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;focal_length&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;iso&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;shutter_speed&quot;:&quot;0&quot;,&quot;title&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;orientation&quot;:&quot;0&quot;}" data-image-title="olyJR7OD" data-image-description="" data-medium-file="https://i2.wp.com/ejmagnier.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/olyJR7OD.jpeg?fit=300%2C169&amp;ssl=1" data-large-file="https://i2.wp.com/ejmagnier.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/olyJR7OD.jpeg?fit=1000%2C562&amp;ssl=1" src="https://i2.wp.com/ejmagnier.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/olyJR7OD.jpeg?resize=1000%2C562&#038;ssl=1" alt="" srcset="https://i2.wp.com/ejmagnier.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/olyJR7OD.jpeg?resize=1024%2C575&amp;ssl=1 1024w, https://i2.wp.com/ejmagnier.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/olyJR7OD.jpeg?resize=300%2C169&amp;ssl=1 300w, https://i2.wp.com/ejmagnier.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/olyJR7OD.jpeg?resize=768%2C431&amp;ssl=1 768w, https://i2.wp.com/ejmagnier.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/olyJR7OD.jpeg?resize=600%2C337&amp;ssl=1 600w, https://i2.wp.com/ejmagnier.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/olyJR7OD.jpeg?w=1100&amp;ssl=1 1100w" sizes="(max-width: 1000px) 100vw, 1000px" data-recalc-dims="1" />

Iran had been struggling to achieve consensus among various Iraqi political parties. In Baghdad, it had been impossible to unite them to select a new Prime Minister following the resignation of Adel Abdel Mahdi. Political parties, above all groups representing the Shia majority, were divided amongst themselves and incapable of selecting a suitable candidate. Protestors were occupying the streets and the Hashd al-Shaabi flag was not tolerated in Baghdad square.

The US bombing of the Iraqi security forces' positions fell as manna to Iran. Secretaries Pompeo and Esper's actions were in perfect harmony with the goals of the IRGC-Quds brigade commander Qassem Soleimani. The two US officials broke the Iraqi political stalemate and diverted the country's attention towards the US embassy and the break-in of protestors to contest the US bombing of Iraqi security forces.

Members of Hashd al-Shaabi and other Iraqi forces units, along with families and friends of the 79 (killed and wounded) victims demonstrated outside the US embassy in the Green Zone in Baghdad. Flags of Hashd al-Shaabi were flying over the entrance of the US embassy. The withdrawal of the US forces from Iraq became the priority of the Iraqi parliament, and even of Moqtada al-Sadr.

The US paid the price of thousands of killed and wounded and trillions of dollars to maintain a zone of influence, military bases and a friendly government in Iraq, but they have failed to achieve these objectives. Irresponsible and erroneous analysis of the situation in Iraq and its dynamics has proved that its authors are detached and isolated from that reality.

The US may end up being pushed out of Iraq and Syria. It may move to Kurdistan. But if the parliament fails to reach an agreement over its presence in Iraq, US forces will no longer be in a friendly environment and may be targeted by various Iraqi groups, bringing back memories of 2005.

One single rushed decision emanating from inexperienced US policymakers, evidently following the advice of think tanks, has dealt the US a setback in the region. Was the advice of neocon think-tank analysts shaped by incompetence, or simply by their agenda? They are indeed separated by a great distance from realities on the ground in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East, and US policymakers are clearly not getting sound advice on the region.

All this plays into the hands of Brigadier General Qassem Soleimani, whose only need is to capitalize on American mistakes in the Middle East. The US is making Iran stronger, demonstrating the truth of Sayyed Ali Khamenei's comment: " Thank God our enemies are imbeciles ".

Proofread by : Maurice Brasher and C.G.B.

[Jan 04, 2020] Higher oil prices can be enough punishment for the US until Iran find more effective ways to punish for this violation of international norms and sovereignty of Iraq

The oil market should be worried. Iran can stop all traffic through the Straight of Hormuz at will. And that would start a war. Which would keep it closed. It may be a mistake to think Iran's leadership is more sane than ours.
Jan 04, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Iran might also seek to draw Israel into a conflict via Hezbollah in Lebanon. We can't rule out some sort of grand-scale attack, but an array of smaller-scale activity is our core bet.

The risk that something bigger will trigger a real war, however, likely will put a premium on oil prices for the next few months, at least.

Higher oil prices represent a tax on oil consumers and a windfall for producers. World oil consumption is about 100M barrels per day, so each five dollars on the prices is equivalent to an annualized tax of about $183B per year, or 0.1% of global GDP. The U.S., however, is both a huge oil producer and a consumer. Domestic production runs at almost 13M bpd, with consumption at 21Mbpd. That would seem to suggest that the net effect of higher prices on the U.S. would be to depress economic growth, but recent experience points in the opposite direction, because oil sector capex, in the era of shale, is acutely sensitive to prices, even in the short term. When oil prices collapsed between spring 2014 and early 2016, the ensuing plunge in capital spending in the oil sector outweighed the boost to consumers' real income from cheaper gasoline and heating oil, and overall economic growth slowed markedly. This story played out in reverse when oil prices rebounded in the three years through spring 2018, and economic growth picked up even as consumers' real incomes were hit.

... ... ...

The wild card is whether turmoil in the Middle East triggers a sustained sell-off in equities, depressing business and consumer confidence to the point where labor market and inflation concerns become secondary. We'd be surprised -- the plunge in S&P futures is just the initial knee-jerk response -- but if Iran takes more drastic action than we are expecting, it will become a real risk. In that case, the Fed might have no choice but to ease, especially if credit markets seize-up too. In the meantime, expect defensive stocks to outperform, with downward pressure on Treasury yields and gains for safe-haven currencies, until Iran's response becomes clear. To repeat: Iran will respond.

DemandSider , 24 minutes ago link

9/11 Suspects: The Dancing Israelis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XHm56O2NTI&t=425s

I still can't get any logical explanation as to why this Israeli spy ring, the largest ever on U.S. soil, was in The U.S. And, why were they dancing after the first plane impact?

Anybody?

Karl Marxist , 25 minutes ago link

News flash. The government in Washington is extremely unpopular as well. More unpopular in America than the Iranian government is with Iranians. I am saying this because anyone who spent any time with Impeachment; read how Barr let Epstein and all pedo elites walk away fully protected, his hideous Operation Guardian, Trump's complete destruction of 1st Amendment rights to free speech in the guise of "suppressing antisemitism" ... God, how I hate this tyranny complete with WalMarts and mulatto invaders and LGBT as "normal", the all tranny military, meaningless laws we are rounded up and shot to death for the slightest traffic infraction black, white but never Jewish. They get away with everything. Trump made them a protected class, Judaism a race and a nationality to have special protections at taxpayer expense. What a wonderful country I just can't get enough of....

Jung , 43 minutes ago link

No one will miss the US apart frmo the Americans themselves: the polls are clear worldwide that the world considers the Americans to be ruled by the most aggressive and psychopathic regimes. They have killed millions since WWII and the world would be a much better place without the US.

[Jan 04, 2020] The price of crude oil has jumped over $2 USD on the world markets since the news

Jan 04, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

michaelj72 , Jan 3 2020 10:05 utc | 19

The price of crude oil has jumped over $2 USD on the world markets since the news

I expect the US to fully resist being booted out of Iraq (which would also make it's two major positions in Syria highly untenable). who could now believe that US troops in Iraq and Syria won't come under sustained attack now, by the many allies Iran has in the area?

Elijah gives breaking news
https://twitter.com/ejmalrai/status/1213032002682867715

Grand Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Sistani considers "the #US attack against the #BaghdadAirport is a clear violation of #Iraq sovereignty".

That is clear support for the US withdrawal from #Iraq.

AND

S Sistani condemns the "attack against Iraqi (not Iranian-militia) position on the borders killing our Iraqi sons to the hateful attack on #BaghdadAirport is a violation and internationally unlawful (US) act against anti-#ISIS hero(s) leading to difficult times for #Iraq".

bluedotterel , Jan 3 2020 10:07 utc | 20

Really, the ball is in Iraq's court. This is an attack on Iraqi sovereignty as much as an act of war on Iran. We will now see what the Iraqi are made of.
Peter AU1 , Jan 3 2020 10:07 utc | 21
@never mind "Soleimani really the target?"

Trump was personally responsible for having the organisation Soleimani led declared a terrorist organisation. Time to quit the "Trump is a dumbfuck led by others" Trump is around 70 and has been his own boss all his life. He is now commander in chief of the US military. He gives the orders, nobody else. He doesn't give a shit about the cold war and Europe, hence people thinking he is a peacenik. What he does care about is enemies of Israel and control of energy.

Bjørn Holmgaard , Jan 3 2020 10:11 utc | 24
The best revenge the Iraninans could have would be the expulsion of US troops from Iraq and Syria, which by the way was also the overarching goal of Soleimani...

No blood but his work completed..

Russianstyle revenge.

never mind , Jan 3 2020 10:22 utc | 28
@Peter AU1

Then the US is willfully shooting itself in the foot and I have a hard time believing that.

Peter AU1 , Jan 3 2020 10:29 utc | 29
Trump doesn't give a shit about soft power. He believes in hard power. Iraq has no defence against the US, and Trump intends to attack Iran. He needs a 9 11 to take the American population with him.
Jackrabbit , Jan 3 2020 10:30 utc | 30
Bjørn Holmgaard @24:
The best revenge the Iraninans could have would be the expulsion of US troops from Iraq and Syria ...

UN resolution 2249 (2015) :
Calls upon Member States that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures, in compliance with international law, in particular with the United Nations Charter, as well as international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law, on the territory under the control of ISIL also known as Da'esh, in Syria and Iraq, to redouble and coordinate their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by ISIL also known as Da'esh as well as ANF, and all other individuals, groups, undertakings, and entities associated with Al Qaeda, and other terrorist groups, as designated by the United Nations Security Council, and as may further be agreed by the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) and endorsed by the UN Security Council, pursuant to the Statement of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) of 14 November, and to eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria;

USA have made it very clear that they are not leaving Syria and the same thinking/excuses likely applies to Iraq.

Some will argue that using UN2249 as justification for over-staying and virtual occupation is wrong-headed. Nevertheless, USA claims to remain to ensure against a resurgence of ISIS. Clearly they intend to stay until their goals are met or they are forced out militarily.

!!

Jen , Jan 3 2020 10:34 utc | 31
I suspect I'm not the only MoA barfly who thinks the assassination of Hossein Soleymani could have been planned with Mossad or other organisations and individuals in Israeli society.
jared , Jan 3 2020 10:35 utc | 32
I have the impression that Israel is taking responsibility for management of Iraq/Iran situation.

Suspect Trump is delegating and is along for ride. No dought in control in his own mind.

It appears that president is obliged to accept intelligence and guidance of security state effectively tying his hands

Laguerre , Jan 3 2020 10:35 utc | 33
The Iraqis are certainly capable of making life for the US very uncomfortable in Iraq and Syria, even if not force withdrawal. The present US structure and numbers depend on Iraqi acquiescence, and that's about shot, even before the assassination. If the position is to be maintained without Iraqi acquiescence, then thousands more troops would be required, and that wouldn't go down well back home in the States. That's one of the reasons why the act was a grave miscalculation.
Kurious , Jan 3 2020 10:51 utc | 37
This was not Trump`s decision. Trump had to take responsibilty to show he is in command. He will soon realize that he was played by the CIA and the Israelis. By then it is too late.
The US and its vassals are speeding up confrontation with the Axis because they know that the showdown is inevitable. However, It will not happen according to the US timetable.
Keep a good supply of popcorn on hand. The pandora box has plenty of surprises. The question remains,

Will the state of Israel survives?

God help us.

Peter AU1 , Jan 3 2020 10:55 utc | 39
Veritas X- "He was a brilliant military strategist"

That's why Trump hit him. And I say hit because Trump has very much a US mob or movie style mafia mentality.

Laguerre , Jan 3 2020 11:04 utc | 40
I figure Iran will have to retaliate and thus this will likely escalate. The Saker initially thinks war is 80% certain, I think it's probably a bit higher than that.

Posted by: TEP | Jan 3 2020 10:49 utc | 36

The Iranians would be foolish to allow themselves to be goaded like that.

[Jan 03, 2020] Soleimani murder what could happen next The Vineyard of the Saker

Jan 03, 2020 | thesaker.is

­ Soleimani murder: what could happen next? 8061 Views January 03, 2020 66 Comments Saker Analyses and Interviews The Saker First, a quick recap of the situation

We need to begin by quickly summarizing what just happened:

General Soleimani was in Baghdad on an official visit to attend the funeral of the Iraqis murdered by the USA on the 29th The US has now officially claimed responsibility for this murder The Iranian Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has officially declared that " However, a severe retaliation awaits the criminals who painted their corrupt hands with his and his martyred companions ' blood last night " The US paints itself – and Iran – into a corner

The Iranians simply had no other choice than to declare that there will be a retaliation. There are a few core problems with what happens next. Let's look at them one by one:

First, it is quite obvious from the flagwaving claptrap in the USA that Uncle Shmuel is "locked and loaded" for even more macho actions and reaction. In fact, Secretary Esper has basically painted the US into what I would call an "over-reaction corner" by declaring that " the game has changed " and that the US will take " preemptive action " whenever it feels threatened . Thus, the Iranians have to assume that the US will over-react to anything even remotely looking like an Iranian retaliation. No less alarming is that this creates the absolutely perfect conditions for a false flag à la " USS Liberty " . Right now, the Israelis have become at least as big a danger for US servicemen and facilities in the entire Middle-East as are the Iranians themselves. How? Simple! Fire a missile/torpedo/mine at any USN ship and blame Iran. We all know that if that happens the US political elites will do what they did the last time around: let US servicemen die and protect Israel at all costs (read up on the USS Liberty if you don't know about it) There is also a very real risk of "spontaneous retaliations" by other parties (not Iran or Iranian allies) . In fact, in his message, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has specifically declared that " Martyr Suleimani is an international face to the Resistance and all lovers of the Resistance share a demand in retaliation for his blood . All friends – as well as all enemies – must know the path of Fighting and Resistance will continue with double the will and the final victory is decidedly waiting for those who fight in this path. " He is right, Soleimani was loved and revered by many people all over the globe, some of whom might decided to avenge his death. This means that we might well see some kind of retaliation which, of course, will be blamed on Iran but which might not be the result of any Iranian actions at all. Finally, should the Iranians decide not to retaliate, then we can be absolutely sure that Uncle Shmuel will see that as a proof of his putative "invincibility" and take that as a license to engage in even more provocative actions.

A spiritual father kisses his beloved son

If we look at these four factors together we would have to come to the conclusion that Iran HAS to retaliate and HAS to do so publicly .

Why?

Because whether the Iranian do retaliate or not, they are almost guaranteed another US attack in retaliation for anything looking like a retaliation, whether Iran is involved or not .

The dynamics of internal US politics

Next, let's look at the internal political dynamics in the USA:

I have always claimed that Donald Trump is a "disposable President" for the Neocons . What do I mean by that? I mean that the Neocons have used Trump to do all sorts of truly fantastically dumb things (pretty much ALL his policy decisions towards Israel and/or Syria) for a very simple reason. If Trump does something extremely dumb and dangerous, he will either get away with it, in which case the Neocons will be happy, or he will either fail or the consequences of his decisions will be catastrophic, at which point the Neocons will jettison him and replace him by an even more subservient individual (say Pence or Pelosi). In other words, for the Neocons to have Trump do something both fantastically dangerous and fantastically stupid is a win-win situation !

Right now, the Dems (still the party favored by the Neocons) seem to be dead-set into committing political suicide with that ridiculous (and treacherous!) impeachment nonsense. Now think about this from the Neocon point of view. They might be able to get the US goyim to strike Iran AND get rid of Trump. I suppose that their thinking will go something like this:

Trump looks set to win 2020. We don't want that. However, we have been doing everything in our power to trigger a US attack on Iran since pretty much 1979. Let's have Trump do that. If he "wins" (by whatever definition – more about that further below), we win. If he loses, the Iranians will still be in a world of pain and we can always jettison him like a used condom (used to supposedly safely screw somebody with no risks to yourself). Furthermore, if the region explodes, this will help our beloved Bibi and unite US Jewry behind Israel. Finally, if Israel gets attacked, we will immediately demand (and, of course, obtain) a massive US attack on Iran, supported by the entire US political establishment and media. And, lastly, should Israel be hit hard, then we can always use our nukes and tell the goyim that "Iran wants to gas 6 million Jews and wipe the only democracy in the Middle-East off the face of the earth" or something equally insipid.

Ever since Trump made it into the White House, we saw him brown-nose the Israel Lobby with a delectation which is extreme even by US standards. I suppose that this calculation goes something along the lines of "with the Israel Lobby behind me, I am safe in the White House". He is obviously too stupidly narcissistic to realize that he has been used all along. To his (or one of his key advisor's) credit, he did NOT allow the Neocons to start a major war against Russia, China, the DPRK, Venezuela, Yemen, Syria, etc. However, Iran is a totally different case as it is the "number one" target the Neocons and Israel wanted strike and destroy. The Neocons even had this motto " boys go to Baghdad, real men go to Tehran ". Now that Uncle Shmuel has lost all this wars of choice, now that the US armed forces have no credibility left, now is the time to restore the "macho" self-image of Uncle Shmuel and, indeed, "go to Tehran" so to speak.

Biden immediately capitalizes on these events

The Dems (Biden) are already saying that Trump just " tossed a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox ", as if they cared about anything except their own, petty, political goals and power. Still, I have to admit that Biden's metaphor is correct – that is exactly what Trump (and his real bosses) have done.

If we assume that I am correct in my evaluation that Trump is the Neocon's/Israeli's "disposable President", then we also have to accept the fact that the US armed forces the Neocon's/Israeli's "disposable armed forces" and that the US as a nation is also the Neocon's/Israeli's "disposable nation". This is very bad news indeed, as this means that from the Neocon/Israeli point of view, there are no real risks into throwing the US into a war with Iran .

In truth, the position of the Dems is a masterpiece of hypocrisy which can be summed up as follows: the assassination of Soleimani is a wonderful event, but Trump is a monster for making it happen .

A winner, no?

What would the likely outcome of a US war on Iran be?

I have written so often about this topic that I won't go into all the possible scenarios here. All I will say is the following:

For the USA, "winning" means achieving regime change or, failing that, destroying the Iranian economy. For Iran, "winning" simply means to survive the US onslaught.

This is a HUGE asymmetry which basically means that the US cannot win and Iran can only win.

And, not, the Iranians don't have to defeat CENTCOM/NATO! They don't need to engage in large scale military operations. All they need to do is: remain "standing" once the dust settles down.

Ho Chi Minh once told the French " You can kill ten of my men for every one I kill of yours, but even at those odds, you will lose and I will win ". This is exactly why Iran will eventually prevail, maybe at a huge cost (Amalek must be destroyed, right?), but that will still be a victory.

Now let's look at the two most basic types of war scenarios: outside Iran and inside Iran.

The Iranians, including General Soleimani himself, have publicly declared many times that by trying to surround Iran and the Middle-East with numerous forces and facilities the USA have given Iran a long list of lucrative targets. The most obvious battlefield for a proxy war is clearly Iraq where there are plenty of pro and anti Iranian forces to provide the conditions for a long, bloody and protracted conflict (Moqtada al-Sadr has just declared that the Mahdi Army will be remobilized). But Iraq is far from being the only place where an explosion of violence can take place: the ENTIRE MIDDLE-EAST is well within Iranian "reach", be it by direct attack or by attack by sympathetic/allied forces. Next to Iraq, there is also Afghanistan and, potentially, Pakistan. In terms of a choice of instruments, the Iranian options range from missile attacks, to special forces direct action strikes, to sabotage and many, many more options. The only limitation here is the imagination of the Iranians and, believe me, they have plenty of that!

If such a retaliation happens, the US will have two basic options: strike at Iranian friends and allies outside Iran or, as Esper has now suggested, strike inside Iran. In the latter case, we can safely assume that any such attack will result in a massive Iranian retaliation on US forces and facilities all over the region and a closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

Keep in mind that the Neocon motto " boys go to Baghdad, real men go to Tehran " implicitly recognizes the fact that a war against Iran would be qualitatively (and even quantitatively) different war than a war against Iraq. And, this is true, if the US seriously plans to strike inside Iran they would be faced with an explosion which would make all the wars since WWII look minor in comparison. But the temptation to prove to the world that Trump and his minions are "real men" as opposed to "boys" might be too strong, especially for a president who does not understand that he is a disposable tool in the hands of the Neocons.

Now, let's quickly look at what will NOT happen

Russia and/or China will not get militarily involved in this one. Neither will the USA use this crisis as a pretext to attack Russia and/or China. The Pentagon clearly has no stomach for a war (conventional or nuclear) against Russia and neither does Russia have any desire for a war against the USA. The same goes for China. However, it is important to remember that Russia and China have other options, political and covert ones, to really hurt the US and help Iran. There is the UNSC where Russia and China will block any US resolution condemning Iran. Yes, I know, Uncle Shmuel does not give a damn about the UN or international law, but most of the rest of the world very much does. This asymmetry is further exacerbated by Uncle Shmuel's attention span (weeks at most) with the one of Russia and China (decades). Does that matter?

Absolutely!

If the Iraqis officially declare that the US is an occupation force (which it is), an occupation force which engages in acts of war against Iraq (which it does) and that the Iraqi people want Uncle Shmuel and his hypocritical talking points about "democracy" to pack and leave, what can our Uncle Shmuel do? He will try to resist it, of course, but once the tiny figleaf of "nation building" is gone, replaced by yet another ugly and brutal US occupation, the political pressure on the US to get the hell out will become extremely hard to manage, both outside and even inside the USA.

In fact, Iranian state television called Trump's order to kill Soleimani " the biggest miscalculation by the U.S." since World War II. "The people of the region will no longer allow Americans to stay," it said.

Next, both Russia and China can help Iran militarily with intelligence, weapons systems, advisors and economically, in overt and covert ways.

Finally, both Russia and China have the means to, shall we say, "strongly suggest" to other targets on the US "country hit list" that now is the perfect time to strike at US interests (say, in Far East Asia).

So Russia and China can and will help, but they will do so with what the CIA likes to call "plausible deniability".

Back The Big Question: what can/will Iran do next?

The Iranians are far most sophisticated players than the mostly clueless US Americans. So the first thing I would suggest is that the Iranians are unlikely to do something the US is expecting them to do. Either they will do something totally different, or they will act much later, once the US lowers its guard (as it always does after declaring "victory").

I asked a well-informed Iranian friend whether it was still possible to avoid war. Here is what he replied:

Yes I do believe fullscale war can be avoided. I believe that Iran can try to use its political influence to unite Iraqi political forces to officially ask for the removal of US troops in Iraq. Kicking the US out of Iraq will mean that they can no longer occupy eastern Syria either as their troops will be in danger between two hostile states. If the Americans leave Syria and Iraq, that will be the ultimate revenge for Iran without having fired a single shot.

I have to say that I concur with this idea: one of the most painful things Iran could do next would be to use this truly fantastically reckless event to kick the US out of Iraq first, and Syria next. That option, if it can be exercised, might also protect Iranian lives and the Iranian society from a direct US attack. Finally, such an outcome would give the murder of General Soleimani a very different and beautiful meaning: this martyr's blood liberated the Middle-East!

Finally, if that is indeed the strategy chosen by Iran, this does not at all mean that on a tactical level the Iranians will not extract a price from US forces in the region or even elsewhere on the planet. For example, there are some rather credible rumors that the destruction of PanAm 103 over Scotland was not a Libyan action, but an Iranian one in direct retaliation for the deliberate shooting down by the USN of IranAir 655 Airbus over the Persian Gulf. I am not saying that I know for a fact that this is what really happened, only that Iran does have retaliatory options not limited to the Middle-East.

Conclusion: we wait for Iran's next move

The Iraqi Parliament is scheduled to debate a resolution demanding the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. I will just say that while I do not believe that the US will gentlemanly agree to any such demands, it will place the conflict in the political realm. That is – by definition – much more desirable than any form of violence, however justified it might seem. So I strongly suggest to those who want peace that they pray that the Iraqi MPs show some honor and spine and tell Uncle Shmuel what every country out there always wanted from the US: Yankees, go home!

If that happens this will be a total victory for Iran and yet another abject defeat (self-defeat, really) by Uncle Shmuel. This is the best of all possible scenarios.

But if that does not happen, then all bets are off and the momentum triggered by this latest act of US terrorism will result in many more deaths.

As of right now (19:24 UTC) I still think that there is a roughly 80% chance of full scale war in the Middle-East and, again, will leave 20% of "unexpected events" (hopefully good ones).

The Saker

PS: this is a text I wrote under great time pressure and it has not be edited for typos or other mistakes. I ask the self-appointed Grammar Gestapo to take a break and not protest again. Thank you ­

Odalrik on January 03, 2020 , · at 3:15 pm EST/EDT

Saker, je partage votre point de vue, la pire sanction qui pourrait être infligée aux USA, serait de leur faire quitter l'Irak (et la Syrie par ricochet) Espérons que le parlement Irakien aura le courage de prendre cette décision historique, toutes les factions irakiennes sont révoltées par les actions américaines, le temps est venu pour eux d'en finir avec cette occupation mortifère.

yandex translate mod
Saker, I share your point of view, the worst sanction that could be imposed on the USA would be to make them leave Iraq (and Syria by ricochet) let's hope that the Iraqi parliament will have the courage to take this historic decision, all the Iraqi factions are outraged by the American actions, the time has come for them to put an end to this deadly occupation.

Mike from Jersey on January 03, 2020 , · at 4:11 pm EST/EDT
If the United States left Iraq it would be a win for Iraq, a win for Iran, a win for Syria and, realistically, a win for the American people.

The only people who would lose would be neocons.

mortimer on January 03, 2020 , · at 4:51 pm EST/EDT
Seriously how can this happen? The USA leave? The ANZ mercenary army walk away from its spoils?

USA formally just took control of the Oil Fields in Syria.

USA just asked all non-military to leave Iraq, USA just sent in 3500 new soldiers to 'secure' all Oil Fields in Iraq.

Seriously, there is only "One Outcome" and that is "Greater Israel", and its on track.

We know that in the past almost all the stolen oil from Iraq-Syria was shipped to Israel via Turkey, where it was re-sold and Israel made an enormous profit.

The neocons can never lose, they're siamese twins with the neo-libs, and all NEO is ANZ; All MSM, all country's on earth are administered by ANZ agents. Much of the 'war' between Soros&Adelson left-vs-right NEO is just fighting over scraps that haven't yet been stolen from the goy. NEOCON & NEOLIB are siamese twins that share a common asshole, they own the world as the ANZ, the siamese twin is the International-Kleptocrat Elite. They have their fingers in every nation on earth, including Iran & North-Korea. They have been controlling China-Russia for 100+ years, all has been planned for year the 'controlled demolition' of the USA. Most like a an engineered civil-war, followed by an ANZ re-population of a de-populated USA with a 'beautiful wall' to protects Trumps chosen people.

The soldiers like Gabbi sent to Iraq are just mercenarys. Like Saker say's "Israel owns the USA", Israel also owns the USA-MIL, the US-GOV, and that includes Gabbi & Trump. The soliders in Syria&Iraq could very well die there, as the USA that they knew may not be around in the future, but who cares? Israel controls the oil, and most likely an AIIB-SCO deal with CHINA-ISRAEL has already been signed, with Israel as the 'Seller of Choice', China doesn't care, and it respects Israel for its ability to lead the Goy by the nose.

The General is just one man, human life in the eye of the ANZ is worthless, the leaders of Iran all called themselves "Living Martyrs", now their real power has begun, just like in Lord of the Rings, when Gandolf was killed, he came back stronger.

IMHO this is all much like a 'magic show', where people talk about what Gabbi says, or insinuate that USA will leave the mideast, all the while the USA-Israel secures the middle-east oil fields with USA soldiers.

We know the USD is kaput, we know that Saudi oil is kaput, and the USA knows that in the future being the worlds largest user of 'portable energy' (oil) that they need infinite free oil.

Killing the "General", just provides the context to re-occupy Iraq, which now means just occupying the oil-fields.

Sun Tzu on January 03, 2020 , · at 3:21 pm EST/EDT
"The opportunity to secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself."
mortimer on January 03, 2020 , · at 5:19 pm EST/EDT
For now Israel owns the USA, and the US-MIL does the killing for Israel.

So long as they can play this game, and have the MSM ( owned by Israel ) define the good guys and bad guys this can go forever.

But what is certain, it will not be long before the NEO-LIB & CON are murdering each other in Israel.

Like the man used to say "In an eye for an eye world, all men will be blind"

For now common sociopath/psychopathic killers rule our world, all we can do is keep a low profile, and hope that they wipe each other out ASAP.

Hassan Carim on January 03, 2020 , · at 3:57 pm EST/EDT
Quote: "Revenge is a dish best served cold".

The brain dead 'thankyou for your service' spouting American morons and deluded American 'Christian Zionists' who put another religion before their own (whilst also forgetting about King Solomans breaking of the Covenenent made with King David they wave in everyones faces) will be expecting action by Iran before the weekend.

If it does not come they will ignorantly and arrogantly assume 'Victory' and make threats of further death and murder (and gross hypocracy).

The Iranians (and Russians and Chinese) do not need to act impulsively or recklessly. Thier time (and ample opportunities to humiliate the arrogant) will come in the months and years ahead.

Once the world fully wakes up to the fact that the Dollar is the source of all US power and influence globally, and then turns against it – rejecting it as the evil toilet paper (and imaginary digits on a screen) that it is, the Satanic empire of the US will collapse under its own weight and will not be able to support (pay for and bribe) a global empire. No massive war, no nukes exploding, just the repudiation of worthless pieces of paper and digits on a screen called the US Dollar.

A. Bear on January 03, 2020 , · at 4:17 pm EST/EDT
Thank you, Saker; another brilliant analysis. There are no winners here; but this event was not unexpected, i.e. U.S. aggression but I am surprised Soleimani was in Iraq and unaware that something like this wouldn't happen.
Goshawk on January 03, 2020 , · at 4:34 pm EST/EDT
Saker, a wise article on the consequences of Soleimani's murder. However, I believe you may have the wrong 'take' on Trump only being a "disposable President." Miles Mathis wrote an article on Trump, pre-election, that is pertinent. (Since then, Mathis has been silent on this matter; he may have been 'warned off'.)

"Looks like Donald Trump is Jewish." Synopsizing:

" both Trump's parents died at Long Island Jewish Medical Center."

"So let's return to Friedrich Drumpf, Donald's great-grandfather. Two of his sisters are listed as Elisabetha Freund and Syblia Schuster. Those are both Jewish surnames So at least two of Trump's great-aunts married Jewish men. This reminds us that his daughter Ivanka married a Jewish man, Jared Kushner. We are told this is an anomaly, but it isn't."

"Trump was brought up in Jamaica Estates, Queens, which has a large Jewish population. He went to Kew-Forest School, ditto. Trump's father was on the Board of Trustees at Kew-Forest."

"Trump allegedly went to the Wharton School of Business, a famous spook academy."

"Ivana [Trump's former wife] is also Jewish. An early boyfriend was George Syrovatka. That is a Jewish name. Her first husband was Alfred Winklemeier. Winklemeier is a Jewish name. Ivana went to McGill University in Montreal, a spook academy we have run across many times. Geni.com lists her father's name as both Knavs and Zelnícek. I'll give you a hint: drop the second 'e'. You get Zelnick. It is Yiddish for haberdasher. Clothier. It's Jewish, too."

"Both Trump and his father ran with top Jews in New York, including Samuel Lindenbaum and his father Abraham (Bunny), and Roy Cohn. These guys weren't just their attorneys; they were their enablers."

If we throw-in his moving of the US Embassy to Jerusalem, his recognizing of Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights, his non-censure of Israeli settlement in occupied Palestine, and his appointment of pro-Israel & anti-Iran 'advisors', a 'pattern' emerges which is consistent with Trump being both a crypto-Jew and a Zionist. This state-of-affairs dramatically changes the odds of escalation to a "US" strike on Iran. If Mathis' assertion is indeed the case, Soleimani's murder is the deliberate 'kickoff' of a series of events pre-planned to satisfy Israeli goals

John Neal Spangler on January 03, 2020 , · at 4:49 pm EST/EDT
A fine analysis.Trump and Co. are so busy brown nosing the Israelis they don't seem to care what anyone else thinks. I think every Iraqi not on US payroll will demand Yankee go home,. The us and its corporate media and the "interagency consensus" makes it unlikely ant rational decision making will come out of babylon on the Potomac. ­
Woogs on January 03, 2020 , · at 4:49 pm EST/EDT
This 'could' be contained and may yet well be. Or it could not.

Both Iran and Iraq have been attacked. This was NOT a defensive move. Soleimani had been declared a terrorist by the US and also declared Iran a state sponsor of terrorism.

That is the figleaf of justification the US is providing. What must be considered is that there is a bill in the US Senate that had passed committee declaring Russia to be a state sponsor of terrorism. If that comes to pass, could Russia be given the same treatment as just witnessed. Not to mention that China could also fall into that category at some point soon using the same .. errr logic.

The point here is that should this be seen as an incident that doesn't directly affect those countries within the Resistance that weren't directly attacked, or should this be seen as the beginning of the US campaign to establish a Global Reich while there is still time?

If the latter is true, then it would be foolish to let this play out as purely a regional event.

Remember Martin Niemöller:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out --

Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me.

Jason Muniz on January 03, 2020 , · at 4:54 pm EST/EDT
The Anglo Saxons really believe there short presence will prevail against the ancient dominance the Aryans(the real ones that is the Indo-Iranians) have exercised, physically and mentally, in the region. They have no idea what they are going up against, technical knowledge will not win a war. ­
Bikkin on January 03, 2020 , · at 4:58 pm EST/EDT
Dear Saker,
I agree with you that hot war is very likely now and also on the possible USAn goals in such a war. They had to learn at least a decade ago that a full-scale invasion of Iran would be so impractical that it is essentially impossible for the Empire to do.
But they do not need that. I said I agreed with you that the USA need not invade: for them (and the true instigator of this incoming conflict: Israel) it is more than enough if Iran is devastated by naval and airstrikes.
So, in fact this war can and will be won by both sides: Iran may survive a full-scale war but with her economy and infrastructure destroyed. That is what you called a win-win.
However, you also say that "Russia and/or China will not get militarily involved in this one". And therein lies my problem.
Now please enlighten me why on Earth would the USA not deploy a couple of dozens of tactical nukes in a disarming, debilitating first strike, thus decapitating both the political and the military leadership of Iran, destroying all nuclear sites and also the bulk of the Iranian infrastructure and economy (the latter one with mainly sustained conventional strikes for a couple of weeks).
Why would they hesitate? Knowing that they need not afraid of another nuclear-armed country's interference it would be quite rational to do so. If this happens, Iran will be in no position for the coming decades to assist anyone else: no more aid for Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Palestine and Yemen. In this case it really does not matter anymore if the current theocratic democracy of Iran survives or goes away, at least from the Empire's point of view. As a matter of fact, the USA may even claim "humanitarian reasons" to employ nuclear weapons: it would be claimed as a painful but necessary surgical operation, far better than a long-standing conventional war with years of bombing campaigns, siege of large cities and full-scale assault on the ground. 'Sparing both American and Iranian lives.'
All in all: Iran may protect herself and exact a very high price for a conventional attack but is defenseless against a nuclear one. So without Russian / Chinese guarantees against an American nuclear strike I think Iranian resistance would prove futile. In case they lack such guarantees they would rather capitulate than suffer complete destruction. Iran may only manage this situation when shielded against USAn / Israeli nuclear strikes – otherwise they better give up before it begins.
mortimer on January 03, 2020 , · at 5:30 pm EST/EDT
The Samson Option say's Israel will not be attacked.

Given that Israel owns the world, why would they allow themselves to be attacked, they (NSA) didn't just create TIA for nothing ( poindexer-raygun Total Information Awareness )

They know all, they control all. They own all.

Back to Real Politics, Israel owns the USA, and the USA is going down. Israel needs a new cow to bleed, and that be China. China needs oil, so "Greater Israel", via US-MIL seizes all middle-east oil fields, and then Israel becomes custodian, of course this will be sold as a 'peace plan'.

Doesn't really matter, as USA is kaput. Broke. USA soliders will do best to remain at oil-fields and sell black-market oil for Israel, to make money to send home.

Russia will stand down, as in Reality Israel is doing the business of Russia. China needs oil, Israel needs hard-cash to control the Goy, so they can control their world-wide cattle ranch ( chattel – prostitution )

Lives whether they be Iranian, or American, or Palestinian have no value, the only life on earth that has value is the Jewish life.

A large percentage of China are Jewish, like Xian, at least +10M Jews exist in China, and they're in total support of the castration of the West.

The best selling book in China is called "How Israel Controls the USA", a true story of how AIPAC took control of USA gov, and killed JFK. The Chinese don't see this book a 'shock book' they see it as a cook-book, of how to control, farm, and tax the western goy.

dave742 on January 03, 2020 , · at 5:31 pm EST/EDT
I would be interested in hearing an answer to this. It seems logical to me. I don't see any US wars as being a defeat, since they succeeding in destroying countries. Israel's border's have not grown yet, but I am sure that is still the goal.
In my view, Russia got involved in Syria because they knew if Syria fell to the US, Iran would be next, followed by Russia. Russia forced a momentary setback by stopping the fall of Syria, but Usrael is proceeding on with Iran anyway. Russia, of course, then follows. Why would Russia get involved in Syria and let Iran fall, possibly by a preemptive "humanitarian" nuclear strike like you mention? All of Russia's work over the past decades will be destroyed if they watch Iran get destroyed.
JJ on January 03, 2020 , · at 6:25 pm EST/EDT
And was not USA planning or working on special low yield nukes to be kinder to rheir victims? Tonight on tv the film "the day after" ..synchronicity?
Per/Norway on January 03, 2020 , · at 6:39 pm EST/EDT
Bc if the terror regime in washington uses nuclear weapons that is a known redline for Russia and Putin have made this VERY clear. I suggest you use duckduckgo and start typing in relevant search frases, it might enlighten you.
dave742 on January 03, 2020 , · at 8:32 pm EST/EDT
I am sorry I am so stupid, but I still don't understand. Please explain it to me. Russia has made it clear that if nukes are used against them, they will respond with nukes. I have not seen the same message sent regarding third parties. And I tried Googling it.
ababush on January 03, 2020 , · at 5:14 pm EST/EDT
The zionazis had to act before the US empire crumbles with the overstreched dollar, dollar that no globalist Rothschild in the world will be able to save for much more time.
The globalists in the City want to get rid of the dollar, but they also want to hurt Iran in order to weaken Russia (and China), and they need a still powerful USA to perform that.
The war might therefore be a powerful transition (as were the previous ones) toward a new economical global order, while also weakening the axis of resistance .
As for Trump, one has to wonder if he is really the one who ordered those strikes, and if he really still has any power over the Pentagon.
Vasco da Gama on January 03, 2020 , · at 5:15 pm EST/EDT
It's not just the US and Iran painted into a corner, Iraq, but humanity even.

This United States claimed terrorist act of this import must only mean one thing: their own recognition the time is up, namely, dollar-as-a-reserve-currency is done for.

Every party, not just Iran, will have to figure a way forward from this shortened horizon (a single quarter? less?) imposed by the USofA. Of course Europe doubts itself and there's no worse time for that. I do trust the Iranians, their artfulness and rationality, I am sure though, by themselves the effort won't suffice. They won't be alone.

The answer is surely asymmetrical, but any "symmetrical" false flag must be prevented/minimized likewise.

All hands on deck, the beast must be neutralized!

Nick on January 03, 2020 , · at 5:16 pm EST/EDT
You need to machine translate this:

The content of Iran's painful message to America
✴️محتوای پیام دردناک ایران به آمریکا

🔸محتوای پیام ایران به طرف آمریکایی داده به گونه‌ای بوده که مقامات آمریکایی را دچار وحشت شدیدی کرده است. هر چند هنوز از ابعاد این پیام اطلاعی ندارم اما به نظر می‌رسد آمریکایی‌ها به شکل کامل اعتماد بنفس خود را از دست داده‌اند، خبرهایی که به وسیله واسطه‌ها به سمت تهران در طول ساعت‌های گذشته به گوش رسیده بیانگر آن است که مقامات کاخ سفید پس از این اشتباه راهبردی، هر کسی که فکر می‌کنند با ایران کوچکترین ارتباطی داشته و دارد و می تواند به مقامات ایرانی دسترسی داشته باشد متوسل شدند تا پاسخی که قرار است دریافت کنند در همان ابعاد و نه بیشتر باشد!!

🔸اما اگر قرار است ابعاد این پاسخ مشخص گردد باید رئیس ستاد مشترک، فرمانده نیروی دریایی و هوایی و بالاتر از آن شخص ترامپ که دستور این ترور را صادر کرده است کشته شوند تا با هم برابر شویم (البته که باز هم نخواهیم شد) و این چیزی است که آمریکایی‌ها خودشان بهتر می دانند. وزیر امور خارجه آمریکا در طول ساعت‌های گذشته به همراه سایر مقامات این کشور یک نبرد رسانه‌ای را شروع کردند تا به زعم خود تصمیم مقامات ایران را تحت تاثیر قرار دهند!! ولی آنچه به عنوان پیام سفارت سوئیس از طرف ایرانی‌ها برای آن‌ها فرستاد تمام برآوردهای آنها را نقش بر آب کرد.

🔸دونالد ترامپ که در سیاست خارجی خودش به بن‌بست خورده بود و کنگره او را به جرم خیانت فراخوانده بود تا محاکمه اش کند، از سوی دیگر در آستانه انتخابات نمی دانست باید چگونه صحنه بازی را عوض کند دست یک قمار خطرناک زد، این قمار آن اندازه خطرناک بوده که در آمریکا هیچکس حاضر به پذیرش مسئولیت آن نیست و ترامپ تحت فشار سیاسیون مخالف خود ناچار شده شخصاً مسئولیت این اقدام جنون آمیز را برعهده بگیرد. ترامپ یک قمار را شروع کرده که سعی می کند با تهدید و فشار و همچنین التماس و رایزنی و‌ حتا با دادن امتیازهای مختلف از آن فرار کند. خودش بهتر می‌داند که آنچه درباره مذاکره و گفت‌وگو با ایران می‌گوید جز تحقیر بیش از پیش خودش نیست.

🔸هنوز از متن مذاکرات وزیر خارجه آمریکا با همتای روسی خبری منتشر نشده اما او در گفتگویی با رئیس جمهور مفلوک عراق گفته که خواستار افزایش تنش نیست! و عراق نباید محلی برای تنش آفرینی باشد!! این اقدامات مقامات مختلف آمریکایی که شامل پمپئو، برایان هوک مارک اسپ و حتی سناتورهای نفتخواری مانند لیندزی گراهام می شود، در واقع تهدید ناشی از ترس را نشان می دهد. لیندزی گراهام وقتی سهمیه اش از نفت سوریه را گرفت، اینگونه طرفدار ترامپ شده است. منافعی او در چاه‌های نفت سوریه و عراق دارد که بعدها مشخص خواهد شد که چه پیمانکارانی وابسته به این جانور بی شاخ و دم هستند.

🔸در کاخ سفید همه از وحشت احتمالی هدف قرار گرفتن یکی از پایگاه های این کشور در عراق که صدها نظامی در آن به سر می‌برند توسط موشک‌های زمین به زمین ایران خواب راحت ندارند. آنها به خوبی می دانند که اگر همزمان یکصد فروند موشک به این پایگاه‌ها اصابت کند هیچ چیزی از آن باقی نخواهد ماند و تلفاتی که به نظامیان آمریکایی وارد خواهد شد همه به پای حماقت ترامپ نوشته می شود. بنابراین بادام با گفتن این واژه که دنبال جنگ نیست و می خواسته با این اقدام جلوی جنگ را بگیرد در حقیقت دارد کلاه سر خودش می گذارد.

K.J
@syriankhabar

Nick on January 03, 2020 , · at 5:42 pm EST/EDT
Machine translated:

Content of Iran's painful message to America

The content of Iran's message to the US has been so intense that it has frightened American officials. Although I am not aware of the magnitude of the message yet, Americans seem to have completely lost their confidence in themselves, the news that has been heard by the intermediaries in Tehran over the past few hours indicates that White House officials have since this strategically mistake, asking anyone who has the slightest connection to Iran and can reach out to Iranian officials to ask Iran to respond their aggression in the same dimension and no more !!

But if the magnitude of this response is to be determined, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Navy and Air Commander and even Trump who ordered the assassination must be killed in order to equalize the crime(of course it won't) and This is what Americans know better. During the past few hours, the US Secretary of State, along with other officials in the country, has launched an infowar to influence the decision of the Iranian authorities! But the message that Iran sent back via the Swiss embassy to the American government undermined all Trump gang's plot.

Donald Trump, who had been stalled in his foreign policy and had been convicted of treason by Congress, that the Congress is trying to prosecute him, did not know how to change the game on the eve of the election and risked playing a dangerous gamble. It is so dangerous that no one in America is willing to accept responsibility, and Trump, under the pressure of his opposition, has been forced to personally take responsibility for this heinous act. Trump has started a gamble that tries to escape with threats and pressure, as well as begging and consulting, even by offering concessions. He knows that what he says about negotiating with Iran is nothing more than humiliating himself.

The US Secretary of State's talks with his Russian counterpart have not yet been released, but he has said in an interview with the beleaguered Iraqi president that he does not want tensions to rise! And Iraq should not be a place for tension! The actions of various US officials, including Pompeo, Brian Hook Mark Spar, and even oil senators such as Lindsay Graham, actually show the extent of fear. Lindsey Graham has become a pro-Trump when he took his quota of Syrian oil. His interests in the oil fields of Syria and Iraq will later determine which contractors are connected to this hornless and tailless beast(Graham).

In the White House, everyone is scared of the potential target bases in Iraq, where hundreds of troops are stationed. They know very well that if one hundred missiles hit these bases at the same time, nothing will be left behind, and the casualties that will be inflicted on American troops will all be attributed to Trump's stupidity. So, by saying the word that he was not seeking war and wanted to stop the war by doing so, he was actually fooling himself

K.J.
Telegram channel: @syriankhabar

Bikkin on January 03, 2020 , · at 6:30 pm EST/EDT
Surely the Empire is acting like it is terrified now: https://www.rt.com/news/477433-iraq-strike-shia-militia-killed/
Nick on January 03, 2020 , · at 5:47 pm EST/EDT
🔳ترس و‌ وحشت در سخنرانی ترامپ

پیام قدرتمندانه ایران اینگونه صدای رئیس‌جمهور آمریکا را لرزش واداشت ترامپ چهار دقیقه و ۱۱ ثانیه در مورد دستور ترور سپهبد سلیمانی و سایر همراهانش صحبت کرد و در تمام طول این ۴ دقیقه نتوانست بر اعصابش مسلط باشد و صدایش نلرزد. خوب گوش کنید که چگونه پیام ایران زنگ‌ها را در کاخ سفید به صدا درآورده است. به زودی برای شما خواهم نوشت ایران چه پیامی به آمریکایی‌ها داده که اینگونه به هم ریخته اند.

نه خبری از سر تکان دادن ترامپ است و نه خبری از شانه تکان دادن‌ و نه خبری از بستن چشمان و سر بالا گرفتن هنگام سخنرانی. ترامپ تازه فهمیده بلانسبت چه . خورده است.

@syriankhabar@syriankhabar

A machine translation:

Fear and fury in Trump's speech

Iran's powerful message shook the voice of the American president in such a way Trump spoke for four minutes and 2 seconds about the assassination of Lieutenant General Soleimani and his companions, and he could not control his nerves all this time. Listen well to how Iran's message has sounded the bells at the White House. Soon, I will write to you what kind of message Iran has given to the Americans who have messed up like this.

There is no shaking of Trump's head, no shaking of his shoulder, no closing eyes and a high-pitched speech. Trump has just figured out what he ate.

Telegram channel: @ syriankhabar

Tom Welsh on January 03, 2020 , · at 5:23 pm EST/EDT
'Secretary Esper has basically painted the US into what I would call an "over-reaction corner" by declaring that "the game has changed" and that the US will take "preemptive action" whenever it feels threatened'.

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rtqrht8WPuA/VjvLK-yAHHI/AAAAAAAACYA/h0Gzh-zYWNA/s1600/21319_600.jpg

Alexandra on January 03, 2020 , · at 5:26 pm EST/EDT
Hello Saker,

As I mentioned in another article, the Strait of Hormuz comes to mind. What would be the consequences of it being blocked by the Iranians is something that no one seems to consider. Any thoughts on this?

Thank you for very interesting analysis.

Tom Welsh on January 03, 2020 , · at 5:27 pm EST/EDT
"To his (or one of his key advisor's) credit, he did NOT allow the Neocons to start a major war against Russia, China "

How high an IQ is needed NOT to want to be burned to ashes? That of a mouse? A fruit fly? A nematode?

Anonymous on January 03, 2020 , · at 5:28 pm EST/EDT
' we also have to accept the fact that the US armed forces the Neocon's/Israeli's "disposable armed forces" '

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2d94b8abb05cb3d29cce2505449ea992d882df7c57d7f070dc40b8caf9a1850a.jpg?w=600&h=400

grrr on January 03, 2020 , · at 5:29 pm EST/EDT
I tend to think that odd are opposite to what you've said about hot war. With regard to leaving ME it was presidential candidate Trump's promise. As well as declared desire of Tulsi Gabbard. So he can easily spin it as doing it on his own volition. And than (my speculation) redirect freed money into infrastructure repair and preparation for real economic competition with China and Russia. Particularly in space where (for now) we have advantage due to private enterprise..
dh-mtl on January 03, 2020 , · at 5:31 pm EST/EDT
Saker,

Excellent analysis. Very much appreciated.

Some comments:

1. To put this into an historical context. After the failure of the Douma attacks in April, 2018, the Neocons (Globalists) were basically out of options to win the war in Syria. But this did not mean that they would give up on their quest to control the entire Middle-East, of which Syria was the stepping stone to Iran. They just needed a new plan (Plan D?, E?, F??). We now see that the new plan, painstakingly put in place since April, 2018, is to attack Iran directly.

2. The attack on Soleimani suggests to me that the U.S. strategy is to decapitate the Iranian leadership, and then to take advantage of the anarchy that follows to install a pro-Western puppet in Tehran.

3. I think that the Neocons (Globalists) are extremely impatient to get this done. They need to control the M-E in order to block Eurasian integration into the Russia/China sphere, via the Belt and Road initiative. And the window to launch a war, before the U.S. elections, is very narrow.

4. Based on the above, I expect the U.S., or her 'allies' to rachet up the provocations, over the next 3 or 4 months, until they get a plausible excuse to launch a full fledged attack on Iran. I expect that such an attack would be a short, but massive, aerial campaign with the objective of taking out the Iranian government and its institutions, with the hope that in the anarchy that follows, a pro-Western puppet, that is already prepared and sitting in the wings, will be able to claim power.

Trump is not a Neocon, but, about Iran, he shares a common interest with them. And he is likely foolish enough to go along with such a scenario. As other commenters have pointed out, the Neocons think that this is basically a win-win for the Neocons. If all goes well, they get Iran, if not, they get rid of Trump.

North Patagonia on January 03, 2020 , · at 5:44 pm EST/EDT
Yes, a coordinated and united front in the ME against the Zionazis would be an appropriate and proportional response a palace coup, the demise of MBS/MBZ, geopolitical realingment, grassroots protests, rapproachment those sorts of things might shake things up enough to see the warmongering US finally get kicked out of the ME.
zolkas on January 03, 2020 , · at 5:51 pm EST/EDT
How much an Iranian nuclear bomb blast would change the situation.
JJ on January 03, 2020 , · at 5:52 pm EST/EDT
Soooo its a slap in the for face for this?

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said that the United States and the European Union should either comply with the terms of the 2015 nuclear agreement with Tehran, or recognize it as nonexistent.

Lavrov made the comments on December 30 after meeting in Moscow with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, who said that the European signatories to the deal were "not taking any practical steps" to support it.

monnalisa on January 03, 2020 , · at 5:55 pm EST/EDT
The military budget of USA speaks loud. This means they are planning.
Iran will not do any foolish movements and calculate any tactic extremely careful.
China and Russia cannot allow that USA will "swallow" Iran. That's the point.

If USA is doing something foolish in order to "secure" its hegemonic aspirations the outcome could be completely detrimental to what they had wished for.

Anonymous on January 03, 2020 , · at 5:56 pm EST/EDT
I'm afraid the fix is in.

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/476196-iran-israel-war-preparing/

I also can't help but notice the amount of meetings between US officials and Israeli officials, particularly where Iran appears to be the major theme. At the time of Netanyahu's most recent warning, US General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had visited Israel to meet his Israeli counterpart, Aviv Kohavi, to discuss "operational questions and regional developments." A week prior, the US Air Force chief of staff also visited Israel to participate in the Blue Flag joint military exercise. Not long before that, the commander of the American military forces in the Middle East arrived in Israel for meetings with top IDF officials.

That was early Dec 2019

Naijaa_Man on January 03, 2020 , · at 5:58 pm EST/EDT
US government is throwing everything into the propaganda fire to justify its murder of Qassem Solemani. In his desperation to connect Iran to 9/11 attacks, Mike Pence says there were 12 hijackers (forgetting they were 19 hijackers of which 15 were Saudis)

https://twitter.com/Mike_Pence/status/1213189757708189699?s=20

Anonymous on January 03, 2020 , · at 7:02 pm EST/EDT
Just shows how pathetic American propaganda is.

Over 16 years ago, the Bush Regime was trying to pin some of the blame for 9-11 on Iraq to justify America's war of aggression on that nation.

Now, years later, the Trump Regime is trying to pin the blame on Iran to justify the escalation of yet another American war.

And Pence can't even get the number of 9-11 hijackers correct, or that the majority of these hijackers were from America's head-chopping ally of Saudi Arabia!

Craig Mouldey on January 03, 2020 , · at 6:33 pm EST/EDT
Very good recap. The table is set for a lot more death. Iran is damned if they do and damned if they don't and someone else does because they will simply be blamed. It fits the agenda of the beast.
All the flag-wavers will be out shouting U.S.A., U.S.A. because this murder has left them more secure and safe. I don't know whether to vomit or weep.
I don't believe war can be avoided because the agenda is to topple Iran as part of their new world order. If they won't surrender, war it will be.
XSFRGR on January 03, 2020 , · at 6:39 pm EST/EDT
This has nothing to do with anything other than the price of oil. The U$ absolutely must force the price of oil over 100 U$D per bbl. in order to profit from U$ oil reserves, and save the petro-dollar. If Iran does nothing overt, and Russia continues to pump oil, thus keeping the price of crude around $60, the U$ economy will wither. I think Iran will peck at the U$, and Iraq will most likely finally order American forces to leave, but I think Iran/Russia/China are just going to wait on the U$ economy to collapse, and then allow the global predator to eat itself. Of course the wild card is the U$ lashing out in its death throes, and just flat starting a major regional conflict or worse.
Visitor #2 on January 03, 2020 , · at 7:41 pm EST/EDT
Iran having access to Caspian Sea, I assume that makes priority number one for Russian.
Rational Mechanic on January 03, 2020 , · at 8:32 pm EST/EDT
Saker,
Many thanks for the clear and succinct analysis.
I for one wonder if Iran decides to go asymmetrically rather than a direct confrontation as the Iran people have shown to be strategic in their approach. In my humble opinion, I consider Iran has much (more) to lose if the confrontation path is chosen.
Iran and its allies have reserves of oil and are located in a strategic position vis a vis shipping routes. Additionally, a part of the conversation that has cropped up is the falling value (and use of) the U$D. I think that is the weakest part of the US armour.
I hope Iran resists direct retaliation and works along the lines of accelerated debasement and usage of the U$D.
That is a longer term goal but may be shorter than others. By the way, any resulting damage may well be permanent.
Nate on January 03, 2020 , · at 8:32 pm EST/EDT
Regarding the talk of a hypothetical "Iran War", I do not think Washington will actually try invading Iran, for a couple of reasons.

1. The US does not currently have enough troops to occupy Iran. It would require a military draft. This would cause massive opposition inside the USA (easily the biggest internal US political turmoil since the Vietnam War). And the youngest American adults that would get drafted are the least religious US generation ever (i.e. they are not Evangelical fundamentalists who want to throw their lives away for "Israel" and the "End Times").

2. Where would Washington launch the invasion from? Iraq? The US will soon be asked to leave Iraq, and if Washington does not comply it will very quickly turn into another quagmire for the US just like it was in the 2000s. And if they tried invading from Afghanistan, Iran could always arm the Taliban. And besides, would Pakistan really allow the US military to pass through its territory to Afghanistan to invade Iran? I think not.

3. Russia would obviously provide Iran with military supplies, intelligence, and diplomatic support, making any invasion attempt very costly for the US.

Therefore, Washington's options are rather limited to missile strikes, CIA funded terrorist attacks, and other lesser forms of meddling.

[Jan 03, 2020] Trump's Reckless Iran Strike Could Be A Sarajevo Moment

Notable quotes:
"... The Pentagon stated that Trump's move was aimed at "deterring" Iran. Senator Lindsey Graham knows better. It's time, he announced on Twitter, to prepare for a "big counterpunch," including targeting Iran's oil refineries. ..."
Jan 03, 2020 | nationalinterest.org

Middle East. But why use a blowtorch to eradicate those malignant cells?

Containment would have done the trick -- and Iran was, as it happens, contained when Trump became president in 2016. North Korea, Barack Obama warned him, would pose his most pressing threat. It still does. Yet Trump, intent in ripping up the Iran nuclear deal, ended up confecting a fresh crisis, a new road to war in the Middle East. Meanwhile, Kim Jong-un can resume testing and expanding his nuclear arsenal. Nor is this all. China and Russia can only marvel at Washington's continued capacity for self-destruction as it indulges in a fresh demonstration of the arrogance of power.

Former national security adviser John Bolton, who was ousted over his hawkishness toward Iran and North Korea, must be rubbing his eyes in disbelief. Trump has performed a volte-face though he may not be capable of realizing it. It was Secretary of State Mike Pompeo who engineered what could be a new Sarajevo moment, cancelling his impending trip to Ukraine and helping to ensure the retaliatory strike in Iraq against Iran.

The problem, of course, is that this sets up a fresh round of hostilities that America is ill-equipped to manage. Like Kaiser Wilhelm in World War I, Trump is likely to find that by acceding to a conflict that he is unable to conduct, he will have ceded control to a hawkish camarilla that sets his presidency on the path toward an unmitigated disaster. Make no mistake: a war with Iran can be won. But the price would make Iraq look like a cakewalk.

On This Day 0 seconds Do You Know What Happened Today In History? Jan 3 2000

The last original weekday Peanuts comic strip is published.

The Pentagon stated that Trump's move was aimed at "deterring" Iran. Senator Lindsey Graham knows better. It's time, he announced on Twitter, to prepare for a "big counterpunch," including targeting Iran's oil refineries.

Like not a few presidents, Trump will almost certainly revel in being a wartime president, at least initially. But there is no constituency for more war in America. Rather the reverse. Trump has given the Democrats a lift, perhaps most of all Senator Bernie Sanders, who has opposed America's serial confkucts abroad, though former vice president Joe Biden has also now attacked Trump for tossing "a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox." Essentially Trump has wiped the slate clean for Democrats like Biden who supported the 2003 Iraq War.

Goodbye, Donald Trump restrainer. Hello Donald Trump, neocon.

Jacob Heilbrunn is editor of The National Interest .

[Jan 03, 2020] Killing Soleimani Pushes the U.S. and Iran Towards War

Notable quotes:
"... Soleimani is a senior Iranian military commander, and he also happens to be one of the more popular public figures inside Iran. Killing him isn't just a major escalation that guarantees reprisals and further destabilizes the region, but it also strengthens hard-liners in Iran enormously. Trump claimed not to want war with Iran, but his actions have proven that he does. No one who wants to avoid war with Iran would order the assassination of a high-ranking Iranian officer. Trump has signaled his willingness to plunge the U.S. into a new war that will be disastrous for our country, Iran, and the entire region. American soldiers, diplomats, and citizens throughout the region are all in much greater danger tonight than they were this morning, and the president is responsible for that. ..."
Jan 03, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

ran hawks have been agitating for open conflict with Iran for years. Tonight, the Trump administration obliged them by assassinating the top IRGC-Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani and the head of Kata'ib Hezbollah in a drone strike in Baghdad:

Hard to understate how big this is

• Qassem Suleimani is Iran's most powerful mil figure in Region
• He runs Iran's proxies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq
• Both men designated by US as Terrorist
• Muhandis was at US embassy attack protest, calls himself "Suleimani soldier"

-- Joyce Karam (@Joyce_Karam) January 3, 2020

Source in #Iran tells me:
Senior Iranian diplomats are sharing Gen. Qasem Sulaimani's photo along w/death prayers for him. #Iraq

-- Farnaz Fassihi (@farnazfassihi) January 3, 2020

Confirmed officially on Iraq state TV. Both killed pic.twitter.com/toaBJyEcxe

-- Feras Kilani فراس كيلاني (@FerasKilaniBBC) January 3, 2020

U.S. officials tell Reuters that strikes have been carried in Baghdad on Friday out against two targets linked to Iran.

-- Idrees Ali (@idreesali114) January 3, 2020

Reuters reports that a spokesman for the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq also confirmed the deaths:

Iranian Major-General Qassem Soleimani, head of the elite Quds Force, and Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis were killed late on Thursday in an air strike on their convoy in Baghdad airport, an Iraqi militia spokesman told Reuters.

Soleimani is a senior Iranian military commander, and he also happens to be one of the more popular public figures inside Iran. Killing him isn't just a major escalation that guarantees reprisals and further destabilizes the region, but it also strengthens hard-liners in Iran enormously. Trump claimed not to want war with Iran, but his actions have proven that he does. No one who wants to avoid war with Iran would order the assassination of a high-ranking Iranian officer. Trump has signaled his willingness to plunge the U.S. into a new war that will be disastrous for our country, Iran, and the entire region. American soldiers, diplomats, and citizens throughout the region are all in much greater danger tonight than they were this morning, and the president is responsible for that.

It is hard to convey how irrational and destructive this latest action is. The U.S. and Iran have been dangerously close to war for months, but the Trump administration has made no effort to deescalate tensions. All that it would take to push the two governments over the brink into open conflict is a reckless attack that the other side cannot ignore. Now the U.S. has launched just such an attack and dared Iran to respond. The response may not come immediately, but we have to assume that it is coming. Killing Soleimani means that the IRGC will presumably consider it open season on U.S. forces all across the region. The Iran obsession has led the U.S. into a senseless new war that it could have easily avoided, and Trump and the Iran hawks own the results.

Trump supporters have often tried to defend the president's poor foreign policy record by saying that he hadn't started any new wars. Well, now he has, and he will be responsible for the consequences to follow.

[Jan 03, 2020] Deconstructing Yearend Trump Regime Big Lies About Iran by Stephen Lendman

Jan 01, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
Deconstructing Yearend Trump Regime Big Lies About Iran

by Stephen Lendman ( stephenlendman.org – Home – Stephen Lendman )

When US politicians comment about the country's adversaries, a an official narrative harangue of disinformation and Big Lies follows so often these figures likely no longer can distinguish between truth and fiction.

Washington's hostility toward Iran has gone on with nary a letup since its 1979 revolution ended a generation of US-installed tyranny, the country regaining its sovereignty, free from vassal state status.

On Monday, White House envoy for regime change in Iran Brian Hook stuck to the fabricated official narrative in discussing Iran at the State Department.

He falsely called Sunday's Pentagon terror-bombing strikes on Iraqi and Syrian sites "defensive."

They had nothing to do with "protect(ing) American forces and American citizens in Iraq" or Syria, nothing to do with "deterr(ing) Iranian aggression" that doesn't exist and never did throughout Islamic State history -- how the US and its imperial allies operate, not Iran, the region's leading proponent of peace and stability.

Hook lied saying Iraqi Kata'ib Hezbollah paramilitaries (connected to the country's Popular Mobilization Forces) don't serve "the interests of the Iraqi people."

That's precisely what they do, including their earlier involvement in combatting US-supported ISIS.

Hook turned truth on its head, accusing Iran of "run(ning) an expansionist foreign policy" -- what US aggression is all about, not how Tehran operates.

Like other Trump regime officials, he threatened Iran, a nation able to hit back hard against the US and its regional imperial partners if attacked -- why cool-headed Pentagon commanders want no part of war with the country.

Kata'ib Hezbollah, other Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces, and the vast majority of Iraqi civilians want US occupation of their country ended.

For decades, US direct and proxy aggression, including sanctions war, ravaged the country, killing millions of its people, causing appalling human suffering.

Hook: "(T)he last thing the (US) is looking for is (war) in the Middle East "

Fact: It's raging in multiple theaters, notably Syria and Yemen, once again in Iraq after last Sunday's US aggression, more of the same virtually certain ahead.

State Department official David Schenker participated in Monday's anti-Iran propaganda exercise with Hook.

Claiming the US wants regional de-escalation, not escalation, is polar opposite reality on the ground in all its war theaters and in other countries where it conducts subversion against their governments and people.

The best way the US could protect its citizens worldwide is by ending aggressive wars, bringing home its troops, closing its empire of bases used as platforms for hostilities against other nations, and declaring a new era of peace and cooperative relations with other countries.

Based on its belligerent history throughout the 19th and 20th centuries to the present day, this change of policy, if adopted, would be un-American.

Hook: "Iran has been threatening the region for the last 40 years" -- what's true about US aggression, not how Tehran operates anywhere.

Hook: Iran "is facing its worst financial crisis and its worst political crisis in its 40-year history."

Fact: US war on the country by other means, economic terrorism, bears full responsibility for its economic hardships, intended to harm its people, including Trump regime efforts to block exports of food, drugs and medical equipment to Iran.

Fact: Hostile US actions toward Iran and countless other nations are flagrant international law breaches -- the world community doing nothing to counter its hot wars and by other means.

Fact: The Iranian "model" prioritizes peace and stability. Endless war on humanity is how the US operates globally -- at home and abroad.

Fact: Iran isn't an "outlaw regime," the description applying to the US, its key NATO allies, Israel, the Saudis, and their rogue partners in high crimes.

Hostile US actions are all about offense, unrelated to defense at a time when Washington's only enemies are invented as a pretext for endless wars of aggression.

The US under both right wings of its war party poses an unparalleled threat to everyone everywhere.

As long as its aggression goes unchallenged, the threat of humanity-destroying nuclear war exists.

It could start anywhere -- in the Middle East, the Indo-Pacific, or against Russia by accident or design.

On New Year's day 2020, I'd love to be optimistic about what lies ahead.

As long as Republican and Dem hardliners pursue dominance over other nations by brute force and other hostile means, hugely dangerous tinderbox conditions could ignite an uncontrollable firestorm anywhere.

VISIT MY WEBSITE: stephenlendman.org ( Home – Stephen Lendman ). Contact at [email protected] .

My newest book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."

www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html Stephen Lendman

Stephen Lendman
Stephen Lendman was born in 1934 in Boston, MA. In 1956, he received a BA from Harvard University. Two years of US Army service followed, then an MBA from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania in 1960. After working seven years as a marketing research analyst, he joined the Lendman Group family business in 1967. He remained there until retiring at year end 1999. Writing on major world and national issues began in summer 2005. In early 2007, radio hosting followed. Lendman now hosts the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network three times weekly. Distinguished guests are featured. Listen live or archived. Major world and national issues are discussed. Lendman is a 2008 Project Censored winner and 2011 Mexican Journalists Club international journalism award recipient.

[Dec 29, 2019] There has rarely been a Secretary of State as dishonest and political as Pompeo, and his brief time running the department has been one of the low points in its history. But probably only until Trump find a replacement

Dec 29, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com

The other possible replacements include Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, Deputy Secretary of State Biegun, U.S. ambassador to Germany Ric Grenell, Trump's Iran envoy Brian Hook, and two hard-liners from the Senate, Marco Rubio and Tom Cotton. Most of these names inspire some mixture of loathing and dread, and of the seven men being considered Biegun is the only one remotely qualified to take the job. Hook has disqualified himself , and he shouldn't even be working at the State Department right now much less running it. Grenell functions as little more than an international troll , and he has done a terrible job representing the U.S. in Berlin, so promoting him would be an equally terrible mistake.

Rubio and Cotton are fanatics with the most toxic foreign policy views, and they would also likely be very poor managers of the department. In that respect, they are very much like Pompeo. Mnuchin would likely have great difficulty getting confirmed, and replacing one sanctions-happy Secretary with the Treasury Secretary who has been enforcing those sanctions is no improvement at all. As for O'Brien, he was a bad choice for National Security Advisor , he has done nothing since he took over from Bolton to suggest otherwise, and so it makes absolutely no sense to promote him. Biegun clearly has the confidence of the Senate following his overwhelming confirmation vote to be Deputy Secretary, so having him take over the department for whatever time is left in Trump's term seems the best available choice.

It is a measure of how chaotic and unsuccessful Trump's foreign policy is that we are talking about the possible nomination of a third Secretary of State in less than three years. Pompeo has outlasted many of his administration colleagues to become one of the longest-serving Cabinet officials under this president, and his tenure is not even two years old. It is no wonder that the list of likely replacements is so weak. Who would want to join a scandal-ridden administration with a failed foreign policy?

Pompeo's departure will be good news for the State Department, and the sooner it comes the better. There has rarely been a Secretary of State as dishonest and political as Pompeo, and his brief time running the department has been one of the low points in its history. Considering the damage that Pompeo has done along with the harm done by Tillerson, the next Secretary of State will have a lot of work to do to rebuild and not much time to do it in. Pompeo should clear the way for the next Secretary and resign as soon as possible.

[Dec 29, 2019] Iran arrests more than 100 Christians in growing crackdown on ...

Dec 29, 2019 | telegraph.co.uk

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/10/iran-arrests-100-christians-growing-crackdown-minority/

Dec 10, 2018 Iran has arrested more than 100 Christians in the last week, charities report, amid a growing crackdown by the Islamic Republic. play_arrow play_arrow 3 Reply Report CTG_Sweden 19 minutes ago ( Edited ) remove Share link Copy But so far they haven´t been kicked out of Iran, like a considerable portion of the Palestinian Christians in Palestine/Israel back in 1947-48. 30 % of the Palestinians who were driven out from Israel were Christians. Nor have they been starved to death like the Christians who owned farmland in Russia/Ukraine in the 1920s and 30s when Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and Stalin´s "brother in law" Kaganovych ruled over Russian/Ukrainian farmers. But I agree that Europe still is a better place for Christians than Iran. But does a person like Barbara Lerner-Spectre want to keep it that way? Well, I´m not so sure about that. CTG_Sweden 17 minutes ago remove Share link Copy

falconflight:

"christians, and btw Yazidies have been destroyed in those two nations."

My comments:

... by ISIS and Al-Qaeda which indirectly were supported by the West which also wished to topple Assad. Israel even treated wounded ISIS fighters in Golan (which they had conquered from Syria in 1967). TeraByte 1 hour ago remove Share link Copy Israel is too arrogant to be able to recognize the current altered terror balance in ME, even when this is confirmed by their own military analysts. The country will experience a very hard awakening, if attacking neighbour nations. How is it possible these Choosenites swearing God chose them to reign over other people and their Holy Talmud telling "the Universe was created for the fulfillment of the destiny of the Jewish people" now simultaneously can claim they have a cool rational of their real position on real time. These lunatics´ religious arguments simply do not add up.

[Dec 07, 2019] Why the foreign policy establishment consensus is neocon by default.

Highly recommended!
Dec 07, 2019 | www.unz.com

Never in the history of America, probably never in the history of any country, had there been such open and direct control of governmental activities by the very rich. So long as a handful of men in Wall Street control the credit and industrial processes of the country, they will continue to control the press, the government, and, by deception, the people. They will not only compel the public to work for them in peace, but to fight for them in war. -- John Turner, 1922

[Nov 26, 2019] Support for Restraint Is on the Rise by Daniel Larison

Notable quotes:
"... 38% of respondents want to end the war in Afghanistan now or within one year, and another 31% support negotiations with the Taliban to bring the war to an end. A broad majority of Americans wants to bring the war to a conclusion. I already mentioned the survey's finding that there is majority support for reducing the U.S. military presence in East Asia last night. Americans not only want to get out of our interminable wars overseas, but they also want to scale back U.S. involvement overall. ..."
"... The survey asked respondents how the U.S. should respond if "Iran gets back on track with its nuclear weapons program." That is a loaded and potentially misleading question, since Iran has not had anything resembling a nuclear weapons program in 16 years, so there has been nothing to get "back on track" for a long time. Framing the question this way is likely to elicit a more hawkish response. In spite of the questionable wording, the results from this year show that there is less support for coercive measures against Iran than last year and more support for negotiations and non-intervention: ..."
"... With only around 10% favoring it, there is almost no support for preventive war against Iran. Americans don't want war with Iran even if it were developing nuclear weapons ..."
"... There is substantial and growing support for bringing our current wars to an end and avoiding unnecessary conflicts in the future. This survey shows that there is a significant constituency in America that desires a more peaceful and restrained foreign policy, and right now virtually no political leaders are offering them the foreign policy that they say they want. It is long past time that Washington started listening. ..."
Nov 26, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com

he Eurasia Group Foundation's new survey of public opinion on U.S. foreign policy finds that support for greater restraint continues to rise:

Americans favor a less aggressive foreign policy. The findings are consistent across a number of foreign policy issues, and across generations and party lines.

The 2019 survey results show that most Americans support a more restrained foreign policy, and it also shows an increase in that support since last year. There is very little support for continuing the war in Afghanistan indefinitely, there is virtually no appetite for war with Iran, and there is a decline in support for a hawkish sort of American exceptionalism. There is still very little support for unilateral U.S. intervention for ostensibly humanitarian reasons, and support for non-intervention has increased slightly:

In 2018, 45 percent of Americans chose restraint as their first choice. In 2019, that has increased to 47 percent. Only 19 percent opt for a U.S.-led military response and 34 percent favor a multilateral, UN-led approach to stop humanitarian abuses overseas.

38% of respondents want to end the war in Afghanistan now or within one year, and another 31% support negotiations with the Taliban to bring the war to an end. A broad majority of Americans wants to bring the war to a conclusion. I already mentioned the survey's finding that there is majority support for reducing the U.S. military presence in East Asia last night. Americans not only want to get out of our interminable wars overseas, but they also want to scale back U.S. involvement overall.

The report's working definition of American exceptionalism is a useful one: "American exceptionalism is the belief that the foreign policy of the United States should be unconstrained by the parochial interests or international rules which govern other countries." This is not the only definition one might use, but it gets at the heart of what a lot of hawks really mean when they use this phrase. While most Americans still say they subscribe to American exceptionalism either because of what the U.S. represents or what it has done, there is less support for these views than before. Among the youngest respondents (age 18-29), there is now a clear majority that rejects this idea.

The survey asked respondents how the U.S. should respond if "Iran gets back on track with its nuclear weapons program." That is a loaded and potentially misleading question, since Iran has not had anything resembling a nuclear weapons program in 16 years, so there has been nothing to get "back on track" for a long time. Framing the question this way is likely to elicit a more hawkish response. In spite of the questionable wording, the results from this year show that there is less support for coercive measures against Iran than last year and more support for negotiations and non-intervention:

A strong majority of both Republicans and Democrats continue to seek a diplomatic resolution involving either sanctions or the resumption of nuclear negotiations. This year, there was an increase in the number of respondents across party lines who would want negotiations to resume even if Iran is a nuclear power in the short term, and a bipartisan increase in those who believe outright that Iran has the right to develop nuclear weapons to defend itself. So while Republicans might be more likely than Democrats to believe Iran threatens peace in the Middle East, voters in neither party are eager to take a belligerent stand against it.

With only around 10% favoring it, there is almost no support for preventive war against Iran. Americans don't want war with Iran even if it were developing nuclear weapons, and it isn't doing that. It may be that the failure of the "maximum pressure" campaign has also weakened support for sanctions. Support for the sanctions option dropped by almost 10 points overall and plunged by more than 20 points among Republicans. In 2018, respondents were evenly split between war and sanctions on one side or negotiations and non-intervention on the other. This year, support for diplomacy and non-intervention in response to this imaginary nuclear weapons program has grown to make up almost 60% of the total. If most Americans favor diplomacy and non-intervention in this improbable scenario, it is safe to assume that there is even more support for those options with the real Iranian government that isn't pursuing nuclear weapons.

There is substantial and growing support for bringing our current wars to an end and avoiding unnecessary conflicts in the future. This survey shows that there is a significant constituency in America that desires a more peaceful and restrained foreign policy, and right now virtually no political leaders are offering them the foreign policy that they say they want. It is long past time that Washington started listening.

[Nov 23, 2019] Fiona Hill a rabid neocon promoting UK foreign policy within the USA government, a book writer of Luke Harding mold, was appointed by Trump in 2017 when Russiagate was in full broom

This is another remnant for Bush neocon team, a protégé of Bolton. Trump probably voluntarily appointed this rabid neocon, a chickenhawk who would shine in Hillary State Department. Interestingly she came from working class background. So much about Marx theory of class struggle. Brown, David (March 4, 2017). "Miner's daughter tipped as Trump adviser on Russia" . The Times. She also illustrate level pf corruption of academic science, because she got PhD in history from Harvard in 1998 under Richard Pipes, Akira Iriye, and Roman Szporluk. But at least this was history, not languages like in case of Ciaramella.
Such appointment by Trump is difficult to describe with normal words as he understood what he is buying. So he is himself to blame for his current troubles and his inability to behave in a diplomatic way when there was important to him question about role of CrowdStrike in 2016 election and creation of Russiagate witch hunt.
There is something in the USA that creates conditions for producing rabid female neocons, some elevator that brings ruthless female careerists with sharp elbows them to the establishment. She sounds like a person to the right of Madeline Albright, which is an achievement
With such books It is unclear whether she is different from Max Boot. She buys official Skripal story like hook and sinker. The list of her book looks like produced in UK by Luke Harding
Being miner daughter raised in poverty we can also talk about betrayal of her class and upbringing.
This also rises wisdom of appointing emigrants to the Administration and the extent they pursue policies beneficial for their native countries.
Nov 23, 2019 | en.wikipedia.org

Impeachment testimony

On October 14, 2019, responding to a subpoena , Hill testified in a closed-door deposition for ten hours before special committees of the United States Congress as part of the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump . [9] [10] [11]

Testimony to the House Intelligence Committee by Hill and David Holmes, November 21, 2019 , C-SPAN

She testified in public before the same body on November 21, 2019. [12] While being questioned by Steve Castor , the counsel for the House Intelligence Committee's Republican minority, Hill commented on Gordon Sondland 's involvement in the Ukraine matter: "It struck me when (Wednesday), when you put up on the screen Ambassador Sondland's emails, and who was on these emails, and he said these are the people who need to know, that he was absolutely right," she said. "Because he was being involved in a domestic political errand, and we were being involved in national security foreign policy. And those two things had just diverged." [13] In response to a question from that committee's chairman, Rep. Adam Schiff , Hill stated: "The Russians' interests are frankly to delegitimize our entire presidency. The goal of the Russians [in 2016] was really to put whoever became the president -- by trying to tip their hands on one side of the scale -- under a cloud." [

Hill's books include:

[Nov 22, 2019] The quote "The higher the monkey climbs, the harder he will fall..." is perfectly applicable to Pompeo

Nov 22, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

flankerbandit , Nov 21 2019 16:38 utc | 74

Uncle T...thanks for that Pieczenik commentary

Nice and focused and succinct...love the Mao quote...

The higher the monkey climbs, the harder he will fall...

That describes Scumbag Pompeo in a nutshell...worth hearing this brief history of the lardass pathological climber...

I have said this before...Trump is still the best of what's on offer in the fake democracy of empire...

His opponents are hoisting themselves on their own petard...the more pathologically determined they get, the bigger the bomb exploding in their face...Wile E Coyote 101...

The simple fact as I see it is that Trump is basically alone, which is not surprising because who among the Washington creatures is going to agree with any of his sensible agenda...which most notably is to get out of Syria and Afghanistan...and 'get along' with Russia...

Regardless of anything else bad that he thinks is good...which includes enabling Israeli colonialism and other things...if he were able to actually pull off those agenda items it would be a very good step forward...

Now he has been tied up quite effectively by the opposition ['resistance'] but he's still managed to at least break open northeastern Syria for the government to return...a big plus...

As far as hopes to somehow take him down...that is delusional...he's a tough cookie who's dealt with much tougher customers than these half wits in Washington...

People forget that the POTUS has tremendous power, even all alone and stranded on an oval office island...he is not going to be brought down like Nixon...that era is over...plus he's not as dumb as poor Dickie...

At the same time, there will be no scumbags going to jail for the massive hoax of Russiagate and what amounts to a domestic color revolution attempt that they perpetrated on their own people...

The Trump plan is to simply remain in office, which almost certainly he will do, and then we may see Prometheus Unbound...

[Nov 13, 2019] Finally an Unvarnished History of the Iraq Invasion

Nov 13, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com

We Americans are less obvious, if also less subtle: we quickly transform our common story into uncommon glory -- of a Continental Army standing unbowed before well-drilled Redcoats, of a war against slavery that, within a generation, became a War for Southern Independence, or in extolling the sacrifice of 58,000 Americans in a divisive intervention that became, less than a half a decade later, a "noble cause." Not surprisingly, the truth is far more interesting than any myth. The Continental Army at Valley Forge was not only ill-clothed, underpaid, and desertion-riddled, its finest day had come not against British regulars but mercenary Hessians; the War for Southern Independence was waged to eliminate a racial blight that, when the war began, had already seen its best (or, rather, worst), days, while the "noble cause" of Vietnam featured a military that , by 1971, was "in a state approaching collapse, with individual units avoiding or having refused combat, murdering their officers, drug-ridden, and dispirited where not near-mutinous."

The substitution of myth for fact, however, has its uses -- as one of our greatest soldiers, General George Patton, certainly knew. While Patton was an indifferent student (he flunked mathematics at West Point), he was an avid reader with a prodigious memory and a finely tuned sense of history. Which makes his speech to the Third Army on June 5 of 1944 (as celebrated in Hollywood's epic 1970 paean), all the more remarkable, as it extols a history we wish we had -- but don't: "Men, this stuff that some sources sling around about America wanting out of this war, not wanting to fight, is a crock of bullshit," Patton announced. "Americans love to fight, traditionally. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle."

But Patton was just getting started. "Americans love a winner. Americans will not tolerate a loser," he went on to say. "Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win all the time. I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost nor will ever lose a war; for the idea of losing is hateful to America."

Of course, very little of this was actually true -- even in 1944, two decades before Vietnam. All Americans love the sting and clash of battle? Not really. In January of 1781, in the midst of the American Revolution, 1500 soldiers of the Pennsylvania and New Jersey lines of the Continental Army mutinied, murdered their officers, and threatened to march on Philadelphia.

When the mutiny spread, Washington had the mutineers rounded up, arrested, and their ringleaders shot by a firing squad made up of their fellow soldiers . On July 10 of 1863, one week after the Battle of Gettysburg, the New York draft riots protesting conscription set fire to 50 buildings, lynched 11 black bystanders, and left 120 civilians dead. The insurrection (as it was called by city officials), was finally quelled by the New York State Militia. And in late 1944, while commanding in Europe, Dwight Eisenhower was so angered by the reports of teeming throngs of American deserters raping and looting their way through France that he considered "lining them up and mowing them down."

Americans have never lost a war? It doesn't take a trained historian to point out that the American military botched the War of 1812 (the White House was burned and Washington occupied), performed poorly (and genocidally) in the Indian Wars of the late 19th century (in which one of its most famous units, the 7th Cavalry, was erased from existence), and mishandled the brutal 1899 Philippine Insurrection -- during which Mark Twain described American soldiers as "uniformed assassins." Patton was no dummy and might have recited all of this himself. But his speech made for good copy (and, as it turned out, great cinema) and undoubtedly boosted morale, particularly for those who, within a short time, would be facing off against the best light infantry in the history of the world.

But while historical myths have their place in creating a national story, France, China, and Russia have, in turn (and over time), chosen truth over triumph -- exhuming the greatness of Napoleon, Mao, and Lenin, while burying forever the policies they followed . This is true also for the United States. For while we Americans readily adopt the regalia of our past, we expect that our institutions will not follow suit; that in the midst of failure, our policymakers will discard myths and choose reality.

This is what happened, famously, on March 25, 1968 when President Lyndon Johnson met with a group he called "the wise men" -- a wizened crew of 14 Washington policymakers to help him decide what to do about the worsening situation in Vietnam. Included in the group was former secretary of state Dean Acheson, former White House counsel Clark Clifford, former ambassador to South Vietnam Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., and former JCS chairman General Omar Bradley.

These officials had traditionally supported Johnson's Vietnam policies but now, in the wake of the disastrous Tet Offensive, they had second thoughts. Stunned by the ferocity of the Vietnamese attack, only two of the 14 (Maxwell Taylor and Abe Fortas) recommended that Johnson "stay the course." The shift was symbolized by Omar Bradley, a military icon. Victory? "Maybe we ought to lower our sights," he told Johnson.

Of course, while the March 1968 meeting of the wise men was crucial to America's adventure in Vietnam (and Lyndon Johnson's political future), it did little to dampen the controversy surrounding the war -- which has been refought, since, in the pages of the war's histories. Indeed, it seems axiomatic that what cannot be won on a battlefield is often alchemized in later accounts.

These bloodless campaigns, fought with pen rather than sword, turn defeats into victories, burnish reputations, assess blame, but also blight understanding and blemish history. This is particularly true when it comes to America's most controversial conflicts. In 1869, Confederate Major General Dabney Herndon Maury founded the Southern Historical Society. Its papers, later collected in 52 volumes, rewrote much of Civil War history, a tendentious rendering whose goal was to argue the justness of the Lost Cause. Many of the society's papers remain troubling, rehabilitating the image of the most famous and otherwise failed rebel leaders, while laying the blame for the Confederate loss at the feet of southerners who, in later years, conceded the Union victory. The papers also remain controversial because their most important claims (that Lee lost at Gettysburg because his orders were disobeyed, that soldier-for-soldier, the southern armies were simply better fighters than their northern counterparts) resulted from barely veiled pro-southern and racially tinged political agendas. You'd have thought the South had won the war.

The same holds true for Vietnam. In that war's aftermath, while much of America was trying to forget the conflict, a small group of respected historians continued to pick at its scab, leaving a blood trail of if-onlys in their wake. The most prominent of these historians was Lewis "Bob" Sorley, a respected former officer and celebrated biographer (of Creighton Abrams and William Westmoreland, among others), whose book on Vietnam, A Better War , has been the subject of controversy since its publication in 1999.

In A Better War , Sorley argued that the U.S. might have won in Vietnam, if only that nation's top commander in the conflict had discarded his costly and morale-sapping search-and-destroy strategy in favor of maintaining the security of South Vietnam's population, substituted clear-and-hold tactics for massive sweep operations, improved the training and equipping of South Vietnam's military, decreased the destruction of U.S. firepower -- and supported the South Vietnamese, instead of abandoning them.

The conclusions ignited a bonfire of criticism, particularly from some of the Army's more respected thinkers. Writing in the pages of The National Interest in 2012, retired Colonel Gian Gentile took on Sorley in a pointed critique that proposed that America should have never been in Vietnam in the first place.

"In war, political and societal will are calculations of strategy, and strategists in Vietnam should have discerned early on that the war was simply unwinnable based on what the American people were willing to pay," Gentile wrote . "Once the war started and it became clear that to prevail meant staying for an unacceptable amount of time, American strategy should have moved to withdraw much earlier than it did. Ending wars fought under botched strategy and policy can be every bit as damaging as the wars themselves."

Put simply, Sorley argues that the Vietnam War could have been won, if only the U.S. had the will to prevail, while Gentile responds that because the American people did not have the will to prevail, the war should have never been fought.

The spat over the Civil War and Vietnam doesn't necessarily mean that history repeats itself, but it does get rewritten -- and rethought. The same is now true for the war in Iraq. The Army War College's weighty two-volume study of the 2003 Iraq conflict ( The U.S. Army in the Iraq War ), has sparked a divisive mini-controversy among the uniformed services, whose senior officers regularly debate its major conclusions (as I noted in The American Conservative , online, back in February ): that U.S. commanders didn't understand the country they invaded, made assumptions about an enemy that proved to be wrong, didn't have enough soldiers to win the fight, who bungled the military's detention policies, and who failed in their mission to train and equip the Iraqi armed forces.

But any praise for these conclusions has been muted by the study's other (Sorley-like) judgment: that, as in Vietnam -- where the villains were the antiwar movement and the Congress, the villains in Iraq are George W. Bush and Barack Obama, the former blamed for too quickly getting us in, the latter for too quickly getting us out.

Into this affray has now jumped a much shorter (at 292 pages), offering, written by a team of nine experts and researchers at the Rand Corporation. The U.S. Army and the Battle for Baghdad , gives us what the Army War College didn't -- an unvarnished and precise accounting of what went wrong and why, and without the tendentious political overtones of the tome-like AWC study. This shouldn't come as a surprise. Among the study's authors are two of the Army's leading thinkers: retired Colonels David E. Johnson and Gian Gentile, the latter the outspoken Sorley critic known in the military for his often-scathing ability to say what he means.

Johnson, on the other hand, is known for his counter-intuitive and often uncomfortable question of given premises, which has made him a valued interlocutor in the upper echelons of the Army. The likely result of the study (much talked about in the military prior to its release earlier this year), is that it has had a far greater impact than its 1200-plus page predecessor. The U.S. Army and the Battle for Baghdad is not a page-turner, unless of course you're an Army officer, but it lays out in precise detail the eight lessons the military can, and should learn, from Operation Iraqi Freedom. But most readers will find the study's understated third chapter, on the U.S. occupation of Iraq, among the most compelling written on the war.

At the center of this presentation is the unshifting, unalterable truth of the war -- -that the dysfunction obvious at the upper levels of the U.S. military following the fall of Baghdad mirrored a deeper civilian-military chasm in Washington. The result of the dysfunction was that the initial Battle for Baghdad was simply a prelude to a continuing battle for Baghdad, that the war, once ended, simply continued.

The study's authors issue this crisp judgment, which is starkly at odds with the AWC study:

"While much of the blame for the shortcomings of postwar planning rightly falls on senior rungs of the Bush administration, the truth of the matter is that there is more than enough blame to go around, up and down the chains of command in military and civilian planning." Military officers speak candidly of the problem: "I don't think that any of us either could have or did anticipate the total collapse of this regime," Lt. General William Wallace told the authors, "and the psychological impact it had on the entire nation."

In military history, this is "the Henry Wentz problem." Henry Wentz was born in York County in Pennsylvania in 1827, but moved with his family to nearby Gettysburg when he was nine. He spent his most formative years on his family farm, which was just south of the town and off the Emmitsburg Road.

As a young adult Henry went to Martinsburg (then in Virginia), married a local girl and became a carriage maker. When the Civil War came he joined the Confederate Army, serving as an ordnance sergeant in Taylor's Virginia Battery. On July 2, 1863, Wentz found himself manning his rebel guns in his family's front yard, at Gettysburg, as a part of Longstreet's bloody assault on the Union Army's III Corps. Lee had attacked with Longstreet that day to unhinge the Union line, planning to take the high ground around the Wentz farm at a peach orchard, which Lee thought was a dominating position.The orchard, owned by the Sherfy family (and hence referred to as the Sherfy Peach Orchard in battle histories) seemed to rise out of the ground and command the fields beyond. The problem was that Sherfy's orchard didn't dominate anything. It was not on a rise, it did not control the land beyond. The orchard's height, if you stand on it, is an optical illusion. A short discussion with Henry Wentz might have shown this, if only Lee had known that Wentz was there.

He didn't.

For military officers commanding thousands or hundreds of thousands of young men and women, for military experts whose job it is to study these operations -- -and not just for hobbyists or aficionados -- the Henry Wentz problem is a tolling bell, a heart stopping wake-you-up-in-the-middle-of-the-night realization that not knowing , particularly when lives are at stake, is an unforgivable blunder. Reading about Gettysburg many years later, generations of Civil War historians, reclining by their firesides, want to scream at Lee: "What do you mean you didn't know ?" And that is the value of The U.S. Army and the Battle of Baghdad -- -and the effect of William Wallace's seemingly mundane, if stunning, observation. The U.S. military did not anticipate that the drive for Baghdad would be difficult, did not anticipate that the Iraq Army would transform itself into an insurgency, did not anticipate "the total collapse of the regime" -- and so did not anticipate the tragedy that followed. To which we too want to scream: what do you mean you didn't anticipate? It was your job to anticipate."

Mark Perry is a contributing editor at The American Conservative and the author of The Pentagon's Wars. He tweets @markperrydc .

Taras77 • 3 days ago

Good article!

It is long past time that the senior military leadership with Iraq invasion (not to ignore the Afghan debacle) and since be held accountable for multitude of blunders and poor performance overall.

The fawning adulation from the press serves no good purpose and simply perpetuates the waste and fraud that gives us more blunders and weapons systems and "strategies" that do not and could not work to specs and plans.

But as the article states, there is plenty of blame to go around, I am referring to the "political Leadership" of bush, obama, and now trump, and of course, congress. Leadership may be too kind a term for what passes for leadership.

leisureguy Taras77 • 2 days ago
we all had to "support the troops" - if you held people accountable, you were an unpatriotic soldier non-supporter
E.J. Smith leisureguy • a day ago
And still have to. Just ask Danny Sjursen.
EliteCommInc. Taras77 • 2 days ago
Excuse me.

no issues holding the military mistakes to account. But these choices were politically made and the political leadership should not be permitted to scapegoat the military for the leaderships choices to engage in regime change which included purging military dissenters.

IanDakar EliteCommInc. • a day ago
Full agreement here. In fact, it's rather silly to strike at the military leaders, people trained in war, for supporting war. It's like complaining about a scientist who decides to solve every crisis with attaching it to the Internet.

The generals look at ways to fight a war. It's the political leaders that determine if war is the right idea. That's why it's the elected leaders, not the military, that hold the keys. All of the manipulations of the DoD end once we have a Congress and White House that wants it to end.

Honestly I respect the idea of going after the past leaderships that sent us here, but really I'd be content with just finding a leadership that stops the train now and leave the old guard to their retirements. That's going to be difficult as it is without us turning on a revenge campaign that might turn ugly.

kirthigdon • 2 days ago
It's a relatively minor point in the article, but I would agree with those who claim that man-for-man the Confederates were better soldiers than the Yankees. They held out for 4 years against the US, whose forces were numerically superior and far better equipped and supplied, while managing to inflict more military casualties on their foes than they suffered. In the same way, I'd also agree with the many historians and WWII veterans who claim that the Germans were man-for-man better soldiers than any of their enemies. Both the American Civil War and WWII were essentially wars of attrition. Losing such a war is no military disgrace but it also doesn't mean that the losing side had a noble cause. In most wars, there are no good guys.

Kirt Higdon

leisureguy kirthigdon • 2 days ago
in what way were the confederate soldiers better "man for man"?

US soldiers got slaughtered wholesale throughout the war - yet they had the spirit to keep coming. They got slaughtered wholesale because they used tactics developed for the previous generation of small arms. The tactic of marching at the enemy packed together.

As James McPherson describes in "Battle Cry of Freedom" they got slaughtered because they 1) had to fight on offense and 2) they were using tactics designed for the previous generation of small arms. They used tactics designed for weak-firing in accurate muskets rather than the current generation of rifles - accurate and deadly from long ranges.

They used the tactic of massing men together and marching at the enemy. This worked for muskets. For rifles loaded with minie balls, it made them sitting ducks when they marched towards dug in Confederates.

This article's author, Mr. Perry, mentions the slaughter of the Confederate soldiers at the peach orchard. A slaughter that resulted from the Confederates having to walk across a long rise of land before they could engage with the enemy. The slaughter that was said to have begun the defeat the Confederates. An awful slaughter.

The US soldiers didn't have just one peach orchard, they had many. They had "cold harbor", they had "the bloody angle", they had "Marye's heights". Dug in confederates armed with rifles mangled US soldiers horribly. Mangled them as they marched, out in the open, well within rifle range, towards dug in and hidden Confederates.

Yet the Union soldiers had the spirit to keep on coming. It's like "Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid". As Perry points out, post Civil War Southern supporting writers romanticized the poor, starving, southern infantryman. He was handsome, stoic, and a fighter. But it was the northern guys who kept on coming. Kept on coming despite seeing so many of their friends torn to pieces.
Northern soldiers who had the stuff to get the job done.

kirthigdon leisureguy • 2 days ago
So the more numerous side that has the spirit to keep coming despite enormous casualties and because of bad tactics are by definition better soldiers than the less numerous side which using good tactics has the spirit to keep fighting until they finally run out of effective fighters? By this standard the more numerous are always better soldiers as long as they win in the end, which they usually will in a war of attrition. By this standard, the Russians were far better soldiers than the Germans in WWII. Hint - the term man-for-man indicates I am measuring quality rather than just quantity and quality in soldiers includes tactical proficiency, not just bravery.

Kirt Higdon

EliteCommInc. kirthigdon • 2 days ago
It was poor leadership decisions that prolonged the war, not bad soldiering.
E.J. Smith EliteCommInc. • a day ago
Gen. McLellan at Antietam immediately comes to mind.
Kent • 2 days ago
War is an obsolete idea. 1000 years ago, the only way to increase your wealth was to take over someone else's land and enthrall the local population to farm it for you. 200 years ago it was necessary to capture a population in order to force them to only purchase your manufactured goods, so your capitalists didn't have to compete with those of other countries.

In a information/service economy, war and control over other populations serve no purpose. The DOD, like all grand bureaucracies, survives only through the corruption of Congress.

It is time to disband the military. Get rid of the Navy, but leave the Coast Guard. Then turn the Coast Guard over to the States. Disband the Army and Marine Corps. Let the State's maintain their National Guards if they want. Disband the Air Force. The federal government should just maintain a nuclear deterrent force and set up a coastal missile defense that can destroy any Navy attempting to sail to attack us.

Have the federal government manufacture everything it needs itself instead of handing over tax payer dollars which are then used to corrupt Congress. It's time.

Kawi • 2 days ago
The US Army and the Battle for Baghdad can be downloaded for free from the RAND website.

Thank you to the author of this well-written essay for brining this study to our attention.

leisureguy • 2 days ago
Wow!

I look forward to further articles on the military's culture of not knowing. I've spent my whole adult life around Army personnel. (mostly retired). Going off to do things half-cocked is a point of pride with them. It's a macho trait that they love about themselves. Being willing to take action even though they haven't spent much time assessing the forces in their way.- being willing to wade into unknown danger.

Pondering things seriously is weakness - in their view.

further, at least one of these unlikely seeming new proponents of traditional masculinity - Jordan Peters - celebrates this macho trait. The macho trait of taking action without considering all knowable facts.

Alan Vanneman • 2 days ago
"the War for Southern Independence was waged to eliminate a racial blight that, when the war began, had already seen its best (or, rather, worst)"

The comforting notion that slavery was destined to "fade away" was frequently indulged in during the 250 plus years that it lasted in the U.S., but it never did. As for the Wentz anecdote, if Lee had talked with Wentz, the outcome of the war would not have changed. There is an interesting "sabermetric" study of generals you can find online that gives a particularly interesting picture of Lee. He was one of the most aggressive generals in history, fighting more battles than anyone except Napoleon. But he was also--wait for it--BELOW AVERAGE. (Please don't spill your mint julip.) Grant, on the other hand, was one of the 10 best ever.

D. B. Cooper Alan Vanneman • 2 days ago
207 comments, 364 votes = troll
kirthigdon Alan Vanneman • 2 days ago
Slavery was on the way out and in another generation was gone throughout the western world, including the African colonies, and surviving only in Arabia. Only in the US and Haiti was slavery ended by wars and horrific bloodshed. In all other countries, including the vast slave empire of Brazil, slavery was abolished with minimal to no casualties. A bit of patience on the part of the abolitionists and unionists would have led to a somewhat later but peaceful end of slavery in the southern US. The union of all the states may not have been preserved, but in my estimation that would have been a good thing, if achieved peacefully.

Kirt Higdon

Sid Finster Alan Vanneman • a day ago
Can you provide a link? This sounds interesting.

And that is an honest question, BTW.

EliteCommInc. • 2 days ago
I think we should start out right in keeping with your agenda.

"of a war against slavery that . . ."

It was not a war against slavery, and to think so is part of a very deep misread of events. It freed slaves, it was the cause for the war ---

But the North had one primary goal: keep the union together, freeing slaves was a by product, not an end.

Chuckles • a day ago
The military planners knew what was needed to pacify Iraq in the invasion and occupation. 750,000 troops and 25B+ dollars. Darth Cheney knew the US public wouldn't accept that, so they went in on the cheap, ignored the vast stores of conventional weapons, and Viceroy Bremmer back-stabbed the Iraqi army, thus creating the insurgency. Why? Because Planned Chaos is the most profitable, and taking Iraq oil off the market greatly enriched our "Saudi friends" and lots of other producers in the region. Inflation-adjusted oil prices more than doubled from 2003 to 2007.
E. T. Bass • a day ago
As of early 2009, the surge had worked, were holding territory on turf Islamic savages considered their own and were killing hoards of jihadi scum who were flocking there, pretty much at will, who were being induced to do so at the behest of Bin Laden. Iraq was part of a long term strategic regional strategy (kill them on their own turf) which was working quite well as far as it got. 4000 dead US soldiers is a travesty under any circumstances, but considering what we had accomplished it pales in comparison with Vietnam. Keep in mind we stayed in Germany and Japan for decades after WWII to ensure our efforts were not wasted.

Iraq was not a debacle until 0bama refused to negotiate an updated SOFA, effectively surrendered (against military and other expert advice) and rendered every single US military death to have been in vain.

roberto • a day ago
Great article, Mark Perry
dougdiggler • a day ago
This website looks like a dying newspaper from the flyover states. Autoplay ads are like kryptonite to people who are web-literate

[Nov 09, 2019] Finally an Unvarnished History of the Iraq Invasion -

Nov 09, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com

We Americans are less obvious, if also less subtle: we quickly transform our common story into uncommon glory -- of a Continental Army standing unbowed before well-drilled Redcoats, of a war against slavery that, within a generation, became a War for Southern Independence, or in extolling the sacrifice of 58,000 Americans in a divisive intervention that became, less than a half a decade later, a "noble cause." Not surprisingly, the truth is far more interesting than any myth. The Continental Army at Valley Forge was not only ill-clothed, underpaid, and desertion-riddled, its finest day had come not against British regulars but mercenary Hessians; the War for Southern Independence was waged to eliminate a racial blight that, when the war began, had already seen its best (or, rather, worst), days, while the "noble cause" of Vietnam featured a military that , by 1971, was "in a state approaching collapse, with individual units avoiding or having refused combat, murdering their officers, drug-ridden, and dispirited where not near-mutinous."

The substitution of myth for fact, however, has its uses -- as one of our greatest soldiers, General George Patton, certainly knew. While Patton was an indifferent student (he flunked mathematics at West Point), he was an avid reader with a prodigious memory and a finely tuned sense of history. Which makes his speech to the Third Army on June 5 of 1944 (as celebrated in Hollywood's epic 1970 paean), all the more remarkable, as it extols a history we wish we had -- but don't: "Men, this stuff that some sources sling around about America wanting out of this war, not wanting to fight, is a crock of bullshit," Patton announced. "Americans love to fight, traditionally. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle."

But Patton was just getting started. "Americans love a winner. Americans will not tolerate a loser," he went on to say. "Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win all the time. I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost nor will ever lose a war; for the idea of losing is hateful to America."

Of course, very little of this was actually true -- even in 1944, two decades before Vietnam. All Americans love the sting and clash of battle? Not really. In January of 1781, in the midst of the American Revolution, 1500 soldiers of the Pennsylvania and New Jersey lines of the Continental Army mutinied, murdered their officers, and threatened to march on Philadelphia.

When the mutiny spread, Washington had the mutineers rounded up, arrested, and their ringleaders shot by a firing squad made up of their fellow soldiers . On July 10 of 1863, one week after the Battle of Gettysburg, the New York draft riots protesting conscription set fire to 50 buildings, lynched 11 black bystanders, and left 120 civilians dead. The insurrection (as it was called by city officials), was finally quelled by the New York State Militia. And in late 1944, while commanding in Europe, Dwight Eisenhower was so angered by the reports of teeming throngs of American deserters raping and looting their way through France that he considered "lining them up and mowing them down."

Americans have never lost a war? It doesn't take a trained historian to point out that the American military botched the War of 1812 (the White House was burned and Washington occupied), performed poorly (and genocidally) in the Indian Wars of the late 19th century (in which one of its most famous units, the 7th Cavalry, was erased from existence), and mishandled the brutal 1899 Philippine Insurrection -- during which Mark Twain described American soldiers as "uniformed assassins." Patton was no dummy and might have recited all of this himself. But his speech made for good copy (and, as it turned out, great cinema) and undoubtedly boosted morale, particularly for those who, within a short time, would be facing off against the best light infantry in the history of the world.

But while historical myths have their place in creating a national story, France, China, and Russia have, in turn (and over time), chosen truth over triumph -- exhuming the greatness of Napoleon, Mao, and Lenin, while burying forever the policies they followed . This is true also for the United States. For while we Americans readily adopt the regalia of our past, we expect that our institutions will not follow suit; that in the midst of failure, our policymakers will discard myths and choose reality.

This is what happened, famously, on March 25, 1968 when President Lyndon Johnson met with a group he called "the wise men" -- a wizened crew of 14 Washington policymakers to help him decide what to do about the worsening situation in Vietnam. Included in the group was former secretary of state Dean Acheson, former White House counsel Clark Clifford, former ambassador to South Vietnam Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., and former JCS chairman General Omar Bradley.

These officials had traditionally supported Johnson's Vietnam policies but now, in the wake of the disastrous Tet Offensive, they had second thoughts. Stunned by the ferocity of the Vietnamese attack, only two of the 14 (Maxwell Taylor and Abe Fortas) recommended that Johnson "stay the course." The shift was symbolized by Omar Bradley, a military icon. Victory? "Maybe we ought to lower our sights," he told Johnson.

Of course, while the March 1968 meeting of the wise men was crucial to America's adventure in Vietnam (and Lyndon Johnson's political future), it did little to dampen the controversy surrounding the war -- which has been refought, since, in the pages of the war's histories. Indeed, it seems axiomatic that what cannot be won on a battlefield is often alchemized in later accounts.

These bloodless campaigns, fought with pen rather than sword, turn defeats into victories, burnish reputations, assess blame, but also blight understanding and blemish history. This is particularly true when it comes to America's most controversial conflicts. In 1869, Confederate Major General Dabney Herndon Maury founded the Southern Historical Society. Its papers, later collected in 52 volumes, rewrote much of Civil War history, a tendentious rendering whose goal was to argue the justness of the Lost Cause. Many of the society's papers remain troubling, rehabilitating the image of the most famous and otherwise failed rebel leaders, while laying the blame for the Confederate loss at the feet of southerners who, in later years, conceded the Union victory. The papers also remain controversial because their most important claims (that Lee lost at Gettysburg because his orders were disobeyed, that soldier-for-soldier, the southern armies were simply better fighters than their northern counterparts) resulted from barely veiled pro-southern and racially tinged political agendas. You'd have thought the South had won the war.

The same holds true for Vietnam. In that war's aftermath, while much of America was trying to forget the conflict, a small group of respected historians continued to pick at its scab, leaving a blood trail of if-onlys in their wake. The most prominent of these historians was Lewis "Bob" Sorley, a respected former officer and celebrated biographer (of Creighton Abrams and William Westmoreland, among others), whose book on Vietnam, A Better War , has been the subject of controversy since its publication in 1999.

In A Better War , Sorley argued that the U.S. might have won in Vietnam, if only that nation's top commander in the conflict had discarded his costly and morale-sapping search-and-destroy strategy in favor of maintaining the security of South Vietnam's population, substituted clear-and-hold tactics for massive sweep operations, improved the training and equipping of South Vietnam's military, decreased the destruction of U.S. firepower -- and supported the South Vietnamese, instead of abandoning them.

The conclusions ignited a bonfire of criticism, particularly from some of the Army's more respected thinkers. Writing in the pages of The National Interest in 2012, retired Colonel Gian Gentile took on Sorley in a pointed critique that proposed that America should have never been in Vietnam in the first place.

"In war, political and societal will are calculations of strategy, and strategists in Vietnam should have discerned early on that the war was simply unwinnable based on what the American people were willing to pay," Gentile wrote . "Once the war started and it became clear that to prevail meant staying for an unacceptable amount of time, American strategy should have moved to withdraw much earlier than it did. Ending wars fought under botched strategy and policy can be every bit as damaging as the wars themselves."

Put simply, Sorley argues that the Vietnam War could have been won, if only the U.S. had the will to prevail, while Gentile responds that because the American people did not have the will to prevail, the war should have never been fought.

The spat over the Civil War and Vietnam doesn't necessarily mean that history repeats itself, but it does get rewritten -- and rethought. The same is now true for the war in Iraq. The Army War College's weighty two-volume study of the 2003 Iraq conflict ( The U.S. Army in the Iraq War ), has sparked a divisive mini-controversy among the uniformed services, whose senior officers regularly debate its major conclusions (as I noted in The American Conservative , online, back in February ): that U.S. commanders didn't understand the country they invaded, made assumptions about an enemy that proved to be wrong, didn't have enough soldiers to win the fight, who bungled the military's detention policies, and who failed in their mission to train and equip the Iraqi armed forces.

But any praise for these conclusions has been muted by the study's other (Sorley-like) judgment: that, as in Vietnam -- where the villains were the antiwar movement and the Congress, the villains in Iraq are George W. Bush and Barack Obama, the former blamed for too quickly getting us in, the latter for too quickly getting us out.

Into this affray has now jumped a much shorter (at 292 pages), offering, written by a team of nine experts and researchers at the Rand Corporation. The U.S. Army and the Battle for Baghdad , gives us what the Army War College didn't -- an unvarnished and precise accounting of what went wrong and why, and without the tendentious political overtones of the tome-like AWC study. This shouldn't come as a surprise. Among the study's authors are two of the Army's leading thinkers: retired Colonels David E. Johnson and Gian Gentile, the latter the outspoken Sorley critic known in the military for his often-scathing ability to say what he means.

Johnson, on the other hand, is known for his counter-intuitive and often uncomfortable question of given premises, which has made him a valued interlocutor in the upper echelons of the Army. The likely result of the study (much talked about in the military prior to its release earlier this year), is that it has had a far greater impact than its 1200-plus page predecessor. The U.S. Army and the Battle for Baghdad is not a page-turner, unless of course you're an Army officer, but it lays out in precise detail the eight lessons the military can, and should learn, from Operation Iraqi Freedom. But most readers will find the study's understated third chapter, on the U.S. occupation of Iraq, among the most compelling written on the war.

At the center of this presentation is the unshifting, unalterable truth of the war -- -that the dysfunction obvious at the upper levels of the U.S. military following the fall of Baghdad mirrored a deeper civilian-military chasm in Washington. The result of the dysfunction was that the initial Battle for Baghdad was simply a prelude to a continuing battle for Baghdad, that the war, once ended, simply continued.

The study's authors issue this crisp judgment, which is starkly at odds with the AWC study:

"While much of the blame for the shortcomings of postwar planning rightly falls on senior rungs of the Bush administration, the truth of the matter is that there is more than enough blame to go around, up and down the chains of command in military and civilian planning." Military officers speak candidly of the problem: "I don't think that any of us either could have or did anticipate the total collapse of this regime," Lt. General William Wallace told the authors, "and the psychological impact it had on the entire nation."

In military history, this is "the Henry Wentz problem." Henry Wentz was born in York County in Pennsylvania in 1827, but moved with his family to nearby Gettysburg when he was nine. He spent his most formative years on his family farm, which was just south of the town and off the Emmitsburg Road.

As a young adult Henry went to Martinsburg (then in Virginia), married a local girl and became a carriage maker. When the Civil War came he joined the Confederate Army, serving as an ordnance sergeant in Taylor's Virginia Battery. On July 2, 1863, Wentz found himself manning his rebel guns in his family's front yard, at Gettysburg, as a part of Longstreet's bloody assault on the Union Army's III Corps. Lee had attacked with Longstreet that day to unhinge the Union line, planning to take the high ground around the Wentz farm at a peach orchard, which Lee thought was a dominating position.The orchard, owned by the Sherfy family (and hence referred to as the Sherfy Peach Orchard in battle histories) seemed to rise out of the ground and command the fields beyond. The problem was that Sherfy's orchard didn't dominate anything. It was not on a rise, it did not control the land beyond. The orchard's height, if you stand on it, is an optical illusion. A short discussion with Henry Wentz might have shown this, if only Lee had known that Wentz was there.

He didn't.

For military officers commanding thousands or hundreds of thousands of young men and women, for military experts whose job it is to study these operations -- -and not just for hobbyists or aficionados -- the Henry Wentz problem is a tolling bell, a heart stopping wake-you-up-in-the-middle-of-the-night realization that not knowing , particularly when lives are at stake, is an unforgivable blunder. Reading about Gettysburg many years later, generations of Civil War historians, reclining by their firesides, want to scream at Lee: "What do you mean you didn't know ?" And that is the value of The U.S. Army and the Battle of Baghdad -- -and the effect of William Wallace's seemingly mundane, if stunning, observation. The U.S. military did not anticipate that the drive for Baghdad would be difficult, did not anticipate that the Iraq Army would transform itself into an insurgency, did not anticipate "the total collapse of the regime" -- and so did not anticipate the tragedy that followed. To which we too want to scream: what do you mean you didn't anticipate? It was your job to anticipate."

Mark Perry is a contributing editor at The American Conservative and the author of The Pentagon's Wars. He tweets @markperrydc .

Taras77 • 3 days ago

Good article!

It is long past time that the senior military leadership with Iraq invasion (not to ignore the Afghan debacle) and since be held accountable for multitude of blunders and poor performance overall.

The fawning adulation from the press serves no good purpose and simply perpetuates the waste and fraud that gives us more blunders and weapons systems and "strategies" that do not and could not work to specs and plans.

But as the article states, there is plenty of blame to go around, I am referring to the "political Leadership" of bush, obama, and now trump, and of course, congress. Leadership may be too kind a term for what passes for leadership.

leisureguy Taras77 • 2 days ago
we all had to "support the troops" - if you held people accountable, you were an unpatriotic soldier non-supporter
E.J. Smith leisureguy • a day ago
And still have to. Just ask Danny Sjursen.
EliteCommInc. Taras77 • 2 days ago
Excuse me.

no issues holding the military mistakes to account. But these choices were politically made and the political leadership should not be permitted to scapegoat the military for the leaderships choices to engage in regime change which included purging military dissenters.

IanDakar EliteCommInc. • a day ago
Full agreement here. In fact, it's rather silly to strike at the military leaders, people trained in war, for supporting war. It's like complaining about a scientist who decides to solve every crisis with attaching it to the Internet.

The generals look at ways to fight a war. It's the political leaders that determine if war is the right idea. That's why it's the elected leaders, not the military, that hold the keys. All of the manipulations of the DoD end once we have a Congress and White House that wants it to end.

Honestly I respect the idea of going after the past leaderships that sent us here, but really I'd be content with just finding a leadership that stops the train now and leave the old guard to their retirements. That's going to be difficult as it is without us turning on a revenge campaign that might turn ugly.

kirthigdon • 2 days ago
It's a relatively minor point in the article, but I would agree with those who claim that man-for-man the Confederates were better soldiers than the Yankees. They held out for 4 years against the US, whose forces were numerically superior and far better equipped and supplied, while managing to inflict more military casualties on their foes than they suffered. In the same way, I'd also agree with the many historians and WWII veterans who claim that the Germans were man-for-man better soldiers than any of their enemies. Both the American Civil War and WWII were essentially wars of attrition. Losing such a war is no military disgrace but it also doesn't mean that the losing side had a noble cause. In most wars, there are no good guys.

Kirt Higdon

leisureguy kirthigdon • 2 days ago
in what way were the confederate soldiers better "man for man"?

US soldiers got slaughtered wholesale throughout the war - yet they had the spirit to keep coming. They got slaughtered wholesale because they used tactics developed for the previous generation of small arms. The tactic of marching at the enemy packed together.

As James McPherson describes in "Battle Cry of Freedom" they got slaughtered because they 1) had to fight on offense and 2) they were using tactics designed for the previous generation of small arms. They used tactics designed for weak-firing in accurate muskets rather than the current generation of rifles - accurate and deadly from long ranges.

They used the tactic of massing men together and marching at the enemy. This worked for muskets. For rifles loaded with minie balls, it made them sitting ducks when they marched towards dug in Confederates.

This article's author, Mr. Perry, mentions the slaughter of the Confederate soldiers at the peach orchard. A slaughter that resulted from the Confederates having to walk across a long rise of land before they could engage with the enemy. The slaughter that was said to have begun the defeat the Confederates. An awful slaughter.

The US soldiers didn't have just one peach orchard, they had many. They had "cold harbor", they had "the bloody angle", they had "Marye's heights". Dug in confederates armed with rifles mangled US soldiers horribly. Mangled them as they marched, out in the open, well within rifle range, towards dug in and hidden Confederates.

Yet the Union soldiers had the spirit to keep on coming. It's like "Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid". As Perry points out, post Civil War Southern supporting writers romanticized the poor, starving, southern infantryman. He was handsome, stoic, and a fighter. But it was the northern guys who kept on coming. Kept on coming despite seeing so many of their friends torn to pieces.
Northern soldiers who had the stuff to get the job done.

kirthigdon leisureguy • 2 days ago
So the more numerous side that has the spirit to keep coming despite enormous casualties and because of bad tactics are by definition better soldiers than the less numerous side which using good tactics has the spirit to keep fighting until they finally run out of effective fighters? By this standard the more numerous are always better soldiers as long as they win in the end, which they usually will in a war of attrition. By this standard, the Russians were far better soldiers than the Germans in WWII. Hint - the term man-for-man indicates I am measuring quality rather than just quantity and quality in soldiers includes tactical proficiency, not just bravery.

Kirt Higdon

EliteCommInc. kirthigdon • 2 days ago
It was poor leadership decisions that prolonged the war, not bad soldiering.
E.J. Smith EliteCommInc. • a day ago
Gen. McLellan at Antietam immediately comes to mind.
Kent • 2 days ago
War is an obsolete idea. 1000 years ago, the only way to increase your wealth was to take over someone else's land and enthrall the local population to farm it for you. 200 years ago it was necessary to capture a population in order to force them to only purchase your manufactured goods, so your capitalists didn't have to compete with those of other countries.

In a information/service economy, war and control over other populations serve no purpose. The DOD, like all grand bureaucracies, survives only through the corruption of Congress.

It is time to disband the military. Get rid of the Navy, but leave the Coast Guard. Then turn the Coast Guard over to the States. Disband the Army and Marine Corps. Let the State's maintain their National Guards if they want. Disband the Air Force. The federal government should just maintain a nuclear deterrent force and set up a coastal missile defense that can destroy any Navy attempting to sail to attack us.

Have the federal government manufacture everything it needs itself instead of handing over tax payer dollars which are then used to corrupt Congress. It's time.

Kawi • 2 days ago
The US Army and the Battle for Baghdad can be downloaded for free from the RAND website.

Thank you to the author of this well-written essay for brining this study to our attention.

leisureguy • 2 days ago
Wow!

I look forward to further articles on the military's culture of not knowing. I've spent my whole adult life around Army personnel. (mostly retired). Going off to do things half-cocked is a point of pride with them. It's a macho trait that they love about themselves. Being willing to take action even though they haven't spent much time assessing the forces in their way.- being willing to wade into unknown danger.

Pondering things seriously is weakness - in their view.

further, at least one of these unlikely seeming new proponents of traditional masculinity - Jordan Peters - celebrates this macho trait. The macho trait of taking action without considering all knowable facts.

Alan Vanneman • 2 days ago
"the War for Southern Independence was waged to eliminate a racial blight that, when the war began, had already seen its best (or, rather, worst)"

The comforting notion that slavery was destined to "fade away" was frequently indulged in during the 250 plus years that it lasted in the U.S., but it never did. As for the Wentz anecdote, if Lee had talked with Wentz, the outcome of the war would not have changed. There is an interesting "sabermetric" study of generals you can find online that gives a particularly interesting picture of Lee. He was one of the most aggressive generals in history, fighting more battles than anyone except Napoleon. But he was also--wait for it--BELOW AVERAGE. (Please don't spill your mint julip.) Grant, on the other hand, was one of the 10 best ever.

D. B. Cooper Alan Vanneman • 2 days ago
207 comments, 364 votes = troll
kirthigdon Alan Vanneman • 2 days ago
Slavery was on the way out and in another generation was gone throughout the western world, including the African colonies, and surviving only in Arabia. Only in the US and Haiti was slavery ended by wars and horrific bloodshed. In all other countries, including the vast slave empire of Brazil, slavery was abolished with minimal to no casualties. A bit of patience on the part of the abolitionists and unionists would have led to a somewhat later but peaceful end of slavery in the southern US. The union of all the states may not have been preserved, but in my estimation that would have been a good thing, if achieved peacefully.

Kirt Higdon

Sid Finster Alan Vanneman • a day ago
Can you provide a link? This sounds interesting.

And that is an honest question, BTW.

EliteCommInc. • 2 days ago
I think we should start out right in keeping with your agenda.

"of a war against slavery that . . ."

It was not a war against slavery, and to think so is part of a very deep misread of events. It freed slaves, it was the cause for the war ---

But the North had one primary goal: keep the union together, freeing slaves was a by product, not an end.

Chuckles • a day ago
The military planners knew what was needed to pacify Iraq in the invasion and occupation. 750,000 troops and 25B+ dollars. Darth Cheney knew the US public wouldn't accept that, so they went in on the cheap, ignored the vast stores of conventional weapons, and Viceroy Bremmer back-stabbed the Iraqi army, thus creating the insurgency. Why? Because Planned Chaos is the most profitable, and taking Iraq oil off the market greatly enriched our "Saudi friends" and lots of other producers in the region. Inflation-adjusted oil prices more than doubled from 2003 to 2007.
E. T. Bass • a day ago
As of early 2009, the surge had worked, were holding territory on turf Islamic savages considered their own and were killing hoards of jihadi scum who were flocking there, pretty much at will, who were being induced to do so at the behest of Bin Laden. Iraq was part of a long term strategic regional strategy (kill them on their own turf) which was working quite well as far as it got. 4000 dead US soldiers is a travesty under any circumstances, but considering what we had accomplished it pales in comparison with Vietnam. Keep in mind we stayed in Germany and Japan for decades after WWII to ensure our efforts were not wasted.

Iraq was not a debacle until 0bama refused to negotiate an updated SOFA, effectively surrendered (against military and other expert advice) and rendered every single US military death to have been in vain.

roberto • a day ago
Great article, Mark Perry
dougdiggler • a day ago
This website looks like a dying newspaper from the flyover states. Autoplay ads are like kryptonite to people who are web-literate

[Nov 09, 2019] Israel's Last War by Gilad Atzmon

Notable quotes:
"... Until now, Iran has restrained itself despite constant aggression from Israel, but this could easily change. "The result could be a counterstrike by Iran, using cruise missiles that penetrate Israel's air defenses and smash into targets like the Kiryah, Tel Aviv's equivalent of the Pentagon. Israel would retaliate massively against Hezbollah's headquarters in Beirut as well as dozens of its emplacements along the Lebanese border. And then, after a day of large-scale exchanges, the real war would begin " ..."
Nov 06, 2019 | www.unz.com

Last War Gilad Atzmon November 6, 2019 1,100 Words 59 Comments Reply Listen ॥ ■ ► RSS

In my 2011 book, The Wandering Who , I elaborated on the possible disastrous scenario in which Israel is the nucleus of a global escalation over Iran's emerging nuclear capabilities. I concluded that Israel's PRE Traumatic Stress Syndrome (PRE-TSS) would be central to such a development. "The Jewish state and the Jewish discourse in general are completely foreign to the notion of temporality. Israel is blinded to the consequences of its actions, it only thinks of its actions in terms of short-term pragmatism. Instead of temporality, Israel thinks in terms of an extended present."

In 2011 Israel was still confident in its military might, certain that with the help of America or at least its support, it could deliver a mortal military blow to Iran. But this confidence has diminished, replaced by an existential anxiety that might well be warranted. For the last few months, Israeli military analysts have had to come to terms with Iran's spectacular strategic and technological abilities. The recent attack on a Saudi oil facility delivered a clear message to the world, and in particular to Israel, that Iran is far ahead of Israel and the West. The sanctions were counter effective: Iran independently developed its own technology.

Former Israeli ambassador to the US, and prolific historian, Michael Oren, repeated my 2011 predictions this week in the Atlantic and described a horrific scenario for the next, and likely last, Israeli conflict.

Oren understands that a minor Israeli miscalculation could lead to total war, one in which missiles and drones of all types would rain down on Israel, overwhelm its defences and leave Israeli cities, its economy and its security in ruins.

Oren gives a detailed account of how a conflict between Israel and Iran could rapidly descend into a massive "conflagration" that would devastate Israel as well as its neighbours.

In Israel, the term "The War Between the Wars ," refers to the targeted covert inter-war campaign waged by the Jewish State with the purpose of postponing, while still preparing for, the next confrontation, presumably with Iran. In the last few years Israel has carried out hundreds of 'war between the wars' strikes against Iran-linked targets in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. Oren speculates that a single miscalculation could easily lead to retaliation by Iran. "Israel is girding for the worst and acting on the assumption that fighting could break out at any time. And it's not hard to imagine how it might arrive. The conflagration, like so many in the Middle East, could be ignited by a single spark."

Until now, Iran has restrained itself despite constant aggression from Israel, but this could easily change. "The result could be a counterstrike by Iran, using cruise missiles that penetrate Israel's air defenses and smash into targets like the Kiryah, Tel Aviv's equivalent of the Pentagon. Israel would retaliate massively against Hezbollah's headquarters in Beirut as well as dozens of its emplacements along the Lebanese border. And then, after a day of large-scale exchanges, the real war would begin "

Oren predicts that rockets would "rain on Israel" at a rate as high as 4,000 a day. The Iron Dome system would be overwhelmed by the vast simultaneous attacks against civilian and military targets throughout the country. And, as if this weren't devastating enough, Israel is totally unprepared to deal with precision-guided missiles that can accurately hit targets all across Israel from 1000 miles away.

Ben Gurion International Airport would be shut down and air traffic over Israel closed. The same could happen to Israel's ports. Israelis that would seek refuge in far away lands would have to swim to safety .

In this scenario, Palestinians and Lebanese militias might join the conflagration and attack Jewish border communities on the ground while long-range missiles from Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Iran land. Before long, Israel's economy would cease to function, electrical grids severed and damaged factories and refineries would spew toxic chemicals into the air.

In the Shoah scenario Oren describes, "Millions of Israelis would huddle in bomb shelters. Hundreds of thousands would be evacuated from the border areas as terrorists attempt to infiltrate them. Restaurants and hotels would empty, along with the offices of the high-tech companies of the start-up nation. The hospitals, many of them resorting to underground facilities, would quickly be overwhelmed, even before the skies darken with the toxic fumes of blazing chemical factories and oil refineries."

Oren predicts that Israel's harsh response to attack, including a violent put down of likely West Bank and Gaza protests, would result in large scale civilian casualties and draw charges of war crimes.

As Oren states, he did not invent this prediction, it is one of the similar scenarios anticipated by Israeli military and government officials.

If such events occur, the US will be vital to the survival of the Jewish State by providing munitions, diplomatic, political, and legal support, and after the war, in negotiating truces, withdrawals, prisoner exchanges and presumably 'peace agreements.' However, the US under the Trump administration is somewhat unpredictable, especially in light of the current impeachment proceedings against Trump.

In 1973 the US helped save Israel by providing its military with the necessary munitions. Will the US do so again? Do the Americans have the weapons capability to counter Iran's ballistics, precision missiles and drones? More crucially, what kind of support could America provide that would lift the spirits of humiliated and exhausted Israelis after they emerge from underground shelters having enduring four weeks without electricity or food and see their cities completely shattered?

This leads us to the essential issue. Zionism vowed to emancipate the Jews from their destiny by liberating the Jews from themselves. It vowed to bring an end to Jewish self-destruction by creating a Jewish safe haven. How is it that just seven decades after the founding of the Jewish state, the people who have suffered throughout their history have once again managed to create the potential for their own disaster?

ORDER IT NOW

In The Wandering Who I provide a possible answer: "Grasping the notion of temporality is the ability to accept that the past is shaped and revised in the light of a search for meaning. History, and historical thinking, are the capacity to rethink the past and the future." Accordingly, revisionism is the true essence of historical thinking. It turns the past into a moral message, it turns the moral into an ethical act. Sadly this is exactly where the Jewish State is severely lacking. Despite the Zionist promise to introduce introspection, morality and universal thinking to the emerging Hebrew culture, the Jewish State has failed to break away from the Jewish past because it doesn't really grasp the notion of the 'past' as a dynamic elastic ethical substance.

A123 , says: November 8, 2019 at 2:07 pm GMT

Everyone understands that a minor Iranian miscalculation could lead to total war. One in which nuclear bombs would rain down on Iran leaving its cities, economy, and security in ruins.

The sociopath, Ayatollah Khameni is detached from reality and may be willing to take such risks. However, there is no reason to believe that The Iranian military or civilian population will embrace certain suicide. It is quite likely that the IRGC would decide that it is time for another revolution and end the theocracy, rather than die following the dubious commands of a deranged Ayatollah.
____

The whole theory about a prolonged conflict falls apart once accurate facts are applied to the situation. Iranian al'Hezbollah has large numbers of Katyusha pattern rockets, but very few precision weapons. And to provide human shields for these weapons, almost all of them are in a limited number of urban centers.

The facts are clear, even if Gilad chooses to ignore them in favor of his personal fantasies. Iranian al'Hezbollah would lose badly in a total forces engagement. The nuclear incineration of their rear echelons would leave forward forces totally defenseless against overwhelming Israeli air superiority.

-- Would there be Israeli civilian casulities? Certainly.
-- Would Lebanon become uninhabitable? Yes.
-- Would Ayatollah Khameni perish when Israeli nukes Tehran? Absolutely.
______

There is no possible scenario where Iran "wins" if they launch a substantial first strike. And, the Iranian military understands this as fact.

Fran Taubman , says: November 8, 2019 at 2:34 pm GMT
@A123 It is really fun when Gilad gets off Epstein and rape stuff and ventures into wars and Israeli security. The generals have kept Gilad up to date on the latest and the greatest.
He is so out to lunch in his desire to see Israel panic and loose the next war facing horrible casualties because it makes his point about how the Jews are doomed unless they cease being Jews.

He really believes that he can solve the problem and change our destiny if we all read "Wondering
Who"

In The Wandering Who I provide a possible answer: "Grasping the notion of temporality is the ability to accept that the past is shaped and revised in the light of a search for meaning. History, and historical thinking, are the capacity to rethink the past and the future." Accordingly, revisionism is the true essence of historical thinking. It turns the past into a moral message, it turns the moral into an ethical act. Sadly this is exactly where the Jewish State is severely lacking. Despite the Zionist promise to introduce introspection, morality and universal thinking to the emerging Hebrew culture, the Jewish State has failed to break away from the Jewish past because it doesn't really grasp the notion of the 'past' as a dynamic elastic ethical substance.

I wonder what it is like to wish death and destruction on a people and a country to prove your point and call yourself an unemotional Athenian.

No Jews in the headline another slow thread.

Gilad Atzmon , says: November 8, 2019 at 2:51 pm GMT
@A123 As you may have noticed, in the Israeli apocalyptic scenarios the Jewish state doesn't put into play the Samson option.. it is slightly less genocidal than yourself .. you may want to ask yourself why
Rev. Spooner , says: November 8, 2019 at 4:05 pm GMT
Israel is making a terrible mistake. The oft touted "Sampson Option" is a bogus option as Bibi, Benny Gatz and/or any other Israeli leader knows it will be suicide if they use this option. Because even if they emerge from the bunkers days later after using nuclear bombs against Iran, Syria, Lebanon and other European capitals ( Samson option targets Europe ) they will be greeted with hostility and will have no sanctuary.

Three times in world history the Jews were rescued by the Persians.
Believe it or not.

Miro23 , says: November 8, 2019 at 4:52 pm GMT

However, the US under the Trump administration is somewhat unpredictable, especially in light of the current impeachment proceedings against Trump.

Not at all unpredictable with regards to Israel. Trump and Congress would use the last cent of US taxpayer's money and the last drop of Anglo blood to save the place. Trump is Israel's US Viceroy and Congress is its Colonial Parliament.

Israel's real nightmare starts when US nationalists toss out the colonialists, and Israel has to find a way live on its own resources.

Sulu , says: November 8, 2019 at 5:07 pm GMT
I have to think that considering the failure of military intelligence agencies in the past that no one has any real idea how close Iran is to getting the bomb. But even if they get numbers of them and have a means to deliver them on target it simply would mean that Iran and Israel are in a standoff. I can understand how Israel would not want Iran to have the bomb but in reality how much difference would it make? It would only be relevant if the two countries had already blundered into war and things were entering a final disastrous stage. Then it would simply mean both countries would be destroyed instead of just one.
Also, not being a military man am I naive in thinking Iran might be able to buy nuclear weapons on the black market? From North Korea, perhaps? I have got to suspect Israel will be faced with two options. Either fight Iran sooner, before they get nukes. Or they will simply have to accept that Iran is going to be a nuclear power. It's pretty obvious that Israel has been trying to get America to fight their war for them. But Trump has been reluctant to do so. No wonder the Jews are chomping at the bit to find some way to get rid of him. 2020 should prove to be an interesting year.
Tom Verso , says: November 8, 2019 at 5:45 pm GMT
This analysis leaves out two very significant historic military facts:

1) The 2006 Israeli invasion of Lebanon aka the "33 Day War" where in:

"Hezbollah inflicted more Israeli casualties per Arab fighter in 2006 than did any of Israel's state opponents in the 1956, 1967, 1973, or 1982 Arab-Israeli interstate wars, and is generally acknowledge that Israel flat out lost that war and de facto sued for a cease fire.

(see: "U.S. Department of Defense. The 2006 Lebanon Campaign and the Future of Warfare: Implications for Army and Defense Policy." Kindle Edition.)

2) The Syrian army is currently the only army in the world that has multi-front, contiguous multi-year 'combined arms' (i.e. army, armor, artillery and air force) combat experience .

Further, the leader of Hezbollah Hassan Nasrallah in a recent interview pointed out that Hezbollah fighting along side of the Syrian Army these past five years, now has experience in offensive warfare. In 2006 they fought strictly defensively.

In short, if an Israeli war comes again, given the experience of the Syrian and Hezbollah armies and Syria acquiring state of the art air defense system (S 300, etc), Iranian missiles may very well be the least of Israel's worries.

Indeed, before Iran launches missiles, Hezbollah and Syria may move to take back Shebaa Farms and Golan Heights.

To my mind: Israel and American militaries are "paper Tigers". Israel has never fought a combined arms war for a sustained period of time against an equally matched military. And the US not since Korea. Their victories have always been overwhelming an inferior force.

Gilad Atzmon , says: November 8, 2019 at 6:10 pm GMT
@AaronB For me the fact that the Jewish state indulges itself in apocalyptic and genocidal fantasies is really a glimpse into to tribal mind.. as far as I can tell this pre traumatic stress points at severe form of projection .. Israeli politicians and commentators attribute their own symptoms to their neighbours ..
Colin Wright , says: November 8, 2019 at 6:55 pm GMT
@Rev. Spooner ' Three times in world history the Jews were rescued by the Persians.
Believe it or not.'

The Persians more or less created 'the Jews.' At any rate, a religion recognizable as Judaism first appeared in the wake of the Persian conquests.

However, when did the Persians 'rescue' the Jews?

They allowed the creation of an autonomous Jewish state in Palestine when they overran that place around the beginning of the seventh century AD -- but that only lasted for about twenty years anyway.

So what are the three times?

Tom Verso , says: November 8, 2019 at 7:43 pm GMT
@A123 If I may: I don't know for sure what G Atzmon meant by the Samson Option; but, I have come across this express before and I took it to mean that Israel will go to nuclear war even if means the destruction of the Jewish State. That is, like Samson who destroyed his enemies by killing himself; Israel nuec's Iran and Iran nuce's Israel (kills enemies and itself).

This should not be taken lightly. While it would be totally irrational for most states to take the Samson Option, it is to my mind a plausible option for Israel. For even if the Jewish State is destroyed, the Jewish Nation i.e. the Jewish people around the world will survive and continue on as they have these thousands of years. But, they will be free of what they perceive as their arch enemy i.e. Iran and other Moslems. They survived the metaphoric Holocaust and they will survive a literal one. The Jewish State may be destroyed but not the Jewish People.

Altai_3 , says: November 8, 2019 at 9:35 pm GMT
This is something not enough people comment on. Israel's military is not a mini US military, it has serious problems and takes losses and casualties in contexts that would be shocking for another Western country that spends as much per capita for it's military.

This is why Israel having nuclear weapons irks me so much, the more it can't rely on it's conventional military, the more they'll lean into their nuclear deterrent, increasing the probability of it's use. (Not dissimilar to the situation with Pakistan vis-a-vis India, though in that case, India has nukes too)

Adrian , says: November 8, 2019 at 10:06 pm GMT
@Tom Verso The Samson Option
The Samson Option.jpg
Author Seymour Hersh
Country United States
Language English
Genre Non-fiction
Publisher Random House
Publication date
1991
Media type Print (Hardback)
Pages 362 pp
ISBN 0-394-57006-5
OCLC 24609770
Dewey Decimal
355.8/25119/095694 20
LC Class UA853.I8 H47 1991
The Samson Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy is a 1991 book by Seymour Hersh. It details the history of Israel's nuclear weapons program and its effects on Israel-American relations. The "Samson Option" of the book's title refers to the nuclear strategy whereby Israel would launch a massive nuclear retaliatory strike if the state itself was being overrun, just as the Biblical figure Samson is said to have pushed apart the pillars of a Philistine temple, bringing down the roof and killing himself and thousands of Philistines who had gathered to see him humiliated.

According to The New York Times, Hersh relied on Ari Ben-Menashe, a former Israeli government employee who says he worked for Israeli intelligence, for much of his information on the state of the Israeli nuclear program. However, Hersh confirmed all of this information with at least one other source.[1] Hersh did not travel to Israel to conduct interviews for the book, believing that he might have been subject to the Israeli Military Censor. Nevertheless, he did interview Israelis in the United States and Europe during his three years of research.[1]

Colin Wright , says: November 8, 2019 at 10:31 pm GMT
@Fran Taubman ' If you study it, can be pretty scary. It is not just Israel. Also who wants another North Korea blackmail game?'

You mean something like the Samson option?

Anyway, the whole discussion is silly. No nation -- and that included Imperial Japan in 1945, when the chips were down -- chooses self-immolation. They always give way. Iran isn't a threat to Israel because Iran's not going to commit national suicide, and 'the Samson Option' is bullshit as well, because six million Jews aren't going to commit national suicide either.

Zionists such as yourself only choose to think otherwise about Iran -- in spite of the absence of any historical evidence at all -- because it justifies your own pathological aggression towards a nation that is (a) a thousand miles away, and (b) poses no serious threat to Israel whatsoever.

Try not attacking literally everyone you can think of. That might help. I mean, fuck -- Israel is the only state in modern history that has attacked literally every single one of her neighbors, and several more besides. Since 1948, she's attacked Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Tunisia, and even the United States. What's up?

Art , says: November 8, 2019 at 10:41 pm GMT

Despite the Zionist promise to introduce introspection, morality and universal thinking to the emerging Hebrew culture, the Jewish State has failed to break away from the Jewish past because it doesn't really grasp the notion of the 'past' as a dynamic elastic ethical substance.

The Jews are always long-term losers because they teach their children that they have always been and will forever be victims of humanity. Jew children are traumatized at an immature young age – they are mentally damaged by the thought that humanity wants to kill them and do them harm. This notion is inculcated deep in the Jew child's psyche. These poor children can never escape what has been implanted. (For three thousand years, generation after generation, Jew culture has been abusing their children with dreadful thoughts.)

Nine out of ten adult Jews are triggered into thoughts of doom by any criticism of Israel – their reactions are visceral, and a pure reflex coming out of their brainstem.

Jews cannot be introspective because of what elder Jews have implanted in them in their youth. Their rational emotional systems have been short-circuited.

I have seen intelligent Jews on this forum flirt with empathy for Palestinians – only to fall back into mindless reflexive support of whatever Israel does.

Art , says: November 8, 2019 at 11:14 pm GMT
@Art

Jews Are Feeling Guilty: They Should Be. Their Influence Has Been Cancerous to America
Gilad Atzmon Wed, Nov 6, 2019

It has become an institutional Jewish habit to examine how much Jews are hated by their host nations and how fearful Jews are of their neighbours. Jewish press outlets reported yesterday that "9 out of 10 US Jews worry about anti-Semitism."

. . .

As Haartez writer Ari Shavit wrote back in 2003: "The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish " Maybe some Jews now understand that the Zionist shift from a 'promised land' to the Neocon 'promised planet' doesn't reflect well on the Jews as a group.

https://russia-insider.com/en/politics/jews-are-feeling-guilty-they-should-be-their-influence-has-been-cancerous-america/ri27813

Miro23 , says: November 8, 2019 at 11:40 pm GMT
@AaronB

Any separation of one group from another is a tribe. Any identity whatsoever is a tribe – because identity sets you apart. The moment you define yourself you are tribal, because definitions distinguish one thing from another.

The issue is that some people are not particularly tribal (i.e. Westerners) and they are open to multiculturalism – i.e. proposition nations. However, proposition nations are very much non-tribalist places and need non-tribalism to survive.

If tribalists talk multiculturalism and proposition nations (i.e. use deception) while practicing tribalism, they quickly overwhelm these societies – which is where the US is today with regards to Jewish tribalists.

What does a Jewish tribalist elite do next? And what does a (subjected) majority do next?

renfro , says: November 9, 2019 at 12:49 am GMT

Michael Oren, repeated my 2011 predictions this week in the Atlantic and described a horrific scenario for the next, and likely last, Israeli conflict.

The purpose of Oren's Atlantic article was to create alarm in the DC political corridors .."warning' that if the US doesnt 'soon help Israel' with its Iran enemy there will be chaos and dead bodies galore .
Its propaganda but 'true' propaganda 'if' Israel were to attack Iran on their own but they wont .they aren't capable of it alone.
They are running this same propaganda articles/warnings in Europe, saying Europe needs to 'do something' about Iran Now!
Its basically a blackmail and scare ploy because they don't think Trump will do it for them .and of course if Israel starts a war it will be because Trump/US deserted them like he/we did the Kurds and they were 'forced' to try and defend the world against Iran 'all alone' and Israel isn't to blame for the mess lol.

What Israel will do is try to start a war on Hezbollah 'first, as Hezbollah would be their most immediate and dangerous threat , severely crippling Israel right at the onset of any war with Iran.
They will claim that Iran directed attacks on Israel and so the US should step in because its an attack by Iran.

If we had anyone in DC that wasn't bought off by Jewish 'benjamin's ' they would be laughing their asses off at this typical Jewish tactic.

Ash Williams , says: November 9, 2019 at 2:10 am GMT
@A123

Everyone understands that a minor Iranian miscalculation could lead to total war. One in which nuclear bombs would rain down on Iran leaving its cities, economy, and security in ruins.

The sociopath, Ayatollah Khameni is detached from reality and may be willing to take such risks. However, there is no reason to believe that The Iranian military or civilian population will embrace certain suicide. It is quite likely that the IRGC would decide that it is time for another revolution and end the theocracy, rather than die following the dubious commands of a deranged Ayatollah.

Kristol, you're drunk. Turn off the computer and go to bed, you shmuck.

renfro , says: November 9, 2019 at 4:49 am GMT
@Colin Wright

She has us all to herself

That was the goal.
Remember the Zios in Rumsfeld's pentagon stressing how the US must dump 'old Europe"?
Even a non genius like me could figure that out .old Europe might be too much of a 'restraining ' influence on the US.
The Jews hate Europe anyway ..just like they hate Russia.

Some interesting things popped up this week .Vindman , main testifier against Trump on Ukraine is a Ukraine Jew, Solderman,Trump's main man on Ukraine is a Jew, also has now testified against Trump, their attorney is also a Jew ..they all have issued statements about how the plucky "little Ukraine is fighting against Russia for the US and world" and needs our aid and so on. Exactly the same wording and bullshit spin the Jews use about Israel "fighting Iran to protect the US and world interest".
Plain to me the Uber Jews are trying to set up the Ukraine as a Israel satellite and weight on Russia's flank.

I read Vindman's testimony to congress ..something is very off about the guy. he sounded numerous times like he lost his script. He's, in his own words, a fanatical supporter of Ukraine . I don't like Trump but I think the Ukraine deal to impeach him is a set up ..and its not coming mainly from the CIA ,its coming from the Nat Sec Council that Vindman works for.

https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=6543468-Alexander-Vindman-Testimony

ziogolem , says: November 9, 2019 at 5:28 am GMT
The Andinia Plan (and others like it) gives Israel almost a "reset" button, making the Samson Option a disturbing possibility.

"Holiday camps" with hundreds of thousands of empty houses, a military landing strip, a submarine base
https://www.globalresearch.ca/does-israel-have-a-patagonia-project-in-argentina/5624434

A Palestinian sees for herself what these Israeli tourists are about
http://www.kawther.info/K20040416A.html
http://www.kawther.info/wpr/2009/01/30/israeli-war-criminals-in-patagonia

It seems that the Argentinian elite are reliant on Israeli (and US) armed support
https://steemit.com/informationwar/@renny-krieger/the-military-invasion-of-argentina-english-version

It is terrifying to think that in the event Israel be run by psychopaths, they might sacrifice another "6 million", while securing themselves a new Zion.

On the other hand, a peaceful transfer of the occupation of Palestine to Patagonia (and elsewhere), without the trigger of war, would be a possible path to peace in the Middle East (not so ideal for Patagonia though).

What would it take for either outcome to pass? I fear the former is far more likely than the latter.

Not Raul , says: November 9, 2019 at 5:31 am GMT
@Altai_3 I agree.

Israel is much more likely to be the next country to use atomic weapons than Iran.

They reached their limit in the 2006 Lebanon War with just over a hundred fatalities.

It's hard to imagine the Israelis losing even half as many as they did in 1973 (somewhat less than 3000) before pushing the button.

anon [113] Disclaimer , says: November 9, 2019 at 5:35 am GMT
@renfro

I don't like Trump but I think the Ukraine deal to impeach him is a set up ..and its not coming mainly from the CIA ,its coming from the Nat Sec Council .

Have you heard of –
Growing Indicators of Brennan's CIA Trump Task Force
by Larry C Johnson
https://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2019/11/growing-indicators-of-brennans-cia-trump-task-force-by-larry-c-johnson.html

They were out to get him a year before he was elected;

[Nov 08, 2019] Pompeo attempt in projection

Nov 08, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

james , Nov 8 2019 20:51 utc | 31

who said this today in an official gov't press release?

"Today, Russia – led by a former KGB officer stationed in Dresden ‒ invades its neighbors and slays political opponents. It suppresses the independence of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine. Russian authorities, even as we speak, use police raids and torture against Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians who are working in opposition to Russian aggression. In Chechnya, anyone considered "undesirable" by the authorities simply disappears.

In China – in China, the Chinese Communist Party is shaping a new vision of authoritarianism, one that the world has not seen for an awfully long time. The Chinese Communist Party uses tactics and methods to suppress its own people that would be horrifyingly familiar to former East Germans. The People's Liberation Army encroaches on the sovereignty of its Chinese neighbors, and the Chinese Communist Party denies travel privileges to critics – even German lawmakers – who condemn its abysmal human rights record. The CCP harasses the families of Chinese Muslims in Xinjiang, who simply sought refuge abroad. We – all of us, everyone in this room – has a duty. We must recognize that free nations are in a competition of values with those unfree nations."

[Oct 15, 2019] Bolton Opposed Ukraine Investigations; Called Giuliani A Hand Grenade

Oct 15, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

Bolton Opposed Ukraine Investigations; Called Giuliani "A Hand Grenade" by Tyler Durden Tue, 10/15/2019 - 12:25 0 SHARES

Former national security adviser John Bolton was 'so alarmed' by efforts to encourage Ukraine to investigate the Bidens and 2016 election meddling that he told an aide, Fiona Hill, to alert White House lawyers, according to the New York Times .

On Monday, Hill told House investigators that Bolton got into a heated confrontation on July 10 with Trump's EU ambassador, Gordon D. Sondland, who was working with Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani to investigate Democrats. Hill said that Bolton told her to notify the top attorney for the National Security Council about the 'rogue' effort by Sondland, Giuliani and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.

"I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up," Bolton apparently told Hill to tell the lawyers.

It was not the first time Mr. Bolton expressed grave concerns to Ms. Hill about the campaign being run by Mr. Giuliani. " Giuliani's a hand grenade who's going to blow everybody up, " Ms. Hill quoted Mr. Bolton as saying during an earlier conversation.

The testimony revealed in a powerful way just how divisive Mr. Giuliani's efforts to extract damaging information about Democrats from Ukraine on President Trump's behalf were within the White House. Ms. Hill, the senior director for European and Russian affairs, testified that Mr. Giuliani and his allies circumvented the usual national security process to run their own foreign policy efforts, leaving the president's official advisers aware of the rogue operation yet powerless to stop it. - NYT

When Hill confronted Sondland, he told her that he was 'in charge' of Ukraine, "a moment she compared to Secretary of State Alexander M. Haig Jr.'s declaration that he was in charge after the Ronald Reagan assassination attempt, according to those who heard the testimony," according to the Times.

Hill says she asked Sondland on whose authority he was in charge of Ukraine, to which he replied 'the president.' She would later leave her post shortly before a July 25 phone call with Ukraine's president which is currently at the heart of an impeachment inquiry.

Meanwhile, the Times also notes that "House Democrats widened their net in the fast-paced inquiry by summoning Michael McKinley, a senior adviser to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo who abruptly resigned last week, to testify Wednesday."

Career diplomats have expressed outrage at the unceremonious removal of Ambassador Marie L. Yovanovitch from Ukraine after she came under attack by Mr. Giuliani, Donald Trump Jr. and two associates who have since been arrested on charges of campaign violations.

The interviews indicated that House Democrats were proceeding full tilt with their inquiry despite the administration's declaration last week that it would refuse to cooperate with what it called an invalid and unconstitutional impeachment effort. - NYT

Three other Trump admin officials are scheduled to speak with House investigators this week, including Sondland - who is now set to appear on Thursday. On Tuesday, deputy assistant secretary of state George Kent will testify, while on Friday, Laura K. Cooper - a a deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia policy, will speak with lawmakers as well.

Et Tu Brute , 20 minutes ago link

Why are we still even hearing from that human excrement?

janus , 22 minutes ago link

Looks like we have our whistleblower. My only question is, how does one whistle with such a bristly moustache draping their hairlip?

So now we have Mr. Neocon and Mr. Liddle Kidz conjugating as the strangest of bedfellows? How will this play to their respective bases? Are we to assume these people think this nations top law enforcement agent (POTUS) is to abdicate his duties therewith just because the criminal is (at least according to our two tiered justice system) supposed to be beyond reproach?

Mr. Bolton, bright and determined as he is, has hitched his wagon to mad mare galloping full tilt over a precipice.

Looking for a return of uranium one to the headlines soon. In due time we will stich this Russia/Ukraine narrative back together from a patchwork of facts. You traitors are fucked...royally fucked...and you know it.

So, Mr bolton, explain to us in simple terms how you appraise America's security and her related interests. Your camp is in eclipse.

John Bolton:

"I was appauled...just flabbergasted...that the president was concerned that our intelligence apparatus was politicized to the extent that its highest echelons were arrayed in an attempt to subvert a lawful and legitimate election. Never mind that six other nations were tasked with abetting this treasonous plot...this is an outrage!!! The whole point of intelligence agencies is to skirt the law with impunity, and once we (the unelected permanent breacracy) tell one of our minions like Biden or Hillary that they're permanently immune from prosecution, we can't have some earnest pact of Patriots running around demanding law and order."

What a sorry bunch of cretians.

We were so close...so close...to losing it all. But since the enemy is making clear we're playing zero sum, we're going to end up with everything.

Brace yourself, California. If I were you, I'd study the legal framework of Reconstruction. Your plight will be of a kind. Your state has been engaged in a systematic attempt to overthrow the government. Your leaders will be appointed for a generation after this all comes out. Don't look to Beijing to save you...they kinda have their hands full.

Janus

Treavor , 17 minutes ago link

He is a criminal involved in Ukraine weapons deals the yal get the piece that is why they are mad lost $$$$$$

Mimir , 2 minutes ago link

Clearly a criminal among criminals.

MrAToZ , 26 minutes ago link

Deep state arms skim meister Bolton. Never enough bodies for this "patroit."

Infinityx2 , 26 minutes ago link

So, I guess Bolton is no longer collecting free money like Hunter Biden was. I get it now how all these politicians have kids overseas and open foreign corporations which our tax money goes in to by way of cutting deals overseas public officials to line their pockets with our money. This how they get into government poor and become very rich! Giuliani is pointing this fact out to the public with Trump and the swamp HATES IT!

The public now knows how these corrupt PUBLIC OFFICIALS in America have been fleecing the tax payers. This is a major hit on the swamp.

Trump & Giuliani we're behind you thank you for showing us how the swamp has been ******* us for all these years.

One-Hung-Lo , 30 minutes ago link

Bolton should have never been allowed to enter the White House and I am not sure about Giuliani either as I kinda feel like he is borderline senile.

moe_reeves , 32 minutes ago link

If Biden is guilty, Giuliani is not.

frankthecrank , 34 minutes ago link

Understand that the reason Schitt head won't allow public hearings is because the former Ambassador to Ukraine--Volker, shot this whole **** fest down when he testified. There is no "there" there.

Bolton and the others are crying because of Trump's pull out. The left jumped on the war bandwagon under Billary a long time ago. Necons work both parties.

John_Coltrane , 37 minutes ago link

If Bolton dislikes Guiliani that's the best endorsement of Rudy I can imagine. Bolton is a complete warmongering traitor who, like McShitstain, desires a nice case of brain cancer.

Go Rudy, expose the corrupt Demonrats! We deplorables love human hand grenades. That's why we elected the Donald, and you apparently are the perfect lawyer for our great God emperor.

Archeofuturist , 15 minutes ago link

You can bet that the piggies are squealing because it's more than just the Dems who are neck deep in the ****. Lotta funky stuff went down in Ukraine.

Buster84 , 55 minutes ago link

Sounds like Bolton may have some dirty laundry he is wanting to cover up.

AnnimaTday , 50 minutes ago link

"Schiff simply does not have the gravitas that a weighty procedure such as impeachment requires," Biggs wrote in an opinion piece for Fox News. "He has repeatedly shown incredibly poor judgment. He has persistently and consistently demonstrated that he has such a tremendous bias and animus against Trump that he will say anything and accept any proffer of even bogus evidence to try to remove the president from office."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/125-house-republicans-co-sponsor-resolution-to-censure-schiff-over-parody-reading-of-trump-zelensky-call

[Sep 22, 2019] Would anyone care to imagine what would happen to someone on holiday from Iran who got spotted flying a drone around Fort Dietrick or similar?

Notable quotes:
"... Jolie King and Mark Firkin had been arrested relatively recently and charged with espionage. They had been apprehended while flying a drone around a military establishment not far from Tehran. ..."
"... They claim to be innocent civilians who had been flying their drone, taking vids with it and publishing them online in every country they drove through on the overland/sea jaunt from Darwin to London. ..."
"... Although the internet & associated cryptography has likely made such laws irrelevant, I cannot believe that a couple of months ago when the Grace II thing was kicking off any brit or australian could think flying drones around Iranian bases wouldn't get them into trouble. ..."
"... Would anyone care to imagine what would happen to someone on holiday from Iran who got spotted flying a drone around Fort Dietrick or similar? No matter how many posts they had made about doing the same in Chile, Peru, Colombia, Panama & Mexico. Wouldn't that appear as if it were just cover lest something did go wrong? ..."
"... Well don't her specialties line up closely with another brit educated woman caught teaching local Iranians how to stir trouble online in Iran, one Zaghari-Ratcliffe convicted of espionage after now england PM, then secretary of foreign affairs B Johnson, slipped up and admitted she had been training Iranians, in Iran. ..."
"... This attempt to propagandize the arrests of spies may even succeed I suppose as most people just don't follow this stuff closely enough and the praised to the max western media is unlikely to disabuse them of their ignorance. ..."
"... The ruins of Angkor Wat Cambodia are a sacred place and you are warned that no drones are permitted, but you still are flying your drone and that all females must be fully covered, but you don't care, you just think you are untouchables, but you will fly your drone once too often in a restricted area and be caught. ..."
Sep 15, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

in response of how NK treats journalists, Eva Bartlett of Syria fame did a number of reports from NK and she said she had more freedom than in many western countries. As long as you dont show fake propaganda and show the NK'ians in favorable ie real light, they have no problems. They were not asked to take particular shots or taken to particular places but left to do everything themselves.

I remember cops pulling me over for taking pics of barns in south dakota.. Many such events.. I remember cops pulling me over so many times I can write a book on it. Once for having a white bag on the front seat.. For looking too young.. For looking like a car bugler because I was under the dash fixing speaker wires.. For having driving lights on before they had those on cars as standard.. For changing lanes to avoid police.. Free country my testicles..

A User , Sep 14 2019 6:59 utc | 44

I dunno how many have been following the issue of the 'brit-australian' trio who are in custody in Iran, but there are some oddities about these cases which suggest MI6/ ASIS are moronic and barefaced enough to try and propagandise the inevitable result of their own hamfisted stupidity.

No one had heard of Kylie Moore-Gilbert, Jolie King and Mark Firkin a week ago, then John Bolton copped the flick and suddenly australians & englanders are told that Iran has more than British-Iranian Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe slotted up, that two pom/oz types and a genuine Australian were also being held.

Jolie King and Mark Firkin had been arrested relatively recently and charged with espionage. They had been apprehended while flying a drone around a military establishment not far from Tehran.

They claim to be innocent civilians who had been flying their drone, taking vids with it and publishing them online in every country they drove through on the overland/sea jaunt from Darwin to London. Apparently both are University graduates who claim they didn't see the harm in doing what they were doing . . . yeah right, I guess it is possible to be that stupid but it is pretty unlikely. I'm old enough to remember that it wasn't that long ago when going into many of the nations between Oz and Iran with a ghetto blaster that would allow you to record and which had an AM or FM radio receiver would get you into the slammer quick smart.

Although the internet & associated cryptography has likely made such laws irrelevant, I cannot believe that a couple of months ago when the Grace II thing was kicking off any brit or australian could think flying drones around Iranian bases wouldn't get them into trouble.

Would anyone care to imagine what would happen to someone on holiday from Iran who got spotted flying a drone around Fort Dietrick or similar? No matter how many posts they had made about doing the same in Chile, Peru, Colombia, Panama & Mexico. Wouldn't that appear as if it were just cover lest something did go wrong?

But that is nothing cos up until today we have been told that nothing is known about another woman who has been in prison for a year on 'unknown charges'.

According to today's graun we still don't know the charges, but we do know she is another pom/oz type, Dr Kylie Moore-Gilbert, a Cambridge-educated academic who we are told:

"The University of Melbourne's website lists Dr Moore-Gilbert on its "Find an expert" page as a lecturer at the university's Asia Institute.

It says she "specializes in Middle Eastern politics, with a particular focus on the Arab Gulf states," and that she had published work on the 2011 Arab uprisings, authoritarian governance, and on the role of new media technologies in political activism."

Well don't her specialties line up closely with another brit educated woman caught teaching local Iranians how to stir trouble online in Iran, one Zaghari-Ratcliffe convicted of espionage after now england PM, then secretary of foreign affairs B Johnson, slipped up and admitted she had been training Iranians, in Iran.

This attempt to propagandize the arrests of spies may even succeed I suppose as most people just don't follow this stuff closely enough and the praised to the max western media is unlikely to disabuse them of their ignorance.

Norwegian , Sep 14 2019 7:36 utc | 46
Peter AU 1 @44
Would anyone care to imagine what would happen to someone on holiday from Iran who got spotted flying a drone around Fort Dietrick or similar? No matter how many posts they had made about doing the same in Chile, Peru, Colombia, Panama & Mexico. Wouldn't that appear as if it were just cover lest something did go wrong?
They were well aware that using drones could get them into trouble, they said so themselves talking about Cambodia, so in no doubt the same applied to Iran. https://www.instagram.com/p/BngpgAIHqpD/

The ruins of Angkor Wat Cambodia are a sacred place and you are warned that no drones are permitted, but you still are flying your drone and that all females must be fully covered, but you don't care, you just think you are untouchables, but you will fly your drone once too often in a restricted area and be caught.

[Sep 18, 2019] Iran is a coherent nation with long history and proved ability to defend itslef even at the cost of enormous sacrifices. One hopes that the Pentagon can understand that any attack on Iran coalition will be met with a coordinated and unreserved response by Iran and all its allies.

Sep 18, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Grieved , Sep 18 2019 2:54 utc | 80

@b - "Iran has thereby plausible deniability when attacks like the recent one on Abquiq happen. That Iran supplied drones with 1,500 kilometer reach to its allies in Yemen means that its allies in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq and elsewhere have access to similar means."

I read the Tyler Rogoway WarZone article you linked to, and it was the first time I'd seen the concept that Iran "has built a plausible deniability environment" for itself, but I think Rogoway is missing a serious point. If Iran has such deniability, I don't think this exists by contrivance. I think the truth of the situation has created such plausible deniability, if in fact such a thing even exists, or if such a thing is even desired by Iran or any of its allies.

I would like to offer a more nuanced view of the relationship between Iran and its allies. Specifically regarding your view that Iran's allies are "willing to act on Iran's behalf should the need arise."

I get the impression that it's more a case that all these allies see themselves in the same existential position, and have developed, and are continuing to refine, an "all for one and one for all" approach to the regional security of all the sovereign allies.

Sharmine Narwani explained this very thing in her recent interview with Ross Ashcroft, where she said that if one of the allies is attacked by the US or Israel, all of the allies will join in immediately and without reservation, because for each of them it is the same existential threat:
What's the real plan with Iran?

And the interview you link to by Nader Talebzadeh with IRGC General Amir Ali Hajizadeh concludes with the general's statement that "...in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Yemen; now Muslims are all a coalition standing next to each other".
How likely is the possibility of a military conflict between Iran and the US?

~~

I'm not trying to split hairs here, but it strikes me as important to note that these countries have moved on from being isolated, and are in fact in a coalition, albeit still coalescing. Their militaries have trained together and established joint command centers in recent times.

As the general explained, when the threat of attack by the US seemed imminent - at the time Iran downed the drone - Iran was fully prepared to attack and destroy several US bases. One hopes that the Pentagon can understand that any attack on one of these members of the coalition will be met with a coordinated and unreserved response by all allies.

Given such a geopolitical situation now throughout the region, the concept of Iran's having "plausible deniability" for other countries to act on its behalf seems too narrow a view. And this is why all the fevered discussion about who "owns" the Houthi strike is missing the main strategic point that the whole region "owns" it - and why it is sufficient that the Houthi did in fact act alone, but not alone, because none of these forces is now alone. It is, one gathers, a brotherly coalition that has formed and is becoming yet stronger

So it need not be the case that everything flows from Iran, or revolves around Iran. The whole region is now the steel trap not to step on.

donkeytale , Sep 18 2019 3:16 utc | 81

Grieved @ 80

Excellent point very well stated.

[Sep 18, 2019] Do you really want to be a one term president? Pompeo can talk big now and then go back to Kansas to run for senator. Where will you be able to take refuge?

Iran has incentives to increase the chance of a Democrat administration, bearing in mind the great deal they got from the last one and the lack of anything they can expect from Trump Term Two.
Sep 18, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.com
  • You have several thousand soldiers in Iraq and Syria. These countries have large proxy forces of Iran's allies in the form of Shia militias in Iraq and actual Iranian Quds Force troops in Syria. These forces will be used to attack and kill our soldiers.
  • The Iranians have significant numbers of ballistic missiles which they have already said will be used against our forces
  • The US Navy has many ships in the Gulf and the Arabian Sea. The Iranian Navy and the IRGC Navy will attack our naval vessels until the Iranian forces are utterly destroyed. In that process the US Navy will loose men and ships.
  • In direct air attacks on Iran we are bound to lose aircraft and air crew.
  • The IRGC and its Quds Force will carry out terrorist attacks across the world.

Do you really want to be a one term president? Pompeo can talk big now and then go back to Kansas to run for senator. Where will you be able to take refuge? Don't let the neocons like Pompeo sell you on war.

Make the intelligence people show you the evidence in detail. Make your own judgments. pl

Vegetius , 17 September 2019 at 08:37 PM

Whatever else he knows, Trump knows that he can't sell a war to the American people.
confusedponderer -> Vegetius... , 18 September 2019 at 03:51 AM
Vegetius,
re " Trump knows that he can't sell a war to the American people "

Are you sure? I am not.

Reflection, self criticism or self restraint are not exactly the big strengths of Trump. He prefers solo acts (Emergency! Emergency!) and dislikes advice (especially if longer than 4 pages) and the advice of the sort " You're sure? If you do that the the shit will fly in your face in an hour, Sir ".

A good number of the so called grownups who gave such advice were (gameshow style) fired, sometimes by twitter.

Trump can order attacks and I don't expect much protest from Mark Esper and it depends on the military (which likely will obey).

These so called grownups have been replaced by (then still) happy Bolton (likely, even after being fired, still war happy) and applauders like Pompeo and his buddy Esper.

Israel could, if politically just a tad more insane, bomb Iran and thus invite the inevitable retaliation. When that happens they'll cry for US aid, weapons and money because they alone ~~~

(a) cannot defeat Iran (short of going nuclear) and ...
(b) Holocaust! We want weapons and money from Germany, too! ...
(c) they know that ...
(d) which does not lead in any way to Netanyahu showing signgs of self restraint or reason.

Netanyahu just - it is (tight) election time - announced, in his sldedge hammer style subtlety, that (he) Israel will annect the palestinian west jordan territory, making the Plaestines an object in his election campaign.

IMO that idea is simply insane and invites more "troubles". But then, I didn't hear anything like, say, Trump gvt protests against that (and why expect that from the dudes who moved the US embassy to Jerusalem).

confusedponderer -> Vegetius... , 18 September 2019 at 07:28 AM
Vegetius,
as for Trump and Netanyahu ... policy debate ... I had that here in mind, which pretty speaks for itself. And I thought Trumo is just running for office in the US. Alas, it is a Netanyaho campaign poster from the current election:

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/a6e60efd3bde0befbcb8b0a95a42bf4c2624e017/57_296_5123_3074/master/5123.jpg?width=1920&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=1958b9e7cf24d7a3a7b024845de08f7e

As a thank you to Trump calling the Israel ocupied Golan a part of Israel Netanyahu called an (iirc also illegal) new Golan settlement "Ramat Trump"

https://cdn.mdr.de/nachrichten/mdraktuell-golan-hoehen-trump-hights-100-resimage_v-variantSmall24x9_w-704.jpg?version=0964

I generously assume that things like that only happen because of the hard and hard ly work of Kushner on his somewhat elusive but of course GIGANTIC and INCREDIBLE Middle East peace plan.

Kushner is probably getting hard and hard ly supported by Ivanka who just said that she inherited her moral compass from her father. Well ... congatulations ... I assume.

Stueeeeeeee said in reply to Vegetius... , 18 September 2019 at 08:31 AM
I disagree. Trump maybe the only person who could sell a war with Iran. What he has cultivated is a rabid base that consists of sycophants on one extreme end and desperate nationalists on the other. His base must stick with him...who else do they have?

The Left is indifferent to another war. Further depleting the quality stock of our military will aid there agenda of international integration. A weaker US military will force us to collaborate with the world community and not lead it is their thinking.

The rest of the nation will follow.

prawnik said in reply to Vegetius... , 18 September 2019 at 10:36 AM
Need I trot out Goering's statement regarding selling a war once more?

Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.

Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.

Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

turcopolier , 17 September 2019 at 09:31 PM
jonst

We have been so thoroughly indoctrinated with the idea that Iran and Russia are intrinsically and immutable evil and hostile that the thought of actual two sided diplomacy does not occur. IMO neither of these countries are what we collectively think them. So, we could actually give it a try rather than trying to beggar them and destroy their economies. If all fails than we have to be prepared to defend our forces. DOL

Matt said in reply to turcopolier ... , 18 September 2019 at 12:54 AM
I agree with your reply 100%

Iranophobia goes back to 1979,

Russophobia goes back to at least 1917 if not further, especially in the UK,

Sinophobia for the US reaches back to the mid to late 1800's

these phobias are so entrenched now they're a huge obstacle to overcome,

Mark Twain: "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."

William Casey: "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false"

Christian Chuba , 18 September 2019 at 05:22 AM
The 'ivestigations are a formality. The Saudis (with U.S. backing) are already saying that the missiles were Iranian made and according to them, this proves that Iran fired them. The Saudis are using the more judicious phrase 'behind the attack' but Pompeo is running with the fired from Iran narrative.

How can we tell the difference between an actual Iranian manufactured missile vs one that was manufactured in Yemen based on Iranian designs? We only have a few pictures Iranian missiles unlike us, the Iranians don't toss them all over the place so we don't have any physical pieces to compare them to.

Perhaps honest investigators could make a determination but even if they do exist they will keep quiet while the bible thumping Pompeo brays and shamelessly lies as he is prone to do.

PRC90 said in reply to Christian Chuba... , 18 September 2019 at 10:36 AM
These kinds of munition will leave hundreds of bits scattered all over their targets. I'm waiting for the press conference with the best bits laid out on the tables.
I doubt that there will be any stencils saying 'Product of Iran', unless the paint smells fresh.
Nuff Sed , 18 September 2019 at 07:22 AM
1. I am still waiting to read some informed discussion concerning the *accuracy* of the projectiles hitting their targets with uncanny precision from hundreds of miles away. What does this say about the achievement of those pesky Eye-rainians? https://www.moonofalabama.org/images9/saudihit2.jpg

2. "The US Navy has many ships in the Gulf and the Arabian Sea. The Iranian Navy and the IRGC Navy will attack our naval vessels until the Iranian forces are utterly destroyed.: Ahem, Which forces are utterly destroyed? With respect colonel, you are not thinking straight. An army with supersonic land to sea missiles that are highly accurate will make minced meat of any fool's ship that dare attack it. The lesson of the last few months is that Iran is deadly serious about its position that if they cannot sell their oil, no one else will be able to either. And if the likes of the relatively broadminded colonel have not yet learned that lesson, then this can only mean that the escalation ladder will continue to be climbed, rung by rung. Next rung: deep sea port of Yanbu, or, less likely, Ra's Tanura. That's when the price of oil will really go through the roof and the Chinese (and possibly one or two of the Europoodles) will start crying Uncle Scam. Nuff Sed.

turcopolier , 18 September 2019 at 08:07 AM
nuff Sed

It sounds like you are getting a little "help" with this. You statement about the result of a naval confrontation in the Gulf reflects the 19th Century conception that "ships can't fight forts." that has been many times exploded. You have never seen the amount of firepower that would be unleashed on Iran from the air and sea. Would the US take casualties? Yes, but you will be destroyed.

Nuff Sed -> turcopolier ... , 18 September 2019 at 08:18 AM
We will have to agree to disagree. But unless I am quite mistaken, the majority view if not the consensus of informed up to date opinion holds that the surest sign that the US is getting ready to attack Iran is that it is withdrawing all of its naval power out of the Persian Gulf, where they would be sitting ducks.

Besides, I don't think it will ever come to that. Not to repeat myself, but taking out either deep sea ports of Ra's Tanura and/ or Yanbu (on the Red Sea side) will render Saudi oil exports null and void for the next six months. The havoc that will play with the price of oil and consequently on oil futures and derivatives will be enough for any president and army to have to worry about. But if the US would still be foolhardy enough to continue to want to wage war (i.e. continue its strangulation of Iran, which it has been doing more or less for the past 40 years), then the Yemeni siege would be broken and there would be a two-pronged attack from the south and the north, whereby al-Qatif, the Shi'a region of Saudi Arabia where all the oil and gas is located, will be liberated from their barbaric treatment at the hands of the takfiri Saudi scum, which of course is completely enabled and only made possible by the War Criminal Uncle Sam.

Go ahead, make my day: roll the dice.

scott s. said in reply to Nuff Sed ... , 18 September 2019 at 11:32 AM
AFAIK the only "US naval power" currently is the Abraham Lincoln CSG and I haven't seen any public info that it was in the Persian Gulf. Aside from the actual straits, I'm not sure of your "sitting ducks" assertion. First they wouldn't be sitting, and second you have the problem of a large volume of grey shipping that would complicate the targeting problem. Of course with a reduced time-of-flight, that also reduces target position uncertainty.
CK said in reply to turcopolier ... , 18 September 2019 at 09:55 AM
Forts are stationary.
Nothing I have read implies that Iran has a lot of investment in stationary forts.
Millennium Challenge 2002, only the game cannot be restarted once the enemy does not behave as one hopes. Unlike in scripted war simulations, Opfor can win.
I remember the amount of devastation that was unleashed on another "backwards nation" Linebackers 1 - 20, battleship salvos chemical defoliants, the Phoenix program, napalm for dessert.
And not to put to fine a point on it, but that benighted nation was oriental; Iran is a Caucasian nation full of Caucasian type peoples.
Nothing about this situation is of any benefit to the USA.
We do not need Saudi oil, we do not need Israel to come to the defense of the USA here in North America, we do not need to stick our dick into the hornet's nest and then wonder why they sting and it hurts. How many times does Dumb have to win?
Nuff Sed , 18 September 2019 at 08:07 AM
3. Also, I can't imagine this event as being a very welcome one for Israeli military observers, the significance of which is not lost on them, unlike their US counterparts. If Yemen/ Iran can put the Abqaiq processing plant out of commission for a few weeks, then obviusly Hezbollah can do the same for the giant petrochemical complex at Haifa, as well as Dimona, and the control tower at Ben Gurion Airport.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/239251

https://www.timesofisrael.com/haifa-municipal-workers-block-refinery-access-for-2nd-day/

These are the kinds of issues which are germane: the game has changed. What are the implications?

turcopolier , 18 September 2019 at 08:08 AM
nuff sed

I have said repeatedly that Hizbullah can destroy Israel. Nothing about that has changed.

turcopolier , 18 September 2019 at 08:17 AM
Yeah, right

It was late at night when I wrote this. Yeah, Right. the Iranians could send their massive ground force into Syria where it would be chewed up by US and Israeli air. Alternatively they could invade Saudi arabia.

Yeah, Right said in reply to turcopolier ... , 18 September 2019 at 08:38 AM
Thank you for the reply but actually I was thinking that an invasion of Afghanistan would be the more sensible ploy.

To my mind if the Iranian Army sits on its backside then the USAF and IAF will ignore it to roam the length and breadth of Iran destroying whatever ground targets are on their long-planned target-list.

Or that Iranian Army can launch itself into Afghanistan, at which point all of the USA plans for a methodical aerial pummelling of Iran's infrastructure goes out the window as the USAF scrambles to save the American forces in Afghanistan from being overrun.

Isn't that correct?

So what incentive is there for that Iranian Army to sit around doing nothing?

Iran will do what the USAF isn't expecting it to do, if for no other reason that it upsets the USA's own game-plan.

johnf , 18 September 2019 at 08:41 AM
There seems to be a bit of a hiatus in proceedings - not in these columns but on the ground in the ME.

Everyone seems to be waiting for something.

Could this "something" be the decisive word fron our commander in chief Binyamin Netanyahu?

The thing is he has just pretty much lost an election. Likud might form part of the next government of Israel but most likely not with him at its head.

Does anyone have any ideas on what the future policy of Israel is likely to be under Gantz or whoever? Will it be the same, worse or better?

turcopolier , 18 September 2019 at 08:51 AM
Yeah Right

The correct US move would be to ignore an Iranian invasion of Afghanistan and continue leaving the place. The Iranian Shia can then fight the Sunni jihadi tribesmen.

Yeah, Right said in reply to turcopolier ... , 18 September 2019 at 09:29 AM
Oh, I completely agree that if the Iranians launch an invasion of Afghanistan then the only sensible strategy would be for the US troops to pack up and get out as fast as possible.

But that is "cut and run", which many in Washington would view as a humiliation.

Do you really see the beltway warriors agreeing to that?

turcopolier , 18 September 2019 at 08:53 AM
Stueee

A flaw in your otherwise sound argument is that the US military has not been seriously engaged for several years and has been reconstituting itself with the money Trump has given them.

turcopolier , 18 September 2019 at 08:57 AM
Nuff Sed

Re-positioning of forces does not indicate that a presidential decision for war has been made. The navy will not want to fight you in the narrow, shallow waters of the Gulf.

Lars , 18 September 2019 at 09:53 AM
I would think that Mr. Trump would have a hard time sell a war with Iran over an attack on Saudi Arabia. The good question about how would that war end will soon be raised and I doubt there are many good answers.

The US should have gotten out of that part of the world a long time ago, just as they should have paid more attention to the warnings in President Eisenhower's farewell address.

turcopolier , 18 September 2019 at 10:12 AM
CK

The point was about shore based firepower, not forts. don't be so literal.

CK said in reply to turcopolier ... , 18 September 2019 at 10:34 AM
The Perfumed Fops in the DOD restarted Millennium Challenge 2002,because Gen Van Riper had used 19th and early 20th century tactics and shore based firepower to sink the Blue Teams carrier forces. There was a script, Van Riper did some adlibbing. Does the US DOD think that Iran will follow the US script? In a unipolar world maybe the USA could enforce a script, that world was severely wounded in 1975, took a sucking chest wound during operation Cakewalk in 2003 and died in Syria in 2015. Too many poles too many powers not enough diplomacy. It will not end well.
turcopolier , 18 September 2019 at 10:16 AM
lars

We would crush Iran at some cost to ourselves but the political cost to the anti-globalist coalition would catastrophic. BTW Trump's "base" isn't big enough to elect him so he cannot afford to alienate independents.

prawnik , 18 September 2019 at 10:32 AM
Even if Rouhani and the Iranian Parliament personally designed, assembled, targeted and launched the missiles (scarier sounding version of "drones"), then they should be congratulated, for the Saudi tyrant deserves every bad thing that he gets.
turcopolier , 18 September 2019 at 10:49 AM
prawnik (Sid) in this particular situation goering's glittering generalization does not apply. Trump needs a lot of doubting suburbanites to win and a war will not incline them to vote for him.
Bill Wade , 18 September 2019 at 10:53 AM
Looks like President Trump is walking it back, tweet: I have just instructed the Secretary of the Treasury to substantially increase Sanctions on the country of Iran!
PRC90 , 18 September 2019 at 11:34 AM
I doubt there will be armed conflict of any kind.
Everything Trump does from now (including sacking the Bolton millstone) will be directed at winning 2020, and that will not be aided by entering into some inconclusive low intensity attrition war.
Iran, on the other hand, will be doing everything it can to increase the chance of a Democrat administration, bearing in mind the great deal they got from the last one and the lack of anything they can expect from Trump Term Two.
This may be a useful tool for determining their next move, but the limit of their actions would be when some Democrats begin making the electorally damaging mistake of critising Trump for not retaliating against Iranian provocations.
Terence Gore , 18 September 2019 at 11:35 AM
Pros and cons of many options considered against Iran

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/06_iran_strategy.pdf

[Sep 18, 2019] Here is an article that looks at how American voters feel about Donald Trump's approach to Iran

Sep 18, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Sally Snyder , Sep 17 2019 19:58 utc | 5

Here is an article that looks at how American voters feel about Donald Trump's approach to Iran:

https://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2019/07/main-street-america-and-another-war-in.html

Should the warrior who currently inhabits the position of Secretary of State use his influence to persuade Donald Trump to enter what would likely be a very lengthy war of attrition in Iran, it may prove to be a very costly move for the Republican Party in November of 2020 given the level of support for such actions among Main Street Americans.

[Sep 17, 2019] The Costs of Trump's Economic War on Iran Keep Growing by Daniel Larison

Sep 16, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Trump speaks at Washington rally against the Iran deal back in September 2015. Credit: Olivier Douliery/Sipa USA/Newscom Paul Pillar comments on the attack on the Saudi oil facility at Abqaiq, and he connects it to the administration's dangerous, failing "maximum pressure" campaign:

Iranian leaders have been explicit in warning that if Iran could not export its oil, then other Persian Gulf producers would not be able to either. Was anyone in the Trump administration listening?

To borrow another formulation from Pompeo's tweet, there is no evidence that in the absence of the administration's economic warfare against Iran, Iran would do anything like attack the Abqaiq facility or have any incentive to conduct such an attack. If Iran did do the attack, then it was a direct and unsurprising result of the administration's policy of unrelenting hostility and of inflicting economic pain with no apparent end.

The Trump administration's economic war on Iran has not achieved anything except to destabilize the region further and impoverish the Iranian people. It is the cause of the current crisis with Iran, and were it not for this economic war we can reasonably assume that there would have been no attacks on tankers, pipelines, and possibly oil facilities in the last few months. As Pillar notes, the administration has shown Iran unrelenting hostility, and they have continued to apply one set of sanctions after another, and then the administration pretends that its own actions have not created the present mess. A smart administration would start lifting sanctions, but then a smart administration would never have imposed them in the first place.

Under no circumstances should the U.S. increase its involvement in Yemen and do more to devastate that country, as this former admiral has suggested that we do in an interview with Foreign Policy . The U.S. should have ended our involvement in the war on Yemen long ago. It is an ongoing disgrace that the administration continues to support and arm the governments that have been destroying and starving Yemen. Our involvement in the war is already unauthorized and illegal, and directly launching attacks alongside the Saudi coalition would make things even worse.

Deescalating tensions with Iran is the only sane way forward, so of course the only thing being seriously considered right now in Washington is a possible attack on Iran. It can't be stressed enough that the U.S. has no justification, legal or otherwise, to launch an attack on Iran. Not only is the U.S. not obliged to come to the defense of Saudi Arabia, but our government is bound by the U.N. Charter that prohibits using force against another state except in self-defense. No one can seriously claim that a U.S. strike on Iran right now would be anything other than an illegal attack in clear violation of international law.

Sid Finster • 5 hours ago

The only sane thing MBS can do is to declare defeat and withdraw from Yemen, tout suite .

The problem is that there is no way for him to do so without humiliation. Shame and honor are paramount in Saudi society, and MBS has just gotten a very nasty and very public punch in the nose. Anything less than brutal escalation, and his honor and prestige will be seriously damaged.

The Saudi tyrants are stuck in Yemen so deep, that they have little choice but to keep doubling down.

[Sep 16, 2019] This Wasn't How Trump's War on Iran Was Supposed to Go by David C. Hendrickson

Sep 17, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com

The U.S. thought it was cleverly choking the regime, but now it's clear that 'maximum pressure' goes both ways.

• The Saturday attack on Saudi oil facilities, which took 5.7 million barrels of oil per day offline, is the escalation that wasn't supposed to happen. Now that it has happened, we enter perilous new terrain.

America has blamed Iran and hinted at some sort of retaliation . Iran has denied responsibility, while the Houthis gladly take it. There are conflicting reports of where the missiles or drones were launched from, which we will learn more about in the coming days.

In the meantime, Trump is in a tight spot of his own making, with neither escalation nor retrenchment looking to be attractive options.

It is still uncertain when Saudi Aramco can get everything back on line. The attack showed sophistication. Critical nodes were hit. If the facilities are quickly repaired, that lessens the gravity of this event. The Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s showed the resiliency of oil installations, as Iraqi bombers pounded Kharg Island, where Iran exported much of its oil, yet the Iranians managed to keep the exports flowing. This suggests that a war of attrition today would be possible without major disruptions, though the impact of new technologies of attack and resistance makes any guess hazardous.

Advertisement

If past crises are any indication, a sustained loss of 5.7 million barrels per day, over five percent of world oil consumption, would likely quadruple oil prices. Strategic petroleum reserves can cover this to a certain extent: the U.S. system can pump 4.4 million barrels per day. But it would exhaust its reserves in 150 days at that pace. We do not know whether more strikes will be forthcoming or whether such efforts can be successfully suppressed with airpower or invigorated defenses. All we can say is that the great game has advanced to a new stage.

From the beginning, escalation has seemed the likely consequence of the Trump administration's decision to asphyxiate the Iranian regime by cutting off its ability to export oil. This was a declaration of economic war. That is the polite term, as it is an action every international lawyer on the planet, back in the day when these things mattered, would have called an act of war without any precious qualifiers.

It turns out that there may be some street cred to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani's assertion that if Iran isn't allowed to export oil, others will face obstacles too. Tit for tat. Got a quid? Here's a quo. The funny thing is that any significant threat to Saudi capacity creates a pressing need to get Iran's spare capacity onto the world market. As to which side now has more leverage, in a position to squeeze harder, that's a tough question. Putting it nicely, the Iranians can, if their will is stout, impose huge costs on the United States and the world economy. They would only consider that if pressed extremely hard, yet the United States has been pressing them extremely hard for over a year now.

Remember that the purpose of America's economic war on Iran was to force Iran to submit to 12 demands issued by Pharaoh Mike Pompeo in his edict delivered on May 21, 2018. It was really disappointing that Pompeo didn't raise the obvious thirteenth demand and insist that the embargo would not be lifted until an American regent was appointed in Tehran, taking the Islamic Revolution under neoliberal guidance until circumstances changed, after which Iranian democracy would be restored to its former lack of glory. That was implied, to be sure, but we didn't get much straight talk from Mr. Pompeo on that point.

This ultimatum was reminiscent of the demands that the Austro-Hungarians made on the Serbs on a certain date in 1914. Make them as extreme as you can, said the inspired diplomatists looking for war. World reaction was then unfavorable. Winston Churchill, in charge of Britain's navy, called it "the most insolent document of its kind ever devised." The resemblance to Pompeo's ultimatums hardly shows the imminence of a 1914-like crisis today, but there is a certain arrogance to both the U.S. warmongers and Austro-Hungarians. The Austrians got the war they were looking for; the neocons may yet get theirs.

Trump's renunciation of the Iran nuclear deal is mostly about Israel and its perceived security requirements. Not only must Iran not have a single nuclear weapon, it must not have the theoretical capability to produce a weapon, were the Iranians to break from their pledges under the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the JCPOA. This imposes a requirement on the Islamic Republic that no other medium-sized power has had to endure. That the Iranians are bearers of an ancient civilization makes the humiliation all the more painful. Those 12 demands were not designed to produce a settlement; they were designed to produce a crisis, as they now have done. Regime change lies back of them -- that or simply the immiseration of another Muslim country.

American policy toward Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, has recently been mostly about arms sales. People say all the time that the oil companies are the heavyweights in this drama. In fact, they are secondary. What has driven events in the recent past is the military-industrial complex salivating over the sales of high-priced and high-tech U.S. armaments to sheikdoms with money to burn. The MIC plunderers, like the Hollywood moguls, understand that you simply must have the foreign market to make the big profits. Politicians see such sales as a way of making our own arms purchases remotely affordable and thereby politically palatable. For these reasons, foreign arms sales to reprehensible characters is Washington's go-to move, a win-win for the plutocrats and the praetorians.

The United States acted under no prompting of national interest in so aiding and abetting the Saudi war in Yemen, but its hankering after all those lucrative contracts was just too much temptation. When the flesh is weak, as it seems to be in Washington, burning flesh is not a problem. Trump saw it as a great business deal and had no compunctions about the human fallout in Yemen. The Democrats -- a certain Democrat, especially -- did what was once said of Austrian Queen Maria Theresa after the Partition of Poland in 1772: "She wept, but she took."

The president may have outsmarted himself this time. He got rid of National Security Adviser John Bolton because he didn't like Bolton's across-the-board hawkish recommendations, but he signed on to the very big change in U.S. policy towards Iran that Bolton had recommended. Trump thought he was in control of the escalation. But when you declare your intention to asphyxiate another country, you've committed an act of war. Retaliation from the other side usually follows in some form or fashion. You can then advance to your ruin or retreat in ignominy.

Trump has threatened retaliation, but he surely does not want a big war with Iran. His supporters definitely do not want a war with Iran. Americans in general are opposed to a war with Iran. Mysteriously, however, the U.S. declaration of war on Iran in fact -- though not, of course, in name, heaven forbid -- escaped notice by the commentariat this past year. The swamp's seismograph doesn't record a reading when we violate the rules, but when the other guy does, it's 7.8 on the Richter Scale.

The whole drama, in a nutshell, is just the old-fashioned hubris of the imperial power, issuing its edicts, and genuinely surprised when it encounters resistance, even though such resistance confirms for the wunderkinds their view of the enemy's malevolence.

Is Trump trapped? That is the question of the hour. He faces strong pressure to do something in retaliation, but that something may aggravate the oil shock and imperil his re-election. As he dwells on that possibility, he will probably look for ways to back down. He will try to get out of the trap set by the U.S. economic war on Iran without abandoning the economic war on Iran. But that probably won't work; that was Iran's message over the weekend. Were he to abandon the economic war, however, he would get a ton of flak from both sides of the aisle in Congress. The commentators would scream "appeasement!" In Washington lobby-land, we'd be back to 1938 in a flash.

Does the president have the gumption to resist that tired line? I hope so.

David Hendrickson teaches history at Colorado College and is the author of Republic in Peril: American Empire and the Liberal Tradition.

[Sep 16, 2019] The continual plundering and looting of Iranian resources

Sep 16, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

camfree , 26 minutes ago link

Bibi is desperate for war with Iran to avoid election defeat and prison and Bolton is fired/resigns only to predict "Iranian deception" on the way out the door.

Insurrexion , 33 minutes ago link

Zeroes,

Re: $100/Bl Oil...

Today, Brent climbed as much as 12% towards $70 per barrel and the US crude oil rose 10% to nearly $61. Historically, Brent crude oil reached an all time high of 147.50 in July of 2008. Remember what happened next?

Qui Bono?

  • KSA, UAE, Qatar
  • Russia
  • US Oil Majors, State of Texas
  • OPEC
  • UK
  • Norway

Who suffers?

  • China
  • Japan
  • India
  • Transportation costs and cost of goods
  • Commuters costs
  • Heating costs going into winter
  • Airlines and air travel

Iraq, Libya, Venezuela and Iran are a mess and cannot produce to make a difference.

This will be the catalyst for the economic downturn.

attah-boy-Luther , 39 minutes ago link

Trumptards locked and loaded....sigh and now this:

https://www.henrymakow.com/2019/09/disgrace-canadas-theft-of-ir.html

So the continual plundering and looting of Iranian resources never ceases to amaze me.

[Sep 13, 2019] The Sacking of John Bolton by Binoy Kampmark

The key question is why Trump hired Bolton in the first place, not why he was sucked...
This guy is a reckless imperialist, staunch neocon and a war criminal. No person who promoted or voted in the Congress for Iraq war can held government or elected position. They are compromised for the rest of their miserable lifes.
Sep 13, 2019 | www.counterpunch.org

"Every time the president, or Pompeo, or anyone in the [Trump] administration came up with an idea, they had to face Dr No."

– Cliff Kupchan, Chairman of the Eurasia Group, The Washington Post , Sep 11, 2011.

[Sep 11, 2019] Better late than never Bolton's firing gives Trump a chance to heed his instincts Ron Paul

This is a bit like rearranging the chairs on the deck of Titanic.
The problem is we do not know who pressed Trump to appoint Bolton., Rumors were that it was Abelson. In this case nothing changed.
The other problem with making Bolton firing a significant move is the presence in White House other neocon warmongers. So one less doe not change the picture. For example Pompeo remains and he is no less warmongering neocon, MIC stooge, and no less subservant to Israel then Bolton.
Notable quotes:
"... Firing National Security Advisor John Bolton gives US President Donald Trump a chance to move foreign policy in a more peaceful direction – as long as he's not replaced with another hawk, former congressman Ron Paul told RT ..."
"... Bolton has "been a monkey-wrench in Donald Trump's policies of trying to back away from some of these conflicts around the world," Paul observed on Tuesday ..."
"... "Every time I think Trump is making progress, Bolton butts in and ruins it," Paul added. Negotiations with Afghanistan and talks with North Korea and Iran have reportedly been scuttled by his aggressive tendencies, with Pyongyang declaring him a "defective human product." ..."
"... "A lot of people here didn't even want his appointment, because he was only able to take a position that did not require Senate approval," Paul said, suggesting that perhaps the "Deep State" pressure had forced the president to keep Bolton around long past his sell-by date. ..."
"... As for whether Bolton's departure would change the White House's policy line significantly, though, Paul was less certain. "I don't think it will change a whole lot," he said, pointing out that "we have no idea" who will replace Bolton. Trump said he would make an announcement next week. ..."
Sep 11, 2019 | www.rt.com

Firing National Security Advisor John Bolton gives US President Donald Trump a chance to move foreign policy in a more peaceful direction – as long as he's not replaced with another hawk, former congressman Ron Paul told RT.

Bolton has "been a monkey-wrench in Donald Trump's policies of trying to back away from some of these conflicts around the world," Paul observed on Tuesday, after news of Bolton's dismissal from the White House. Also on rt.com Bolton out: Trump ditches hawkish adviser he kept for 18 months despite 'disagreements'

"Every time I think Trump is making progress, Bolton butts in and ruins it," Paul added. Negotiations with Afghanistan and talks with North Korea and Iran have reportedly been scuttled by his aggressive tendencies, with Pyongyang declaring him a "defective human product."

Foreign leaders weren't the only ones who had a problem with Trump's notoriously belligerent advisor, either.

"A lot of people here didn't even want his appointment, because he was only able to take a position that did not require Senate approval," Paul said, suggesting that perhaps the "Deep State" pressure had forced the president to keep Bolton around long past his sell-by date.

While the uber-hawk's firing came "later than it should be," Paul hoped it would clear the way for Trump to follow through on the America First, end-the-wars promises that won him so much support in 2016. "Those of us who would like less intervention, we're very happy with it."

Also on rt.com War and whiskers: Freshly-resigned John Bolton gets meme-roasting

As for whether Bolton's departure would change the White House's policy line significantly, though, Paul was less certain. "I don't think it will change a whole lot," he said, pointing out that "we have no idea" who will replace Bolton. Trump said he would make an announcement next week.

[Sep 11, 2019] The Guardian view on John Bolton: good riddance, but the problem is his boss

Notable quotes:
"... However satisfying it may be to see him leave, whoever is picked to succeed him may not be much of an improvement. No one should cheer the chaotic and dysfunctional nature of this administration. Its boss revels in divisions and factionalism among his staff, which allows him to continue governing by his whims, kneejerk reactions and vanity. ..."
"... It is more likely that he was fired because he dented his boss's ego than because his advice was so bad: Mr Trump liked Mr Bolton's bellicose style when he saw it on Fox News, not when it clashed with his own intentions. ..."
"... The national security adviser may have been the most ferocious of the voices urging Mr Trump to turn up the pressure on Iran, but he was certainly not alone . Mr Bolton's presence in the White House was frightening. But its continued occupation by the man who hired him is much more so. ..."
"... As far as Pompeo's "moderation" goes, don't expect anything moderate. But general mailiciousness and opportunism aside, as an evangelical he'll certainly get along perfectly with Pence. ..."
Sep 11, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.com

confusedponderer , 11 September 2019 at 07:11 AM

There is an nice article about his "Being fired by Don Donald / Nope, actually I quit myself" story:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/10/the-guardian-view-on-john-bolton-good-riddance-but-the-problem-is-his-boss

The Guardian view on John Bolton: good riddance, but the problem is his boss

Many will rightly celebrate the departure of the US national security adviser. But however welcome the news, it reflects the deeper problems with this administration

...

However satisfying it may be to see him leave, whoever is picked to succeed him may not be much of an improvement. No one should cheer the chaotic and dysfunctional nature of this administration. Its boss revels in divisions and factionalism among his staff, which allows him to continue governing by his whims, kneejerk reactions and vanity.

It is neither normal nor desirable for the national security adviser to be excluded from meetings about Afghanistan – even if it is a relief, when the individual concerned is (or was) Mr Bolton. It is more likely that he was fired because he dented his boss's ego than because his advice was so bad: Mr Trump liked Mr Bolton's bellicose style when he saw it on Fox News, not when it clashed with his own intentions.

The national security adviser may have been the most ferocious of the voices urging Mr Trump to turn up the pressure on Iran, but he was certainly not alone . Mr Bolton's presence in the White House was frightening. But its continued occupation by the man who hired him is much more so.

I read that the main drivers of getting him kicked or retire himself were Mnuchin and Pompeo, both afflicted by that nasty goofy smile disease. I am always happy when I see Mnuchin's hands on the table, eliminating one explanation for the smile.

There is that reported sentence about Bolton - that there is no problem for which war was not his solution. I read about similar sentence about Pompeo - that he has an IR seeker for Donald's ass.

That written, good riddance indeed. Likely, if Bolton had his way, the US would likely be at war with North Korea and Iran.

When I studied I was at the UNFCCC for a time during Bush Jr. presidency and talked about what Bolton did at the UN with my superior, a 20 year UN veteran.

A 'malicious saboteur arsonist' is a polite summary of what he did there directly and indirectly, and with given his flirt with MEK and regime change in Iran he has likely not changed at all.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/07/world/middleeast/john-bolton-regime-change-iran.html

As far as Pompeo's "moderation" goes, don't expect anything moderate. But general mailiciousness and opportunism aside, as an evangelical he'll certainly get along perfectly with Pence.

[Sep 11, 2019] Let us hope Pence is not consulted on Bolton's successor

Sep 11, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.com

catherine , 10 September 2019 at 08:48 PM

I don't usually find much value at the Atlantic but this article (written before Trump even fired Bolton) about Trump's FP timeline (and flip flops) and Bolton who was acting like he was President is very, very good.
It will allow Trump loyalist to more easily support Trump and give everyone else a tad bit of hope that Trump really won't go bonkers and start any wars.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/trump-tries-to-fix-his-foreign-policy-without-bolton/593284/

different clue , 11 September 2019 at 01:08 AM
Since President Trump appears to talk about things and stuff with Tucker Carlson, perhaps he should ask Tucker Carlson to spend a week thinking . . . and then offer the President some names and the reasoning for offering those names.

If the President asks the same Establishment who gave him Bolton, he will just be handed another Bolton. "Establishment" include Pence, who certainly supported Bolton's outlook on things and would certainly recommend another "Bolton" figure if asked. Let us hope Pence is not consulted on Bolton's successor.

confusedponderer said in reply to different clue... , 11 September 2019 at 09:10 AM
different clue,
re "Let us hope Pence is not consulted on Bolton's successor."

Understandable point of view but then, Trump still is Trump. He can just by himself and beyond advice easily find suboptimal solutions of his own.

Today I read that Richard Grenell was mentioned as a potential sucessor.

As far as that goes, go for it. Many people here will be happy when he "who always only sais what the Whitehouse sais" is finally gone.

And with Trump's biggest military budget in the world he can just continue the arms sale pitches that are and were such a substantial part of his job as a US ambassador in Germany.

That said, they were that after blathering a lot about that we should increase our military budget by 2%, 4%, 6% or 10%, buy US arms, now, and of course the blathering about Northstream 1 & 2 and "slavedom to russian oil & gas" and rather buy US frack gas of course.

He could then also take a side job for the fracking industry in that context. And buy frack gas and arms company stocks. Opportunities, opportunities ...

[Sep 10, 2019] Is John Bolton's Time Up

Notable quotes:
"... But Bolton coupled the Fox and AEI sinecures with gnarlier associations -- for one, the Gatestone Institute, a, let's say Islam-hostile outfit, associated with the secretive, influential Mercer billionaires. ..."
"... Bolton appeared the leading light of a neoconservative revival, of sorts, until he didn't. ..."
"... It doesn't matter whether Bolton's "time is up" or not, because his departure wouldn't change anything. If he goes, Trump will replace him with some equally slimy neocon interventionist. ..."
"... It won't end until we muck out the White House next year. Dumping Trump is Job One. ..."
"... Oh. Yes. You want to get rid of Trump's partially neocon administration, so that you could replace it with your own, entirely neocon one. Wake me up when the DNC starts allowing people like Tulsi Gabbard to get nominated. But they won't. So your party will just repeat its merry salsa on the same set of rakes as in 2016. ..."
Sep 10, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com

No major politician, not even Barack Obama, excoriated the Iraq war more fiercely than did Trump during the primaries. He did this in front of a scion of the house of Bush and in the deep red state of South Carolina. He nevertheless went on to win that primary, the Republican nomination and the presidency on that antiwar message.

And so, to see Bolton ascend to the commanding heights of the Trump White House shocked many from the time it was first rumored. "I shudder to think what would happen if we had a failed presidency," Scott McConnell, TAC' s founding editor, said in late 2016 at our foreign policy conference, held, opportunely, during the presidential transition. "I mean, John Bolton?"

At the time, Bolton was a candidate for secretary of state, a consideration scuttled in no small part because of the opposition of Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul. As McConnell wrote in November of that year: "Most of the upper-middle-level officials who plotted the Iraq War have retreated quietly into private life, but Bolton has kept their flame alive." Bolton had already been passed over for NSA, losing out early to the doomed Michael Flynn. Rex Tillerson beat him for secretary of state. Bolton was then passed over for the role of Tillerson's deputy. When Flynn flamed out of the White House the following February, Trump chose a general he didn't know at all, H.R. McMaster, to replace him.

Bolton had been trying to make a comeback since late 2006, after failing to hold his job as U.N. ambassador (he had only been a recess appointment). His landing spots including a Fox News contributorship and a post at the vaunted American Enterprise Institute. Even in the early days of the Trump administration, Bolton was around, and accessible. I remember seeing him multiple times in Washington's Connecticut Avenue corridor, decked out in the seersucker he notoriously favors during the summer months. Paired with the familiar mustache, the man is the Mark Twain of regime change.

But Bolton coupled the Fox and AEI sinecures with gnarlier associations -- for one, the Gatestone Institute, a, let's say Islam-hostile outfit, associated with the secretive, influential Mercer billionaires. He also struck a ferocious alliance with the Center for Security Policy, helmed by the infamous Frank Gaffney, and gave paid remarks to the National Council for the Resistance of Iran, the lynchpin organization of the People's Mujahideen of Iran, or MEK. The latter two associations have imbued the spirit of this White House, with Gaffney now one of the most underrated power players in Washington, and the MEK's "peaceful" regime change mantra all but the official line of the administration.

More than any of these gigs, Bolton benefited from two associations that greased the wheels for his joining the Trump administration.

The first was Steve Bannon, the former White House chief strategist. If you want to understand the administration's Iran policy under Bolton to date, look no further than a piece by the then-retired diplomat in conservative mainstay National Review in August 2017, days after Bannon's departure from the White House: "How to Get Out of the Iran Deal." Bolton wrote the piece at Bannon's urging. Even out of the administration, the former Breitbart honcho was an influential figure.

"We must explain the grave threat to the U.S. and our allies, particularly Israel," said Bolton. "The [Iran Deal's] vague and ambiguous wording; its manifest imbalance in Iran's direction; Iran's significant violations; and its continued, indeed, increasingly, unacceptable conduct at the strategic level internationally demonstrate convincingly that [the Iran deal] is not in the national-security interests of the United States."

Then Bolton, as I documented , embarked on a campaign of a media saturation to make a TV-happy president proud. By May Day the next year, he would have a job, a big one, and one that Senator Paul couldn't deny him: national security advisor. That wasn't the whole story, of course. Bolton's ace in the hole was Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire casino magnate who has helped drive Trump's Israel policy. If Trump finally moves against Bolton, it will likely be because Adelson failed to strenuously object.

So will Trump finally do it? Other than White House chief of staff, a position Mick Mulvaney has filled in an acting capacity for the entire calendar year, national security advisor is the easiest, most senior role to change horses.

A bombshell Washington Post story lays out the dire truth: Bolton is so distrusted on the president's central prerogatives, for instance Afghanistan, that he's not even allowed to see sensitive plans unsupervised.

Bolton has also come into conflict with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, according to three senior State Department officials. Pompeo is the consummate politician. Though an inveterate hawk, the putative Trump successor does not want to be the Paul Wolfowitz of the Iran war. Bolton is a bureaucratic arsonist, agnostic on the necessity of two of the institutions he served in -- Foggy Bottom and the United Nations. Pompeo, say those around him, is keen to be beloved, or at least tolerated, by career officials in his department, in contrast with Bolton and even Tillerson.

The real danger Bolton poses is to the twin gambit Trump hopes to pull off ahead of, perhaps just ahead of, next November -- a detente deal with China to calm the markets and ending the war in Afghanistan. Over the weekend, the president announced a scuttled meeting with the Taliban at Camp David, which would have been an historic, stunning summit. Bolton was reportedly instrumental in quashing the meet. Still, there is a lot of time between now and next autumn, and the cancellation is likely the latest iteration of the president's showman diplomacy.

Ending America's longest war would be a welcome rebuttal to Democrats who will, day in and day out, charge that Trump is a fraud. But to do so, he will likely need a national security advisor more in sync with the vision. Among them: Tucker Carlson favorite Douglas Macgregor, Stephen Biegun, the runner-up previously, or the hawkish, but relatively pragmatic retired General Jack Keane.

Bolton seems to be following the well-worn trajectory of dumped Trump deputies. Jeff Sessions, a proto-Trump and the first senator to endorse the mogul, became attorney general and ideological incubator of the new Right's agenda only to become persona non grata in the administration. The formal execution came later. Bannon followed a less dramatic, but no less explosive ebb and flow. James Mattis walked on water until he didn't.

And Bolton appeared the leading light of a neoconservative revival, of sorts, until he didn't.

Curt Mills is senior writer

Laurelite • a day ago
"Pompeo is the consummate politician."

You confuse "politician" and "liar" here, whereas he is "consummate" at neither politics nor lying. His politicking has been as botched as his diplomacy; his lying has been prodigious but transparent.

Taras77 • a day ago
Bolton has been on the way out now for how many months? I will believe this welcome news when I see his sorry ___ out the door.
I think much of America and the world will feel the same way.
Bordentown • a day ago
It doesn't matter whether Bolton's "time is up" or not, because his departure wouldn't change anything. If he goes, Trump will replace him with some equally slimy neocon interventionist.

It won't end until we muck out the White House next year. Dumping Trump is Job One.

Alex (the one that likes Ike) Bordentown • 19 hours ago • edited
Oh. Yes. You want to get rid of Trump's partially neocon administration, so that you could replace it with your own, entirely neocon one. Wake me up when the DNC starts allowing people like Tulsi Gabbard to get nominated. But they won't. So your party will just repeat its merry salsa on the same set of rakes as in 2016.

[Sep 10, 2019] Trump Fires John Bolton After Disagreeing Strongly With His Suggestions

Trump whole administration is just a bunch of rabid neocons who will be perfectly at home (and some were) in Bush II administration. So firing of Bolton while a step in the right direction is too little, too late.
Notable quotes:
"... Whatever the reason for Bolton's departure, this means one less warmongering neocon is left in the DC swamp, and is a prudent and long overdue move by Trump, one which even Trump's liberals enemies will have no choice but to applaud. ..."
"... Ending America's longest war would be a welcome rebuttal to Democrats who will, day in and day out, charge that Trump is a fraud. But to do so, he will likely need a national security advisor more in sync with the vision. Among them: Tucker Carlson favorite Douglas Macgregor, Stephen Biegun, the runner-up previously, or the hawkish, but relatively pragmatic retired General Jack Keane. ..."
"... War-mongering Ziocons - 0; Peace-loving Humanity - 1 ..."
Sep 10, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

While there was some feverish speculation as to what an impromptu presser at 1:30pm with US Secretary of State Pompeo, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin and National Security Adviser Bolton would deliver, that was quickly swept aside moments later when Trump unexpectedly announced that he had effectively fired Bolton as National Security Advisor, tweeting that he informed John Bolton "last night that his services are no longer needed at the White House" after " disagreeing strongly with many of his suggestions. "

... ... ...

Whatever the reason for Bolton's departure, this means one less warmongering neocon is left in the DC swamp, and is a prudent and long overdue move by Trump, one which even Trump's liberals enemies will have no choice but to applaud.

While we await more details on this strike by Trump against the military-industrial complex-enabling Deep State, here is a fitting closer from Curt Mills via the American Conservative:

Ending America's longest war would be a welcome rebuttal to Democrats who will, day in and day out, charge that Trump is a fraud. But to do so, he will likely need a national security advisor more in sync with the vision. Among them: Tucker Carlson favorite Douglas Macgregor, Stephen Biegun, the runner-up previously, or the hawkish, but relatively pragmatic retired General Jack Keane.

Bolton seems to be following the well-worn trajectory of dumped Trump deputies. Jeff Sessions, a proto-Trump and the first senator to endorse the mogul, became attorney general and ideological incubator of the new Right's agenda only to become persona non grata in the administration. The formal execution came later. Bannon followed a less dramatic, but no less explosive ebb and flow. James Mattis walked on water until he didn't.

And Bolton appeared the leading light of a neoconservative revival, of sorts, until he didn't.

White Nat , 9 minutes ago link

War-mongering Ziocons - 0; Peace-loving Humanity - 1

[Sep 10, 2019] Bolton mioght be consistent and sincere. But he remains a rabid warmonger, who serves Israeli interests.

Notable quotes:
"... Yeah, consistency may be nice, but what about the actual substance of what Bolton believes and does? ..."
"... Personally, I'm not interested in trying to starve Iran into submission or attack it on behalf of Israel. And I would be interested in actually pursuing a meaningful attempt to resolve the Korea issue. Bolton is not only on the wrong side of these issues, he is in general the principal malign force pushing foreign policy insanity in this administration (as opposed to Adelson et all pushing policy insanity from outside the administration.) ..."
"... Heinrich Himmler also was consistent and sincere. By your logic, that must mean that Himmler was a credit to the Nazi regime. ..."
"... You can't serve a president well if you're constantly at odds with him. The Commander-in-Chief has to have his or her own mind about things, advisors are there to advise. If you want to do one thing but you're being counseled to do otherwise, what purpose does such a relationship serve? ..."
"... It was clearly Adelson and his ilk who got Bolton hired in the first place when Trump had initially been unimpressed. In "Fire and Fury," Steve Bannon allegedly says that Trump didn't think Bolton looked the part of NSA. And it's even more significant that Adelson and others of a similar cast--e.g., Safra Catz, the dual-national CEO of Oracle-- engineered a whispering campaign against McMaster that paved the way for what was effectively his firing. ..."
"... Bolton's ace in the hole was Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire casino magnate who has helped drive Trump's Israel policy ..."
"... Besides, it's not like Bolton was a military man, he openly acknowledges that he didn't want to go and 'die on some rice paddy' in Vietnam. But, he's willing to send other people's kids to fight and die in some pointless show of geopolitical power, If he goes, good riddance. ..."
"... Israel and to a lesser extent Saudi Arabia drive Trump's Iran policy, and Pompeo is their messenger. ..."
Sep 10, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Steve Smith EliteCommInc. • 19 hours ago • edited

"I have to think that NSA Bolton actually believes what he advocates."

There are and have been lots of people who believe what they advocate--Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Robespierre, and the Neoconservatives in general among them.

Yeah, consistency may be nice, but what about the actual substance of what Bolton believes and does?

Personally, I'm not interested in trying to starve Iran into submission or attack it on behalf of Israel. And I would be interested in actually pursuing a meaningful attempt to resolve the Korea issue. Bolton is not only on the wrong side of these issues, he is in general the principal malign force pushing foreign policy insanity in this administration (as opposed to Adelson et all pushing policy insanity from outside the administration.)

Sorry, but Bolton's "service" sure ain't appreciated by me!

Sid Finster EliteCommInc. • 19 hours ago
"He's consistent and sincere!" in that cause of evil, yes.

Heinrich Himmler also was consistent and sincere. By your logic, that must mean that Himmler was a credit to the Nazi regime.

Steve Smith Sid Finster • 19 hours ago
We are obviously thinking along the same lines.
EliteCommInc. Sid Finster • 8 hours ago
Hyperbole much I see. If you want to honestly assess someone, you might want to avoid that tact. To my knowledge NSA Bolton is not building concentration camps to send undesirables to an early grave.

I would be curious what you know about what his agenda is or why.

EdMan EliteCommInc. • 18 hours ago
You can't serve a president well if you're constantly at odds with him. The Commander-in-Chief has to have his or her own mind about things, advisors are there to advise. If you want to do one thing but you're being counseled to do otherwise, what purpose does such a relationship serve?

Bolton was the wrong man for the job.

gdpbull • 20 hours ago • edited
Nah, they (Bolton and all the neocons) are celebrating the death of another American soldier killed in a suicide attack just prior to a planned peace summit with the Taliban. The Taliban and the neocons are two sides that deserve each other, but at the cost of many innocents.

Its easy to depose any third world government with our military, but one cannot eradicate an ideology with today's humanitarian standards. So we should just leave and tell the Taliban they can even take power in Afghanistan again, but if they harbor any groups that want to attack our country, we'll be back. It only takes a month or so to depose a third world government. Then we leave again. We can do this over and over again and it'll be way cheaper than leaving troops there and many fewer casualties.

The Rocket Man gdpbull • 15 hours ago
I don't think Bolton will be in there for the rest of Trump's presidency. Presidential appointments rarely ever last through the whole administration. Now I'm not when he goes cause anyone's guess is as good as mine. And will policy actually change for the better or remain the same?
Sid Finster • 19 hours ago
" If only the Tsar knew how wicked his advisers are! "

We've been hearing of Bolton's imminent demise since the time Trump appointed the unindicted criminal, and to a position that isn't subject to Congressional advice and consent.

Bolton is still in office, still making policy, still stovepiping "intelligence" to Trump, still plotting away like Grima Wormtongue.

If Trump wasn't so close to Bolton, why was he in regular contact with the man before appointing him, and why does he allow Bolton to control what information Trump gets?

And if you read the latest news, it seems that the occupation of Afghanistan isn't going anywhere either. Bolton wins again, but some writers at TAC keep holding out hope for Trump.

Steve Smith • 19 hours ago
"If Trump finally moves against Bolton, it will likely be because Adelson failed to strenuously object."

Well, isn't that nice? Trump's decision on whether to keep or fire his national security advisor depends on the whim of the hideous, Israel-uber-alles ideologue Adelson. That sure makes me feel good. (And by the way, Curt Mills, this is called burying the lede.)

Of course it's only logical. It was clearly Adelson and his ilk who got Bolton hired in the first place when Trump had initially been unimpressed. In "Fire and Fury," Steve Bannon allegedly says that Trump didn't think Bolton looked the part of NSA. And it's even more significant that Adelson and others of a similar cast--e.g., Safra Catz, the dual-national CEO of Oracle-- engineered a whispering campaign against McMaster that paved the way for what was effectively his firing.

This piece misses what's important about the Trump administration's foreign/security policy saga and reduces it to a mere matter of personalities and petty politics. File this under the heading of discretion being the better part of valor.

Countee Cullen • 18 hours ago
"Bolton's ace in the hole was Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire casino magnate who has helped drive Trump's Israel policy. If Trump finally moves against Bolton, it will likely be because Adelson failed to strenuously object."

So -- Ilhan Omar was right??? I thought she was a vile anti-Semite echoing an ancient slur!!

Carl Jacobson • 8 hours ago
If Bolton does leave, I won't be sorry to see him go. Bolton's Hawkish opinions are dangerous to the US' economic health.

Want to go into a deep Recession? Start another long-term foreign war that goes on for decades - and do it on credit, AGAIN.

Besides, it's not like Bolton was a military man, he openly acknowledges that he didn't want to go and 'die on some rice paddy' in Vietnam. But, he's willing to send other people's kids to fight and die in some pointless show of geopolitical power, If he goes, good riddance.

Into Night • 6 hours ago
The photo accompanying the article sums it up. Pompeo flanked by an American flag, and both of them dwarfed by a huge projection of the flag of Israel.

Israel and to a lesser extent Saudi Arabia drive Trump's Iran policy, and Pompeo is their messenger.

[Sep 10, 2019] Consistency may be nice, but what about the actual substance of what Bolton believes and does?

Sep 10, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Steve Smith EliteCommInc. • 19 hours ago • edited

"I have to think that NSA Bolton actually believes what he advocates."

There are and have been lots of people who believe what they advocate--Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Robespierre, and the Neoconservatives in general among them.

Yeah, consistency may be nice, but what about the actual substance of what Bolton believes and does?

... ... ...

Sid Finster EliteCommInc. • 19 hours ago
"He's consistent and sincere!" in that cause of evil, yes.

Heinrich Himmler also was a. consistent. and sincere. By your logic, that must mean that Himmler was a credit to the Nazi regime.

[Sep 10, 2019] With Iran the USA repeating mistakes it made with North Koria

Sep 10, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Harry Law , Sep 9 2019 23:21 utc | 15

G W Bush was responsible for North Korea developing nuclear weapons, the North Koreans did a deal whereby the US would supply several light water reactors and 500,000 tons of oil per year in exchange for NK not pursuing its nuclear program, the US accused the Koreans of cheating [with no proof] and cancelled the agreement, thinking that sanctions and military pressure would force Korea to capitulate. North Korea then decided to go nuclear. That same US mistake is happening again with Iran, US hubris is on full display,but this time Iran has the 'arc of resistance. on its side plus Russia and China. Trump will not go back to the JCPOA it is not in his nature, the only thing we can hope for is a Trump defeat at the next election, and hope an adult wins.

SteveK9 , Sep 9 2019 23:47 utc | 16

Harry Law #15. Harry, have you seen the people running for the Democratic nomination? Hope is not a word I would use. Gabbard at least wants peace, but she will not be allowed to win the nomination (she is too young in any case). And if by some miracle she were to be nominated and win, she would not be allowed to carry out her own goals for peace. She would be defeated or failing that, killed. As would anyone who really went up against the most powerful political party in America, the War Party.

[Sep 09, 2019] Are Iran sanctions effective?

Sep 09, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

... ... ...

PATRICK COCKBURN: I'm a bit doubtful about it. They have done a certain amount, this offer of a $15 billion credit line, to make up for the loss of Iranian oil revenue It was a French idea originally, but they are asking Iran to step right back into the old nuclear deal, but the Iranians are not likely to do that while they're subject to US sanctions. US sanctions and the sanctioning of European companies or banks that deal with Iran, basically means that Iran is facing an economic siege.

So these are maneuvers. The Iranians want to show they're being kind of moderate. They want to preserve this deal as they do. At the same time, they don't want to look as though they're pushovers, that sanctions are squeezing them to death, and they've got no alternative but to give up. This would be to surrender to what Trump calls the policy of maximum pressure. I think we're a long way from any real agreement on this. It's still escalating. GREG WILPERT: Iran also just recently announced that it is releasing seven of the 23 crew members it is holding of a Swedish-owned, but British-registered tanker that Iran had seized last July. Iran's Revolutionary Guard seized that tanker in retaliation for the British seizing an Iranian tanker near Gibraltar in early July, but the Iranian tanker has now been released. Now, how do you see the situation of these tankers evolving? Could such seizures of oil tankers eventually lead to an escalation and to even war?

PATRICK COCKBURN: Yes, they could. This is sort of a game of chicken. As you said, it started off on the 4th of July when the British rather melodramatically dropped 30 Royal Marine commandos on the deck of this vessel saying, "It was heading for Syria. This had nothing to do with sanctions on Iran, but was a breach of sanctions on Syria imposed by the EU." This never sounded right because it's a peculiar moment for Britain to suddenly put such energy into enforcing EU sanctions, when we all know that Britain is trying to leave the EU at the moment. There's a great political crisis here in Britain about this. This looked as though it was on the initiative of Washington. Then, as was inevitable, the Iranians retaliated against British-flagged vessels in the Gulf. There was an escalation that seems to have died down at the moment.

As I see it, the Iranian policy is to maintain pressure by sort of pinprick attacks. There were some small mines placed on oil tankers of the United Arab Emirates. Then when we had the shooting down of the American drone, a whole series of events to show that they're not frightened, that they can retaliate, but not bring it up to the level of war. That's sort of the way the Iranians often react to this sort of thing, with some covert military measures and to create an atmosphere of crisis, but not bring a war about.

Of course, once you start doing this, it could slip over the edge of the cliff at any moment. The Iranians did a sort of mirror image of the British takeover of their tanker when they took over the British tanker crew, which are just being released, as you mentioned. They dropped 30 commandos on the deck. There was a British Naval vessel not so far away, not far enough to stop this, but let's say that Naval vessel had been closer. Would they have opened fire on a helicopter dropping these 30 Iranian commandos on the boat? That would have brought us – would have been a war, and could have very rapidly escalated. We're always on, as I said, the edge of the cliff in the Gulf with each side sort of daring the other to go further.

PATRICK COCKBURN: Well, it's falling apart by inches, but there's still quite a long way to go on that. I think the one thing that has emerged is that the US, Trump and Iran, don't want war. At one time, the US was calling on – some of its senior officials were calling for a regime change. How far do they really believe this? When Trump decided not to retaliate for the drone being shot down, that shows that he wants to rely on sanctions on this sort of very intense economic siege of Iran, but I don't think the Iranians are going to come running. Once they know there isn't going to be an all-out war, they'll try to sustain these sanctions, and the situation isn't quite as desperate as it looks. Obviously, they're suffering a lot. On the other hand, they're not isolated. China and Russia give them a measure of support.

The EU, rather pathetically, says it's trying to maintain the nuclear deal of 2015, but it's rather underlining the political and military weakness of the EU that they haven't been able to do much about it. Big companies are too frightened of US sanctions against them if they have any relations with Iran. So the Europeans aren't coming well out of it. Obviously, their relations with Trump are pretty frosty. They also probably don't think it's worth a really big crisis between the EU, the European states, and America on this issue, but they are looking pretty feeble at the moment.

Tom Pfotzer , September 8, 2019 at 8:28 am

There's one thing that continues to puzzle me about the sanctions.

My understanding of these sanctions is that they are designed to prevent the Iranians from importing certain goods from Western countries, and prevent export of and payments for Iranian goods to Western countries.

Why are these sanctions effective?

Iran has demonstrated that they can manufacture. They have open trading relations with Russian and China, which gives them access to materials and manufactures they might not be able to source within Iran.

They can trade oil for goods, and that oil can readily be absorbed by China or re-packaged and sold by Russia if it chose to. Both Russia and China are highly motivated to bypass the SWIFT payments system.

Both Russia and China have a roughly analagous situation re: trade with the West, and they have been coping with it for over a decade in the case of Russia, somewhat less for China.

Why isn't Iran re-directing external purchasing toward domestic sources, and using that pressure as a means to build their internal economic capacity?

What am I missing?

ambrit , September 8, 2019 at 10:29 am

My two cents worth.
Alas, this is now a sort of, kind of, globalized economic system. Even prior to the 'Neo-Liberal Dispensation,' the world had international trade in raw materials and some manufactured goods. As a side effect of this, internal national development of all sorts of materials and merchandise languished. Why build an expensive factory or mine to get something when you could buy it cheaper overseas? Where your idea has merit is in 'national security' goods production. The things that make a country 'safe' should be sourced, if at all possible, at home, where supply can be protected and controlled.

The second point I'd like to stress is how that oil is paid for and delivered. If I read aright, most Persian oil is shipped to the end user. Thus, control of the seaways and vessles plying same is crucial. That's why these somewhat symbolic oil tanker 'grabs' are important. This demonstrates to the world at large one's ability to control the trans-shipment of oil, from anywhere, to anywhere. The seizure of the oil transit ships was a message to the entire oil using world: "We can shut down your economy whenever we want." As Lambert sometimes quotes from Frank Herbert: "The power to destroy a thing is the absolute control over it."

The replacement of the SWIFT system would free the world from American economic thuggery. When oil is finally priced, in significant amounts anyway, in something other than American dollars, then will the world economy begin to regain equitability.

Tom Pfotzer , September 8, 2019 at 1:10 pm

Of course if the option of trade is available, it's in everyone's interest to trade, under the "caparative advantage" principle which underlies the dogma of free trade.

However, there isn't free trade for Iran, China, Russia, N. Korea, etc. So, they have to improvise. Some countries, like China, are re-directing trade inwards. If Google won't license the Android OS to Huawei, for example, Huawei makes their own smart phone OS.

So the question becomes "why hasn't Iran instituted a crash program to build Iran-based companies to enable Iran to substitute Iran-manufactured/sourced products for ones formerly obtained abroad?

Russia and China have both done this very successfully, and there are many economic as well as "security" reasons to do it.

With respect to the "selling oil to end-users .vs. to brokers" the end-user would probably prefer to buy direct from the source, to cut out the middle-man's fee. I don't see how that presents an obstacle to buying Iran's oil.

Lastly, if it's a question of whether or not the oil can be delivered, the rest of the world won't side with the U.S. if we seize cargoes on the high seas. That's what the fiasco with the Grace 1 demonstrated. Furthermore, the sales contract could simply specify that the goods are to be picked up dockside @ Iran, transferring the transport risk to the buyer (e.g. China, for ex). Nobody is going to hijack a Chinese oil freighter.

Please rebut / add your 2c.

Lastly

ambrit , September 8, 2019 at 1:48 pm

Another farthings worth of comment.
For the last point, I see two possibilities. First, the Neocons in Washington may not care what the rest of the world thinks, under the (fallacious) assumption that America IS the world. Second, the 'disruptions' of oil sea transport can be carried out by "arms length" third parties, viz. the recent spate of tanker 'minings' in the Persian Gulf being 'sourced' to dissident elements within the Arab world. So, some "Somali Pirates" would be the obvious choice for 'hijackings' of Chinese flagged tankers, or "Yemeni Pirates," or "Baluch Pirates," etc. etc.
In reference to other points you raise, there is a lag time in the implementation of industrial policy. During WW2, America already had heavy industry available for war production. The lag time was determined by the length of time needed for retooling of those extant factories. When there is no extant heavy industry plant available, the lag time becomes much longer. Having worked in commercial construction during my life, I attest that planning, preparing for, and building industrial capacity, takes years. Iran could well be in the middle of an industrial building phase right now. Add to the usual worries attendant to industrial construction the worry of some outside hostile actor coming over and bombing your shiny new factory back to rubble and you have added a new layer of complexity to the endeavour. Air defense for industrial base has not usually been part of an average country's economic planning regime.
One reason I can think of as to why Russia and China have embarked on an "internalization" program way in advance of, say, Iran's is that the two former State Socialist countries have weathered nearly a centuries worth of hostility, both rhetorical and military, emanating from the West. Their latest 'internalization' programs could be the result of several generations worth of institutional memory residing within the nomenklaturas of the two states.
Iran, on the other hand, has had an up and down relationship with the West.
At one time, a client state of the West, at another, in a fiercely nationalistic confrontation with the West, in both regimes, a trading partner with the West as far as oil goes.
The promise of present day Iran for the world in general is that it is finally trying to forge an independent self-identity. Someone in power in the West must realize that, if Iran slips the leash of the West, then other countries will follow. Nothing less than Western Hegemony is at stake.

drumlin woodchuckles , September 8, 2019 at 5:51 pm

Or if oil is progressively transcended and deleted from more and more of the world's energy portfolio.
That would give those who "don't need oil anymore" some new post-petro freedom of action.

ambrit , September 8, 2019 at 5:57 pm

One area where oil will be needed for the foreseeable future is in the lubrication of moving parts. I have yet to see a true "Buckey Ball" lubricant on the market.

Odysseus , September 8, 2019 at 11:17 pm

+1

jefemt , September 8, 2019 at 9:14 am

Good question. No answers here, but another observation and question:

While I don't endorse it, what about the legitimacy of Nation-states to pursue their best interest, and the implied hubris/ arrogance that counters with actions and policy precluding that autonomy? The Great Game ™?

Cuba blockades. They have done pretty well, despite nearly 70 years of very harsh blockade. Look how much the US has punished the least amongst the Cuban human beings, some for their entire life

Venezuela?

North Korea and Iran aspire to have the ultimate WMD. Why does the US get to have the say? My measuring stick senses that the US hardly holds the moral high ground.

Then, the counter-point that we have never tried in the recent history of man–global cooperation and no more war. The image of our earth floating in space, the big blue marble, akin to a Star Trek enterprise ship, with all of the war-ing beyond-memory enemies all on board. Give every deck and wing some nukes. Avail them with the information on how to conserve and create renewable energy, to grow and put food by, to access clean drinking water, modest but efficient shelter, and access to books, education, and the arts. Awareness of ecology, full life cycle of plants, animals, and man-made products. The experiment that we must ever allow. Sharing.

The whole thing makes my head spin.

synoia , September 8, 2019 at 11:20 am

Iran must import, and to pay fpr imports must export oil.

The US prevents trade by sanctioning any bank who finances trade with Iran in dolllars.

Oregoncharles , September 8, 2019 at 2:13 pm

The big question in my mind is, why does the rest of the world allow that sort of bullying, or more to the point, allow themselves to be vulnerable to it? Somebody's been careless. We now see both Russia and China taking steps to be more autarkic, and even the EU waking up to the danger. It may be they just haven't had time to develop new institutions.

Haydar Khan , September 8, 2019 at 4:26 pm

They are working on it.

https://www.juancole.com/2019/09/defies-investment-troops.html

drumlin woodchuckles , September 8, 2019 at 5:47 pm

The rest-of-the-world could straight-up GIVE Iran the survival-critical things that Iran would otherwise have to import. The rest of the world could do that in return for Iran staying in the agreement till the next American election. This would give everyone time to see if America would elect a pro-deal-ante Democrat to the Presidency.

( This would require the rest of the world to actually be willing to give Iran that kind of c"cold-war-support" aid till the American election. It would also require the IranGov to be willing to stay in the agreement until the American election results shake out. It would need a lot of people to be willing to take a lot of slow long-term chances. Would everyone involved be willing to do that in a harmonized way?)

drumlin woodchuckles , September 8, 2019 at 5:42 pm

The EU LeaderLords have no bravery and no taste for conflict with the TrumpAdmin. Not only will they not lift a fear-quivering finger to save the accords, they will not even buy and donate to Iran the goods and services Iran would need to survive until the next American election.

It is too bad that Rouhani ( and his boss the Supreme Leader Khamenei) cannot have a remote long-distance Vulcan mind-meld with the DemParty nominee-wannabes in this country. Because if they could have such a remote long-distance Vulcan mind-meld, here is what they might well decide. Every DemParty nominee-wannabe would PROMise ( and MEAN IT) to take America right back into the JCPOA if elected, and to rescind every re-sanction that the TrumpAdmin imposed. And Rouhani ( at Supreme Leaders's direction) would agree to keep Iran "in" the JCPOA till the winner of the American Presidential election were announced. Maybe such a remote mind-meld agreement openly and overtly stated might raise the chances of a DemParty victory and lower the chances of an Iran-America war.

[Sep 07, 2019] US Sanctions Are Designed to Kill

Sep 07, 2019 | economistsview.typepad.com

anne , September 05, 2019 at 05:34 PM

http://cepr.net/publications/op-eds-columns/us-sanctions-are-designed-to-kill

September 1, 2019

US Sanctions Are Designed to Kill
By Kevin Cashman and Cavan Kharrazian

Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif recently visited the Group of Seven (G7) at the invitation of French president Emmanuel Macron, in what was seen as an overture to the Trump administration to negotiate over sanctions that have plagued the Iranian economy. Back in 2018, after months of increasingly hostile rhetoric, the US government withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or "Iran Deal," and imposed a "maximum pressure" campaign that included unilateral, economy-wide sanctions. The Iran Deal was an agreement that provided Iran relief from existing sanctions in exchange for limits on its enrichment of uranium, among other concessions. These sanctions hampered trade between the European Union, whose leaders have sought to salvage the Iran Deal.

When President Trump reimposed sanctions in November 2018, it cut off Iran's oil exports and access to the international financial system. At the time, he announced that Iran could comply with new US demands or face "economic isolation." Additional US sanctions issued since then have specifically targeted a thousand individuals and entities with the goal of reducing Iran's oil revenues to "zero." More recently, Trump said that although "[Iran's] economy is crashing...it's very easy to straighten [it] out or it's very easy for us to make it a lot worse."

And so, according to Trump himself, the United States has the power to solve -- or exacerbate -- Iran's current economic problems. What is left unsaid, including by much of the media, is that sanctions that "crash" the economy are an attack on the country's civilian population and create widespread human misery. Indeed, they appear to be contributing to widespread shortages of medicine and medical equipment, particularly affecting cancer patients. In Venezuela, which is under a similar US sanctions regime, there have been similar effects, with more than 40,000 people estimated to have died from 2017 to 2018 due to the "collective punishment" inflicted on them.

Yet other statements from US administration officials often contend that sanctions have negligible economic or social effects on the general population of Iran. For example, the US State Department's special representative for Iran, Brian Hook, recently denied that US sanctions on Iran affect the availability of medicine and agricultural products. In this argument, Hook divorces the connection between the economic damage caused by sanctions in Iran and the lack of basic necessities like medicine and food, preferring to instead lay blame on the Iranian government, not what the Trump administration calls "targeted" sanctions.

Are the sanctions causing Iran's economic problems, or simply a way to punish individual actors? Answering this question requires an examination of the impact sanctions have on Iran's economy and the mechanisms by which sanctions work -- two important areas of inquiry that seldom receive attention in the US press.

Sanctions are severely impacting Iran's oil production

Looking at Iran's oil sector, which has been directly targeted by the sanctions regime, is a good way to get a sense of how the sanctions have affected the country's economy, which remains dependent on the production and export of oil, according to a number of indicators. For example, around 70 percent of Iran's merchandise exports consists of fuel. Although this dependence on oil production has decreased over the last decade, in large part due to government efforts to diversify the economy, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) reported in March 2018 (before the announcement of the resumption of US sanctions) that oil revenues accounted for nearly 40 percent of government revenues in fiscal year 2016–17, and projected a similar number for fiscal year 2017–18 (assuming, then, that there would be no new sanctions). Clearly, a large reduction in Iran's oil production would pose significant challenges to its ability to provide services to its people, as well as maintain essential imports including some foreign-produced medicines and other healthcare and life-saving goods.

Unsurprisingly, Iran's oil production moves very much in tandem with the enactment and repeal of broad sanctions over time (see the figure below). US sanctions in 2010 affected investment in Iran's oil infrastructure and prohibited some international transactions. Then, in early 2012, the United States and the European Union banned oil imports from Iran and froze its central bank assets. Shortly thereafter, oil production plummeted and reached its nadir in late 2012. After the Iran Deal was enacted in early 2016 and US and EU sanctions were repealed, Iran's oil production rapidly recovered to 2007 levels. This level of production was maintained until the announcement by the Trump administration in May 2018 that the United States was withdrawing from the Iran Deal. Since May 2018, Iran's oil production has fallen precipitously; it is down by over 40 percent over the last year. Waivers the United States issued to purchasers of Iranian oil have expired over the last few months, eliminating one of the remaining factors that put upward pressure on production.

[Graph]

To get a sense of the size of these impacts, it's useful to compare what they would look like in the US economy. If applied to the United States, they would be comparable to a budget reduction of $521 billion or 16 percent in 2018. However, this would also represent about 85 percent of nonmilitary discretionary spending. While the United States would be able to borrow or create money to fill this deficit, Iran has much less capacity to do either without triggering more economic difficulties.

Broader economic impacts are also visible. The IMF lowered growth projections for Iran due to the "crippling effect of tighter US sanctions" in its July update. Based on this projection, it is estimated that the economy will contract by 9.3 percent in 2019. This is a downward revision from a previous projection in April of a decline of 6.0 percent. (Before the sanctions, the economy was projected to grow by 4.0 percent.) Other indicators also worsened after the reimposition of sanctions: the unemployment rate is estimated to be 25 percent; inflation has risen to 80 percent; and the currency has lost over half its value.

Sanctions are exacerbating social problems

The main mechanism by which oil production has fallen is the same mechanism that prevents Iran from importing food and medicine: Iran cannot find buyers for its oil on the open market, just like it cannot buy food or medicine on the open market. In effect, it is cut off from the US-dominated international financial system.

Uniquely, the United States exerts broad control over international banking transactions. One way is via the SWIFT and CHIPS systems, which handle the vast majority of those transactions. The SWIFT system, which provides a common communication system for banks, is controlled by US banks, which own the majority of the system and have officials on its board. On top of that, despite not being located in the United States, SWIFT makes all of the system's data available to the US government, even if those transactions do not involve the United States. The CHIPS system, which provides communication as well as settlement functions, is governed by US law, has many US banks as owners, and is directly overseen by US authorities. These systems rely on a network of correspondent banks -- which link banks that might not have relationships with one another -- to complete transactions. The apex of the correspondent system is the New York Federal Reserve Bank, under the control of US banking authorities, which also serves as a lender of last resort to other central banks.

A system designed in this way ensures that banks with no relationship with each other still can transact in a common currency (dollars) via a common bank (the New York Fed) in an agreed-upon framework (SWIFT and CHIPS). However, it also means that the United States has disproportionate power over transactions. Formally, the United States government, via the Office of Foreign Assets Control, can prohibit transactions involving Iran to pass through systems and banks in which it has jurisdiction. More informally, the US government can pressure SWIFT, other central banks, correspondent banks, and even specific firms to adopt policies of refusing to do business with Iran. Since these players fear retribution from US authorities (e.g., being sanctioned themselves), they are usually unwilling to take the risk of doing business with Iran unless they have no other business that might involve the United States or financial entities that can be pressured by the United States.

Because the international banking system is designed in this way, US sanctions on the Iranian economy effectively mean that not only can Iran not easily sell oil on the open market, it cannot easily buy food or medicine either, even if the latter are nominally exempt, as Hook says. This is because sanctioned Iranian banks and officials are ultimately involved in these transactions in the same way that they are with oil, often by virtue of the position they hold in the Iranian banking system. It is telling that hours after an October 2018 ruling by the International Court of Justice ordering the United States to "remove any impediments" that affect the importation of medicine, food, and civil aviation products (including impediments to payments and other transfers of funds related to these products), the US withdrew from the treaty that formed the basis of the ruling, instead of complying with it. Unsurprisingly, efforts at importing food and medicine via the technical exemptions that do exist often fail. It appears that the technical exemptions are used more to deflect criticism of sanctions overall than to actually permit the importation of food and medicine.

But on top of these issues, even if food and medicine were, in reality, exempt from the sanctions regime, the "crippling effect" on Iran's economy would impact the Iranians' financial ability to acquire food and medicine anyway. Iran would have fewer resources to devote to domestic food and medicine production, and many fewer resources to import the same products.

Adapting to US sanctions

It is surprisingly difficult to bypass this financial system because it is so entrenched, although it is not impossible. For example, countries might set up a bilateral or multilateral system to carry out transactions in their own currencies and settle accounts in a currency other than the dollar. Iran could negotiate bilateral trades with India: in exchange for oil, Iran would accept rupees, and then use those rupees to purchase Indian products. The downsides are that mechanisms would be needed to support these transactions (i.e., establishing parallel payment and banking functions). In addition, Iran would need to find a use for the rupees it received in exchange for oil, usually by buying Indian goods (this is because it would be difficult to exchange rupees for other currencies on the open market due to the sanctions).

One promising new multilateral mechanism, dubbed INSTEX, would allow trade between EU countries and Iran without relying on direct transfer of funds or the use of the US-dominated financial system. While in its beginning stage it will only deal with humanitarian trade, INSTEX's model could potentially create a new path to buy Iranian oil. It is telling, however, that EU countries set up an entirely different financial mechanism to use for humanitarian trade, rather than risk drawing the ire of the United States by using established channels.

Yet these alternative mechanisms are not immune from US influence either. In recent cases where countries have announced intentions to develop alternative trade arrangements, the United States has applied political pressure to nip them in the bud. This involves overt economic threats as well as rhetoric urging countries like India to refrain from using a "narrow bilateral lens" in economic trade.

In the meantime, Iran is able to sell some oil to countries such as China, Russia, and India; either to pay back debt or because some banks in these countries do not have a significant business that can be impacted by US retaliation. It also has had some success in covertly transferring oil to buyers, but this does not always escape US control. Similarly, Iran is able to maintain imports of some items, like bananas, outside of the established financial system primarily due to the experience and ingenuity of importers, although usually at lower volumes.

It should be clear that the US is uniquely positioned to choke off imports and exports from a targeted country using sanctions, with deep, negative consequences for that country's economy as well as severe constraints on its government's ability to address economic problems.

In Iran's case, US sanctions mean that production of oil -- a vital export -- is in free fall, unemployment is on the rise, and record inflation due to scarce imports has made it harder for everyday Iranians to buy basic goods and access life-saving medicine. Recent reports have detailed harrowing stories of hospitals running out of crucial cancer medicines and patients struggling to afford or even find their prescriptions. As in Venezuela and other targeted countries, US sanctions undoubtedly have a human toll associated with them, which will only grow as time goes on. This human impact is one of the main reasons that experts in international law argue unilateral sanctions are illegal under the United Nations Charter and international human rights law.

While Iran has been exploring alternative ways of exporting and importing goods, it's unclear what more it could do absent relief from sanctions. Even so, US officials will typically place responsibility for the social and economic problems resulting from the sanctions on the Iranian government, as Hook does. But Trump's comments are more revealing. Sanctions only work because they cause suffering in the first place. In effect, the United States is risking -- and sometimes ending -- the lives of thousands of Iranians with the hope that the Iranian government acquiesces to its demands or is replaced by a more compliant government. That the United States could carry out such a strategy in the first place should raise serious questions among concerned US citizens and within the international community, especially among those who respect international law.

[Sep 04, 2019] Israel's Many Wars by Philip Giraldi

Notable quotes:
"... Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is ..."
Sep 04, 2019 | www.unz.com

Pat Buchanan continues to be one of the few publicly visible political analysts currently active who dares to tell it like it is when it comes to Israel's power in America. His article last week "Will Israel's War Become America's War" as always gets to the heart of the problem, i.e. that the completely contrived "special relationship" with Israel could easily lead the United States into another totally unnecessary war or even a series of wars in the Middle East.

Pat starts with "President Donald Trump, who canceled a missile strike on Iran after the shoot-down of a U.S. Predator drone to avoid killing Iranians, may not want a war. But the same cannot be said of Bibi Netanyahu." He observes that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is facing re-election on September 17 th , and though most polls indicate that he will win, the opposition to him is strong based on his personal corruption and his pandering to the country's most extreme right-wing parties. So Bibi is concerned that he might lose and even go to jail and there is nothing like a little war to make a leader look strong and righteous, so he is lashing out at all his neighbors in hopes that one or more of them will be drawn into what would be for Israel, given its massive military superiority, a manageable confrontation.

Buchanan sums up Netanyahu's recent escalation, writing that on "Saturday, Israel launched a night attack on a village south of Damascus to abort what Israel claims was a plot by Iran's Revolutionary Guards' Quds Force Sunday, two Israeli drones crashed outside the media offices of Hezbollah in Beirut. Israel then attacked a base camp of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command in north Lebanon. Monday, Israel admitted to a strike on Iranian-backed militias of the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq. And Israel does not deny responsibility for last month's attacks on munitions dumps and bases of pro-Iran militias [also] in Iraq. Israel has also confirmed that, during Syria's civil war, it conducted hundreds of strikes against pro-Iranian militias and ammunition depots to prevent the transfer of missiles to Hezbollah in Lebanon."

So, Israel has staged literally hundreds of attacks against targets in Lebanon, Syria and now Iraq while it is also at the same time shooting scores of unarmed demonstrators inside Gaza every Friday. Netanyahu has also threatened both perennial foe Iran and the Houthi rebels in Yemen. As the Jewish state is not at war with any of those countries it is engaging in war crimes. Both Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Force are vowing revenge.

Pat Buchanan goes on to make the case that Netanyahu is willy-nilly pulling the United States into a situation from which there is no exit. Indeed, one might well conclude that the trap has already been sprung as the Trump Administration is reflexively blaming Israel's actions on Iran. The Jewish state's escalation produced a telephone call to Bibi by American Secretary of State Mike Pompeo promising that the United States would unconditionally support Israel. Vice President Mike Pence also joined in , boasting of a "great conversation" with Netanyahu and tweeting that "The United State fully supports Israel's right to defend itself from imminent threats. Under President @realDonaldTrump, America will always stand with Israel!"

So, if a war in the Middle East does begin one can count on a number of developments in Washington, all of which favor Netanyahu. As Pompeo and Pence have made clear, the Trump Administration already accepts that whatever Israel does is fully justified and there are even reports that the White House will endorse Israeli annexation of all the illegal settlements on the West Bank at some point either before or immediately after the upcoming Knesset election to help Bibi. And don't look for any dissent from even the most extreme views developing inside the White House or the State Department. The president has completely surrendered to the Israel Lobby while National Security Adviser John Bolton, Pence and Pompeo are all outspoken supporters of war with Iran. And nearly all the important government posts dealing with the Middle East are staffed by Jewish Zionists, to include the president's son-in-law and two Donald Trump lawyers. The most recent addition to that sorry line-up is Peter Berkowitz, who has been appointed head of the Policy Planning Staff at State. Berkowitz studied at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and is co-founder and director of the "Israel Program on Constitutional Government."

And Congress would also be singing the "amen" chorus in support of U.S. intervention to help the country it has ridiculously but nevertheless repeatedly described as America's "best friend and closest ally." The occupied mainstream media would echo that line, as would the millions of Christian Zionists and every one of the more than 600 American Jewish organizations that in one way, shape or form support Israel.

Buchanan warns that the U.S. could find itself in real trouble, particularly given the attacks on Iraq, where Washington still has 5,000 troops, hugely outnumbered by the local pro-Iranian militias. And American aircraft carriers could find themselves vulnerable if they dare to enter the Straits of Hormuz or Persian Gulf, where they would be in range of the Iranian batteries of anti-ship missiles. He concludes that a war for Israel that goes badly could cost Trump the election in 2020, asking " have we ceded to Netanyahu something no nation should ever cede to another, even an ally: the right to take our country into a war of their choosing but not of ours?"

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

Bragadocious , says: September 3, 2019 at 1:33 am GMT

The president has completely surrendered to the Israel Lobby while National Security Adviser John Bolton

To be fair, Trump never promised to curb Israeli aggression during his campaign. He promised to back them and that's what he's doing. So this suggestion that "he's letting us all down" is just silly. Now, on other stuff, yeah, you can make a case. And let's be real, if Jeb Bush or Bernie Sanders or Hillary were in office they'd be backing "our ally in the Middle East" too.
Lot , says: September 3, 2019 at 2:00 am GMT
Iran is involved in four different civil wars: Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen. Yet Jihadi Phil wants to blame Israel for mideast instability!
anon [328] Disclaimer , says: September 3, 2019 at 2:47 am GMT
@Lot Iran was invited by Syrian legit gov. Lebanon was prevented from total rout by Hezbollah from the actions of the evil Zionist .Hezbollah sought and received help to confront evil Zionist. Who ever asked the Jews to show up in ME anywhere in the ME? Who? Yemen is a war that ahs been fought by Houthis . Houthis has been there for centuries They are fighting a war instigated by Israeli vassal Saudi . Iraq has been turned into dust by Jew run USA attack It is slowly coming to life.

Now don't read the script from the middle Start from the beginning . Start from the beginning ad be ready for the end . End will not be written by devious Jewish country .

renfro , says: September 3, 2019 at 3:34 am GMT
Firing Giraldi was the American Conserative's lose.

Consider this article:

Two Cheers for Israel
They're having children and defending their culture without apology. The West could learn a thing or two.
By Scott McConnell
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/two-cheers-for-israel/

"'But there is an even more important reason to give two cheers for Israel and to think of it, despite its excesses, as exemplary: Israel is nationalist."'

Maybe McConnell is paid to praise Israel or maybe he just your typical simple minded tunnel vision conservative. I gotta say my kind of conservative values, or maybe they should be called traditional values will likely stay the same but what wont stay the same is my voting for any of these conservative stupids.
I'm a registered Independent voter independent because I believed Americans should be independent of 'political parties' and not follow them like sheep, but vote for the closest thing they can get to a candidate of good character, some brains and a sense of fairness for the people. I voted for the actual America first GOP presidents, the elder Bush I and Nixon, otoh I also voted for the Dem America first presidents Kennedy and Carter.

Independent voters like myself make up 37% of registered voters in the US .that makes both the dems and repubs 'minority parties' ..neither of them can win without us.
Independent voters got to be independent because they paid more attention to the big picture and issues in politics overall than the followers of the parties .most of them are more 'traditional', including objecting to US entanglement with foreign nations. .the exact opposite of current GOP conservatism.
So it is absolute nitwittery to try and attract traditional voters by championing Israel as a model for US nationalism. Israel gives nationalism a bad name. It is asking us to step in a pile of steaming cow shit to pattern the US after Israel.

Kirt , says: September 3, 2019 at 4:50 am GMT
A lot of these Israeli provocations are, as noted, Netanyahu electioneering. Hence, they are likely to stop or be diminished (the Gaza border massacres excepted) if Bibi either wins the election and can form a new government or loses and is driven from power with the opposition forming a new government. Worst case scenario is a continuation of the present situation with Bibi unable to form a government and having to fight yet another election. This would result in still further Israeli escalation until finally Iran or Hezbollah retaliates and the US is dragged in. Or he might just formally annex the West Bank and drive out the Palestinians to the applause of Trump and his supporters.

There are other dangers as well, especially the collapse of Saudi Arabia and the UAE as a result of their defeat in Yemen. The US is sending 5,000 troops to SA just in time to defend the House of Saud from a possible overthrow or to fight on behalf of one part of that sociopathic family against another part.

Sean , says: September 3, 2019 at 5:43 am GMT

"President Donald Trump, who canceled a missile strike on Iran after the shoot-down of a U.S. Predator drone to avoid killing Iranians, may not want a war. But the same cannot be said of Bibi Netanyahu." He observes that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is facing re-election on September 17th, and though most polls indicate that he will win, the opposition to him is strong based on his personal corruption and his pandering to the country's most extreme right-wing parties. So Bibi is concerned that he might lose and even go to jail and there is nothing like a little war to make a leader look strong and righteous, so he is lashing out at all his neighbors in hopes that one or more of them will be drawn into what would be for Israel, given its massive military superiority, a manageable confrontation.

It's a good analysis, but a little different to the subjugation of US interests to Israeli ones that is normally talked about inasmuch Netanyahu personal advantage is the key factor. I don't think many people in Israel would approve of Netanyahu doing something so obvious as getting Israel into an inconclusive war just before an election. Especially as the war is one that might bring the US in but would be unlikely to motive the US to destroy the Iranian regime, wiche had time to make their facilities (nuclear) too duplicated and dispersed for airstrikes to work.

The Palestinians are the ones Israelis are happy to get tough with, even the supposedly leftist Ehud Barak has said the Palestinians of Gaza must be deterred more. Talk of war with Iran is just that, it really is, unless they do something stupid.

For Israel, getting the US to totally crush Iran would be great, but that will require America to be provoked by Iran, which is something they are loath to do. Iran is not going to fight a war they cannot possibly hope to win if they can help it, and they have said there will not be one. I don't think Bolton is any influence on Trump, and Pompeo is a never-Trumper turned Trump boot licker rather that a force in the administration in his own right.

He concludes that a war for Israel that goes badly could cost Trump the election in 2020, asking " have we ceded to Netanyahu something no nation should ever cede to another, even an ally: the right to take our country into a war of their choosing but not of ours?"

Trump never loses sight of his own self interest. A war before the Israeli election is not going to help Trump win reelection, and he did say recently he was open to talks with Iran, which left a distraught Netanyahu unsuccessfully trying to get through to Trump and gave Ehud Barack one of his few opportunities to criticise the utility for Israel of Netanyahu's relationship with Trump.

Sean O'Farrell , says: September 3, 2019 at 6:01 am GMT
@Biff The U.S. military should more aptly be called the Israeli Foreign Legion.

[Sep 02, 2019] CounterPunch

Notable quotes:
"... As for the Israelis, they don't want the man who thinks he might be "King of Israel" talking to the Hitlerite Persians. They suddenly sprayed Iran's local Middle East proxies with drone-fired rockets – in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon – just in case the wretched, financially broken and inflation-doomed Iranians were tempted to chat to the crackpot in the White House. But the Israelis wasted their ammunition. Rouhani is not mad. America has to drop its sanctions against Iran if Trump wants to talk, he said. ..."
"... And when Rouhani made it clear that he was not interested in "photo-ops" – an obvious allusion to the pictures of Trump and Little Rocket Man – what did the po-faced Washington Post ..."
"... Indeed, had Ahmadinejad's further political ambitions not been firmly crushed by his country's "supreme leader", Ayatollah Khamenei, we might just have witnessed a meeting between two of the world's leading political nutcases. Ahmadinejad, it may be recalled, was the Iranian who claimed that a holy cloud was suspended over his head for 20 minutes when he addressed the United Nations in New York. Now that is a phenomenon which Trump may also have experienced – although at least he had the good sense not to tell us of it. ..."
"... In the first eight months after Rouhani became president in 2013, the Iranian state hanged at least 537 people. In January of 2014, he had, according to a report in the Arabic daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat ..."
"... When the shah of Iran wanted to acquire nuclear technology in 1974, according to documents in the US National Security Archive, he said that Iran had an "inalienable right" to the nuclear cycle and that it would not accept obligations "dictated by the nuclear-have nations". ..."
"... In theory, what Macron is trying to do, if Le Monde ..."
"... But what Macron is really doing – which is what almost every EU leader is doing – is trying to preserve the peace of the Middle East long enough for the Americans to elect a serious, intelligent, boring and moderately honest political leader to replace the mentally unbalanced and very dangerous current holder of the highest office in the US. ..."
"... Robert Fisk writes for the Independent , where this column originally appeared. ..."
Sep 02, 2019 | www.counterpunch.org

September 2, 2019 The Crazed, Rogue Leader is in Washington Not Tehran by Robert Fisk

Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair

History in the Middle East is unkind to us westerners. Just when we thought we were the good guys and the Iranians were the bad guys, here comes the ghostly, hopeless possibility of a Trump-Rouhani summit to remind us that the apparent lunatic is the US president and the rational, sane leader who is supposed to talk to him is the president of the Islamic Republic of Iran . All these shenanigans are fantasy, of course – like the "imminent" war between America and Iran – of which more later.

As for the Israelis, they don't want the man who thinks he might be "King of Israel" talking to the Hitlerite Persians. They suddenly sprayed Iran's local Middle East proxies with drone-fired rockets – in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon – just in case the wretched, financially broken and inflation-doomed Iranians were tempted to chat to the crackpot in the White House. But the Israelis wasted their ammunition. Rouhani is not mad. America has to drop its sanctions against Iran if Trump wants to talk, he said.

It still amazes me that we have to take all this stuff at face value. No sooner had Trump waffled on about Rouhani being "the great negotiator" than we saw all the White House correspondents dutifully taking this nonsense down in their notebooks – as if the American president was presidential, as if the old dream-bag was real, as if what he was saying had the slightest bearing on reality.

And when Rouhani made it clear that he was not interested in "photo-ops" – an obvious allusion to the pictures of Trump and Little Rocket Man – what did the po-faced Washington Post tell us in its subsequent report? Why, that Rouhani had "dashed hopes of a potential meeting with his US counterpart". Ye Gods! What "hopes" do they still have in their homegrown crackpot president after these two and a half years of his threats and lies and racism? Have they learned nothing?

It's as if – for the American media – Trump is unhinged in Washington but a Kissinger the moment he lands in Biarritz (or London or Riyadh or Panmunjom or a Scottish golf course, or perhaps, one day, Greenland). And Rouhani – who may be a "great negotiator" but is also a very ruthless man – is therefore supposed to play the role of Iran's previous president, the raving, crazed, Holocaust-denying Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Indeed, had Ahmadinejad's further political ambitions not been firmly crushed by his country's "supreme leader", Ayatollah Khamenei, we might just have witnessed a meeting between two of the world's leading political nutcases. Ahmadinejad, it may be recalled, was the Iranian who claimed that a holy cloud was suspended over his head for 20 minutes when he addressed the United Nations in New York. Now that is a phenomenon which Trump may also have experienced – although at least he had the good sense not to tell us of it.

Ahmadinejad, you may also remember, was the president whose claim to have won the 2009 presidential elections brought millions of protestors onto the streets of Iranian cities until they were brutalised and imprisoned into submission. His cheeky smile, chipmunk eyes and Spanish armada beard could not persuade Iranians that the "alternative facts" of his presidential victory were real.

Everyone knew that Ahmadinejad would never be given a finger on any nuclear button – many doubted if he knew the difference between nuclear physics and electricity – but he provided at the time a hate figure to rival Gaddafi or any other of the ravers of the Middle East.

But now Trump wears Ahmadinejad's international mantle of insanity and the Iranian presidential seat is today held by a far more pragmatic individual. For let's not be romantic about Hassan Rouhani . Back in 1999, when he was a humble deputy chief of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, Rouhani condemned pro-democracy demonstrators as " muhareb " and " mofsad " (corrupt on earth) – opponents of the Islamic Republic, whose punishment would be death.

In the first eight months after Rouhani became president in 2013, the Iranian state hanged at least 537 people. In January of 2014, he had, according to a report in the Arabic daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat , visited Ahwaz to deal with "a number of sensitive files" left untouched by Ahmadinejad. These included Hashem Shaabani and Hadi Rashedi – both human rights activists in the minority Arab community in southwest Iran – who had been condemned to death for "waging war on God", "spreading corruption on earth" and "questioning the principle of velayat-e faqih" (guardianship of the jurist).

Shaabani's poetry, in both Persian and Arabic, was famous; he was a founder of an institute which encouraged Arabic literature and culture among Iranians. Rouhani signed off on the executions; Shaabani and Rashedi were hanged in a still-unidentified prison.

But it is Rouhani's negotiating skill which has apparently impressed Trump, who also has little time for minorities. And when you recall that one of Trump's Republican predecessors in the White House, Ronald Reagan, arranged for the Israelis to deliver missiles to Iran in 1985 in return for the release of US hostages in Beirut, you can see why Trump might think it strange that Rouhani would turn down a meeting with him. After all, during the Iran-Contra affair the then Iranian speaker of parliament, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, was deeply involved in the enterprise.

But even if Rouhani was fool enough to flirt with Trump's offer – which he was not – his fate would have been similar to the poet Shaabani's if he had dared to talk to the US president without the full restoration of the nuclear treaty.

It doesn't take much spreading of "corruption on earth" in Iran – let alone disavowing the views of the Supreme Leader Khamanei – to catapult a learned cleric into prison. Having learned from his foreign minister in Biarritz what the American deal was supposed to be, Rouhani wisely did not touch it. The US had broken the nuclear treaty and reimposed sanctions – so Trump would have to rejoin the treaty signatories and lift sanctions for any hope of a meeting with the president of the Islamic Republic.

Of course, the Iranians will no more go to war with America than America will go to war with Iran. We all know that – except for those who blast us all with "brink-of-war" scenarios in the Gulf. We've been through Iranian ship-minings in 1987 without declarations of war. Besides, what's so new about an Iran insisting on its "sovereign" right to peaceful nuclear power?

When the shah of Iran wanted to acquire nuclear technology in 1974, according to documents in the US National Security Archive, he said that Iran had an "inalienable right" to the nuclear cycle and that it would not accept obligations "dictated by the nuclear-have nations".

Which is pretty much what Iran did accept in the nuclear agreement which Trump tore up on behalf of the United States. And I still have a clipping from The Times of November 1972, in which my then colleague David Housego was reporting from Tehran that the shah had declared that Iran's defensive frontiers extended beyond the Persian Gulf into the Indian Ocean!

In five years, the shah calculated, his arms build-up would make Iran the largest military power in the Middle East. The shah ruled with torture and executions, was crazed about the dangers of communism, and power-mad to the extent of celebrating his empire's rule in 1971 with what he called "the biggest party on earth" in the ruins of Persepolis. How Trump would love to have been there.

Well, Macron may be able to turn himself into the "Great G7 Intermediary", although all others who have tangled with Iran have been brought low by the experience. Think poor old Jimmy Carter, destroyed by the hostage-takers at the US embassy in Tehran. Think Reagan, almost brought low by Irangate. Think Colonel Oliver North. Or envoy Robert McFarlane. Or Terry Waite. Or Barack Obama, for that matter, his Iranian policy torn up by Trump.

In theory, what Macron is trying to do, if Le Monde has got it right, is persuade Trump to allow Iran's principal petroleum importers to continue buying oil from the Islamic Republic. This includes Turkey, China, Japan, India and South Korea. In return, Iran would itself return to the original nuclear agreement. That's the message Macron sent back to Tehran with Iran's foreign minister, who airbussed into Biarritz for his briefest of meetings with the French president.

But what Macron is really doing – which is what almost every EU leader is doing – is trying to preserve the peace of the Middle East long enough for the Americans to elect a serious, intelligent, boring and moderately honest political leader to replace the mentally unbalanced and very dangerous current holder of the highest office in the US.

Well, good luck to the Americans. For at present, they are confronting not the lunatic rogue state which Messers Bolton and Pompeo have nightmared up for Trump, but a nation governed by bravely defiant, ruthless, and – yes – devious men. For Iranians understand America far better than Americans will ever understand Iran.

Join the debate on Facebook More articles by: Robert Fisk

Robert Fisk writes for the Independent , where this column originally appeared.

[Aug 28, 2019] why Magnier isn't using his platform to point out Netanyahu's irresponsible, self-serving actions. Netanyahu will NOT pay a price for his craven machinations - which could mean Israeli dead and injured and/or another war in Lebanon - when even "critics" like Magnier dress them up as heroic acts of patriotism

Notable quotes:
"... etanyahu bet the farm on Trump and Trump failed to deliver. They were countered at every turn by patient and scrupulous opponents who read the board better and didn't respond muscularly to repeated provocations. They let events come to them and waited for the moment of over-commitment. ..."
"... "Iraqi Intelligence: 'The Israeli drones that have been attacking our nation in the past few weeks are operating out of a base in YPG/SDF held areas in Syria and these operations are co-financed by Saudi Arabia. Israeli military personnel are on the ground in Northern Syria.'" ..."
Aug 28, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 , Aug 26 2019 20:36 utc | 133

Magnier on Nuttyahoo's escalating provocations encapsulates the most recent series of events, although he doesn't attempt to link the actions to the upcoming elections. Hezbollah threatened direct retaliation against Occupied Palestine; Iraq chose to blame the Outlaw US Empire; Syria remained silent; the G-7 said nothing. The recent proposal by Iran to refurbish one pipeline and build another to Syria's coastline would certainly become a Zionist target. So, for the project to have the proper security, Occupied Palestine needs to be liberated. Nasrallah isn't known as a bluffer, while Nuttyahoo's prone to be too aggressive. Do the Zionists see the current situation as possibly the final time they have some sort of an advantage as Magnier seems to imply and attack since they know the Outlaw US Empire won't?

Sasha , Aug 26 2019 20:53 utc | 136

But, in spite of the whole US paleo-conservative spectre, along with "alt-right", always telling us it is Israel who forces the US to wage war in the ME...now, Israeli politics and experts, say the last attacks on Irak, Syria and Lebanon have been made only as electoral maneuver by Netanyahu and not only, but have stated that it is the US who wants Israel doing their dirty job in the ME...This, reported by Al Manar ....not a Jewish source....
In his speech on August 25, the secretary general of Hezbollah made a double promise: the Resistance will now attack the drones of Israel and attack the Israeli troops not in Shebaa but in Lebanon itself. For those Israeli generals who experienced the 2006 war and the ups and downs of Syria, these are not just warnings. These soldiers even seem to have been sensitive to Nasraláh's warning that Netanyahu's attacks are intended to win votes for the next election and avoid imprisonment. "The current threat to Israel, which is even more serious than terrorism, missiles and Iran, is the collapse of the interior of Israel," warned former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak.

"By the way, Netanyahu's air operations against Syria, Lebanon and Iraq pursue internal political goals, which is very unfortunate", said Moshe Yaalon, a leader of the Blue and White opposition coalition and former Israeli Minister of Military Affairs, according to the agency Palestinian Maa.

"The threat of the collapse of the interior of Israel is even more serious than the missiles and Iran. The destruction of democracy and corruption within government apparatus will lead us to collapse", said Ehud Barak in a video posted on his Twitter page.

"The attack on Syria was not a preventive action and will harm Israel," Barak told Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot, having apparently understood the warning issued by Nasralá.

Other Israeli experts share this opinion. Yaari Ehud, an Israeli journalist and expert in the Middle East said on Channel 12 of Israeli television that Netanyahu and his security cabinet "perpetrated these attacks on behalf of the US" and run the risk of "exposing Israel." "In fact, the missions that Americans refuse to do, they entrust them to Israel. We have been commissioned to do the dirty work at the risk of jeopardizing our security, "he added before saying", Tel Aviv will pay for it."

Who is lying? The Israelis or the Americans? Or both?

See here Nasrallah more angry than long time ago...

While Israel claims having targetted an Iranian military base in Damascus, it seems that what it targetted were two milennials from Hezbollah, Hassan and Yasser , friends since childhood, who were also Engineering students in Iran...

Jackrabbit , Aug 27 2019 3:03 utc | 148

karlof1 @133: Magniers latest

Mangier writes a follow-up to his post that I criticized @29. I think that his latest post also falls well short of his vaunted reputation.

Magnier's interpretation of events lauds Netanyahu's chess playing. He compares inconsequential attacks with past strategic actions (almost gleefully as he describes those past glories at some length) .

He makes broad, unsupported statements like:

It should be recognized that Israel's assessment of the reaction of Iran's allies in Syria and Iraq is spot on.
And repeats that Israel is hitting "hundreds" of sites FOUR TIMES. Making it seem as though the Israeli campaign is much greater than it really is. AFAICT those attacks have actually been spread out over more than a year.

Yet it's all preliminary to this gem:

Netanyahu forced Hezbollah's leader to threaten Israel ...
Forced? Really? AFAICT the red lines in Lebanon have been clear for a long time. Each side will defend theirs.

Which leaves me scratching my head as to why Magnier isn't using his platform to point out Netanyahu's irresponsible, self-serving actions. Netanyahu will NOT pay a price for his craven machinations - which could mean Israeli dead and injured and/or another war in Lebanon - when even "critics" like Magnier dress them up as heroic acts of patriotism.

somebody , Aug 27 2019 8:53 utc | 160
Will Israel's War Become America's War?
Netanyahu's widening of Israel's war with Iran and its proxies into Lebanon and Iraq -- and perhaps beyond -- and his acknowledgement of that wider war raise questions for both nations.

Israel today has on and near her borders hostile populations in Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, and Iraq. Tens of millions of Muslims see her as an enemy to be expelled from the region.

While there is a cold peace with Egypt and Jordan, the Saudis and Gulf Arabs are temporary allies as long as the foe is Iran.

Is this pervasive enmity sustainable?

As for America, have we ceded to Netanyahu something no nation should ever cede to another, even an ally: the right to take our country into a war of their choosing but not of ours?

bevin , Aug 27 2019 13:03 utc | 167
On a not completely different subject-that of the Empire's demise- there is a Tom Luongo article at Strategic Culture, which is pretty good.
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2019/08/27/first-many-cauldrons-form-middle-east/
It ends
"So, the cauldron around Israel is forming. With the Saudis in deep trouble, Egypt refusing to go along with any of Trump's plans – Arab NATO, the Kushner Deal of the Century – the game board has fundamentally shifted against them.

"N etanyahu bet the farm on Trump and Trump failed to deliver. They were countered at every turn by patient and scrupulous opponents who read the board better and didn't respond muscularly to repeated provocations. They let events come to them and waited for the moment of over-commitment.

"Now the counter attack will commence, I suspect, with brutal precision"

Uncle Jon , Aug 27 2019 17:05 utc | 177
@bevin 167

Elijah Magnier paints a different picture with Israel having the upper hand and being able to act with impunity.

https://ahtribune.com/world/north-africa-south-west-asia/3421-netanyahu-dares-to-hit-iran-backyard.html

I don't quite agree with his assessment and conclusions. He is grossly underestimating the axis of resistance and their will to push back. Also, Israelis are overestimating the American support, no matter what. Not if it is going to cost them American lives. Hitting a few ammo depots in isolation is one thing, but getting Americans to die for Israeli intransigence is another. Not much stomach for that here in US, no matter how much they push the special relationship.

Israelis are playing backgammon while Iran and axis playing chess, being a grandmaster at that. Check mate will be ugly.


dh , Aug 27 2019 17:17 utc | 179
@177 Israel shouldn't take American support for granted. According to this article some Evangelicals are starting to have second thought...

"Why do we have pro-abortion, pro-LGBTQ values, and we do not have more freedom to protect our faith? We are persecuted now," Yanko says about evangelical Christians like herself. "[Jews] say, 'We've got America. We control America.' That's what I know."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/anti-semitic-beliefs-spreading-among-192155642.html

karlof1 , Aug 27 2019 20:10 utc | 191
If true, big time trouble :

"Iraqi Intelligence: 'The Israeli drones that have been attacking our nation in the past few weeks are operating out of a base in YPG/SDF held areas in Syria and these operations are co-financed by Saudi Arabia. Israeli military personnel are on the ground in Northern Syria.'"

Is it a feint to get SAA to cease Idlib Dawn and drive the Zionists out, or are Zionist drones really being flown from there? Regardless, it's time to end the Kurd's games, drive out the Outlaw US Empire and all other illegal forces and reclaim Syrian sovereignty. Iraq must do the same.

S , Aug 28 2019 1:20 utc | 227 Jackrabbit , Aug 28 2019 2:11 utc | 228
Well, as if we needed any more proof of a Netanyahu's attempt to increase tensions for craven political benefit, there's Michael Snyder (via ZeroHedge): Fighting Escalates Dramatically As Both Sides Prepare For "The Final War" Between Israel And Iran , in which he claims that:
Over the past several days, Israel has attempted to prevent attacks by Iranian forces and their allies by striking targets in Syria, Gaza, Lebanon and Iraq.
Really? AFAIK, Israel hasn't described specific attacks that were thwarted.

Snyder then uses Iraqi and Hezbollah's anger at Israel's acts of war (cause, um ... that's what they are) as examples of pre-crime hatred that justifies Netanyahu's Israel's attacks.

Netanyahu's self-serving deviousness has blown up his face. Hasbara media assets are busy trying to recover the high ground. IMO their attempt to do so will fail miserably as it's transparent and thus digs the hole deeper. Leading to the question: Will Netanyahu accept defeat at the polls or will he continue with the dirty tricks (at the risk of war)?

<> <> <> <> <> <> <>

The above should be read in conjunction with my criticism of Magnier @29 and @148.

psychohistorian , Aug 28 2019 3:36 utc | 231
@ Jackrabbit #228 about Netanyahu...thanks

I read in the past 24 hours somewhere that Pence has also been speaking about how the US needs to help Israel protect itself from being attacked......

It is way past time to bring the pimple to a head and deal with it.

[Aug 28, 2019] Iranian foreign minister tells Euronews about his discussion with Macron

Aug 28, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

FSD , Aug 26 2019 19:14 utc | 128

Will Trump's intimations about meeting with Rouhani win the footrace? His competitor? Israel's determination to get the Mideast theater of WW3 started in earnest. Racking up two declarations of war in as many days (Lebanon and Iraq) ain't too shabby a head-start. The game is to deprive Trump of the initiative. The Israelis are smelling capitulation and a fresh outbreak of post-JCPOA yakking. The time is now. Trump had better get with the program. He still has a chance to look like Presidential Instigator. Failing that, he'll just have to be dragged in unceremoniously and then scramble post facto to look like Instigator. It's a PR dilemma. His military's already there, poised for action. This may be the first war to launch right over the head -and better judgement- of JCS Head Dunsford himself. False flag momentum is a funny thing. The time couldn't be riper for war to get a jump on cooler heads.

After all, War has its own thoughts on the matter and will only let human beings dither for so long before taking the helm and asserting its own predilections:

"Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came." --Lincoln Second Inagural

karlof1 , Aug 26 2019 20:36 utc | 133

Magnier on Nuttyahoo's escalating provocations encapsulates the most recent series of events, although he doesn't attempt to link the actions to the upcoming elections. Hezbollah threatened direct retaliation against Occupied Palestine; Iraq chose to blame the Outlaw US Empire; Syria remained silent; the G-7 said nothing. The recent proposal by Iran to refurbish one pipeline and build another to Syria's coastline would certainly become a Zionist target. So, for the project to have the proper security, Occupied Palestine needs to be liberated. Nasrallah isn't known as a bluffer, while Nuttyahoo's prone to be too aggressive. Do the Zionists see the current situation as possibly the final time they have some sort of an advantage as Magnier seems to imply and attack since they know the Outlaw US Empire won't?
Sasha , Aug 26 2019 22:05 utc | 141
Iranian foreign minister tells Euronews about his discussion with Macron.

Sets the record straight...

Vasco da Gama , Aug 26 2019 23:02 utc | 143
@141

Iran for Multilateralism and Rule of Law, trusting themselves to abide by JCPOA, even if, as defined as failing, an invitation to Europeans to decide not be tempted by the US to remove themselves from their only future, and an appeal to the US to honour the responsibility of their veto sit on the UNSC where the lengthiest document was signed.

...

Good link Sasha.

[Aug 22, 2019] Chaotic Unpredictable Iran Vows Oil Routes Won't Be Safe If It Can't Export

Aug 22, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

The White House policy of taking Iranian oil exports to "zero" still has a long way to go, thanks in no small part to China , and also despite Pompeo touting this week that US sanctions have removed nearly 2.7 million barrels of Iranian oil from global markets.

US frustration was evident upon the release of the Adrian Darya 1, with Gibraltar resisting Washington pressures to hand over the Iranian vessel, given as its en route to Greece, American officials are now warning that they will sanction anyone who touches the tanker .

Seizing on Washington's frustration as part of its own "counter-pressure" campaign of recent weeks, Iran has again stated if it can't export its own oil, it will make waterways unsafe and "unpredictable" for anyone else to to so .

[Aug 18, 2019] US Bullies Its Way Into Dispute, Moves to Seize Iranian Tanker by Barbara Boland

Notable quotes:
"... "Designed to provoke Tehran: Just as #Iran-UK-#Gibraltar were set to have #Grace1 tanker released today, #Trump admin moves in to spoil the effort. Will become another source of tension in Europe-US relations over Iran policy," Ellie Geranmayeh, Iran expert at the European Council on Foreign Relations, tweeted . ..."
"... As TAC previously reported , the legal rationale for detaining the Iranian vessel and its crew is questionable, because Iran is not a member of the European Union and thus can not violate EU sanctions. ..."
"... "The UK had no legal right to enforce those sanctions," writes Gareth Porter, and the seizure "was a blatant violation of the clearly defined global rules that govern the passage of merchant ships through international straits." ..."
Aug 15, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com

British Gibraltar ordered the ship's release to ease tensions. Washington wasn't having any of it. •

A ship approaches supertanker Grace 1 off the coast of Gibraltar on July 6, 2019. – Iran demanded on July 5, 2019 that Britain immediately release an oil tanker it has detained in Gibraltar, accusing it of acting at the bidding of the United States. Photo by JORGE GUERRERO / AFP) (Photo credit should read JORGE GUERRERO/AFP/Getty Images)

Despite eleventh hour efforts on the part of the U.S. to detain the Grace 1 Iranian oil tanker seized by the Royal Navy in July, the vessel was released Thursday. Gibraltar's Chief Minister said he had accepted a pledge from Iran that if the tanker was released, it would not be taken to Syria.

The Grace 1 was seized last month by the British Royal Navy for alleged European Union sanctions violations. The British claimed that Iran was using the tanker to ship oil to Syria.

Before the last minute U.S. legal action, authorities in Gibraltar had announced they would release the Grace 1 and drop legal actions against the ship's captain and crew in order to ease tensions.

The U.S. application was scheduled to be heard later on Thursday by the Gibraltar Supreme Court. The U.S. Department of Justice sought to extend the detention of the oil tanker, but the Gibraltar Supreme Court later dropped the detention order, essentially moving evaluation of the U.S. request to another government agency for consideration, according to CBS. In the mean time, the tanker is free to leave.

The U.S. filing seems to confirm reports that the U.S. urged the British detention of the Iranian ship in July.

" Having failed to accomplish its objectives through its #EconomicTerrorism -- including depriving cancer patients of medicine -- the US attempted to abuse the legal system to steal our property on the high seas," tweeted Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif. "This piracy attempt is indicative of Trump admin's contempt for the law."

After the British decision to detain the Grace 1 in July, Iran seized the British-flagged oil tanker Stena Impero as it traveled through the Strait of Hormuz.

Tensions with Tehran have escalated since the Trump administration withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal and resumed economic sanctions against the Islamic Republic. Without citing specific evidence, the U.S. has blamed Iran for recent attacks on other oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz.

"Designed to provoke Tehran: Just as #Iran-UK-#Gibraltar were set to have #Grace1 tanker released today, #Trump admin moves in to spoil the effort. Will become another source of tension in Europe-US relations over Iran policy," Ellie Geranmayeh, Iran expert at the European Council on Foreign Relations, tweeted .

As TAC previously reported , the legal rationale for detaining the Iranian vessel and its crew is questionable, because Iran is not a member of the European Union and thus can not violate EU sanctions.

"The UK had no legal right to enforce those sanctions," writes Gareth Porter, and the seizure "was a blatant violation of the clearly defined global rules that govern the passage of merchant ships through international straits."

It is unclear whether UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson will support Washington's maximum pressure campaign against Iran. But the American decision to pursue its case in Gibraltar's courts may indicate that Britain is unwilling to further escalate tensions with the Islamic Republic.

Barbara Boland is 's foreign policy and national security reporter. Follow her on Twitter @BBatDC.

[Aug 18, 2019] The Destruction Is the Point [ of Trump policy toward Iran] by Daniel Larison

How current prices correlate with Pompeo statement that "We have taken over 95 percent of the crude oil that was being shipped by Iran all around the world, and we have taken it off the market." ? Something really strange is happening here.
Notable quotes:
"... Given these statements, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that Pompeo is not being entirely honest when he claims the maximum pressure campaign is succeeding. Rather than leveling with the American people and making an argument about why the administration is persisting with the policy in spite of the lack of progress, he has chosen to deceive the public in order to defend a dangerous policy. ..."
"... Pompeo has made a habit of deceiving the public as Secretary of State on a range of issues from Yemen to North Korea, but for the most part he has been allowed to get away with that. ..."
"... When Pompeo has been asked for proof that the sanctions are "working," he cannot point to any positive change in the Iranian government's behavior, and instead he boasts about the harm that has been done to Iran's economy and its people: ..."
"... We have taken over 95 percent of the crude oil that was being shipped by Iran all around the world, and we have taken it off the market. ..."
"... Pompeo is deception, lies, absolute dishonesty. But of course that is the mark of the trump regime in general terms. ..."
Aug 15, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Nicholas Miller has delivered a devastating response to Pompeo's pitiful propaganda op-ed from earlier this month:

Given these statements, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that Pompeo is not being entirely honest when he claims the maximum pressure campaign is succeeding. Rather than leveling with the American people and making an argument about why the administration is persisting with the policy in spite of the lack of progress, he has chosen to deceive the public in order to defend a dangerous policy.

Pompeo has made a habit of deceiving the public as Secretary of State on a range of issues from Yemen to North Korea, but for the most part he has been allowed to get away with that. He probably thinks that there is no price to be paid for constantly lying and misrepresenting things to the public and Congress, and so he keeps doing it.

The more important reason why Pompeo keeps deceiving the public is that he is also eager to please the president, and so he has to keep claiming success for failing policies because reports of success are what the president wants to hear. When Pompeo's ridiculous op-ed came out last week, one of the common questions that many people asked was, "Who is the audience for this?" The point these people were making was that the "argument" in the op-ed was so facile and nonsensical that it can't possibly have been intended to persuade anyone, so the purpose of it had to be to placate Trump and reassure him that the policy "works."

Miller does an outstanding job picking apart Pompeo's various claims and using Pompeo's previous contradictory claims against him, and he shows that the Secretary's defense of "maximum pressure" is a joke to any minimally informed person. But as far as Pompeo is concerned, all that matters is that Trump sticks with the policy. When Pompeo has been asked for proof that the sanctions are "working," he cannot point to any positive change in the Iranian government's behavior, and instead he boasts about the harm that has been done to Iran's economy and its people:

I remember, David – I'm sure no one in this room, but many here in Washington said that American sanctions alone won't work. Well, they've worked. We have taken over 95 percent of the crude oil that was being shipped by Iran all around the world, and we have taken it off the market.

Miller addressed Pompeo's use of economic damage as proof of the policy's success this way:

Using economic damage to gauge the success of sanctions is like using body counts to measure success in counter-insurgency -- it's an indicator that your policy is having an effect, but does not necessarily imply you're any closer to achieving strategic objectives.

For a hard-liner like Pompeo, continuing with a destructive and bankrupt policy is a matter of ideology and an expression of hostility towards the targeted country. It doesn't matter to hard-liners if the policy actually achieves anything as long as it does damage, and so they take pride in the damage that they cause without any concern for the consequences for the U.S. and Iran. Rational critics of this policy rightfully object that this is just aimless destruction, but the destruction is the point of the policy.

Sid Finster • 3 days ago

The current administration, like its predecessors, is not merely incompetent, it is actively malicious.
Zsuzsi Kruska Sid Finster • 3 days ago
It only appears incompetent until you discover who benefits, and it isn't the majority of Americans. Who has benefited so far? The Plutocrats, oligarchs, Israel, Saudi, MIC, Big Oil, Big Rx, immigration related services. This is just a partial list, but guess who it doesn't include?
maninthewilderness Sid Finster • 3 days ago
Perhaps it's a precondition for being the administration.
Littleredtop • 3 days ago
Any nation that allows "freedom of speech" has made the assumption that either everyone is honest or everyone is smart enough to know bull sh !t when they hear it.
Taras77 • 3 days ago
Pompeo is deception, lies, absolute dishonesty. But of course that is the mark of the trump regime in general terms.

[Aug 07, 2019] Why Should Iran Be Cherished and Defended by Andre Vltchek

It's mostly about the control of Mid East oil and Israel status in the region ...
And despite all those positive things mentioned bellow Iran is still a theocratic state. It is definitely not Saudi Arabia but still..
Notable quotes:
"... Despite the embargos and terrible intimidation from the West, it still sits at the threshold of the "Very high human development", defined by UNDP; well above such darlings of the West as Ukraine, Colombia or Thailand. ..."
"... Trump is President of the US. He is responsible for the actions of the US in foreign affairs. Trump is a willing sycophant of the Deep State. ..."
"... Yet another article, pointing out that there is no reason for the US to attack Iran. Yes, there is. Iran is an enemy of Israel (although with the US behind them, there isn’t much they can actually do), and Israel wants Iran destroyed. The influence of Israel in American politics is enormous. THAT is the reason. Please stop the head-scratching over why oh why the US would want to destroy Israel. Everyone knows why. ..."
"... Iran’s real “crime” is twofold: 1) It sells oil in denomiations other than the US dollar; and 2) If allowed its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it would be producing vast amounts of low cost molybdenum and/or technetium which are used in medical testing, which would cut into the lucrative US market. ..."
"... There is some truth to claims about Iran’s belligerence…the Russians aren’t thrilled about everything they’re doing in Syria, which includes Shia colonizing in regions they’ve seized, which is a sign of attempting to entrench their agenda in that suffering country…and hence the continuing Israeli attacks, which nobody appreciates… ..."
"... In Iran, sources confirm that “…Russia offered to sell one million barrels daily for Iran, and to replace the European financial system with another if needed. ..."
"... There is also the issue of the illegality of Trump tearing up the deal…which was adopted [unanimously] by the UN Security Council Resolution 2231… ..."
"... The US signed that resolution…and let us remember that UNSC resolutions are INTERNATIONAL LAW…they are LEGALLY BINDING on all UN member states… ..."
"... So the US is breaking international law…the sanctions are illegal also, since only the UNSC had the legal authority to impose sanctions… ..."
"... The US’ disregard for the supreme international legal order…along with Israel similarly flouting UNSC resolutions for 50 years to pull out of the occupied territories…is simply unacceptable… ..."
Aug 06, 2019 | www.unz.com

As I pen this short essay, Iran is standing against the mightiest nation on earth. It is facing tremendous danger; of annihilation even, if the world does not wake up fast, and rush to its rescue.

Stunning Iranian cities are in danger, but above all, its people: proud and beautiful, creative, formed by one of the oldest and deepest cultures on earth.

This is a reminder to the world: Iran may be bombed, devastated and injured terribly, for absolutely no reason. I repeat: there is zero rational reason for attacking Iran.

Iran has never attacked anyone. It has done nothing bad to the United States, to the United Kingdom, or even to those countries that want to destroy it immediately: Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Its only 'crime' is that it helped devastated Syria. And that it seriously stands by Palestine. And that it came to the rescue of many far away nations, like Cuba and Venezuela, when they were in awful need.

I am trying to choose the simplest words. No need for pirouettes and intellectual exercises.

Thousands, millions of Iranians may soon die, simply because a psychopath who is currently occupying the White House wants to humiliate his predecessor, who signed the nuclear deal. This information was leaked by his own staff. This is not about who is a bigger gangster. It is about the horrible fact that antagonizing Iran has absolutely nothing to do with Iran itself.

Which brings the question to my mind: in what world are we really living? Could this be tolerable? Can the world just stand by, idly, and watch how one of the greatest countries on earth gets violated by aggressive, brutal forces, without any justification?

I love Iran! I love its cinema, poetry, food. I love Teheran. And I love the Iranian people with their polite, educated flair. I love their thinkers. I don't want anything bad to happen to them.

You know, you were of course never told by the Western media, but Iran is a socialist country. It professes a system that could be defined as "socialism with Iranian characteristics". Like China, Iran is one of the most ancient nations on earth, and it is perfectly capable of creating and developing its own economic and social system.

Iran is an extremely successful nation. Despite the embargos and terrible intimidation from the West, it still sits at the threshold of the "Very high human development", defined by UNDP; well above such darlings of the West as Ukraine, Colombia or Thailand.

It clearly has an internationalist spirit: it shows great solidarity with the countries that are being battered by Western imperialism, including those in Latin America.

I have no religion. In Iran, most of the people do. They are Shi'a Muslims. So what? I do not insist that everyone thinks like me. And my Iranian friends, comrades, brothers and sisters have never insisted that I feel or think the same way as they do. They are not fanatics, and they do not make people who are not like them, feel excluded. We are different and yet so similar. We fight for a better world. We are internationalists. We respect each other. We respect others.

Iran does not want to conquer anyone. But when its friends are attacked, it offers a helping hand. Like to Syria.

In the past, it was colonized by the West, and its democratic government was overthrown, in 1953, simply because it wanted to use its natural resources for improving the lives of its people. The morbid dictatorship of Shah Pahlavi was installed from abroad. And then, later, again, a terrible war unleashed against Iran by Iraq, with the full and candid support of the West.

I promised to make this essay short. There is no time for long litanies. And in fact, this is not really an essay at all: it is an appeal.

As this goes to print, many people in Iran are anxious. They do not understand what they have done to deserve this; the sanctions, the US aircraft carriers sailing near their shores, and deadly B-52s deployed only dozens of miles away.

Iranians are brave, proud people. If confronted, if attacked, they will fight. And they will die with dignity, if there is no other alternative.

But why? Why should they fight and why should they die?

Those of you, my readers, living in the West: Study; study quickly. Then ask this question to your government: "What is the reason for this terrible scenario?"

Rent Iranian films; they are everywhere, winning all festivals. Read Iranian poets. Go eat Iranian food. Search for images of both historic and modern Iranian cities. Look at the faces of the people. Do not allow this to happen. Do not permit psychopathic reasoning to ruin millions of lives.

There was no real reason for the wars against Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. The West perpetrated the most terrible imperialist interventions, ruining entire nations.

But Iran -- it all goes one step further. It's a total lack of logic and accountability on the part of the West.

Here, I declare my full support to the people of Iran, and to the country that has been giving countless cultural treasures to the world, for millennia.

It is because I have doubts that if Iran is destroyed, the human race could survive.

[First published by NEO -- New Eastern Outlook]

Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Four of his latest books are ...

Jonny C , says: July 28, 2019 at 6:16 pm GMT

Thousands, millions of Iranians may soon die, simply because a psychopath who is currently occupying the White House wants to humiliate his predecessor, who signed the nuclear deal.

Certainly war with Iran is not because Trump wants to humiliate Obama. There is very serious pressure on Trump to go to war with Iran, and that pressure comes from sources including Sheldon Adelson, Netanyahu, John Bolton, and elements within the military industrial complex and oil industries both of which would be able to capitalize on such a misadventure. It is very possibly Trump’s misgivings about a war with Iran (in spite of the idiotic rhetoric) that is keeping the US from attacking Iran.

While I agree with your sentiment in this article, it is unfortunate to make over-simplifications that cheerlead a false narrative that one person is to blame for a complex problem that spans party lines and presidencies. It was much to Obama’s credit to enter into the agreement with Iran, and the opposition to doing so obviously runs much deeper than Trump’s desire to make Obama look bad.

Thomm , says: July 28, 2019 at 7:01 pm GMT
One thing that everyone on UR agrees on is that there is absolutely no benefit for America to attack Iran.

Iran is the most overrated threat ever. The MI-complex has spent 40 years pushing a narrative so that they can profit from a large war.

Jonny C , says: July 28, 2019 at 10:03 pm GMT
@Andre Vltchek Yes, you can’t say everything in every piece that you write, and for expediency there is simplification. You can get away with it by saying “among other things, Trump’s desire to humiliate Obama may lead us into a devastating war.” But the way you wrote it certainly insinuates that it is in fact Trump and his personal psychopathy driving the country towards war. In that, I think you are mistaken. The jury is not out on this one yet, and Trump’s resistance to war with Iran is a thread of hope keeping it from happening. I am not trying to split hairs. It is important because there is a tendency to focus on the face in the white house and not on the forces that are behind the mischief. It also probably gets more likes among a broader audience who want to blame Trump or Obama when they are more like two leaves being blown by a strong wind than the leader of the free world or any other nonsensical title given to the president. Take it for a slight literary critique and not for any disagreement with the overall sentiment or quality of the article.
anonymous [251] • Disclaimer , says: July 28, 2019 at 10:51 pm GMT
@Birchleg

It was at that point I knew this wasn’t an intellectually honest essay. You don’t even need to go back six months to see what a peaceful little lamb Iran is, as it attacked merchant ships in the Straight of Hormuz. Perhaps your intended audience is ignorant to facts, but Iran is, by no means, a country of innocent intent.

What would USA do if Iranian or any other non-friendly nation surrounded USA, including sending heavily armed ships into its harbors?

This Could Be Part Of The Reason Iran Is So Darn Defensive
Robert Johnson Jan. 3, 2012, 9:38 AM
Facebook Icon The letter F.
https://www.businessinsider.com/iran-surrounded-by-us-military-bases-2011-12

This map from Democratic Underground puts a star on every U.S. military base in the region, and aside from the Caspian area to the North, American forces pretty much have Tehran surrounded (via Informed Comment).

[Non-violent resistance is not necessarily futile, but a feint]: We cannot delude ourselves.
People ask, What about nonviolent, peaceful forms of resistance? And you know, the answer is, There is no such thing as nonviolence.
Nonviolence is a form of disruption and only works if you are facing those who are constrained in their use of violence, or works best if you can use your enemy’s violence against them.

Take for example, Dr. Martin Luther King . . . [he learned from Gandhi and others that] nonviolence is a mechanism of goading your opponent into being violent.
Once they become violent, you can call on your friends to be even more violent against them. And he knew he could goad the sheriff into behaving violently and stupidly, and then the FBI would descend on them.
You know, we always want to delude ourselves that war is not the answer. It would be good if that were true, but unfortunately it is very often the key answer, the only answer. https://www.c-span.org/video/?323264-1/the-worth-war&start=599

USA is being deliberately provocative, goading Iran to throw the first punch, whereupon USA will “descend on them.”

It’s not the first time USA & its allies have used the tactic.

The Alarmist , says: July 29, 2019 at 9:11 am GMT
I dunno … If the West was going to attack, it should have happened several weeks ago, if not earlier. Do you think Trump’s stand-down of an attack allegedly in progress was to save a couple hundred Iranian lives, or might it make more sense that it became clear a couple hundreds or thousands of coalition lives were at serious risk? The leadership knows this will be far messier than Iraq if it goes kinetic, and they would prefer to continue to starve Iran into submission while making a lot of noise about the ‘evil and suicidal death-cult’ regime in Tehran.
peter mcloughlin , says: July 29, 2019 at 9:34 am GMT
Andre Vltchek gives a passionate defence of Iran, and the reasons for not attacking it. I agree there are ‘doubts that if Iran is destroyed, the human race could survive.’ If the US, and its allies, were to destabilize Iran to such an extent as to threaten regime change China and Russia would have to intervene. The world should avoid war on Iran, even if it is for selfish reasons. All the indications point to world war.
https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
Anon [363] • Disclaimer , says: July 29, 2019 at 9:45 am GMT
@anonymous Because the JIDF/Zionist has the modus operandi of falsifying consensus. Large numbers of seemingly reasonable people all pushing the same view point has the unconscious effect of making an unwary reader adopt that same viewpoint. Of course, they’re hoping you dont go trawling through their comment history or else the whole thing blows up.
Realist , says: July 29, 2019 at 10:32 am GMT
@Jonny C

While I agree with your sentiment in this article, it is unfortunate to make over-simplifications that cheerlead a false narrative that one person is to blame for a complex problem that spans party lines and presidencies.

Trump is President of the US. He is responsible for the actions of the US in foreign affairs. Trump is a willing sycophant of the Deep State.

Realist , says: July 29, 2019 at 10:36 am GMT
@anonymous

People need to realize that it’s been a RedBlue puppet show of the same empire since – for purposes of Iran – 1953. Blaming one politician as opposed to the other plays right into the hands of those who want to run the world from Washington.

The past can not be changed. Trump is responsible for the here and now.

SteveK9 , says: July 29, 2019 at 3:37 pm GMT
Yet another article, pointing out that there is no reason for the US to attack Iran. Yes, there is. Iran is an enemy of Israel (although with the US behind them, there isn’t much they can actually do), and Israel wants Iran destroyed. The influence of Israel in American politics is enormous. THAT is the reason. Please stop the head-scratching over why oh why the US would want to destroy Israel. Everyone knows why.
Curmudgeon , says: July 29, 2019 at 6:24 pm GMT
The Iran never attacked anyone narrative has long been a favourite. What is buried somewhere in cyberspace, is an article written over 20 years ago about the causes of the Iraq – Iran war. The article laid out several instances of Iranian revolutionaries attacking several Iraqi border towns. It also pointed out that Iraq’s original invasion into Iran stopped about 8 miles into Iran, apparently understanding that it was never going to defeat Iran territorially. The article also stated that Iraq was egged on by the US to attack, in hopes to dislodge the new regime. However, it was the Shah who attacked Iraq in the 70s over the Shat al Arab waterway. The subsequent peace agreement settled the issue. https://www.nytimes.com/1975/03/07/archives/iraq-and-iran-sign-accord-to-settle-border-conflicts-iraq-and-iran.html

One reason given by Iraq for its invasion of Iran, post revolution, was that it viewed the border attacks by Iranian revolutionaries, as a refutation of the treaty.

Iran’s real “crime” is twofold:
1) It sells oil in denomiations other than the US dollar; and
2) If allowed its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it would be producing vast amounts of low cost molybdenum and/or technetium which are used in medical testing, which would cut into the lucrative US market.

Brabantian , says: July 29, 2019 at 7:39 pm GMT
The USA-Israel-Nato menaces to Iran are criminal horseshite BUT –

Iran is horrifyingly brutal toward its own citizens, one of the most savage of all countries in per capita executions of its own people, sometimes hanging 100 people or so in a month, typically done by slow-torture hanging, often in groups of 6 or 8 people in public squares.

It seems that usually, Iran does not even try to break the neck of its hanging victims with a long drop, which can induce a merciful coma before the victim dies, typically some 15 minutes to an hour later. As is often observed in Iran, smaller people such as women typically die more slowly, their lighter weight leading to a longer period of torturous choking.

And Iran has a bunch of other Islamic barbarisms … Iran burying women alive up to their necks, only their veiled heads above the ground, and stoning them to death; the floggings and amputations, sometimes the victim marked for death is flogged bloody before being hanged from a crane etc

But André Vltchek thinks Iran is a great place …

Iran is also a bizarre social experiment in extreme social dysfunctionality, with the ‘temporary marriage’ provision in Shia religious practice that is essentially legalised prostitution. Not only can Iranians have 4 wives as the Sunnis do, one of those can be a ‘wife for the weekend’, legally, provided you go to the imam to be officially ‘married’ … you can then divorce Monday morning, e.g., by saying the word ‘talaq’ 3 times. Iranian women sometimes advertise themselves as ‘temporary wives’ (not ‘prostitutes’ of course!) for a small marital ‘gift’ of € 60 or so.

Between temporary marriage, and Iran’s practice of educating its women – often ‘bad’ for Muslim fertility – Iran’s birth rate has collapsed even more than in much of Europe.

A great shame the US CIA overthrew the secular socialist Iranian government in 1953. May the Iranian people be soon free of both Western-Israeli menace, and their own mad mullahs.

peterAUS , says: July 29, 2019 at 10:38 pm GMT
@Brabantian Good comment.

Have to say this was new to me:

…‘temporary marriage’ provision in Shia religious practice that is essentially legalised prostitution. Not only can Iranians have 4 wives as the Sunnis do, one of those can be a ‘wife for the weekend’, legally, provided you go to the imam to be officially ‘married’ … you can then divorce Monday morning, e.g., by saying the word ‘talaq’ 3 times. Iranian women sometimes advertise themselves as ‘temporary wives’ (not ‘prostitutes’ of course!) for a small marital ‘gift’ of € 60 or so.

May the Iranian people be soon free of both Western-Israeli menace, and their own mad mullahs.

Well, the price for the later is the former, apparently.

renfro , says: July 29, 2019 at 11:00 pm GMT
@Jonny C

Yes, you can’t say everything in every piece that you write, and for expediency there is simplification. You can get away with it by saying “among other things, Trump’s desire to humiliate Obama may lead us into a devastating war.” But the way you wrote it certainly insinuates that it is in fact Trump and his personal psychopathy driving the country towards war. In that, I think you are mistaken.

I don’t see it that way…..Vltchek has been around unz for a while…..so it would not be wrong for him to assume most of unz knows the real forces behind Trump and the Iran war push.

... ... ...

FB , says: • Website July 30, 2019 at 2:49 pm GMT
@Brabantian You come off sounding like a Soros acolyte by parroting ‘human rights porn’ that is largely fabricated bullshit…and disseminated by the usual NGO suspects and their MSM partners…

That’s not to say there is no merit to your basic beef…Iran is a theocracy…religious fanaticism has been a curse on humanity over the ages…religion in general really…

Iran does execute a lot of people…Vltchek is overly enthusiastic about Iran…I would say probably because he sympathizes a lot with their essentially ‘socialist’ approach [as do I]…but Iran is no angel…

But then who is…?…US cops gun down 1,000 people a year…

Also some mitigating facts to consider…a lot of the criminals Iran executes are drug traffickers…Afghanistan next-door is heroin central…run by the CIA with help from their ISIS private army…

This is nothing new…the deep state of empire has been running the global drug racket for a couple of centuries now…and using it as a geopolitical weapon against perceived ‘enemies’…going back to the opium wars that were used by the British to ‘crack open’ China…and today aimed against Russia, Central Asia and Iran…not to mention ‘neutralizing’ large swaths of the domestic population by turning them into drug zombies…

Iran’s drug laws are not nearly as draconian as in other jurisdictions in the Muslim world…capital punishment goes only for those caught with over 30 grams of hard drugs like heroin…which is far bigger than user amounts…the death sentence is not applied for first offenders, or even for repeat offenders of 30 to 100 grams…so really it is the hardcore traffickers that are getting offed…I have no problem with that…[neither do leaders like the Philippines’ Duterte who is much less tolerant than Iran…]

There is some truth to claims about Iran’s belligerence…the Russians aren’t thrilled about everything they’re doing in Syria, which includes Shia colonizing in regions they’ve seized, which is a sign of attempting to entrench their agenda in that suffering country…and hence the continuing Israeli attacks, which nobody appreciates…

They are also spurning Russian offers of help…

In Iran, sources confirm that “…Russia offered to sell one million barrels daily for Iran, and to replace the European financial system with another if needed.

Iran has refused…why…?

[Probably because they resent Russia for pressuring them to reign in their activities in Syria…it just shows the all or nothing mentality of religious fanatics…]

All in all it is crazy to think that religious zealotry can lead to anything good…it never has…

But there is a bigger principle here… it’s their country…

Nobody gives us the right to tell them how to live their lives…certainly compared to Saudi Barbaria and the other gulf theocracies…not to mention serial criminal Israel…nobody has good cause to be pointing fingers at Iran…

There is also the issue of the illegality of Trump tearing up the deal…which was adopted [unanimously] by the UN Security Council Resolution 2231…

The US signed that resolution…and let us remember that UNSC resolutions are INTERNATIONAL LAW…they are LEGALLY BINDING on all UN member states…

So the US is breaking international law…the sanctions are illegal also, since only the UNSC had the legal authority to impose sanctions…

The US’ disregard for the supreme international legal order…along with Israel similarly flouting UNSC resolutions for 50 years to pull out of the occupied territories…is simply unacceptable…

So let’s not lose sight of the ball…this has nothing to do with Iran’s domestic behavior…and everything to do with serial criminal USA…

Fool's Paradise , says: July 30, 2019 at 8:33 pm GMT
@SteveK9 Yes, SteveK9, but you meant, of course, to say “why oh why the US would want to destroy Iran”–not Israel. Israel has been trying to maneuver Uncle Sam into a shooting war with Iran for a decade or more. Israel’s American neocons have succeeded in getting America to destroy Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Iran is the last country standing in the way of Israel’s total dominance of the Middle East. No Israel, no war, it’s as simple as that.
Commentator Mike , says: August 3, 2019 at 3:31 pm GMT
@Brabantian Standard muslim stuff. It’s their country so up to them what they do. But Iran was cooperating with Al Qaida in Bosnia in the 1990s chopping heads of Christians and atheists. In fact they were aligned with USA and NATO there but now US is using that involvement against them as proof of “terrorism” activity.

https://en.radiofarda.com/a/iran-guard-s-general-says-they-were-in-bosnia-disguised-as-aid-workers/29886373.html

And here’s Andre praising them. It was well known that they were supplying weapons disguised as humanitarian aid but US and NATO did nothing to stop them at the time.

Talha , says: August 3, 2019 at 4:45 pm GMT
@Commentator Mike There was an embargo on any weapons getting through to Bosnia at the time. The Bosnians were massively outgunned by the Serbs that had possession of almost all the serious hardware after the break up of Yugoslavia. The Muslim world was not about to let this discrepancy go unanswered.

AQ at that stage was still mostly the “foreign legion” global defense initiative that was the initial vision of Shaykh Abdullah Azzam so it’s not surprising the Iranians were cooperating with them at the time. It would later progressively warp into the terrorism outfit over time in the 90’s especially with the African embassy bombings.

Peace.

peterAUS , says: August 3, 2019 at 7:17 pm GMT
@Commentator Mike Maybe you could take a look at what is going on there as we speak.
As European, you could do it. Americans and the rest of colonists can’t.

Let’s just say there is a significant Iranian presence in Bosnia.

Serbs and Croats in the region won’t be displeased should the regime in Tehran get smashed into pieces. Really small pieces.

Make of that what you will.

Commentator Mike , says: August 4, 2019 at 7:09 am GMT
@peterAUS PeterAUS,

The problem with the Balkans is that there is so much hatred and animosity between the various white ethnicities, because of historical reasons, that they have a blind spot for the much greater danger posed to them all by the massive demographic changes taking place in the world. And if that kind of intra-white hatred were to spread to the rest of Europe it will be even harder to salvage anything of the white European sovereignty.

Actually one can work even within those hatreds unless they’re given a chance to flare up, and obviously certain forces work on doing just that, as we have seen in Ukraine. Oh yes, and the Muslims aren’t helping much to bring peace about in that region.

Commentator Mike , says: August 4, 2019 at 8:41 am GMT

Go eat Iranian food.

Thanks but no thanks. Since Supreme Commander Al Baghdadi ordered muslims to get us by any and every means I strictly avoid eating anywhere muslims work, cook, or serve, despite liking their food. Didn’t you hear of the three Albanian Kosovars who were arrested in Italy plotting a bombing campaign? They worked as waiters in Venice, Italy’s tourist hub. I pity those tourists who went through their restaurant before the Kosovars decided to move onto bigger actions. And he did mention poison, whatever, even spitting.

peterAUS , says: August 4, 2019 at 7:08 pm GMT
@Commentator Mike True.

Especially:

The problem with the Balkans is that there is so much hatred and animosity between the various white ethnicities, because of historical reasons, that they have a blind spot for the much greater danger posed to them all by the massive demographic changes taking place in the world.

As for this:

And if that kind of intra-white hatred were to spread to the rest of Europe it will be even harder to salvage anything of the white European sovereignty.

Smart observation.

[Aug 03, 2019] Looks like the> US withdrawal from the JCPOA with Iran might have been co-ordinated with the western European signatories

Aug 03, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Ghost Ship , Aug 3 2019 10:55 utc | 72

BTW, it has become very clear to me that the US withdrawal from the JCPOA with Iran was co-ordinated with the western European signatories (France, United Kingdom, Germany and EU) so that "maximum pressure" can be maintained on Iran while F/UK/DE/EU do nothing to honour their commitments at the same time making it appear that it's Iran in breach rather than the US/F/UK/DE/EU. Iran is aware of this and taking action to ensure its preservation . War is coming and F/UY/DE/EU will be involved on the side of the Great Satan.

[Aug 03, 2019] Gareth Porter on John Bolton's Role in the Iranian Tanker Crisis The Scott Horton Show

Jul 30, 2019 | scotthorton.org

Scott interviews Gareth Porter about John Bolton's most recent efforts to raise tensions with Iran. He and Scott speculate about Iran's ability to disrupt international trade in the region by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, and the likelihood that they would do so given the risks of inciting more serious conflict as a result.

Discussed on the show:

Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist on the national security state, and author of Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare . Follow him on Twitter @GarethPorter and listen to Gareth's previous appearances on the Scott Horton Show.

This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: Kesslyn Runs , by Charles Featherstone; NoDev NoOps NoIT , by Hussein Badakhchani; The War State , by Mike Swanson; WallStreetWindow.com ; Tom Woods' Liberty Classroom ; ExpandDesigns.com/Scott ; and LibertyStickers.com .

Donate to the show through Patreon , PayPal , or Bitcoin: 1Ct2FmcGrAGX56RnDtN9HncYghXfvF2GAh.

[Aug 02, 2019] 1952: Mosaddeq Nationalization of Iran's Oil Industry Leads to Coup

Aug 02, 2019 | www.unz.com

James N. Kennett , says: August 1, 2019 at 12:41 am GMT

@lysias

I wonder how Eisenhower was persuaded to permit the 1953 coup in Iran.

The British wanted to preserve BP's oil concessions in Iran, but MI6 was not powerful enough to stage a coup without help from the CIA. So the Brits pretended that Mosaddegh leaned towards the Soviets, and the Americans pretended to believe them.

After the coup, the Shah's government transferred the majority of BP's rights to American oil companies. It would have been much better for the Brits if they had done a deal with Mosaddegh.

renfro , says: August 2, 2019 at 5:29 am GMT
@James N. Kennett 1952: Mosaddeq Nationalization of Iran's Oil Industry Leads to Coup

Time Magazine's Man of the Year cover for 1951. Mohammad Mosaddeq
]
Iranian President Mohammad Mosaddeq moves to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in order to ensure that more oil profits remain in Iran. His efforts to democratize Iran had already earned him being named Time Magazine's Man of the Year for 1951. After he nationalizes it, Mosaddeq realizes that Britain may want to overthrow his government, so he closes the British Embassy and sends all British civilians, including its intelligence operatives, out of the country.

Britain finds itself with no way to stage the coup it desires, so it approaches the American intelligence community for help. Their first approach results in abject failure when Harry Truman throws the British representatives out of his office, stating that "We don't overthrow governments; the United States has never done this before, and we're not going to start now."

After Eisenhower is elected in November 1952, the British have a much more receptive audience, and plans for overthrowing Mosaddeq are produced. The British intelligence operative who presents the idea to the Eisenhower administration later will write in his memoirs, "If I ask the Americans to overthrow Mosaddeq in order to rescue a British oil company, they are not going to respond. This is not an argument that's going to cut much mustard in Washington. I've got to have a different argument. I'm going to tell the Americans that Mosaddeq is leading Iran towards Communism." This argument wins over the Eisenhower administration, who promptly decides to organize a coup in Iran (see August 19, 1953). [Stephen Kinzer, 7/29/2003]

Entity Tags: Dwight Eisenhower, Harry S. Truman, Muhammad Mosaddeq

Timeline Tags: US confrontation with Iran, US-Iran (1952-1953)

[Jul 31, 2019] Craig Murray worked on the laws of the sea. He calls the British heist of an Iran tanker illegal

Jul 31, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Petri Krohn , Jul 28 2019 19:46 utc | 2

Other issues:

Craig Murray worked on the laws of the sea. He calls the British heist of an Iran tanker illegal:
Tanker Seizures and the Threat to the Global Economy from Resurgent Imperialism

We still do not know how, when and where the Iranian tanker was captured. There are two mutually exclusive narratives.

1) Grace 1 "freely navigated into UK territorial waters" as Jeremy Hunt claims.

2) The capture of Grace 1 was ordered by the US long before Grace 1 entered the Strait. Panama revoked the ship's registration and Gibraltar changed its sanction laws.

Would the US know weeks in advance that Grace 1 is about to stop in Gibraltar? On the other hand, If Grace 1 had known that its registration had been revoked, would it not have avoided British waters.

I suspect Grace 1 was captured out on the Atlantic, days before the news was made public. The Royal Marines would then reprogram the automatic identification system (AIS) to show Gibraltar as the destination. We still have not heard from the crew. What is their story?

Thanks for the link to Craig Murray 's article. I have been collecting sources and analysis on the tanker seizures here .

Jen , Jul 28 2019 23:08 utc | 8

Petri Krohn @ 2:

If you know which shipping company owns a certain cargo ship or tanker, you can usually look up that company's database and find the ship's scheduled voyage. This is crucial knowledge because usually cargo ships will be carrying several lots of cargo to be offloaded at ports along the way, and new cargo taken on at the same time, so importers and exporters need to know exactly when the ship docks at X place and when it leaves. It would be very easy for the UK or the US to know in advance when the Grace 1 docks at Gibraltar; they only need to know who owns the tanker, find the owner's website and look up the schedules of all the owner's ships.

See here an example of how a company can choose a ship and a schedule that fits in with its import / export schedules. Another example here.

In fact the Grace 1 tanker might not have been the specific target; as long as there was a ship purportedly carrying Iranian oil passing through the Straits of Gibraltar, it would have been fair game. So all the British would have needed to know is which tanker or tankers from the Middle East would have been scheduled to dock in at Gibraltar and they get that information from the relevant port authorities.

[Jul 29, 2019] Tehran Urges China To Buy More Iranian Oil As It Feasts On Saudi Crude

Notable quotes:
"... China's crude shipments from Iran totaled 855,638 tons last month, which averages to 208,205 barrels per day (bpd), compared with 254,016 bpd in May, according figures from the General Administration of Customs, cited in a recent Reuters report . ..."
"... Iran's Vice President Jahangiri made the appeal to Beijing and "friendly" countries to up their Iranian crude purchases in statements Monday. "Even though we are aware that friendly countries such as China are facing some restrictions, we expect them to be more active in buying Iranian oil ," Jahangiri reportedly told visiting senior Chinese diplomat Song Tao. He said this while also on Monday issuing a statement saying Iran stood ready to "confront" American aggression in the region and that multilateralism must be upheld. ..."
Jul 29, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

Following China's crude imports from Iran plunging this summer, sinking almost 60% in June compared to a year earlier - which corresponded to Washington shutting down the waiver program in May - leaders in Tehran are urging China to buy more Iranian oil .

China's crude shipments from Iran totaled 855,638 tons last month, which averages to 208,205 barrels per day (bpd), compared with 254,016 bpd in May, according figures from the General Administration of Customs, cited in a recent Reuters report .

Iran's Vice President Jahangiri made the appeal to Beijing and "friendly" countries to up their Iranian crude purchases in statements Monday. "Even though we are aware that friendly countries such as China are facing some restrictions, we expect them to be more active in buying Iranian oil ," Jahangiri reportedly told visiting senior Chinese diplomat Song Tao. He said this while also on Monday issuing a statement saying Iran stood ready to "confront" American aggression in the region and that multilateralism must be upheld.

"The foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran is to protect multilateralism and confront American hegemony," Jahangiri said , according to the IRIB news agency.

He added that Iran's recent move to breach uranium enrichment caps could be reversed should other parties return to upholding their side of the nuclear agreement.

Simultaneously, China's oil purchases from Iran's rival Saudi Arabia have soared to record volume , totaling 1.89 million barrels a day last month, according to numbers cited in Bloomberg . "Shipments from the OPEC producer made up almost a fifth of its total oil purchases in June and was 64% higher than the previous month," while at the same time "Imports from Iran fell to the lowest since May 2010," according to Bloomberg .

Meanwhile, in a crucial development related to Iran's trying to weather the severe US-led sanctions storm, a long anticipated plan for gasoline export has begun with an inaugural shipment to neighboring Afghanistan.

State media reported the following on Monday :

The Fars news agency said on Monday that a first consignment of export gasoline will start trading in Iran's Energy Exchange (IRENEX) later this week .

It said some 10,000 tons of gasoline with octane number of 91 will be available for sale to Afghanistan through IRENEX on Wednesday, adding that the trade will take place both in the Iranian rial and in major international currencies.

Iran's refining capacity has grown significantly over the past years as the country slashed fuel imports while also coping with increased domestic demand.

Officials have expressed hope that Iraq along with Afghanistan, as well as Caspian Sea countries would become main destinations for gasoline export.

Noob678 , 10 minutes ago link

India totally stop buying Iranian oil despite being an ally to Iran. China is still buying regardless of US sanction against their companies and CEOs.

cashback , 11 minutes ago link

A country knocking on the doors of other countries to be able to sell it's product to sustain it's economy and support it's population all the while "civilized, humane, peaceful, and law abiding" people in the west enjoying their lives at the expense of the very same people who they insult for not being able to stole the way they did, arguing and trying to convince everyone else how Mullah's are oppressing their people while they're trying to help.

Welcome to the civilized world.

schroedingersrat , 4 minutes ago link

We were never civilized outside the west's borders. The west pillages, murders, enslaves and plunders since the beginning of civilisation.

KekistanisUnite , 15 minutes ago link

China will buy more Iranian oil and so will Russia. They will have the last word whilst the US empire will be the laughing stock of the world (well it already is).

earthling1 , 26 minutes ago link

China and Russia will support Iran up to and including WW3.

Iran is a crucial link in the OBOR/New Silk Road, which in turn MUST succeed for the survival of all three nations.

If Iran falls victim to the global cabal, war is certain and Putin has already stated: if there is no mother Russia, there will be no world.

But don't worry friends, it will all be over with quicker than an asteroid out of nowhere.

None of us will ever see the end coming. Nothing to see or do here. Move along, be happy.

Blue2B , 28 minutes ago link

Cruelty and Stupidity are the hallmarks of moves this century.

"What's Iran to do? It seems straightforward. Respond in kind but no more than in kind to aggression on Iran's interests, make sure the craven Trumpists and allies realize Iran isn't kidding about shutting down resource shipments through the Persian Gulf and the destruction of the vast petroleum infrastructure in the Persian Gulf if Iran is attacked militarily, and above all remain cool headed and patient. The US empire is beginning to implode."

https://en.mehrnews.com/news/148138/Cruelty-and-stupidity-are-the-hallmarks-of-US-moves-this-century

Sofa King , 31 minutes ago link

OK so last week there was millions of barrels of Iranian oil sitting in storage tanks in China but has not officially changed hands because of sanctions. Today imports from Iran to China have plunged. Do you not see the correlation? It was in your own ******* article. Do you even read some of the **** you publish?

I miss Marla...**** was straight when she was around.

hola dos cola , 5 minutes ago link

See what you mean re: Marla. Nowadays most articles get published on the merit of fitting an agenda, beyond that content seems irrelevant. And I'm not sure 'Tyler' even knows there is an active comment section, if you see what I mean.

The Chinese have planned for (and thus probably will achieve) a SPR holding 90 days of oil. They are past 60, maybe already past 70 these days.

... ~not good~...

Real Estate Guru , 32 minutes ago link

Let's take a look at what is happening around the world....

China is in trouble.

Iran is in trouble.

Venezuela is in trouble.

The UK, France, etc is beat up for past mistakes.

Mexico is in trouble.

... ... ...

Deep Snorkeler , 34 minutes ago link

The Globe is Forming Trading Blocs Against Us

petrodollar privilege is under attack

American export goods are shunned

our friends pretend to like us

Trump's sanctions and trade wars are backfiring

America is obese and rotting

datbedank , 32 minutes ago link

Petrodollar is dead, get with the times!

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-03/how-petrodollar-quietly-died-and-nobody-noticed

Oil consumption is flat thanks to engine improvements. The turd world (Russia included) is nervous because their oil welfare is going to come to an end.

Deep Snorkeler , 30 minutes ago link

As an American, I feel embarrassed to walk the Champs Elysee.

He–Mene Mox Mox , 35 minutes ago link

It would be pretty tough for the U.S. to enforce any sanctions, if China agreed to buy more oil from Iran. And there is no way the U.S. can stop them, once the Belt and Road system is completed through the Middle East region. And since China has already lined up 152 countries to cooperate in the BRI, it is extremely difficult for the U.S. to deny them a shot at improving their economies, especially when it comes to the subject of Iran.

Edward Morbius , 39 minutes ago link

The "King of Debt" is also the "King of Tariffs (taxes)".

The "stable genius" is now going to to put tariffs on French wine. Epic jackassery.

frankthecrank , 42 minutes ago link

So much for the "China and Russia will save Iran" crowd's desperate assertions. Russia does not want VZ or Iranian crude on the market as it will push oil prices even lower. As I said, there will be no WW3 over Iran. There will be no grand assemblage of minor states over Iran. Iran is on its own.

[Jul 23, 2019] Did John Bolton Light the Fuse of the UK-Iranian Tanker Crisis

Notable quotes:
"... Contrary to the official rationale, the detention of the Iranian tanker was not consistent with the 2012 EU regulation on sanctions against the Assad government in Syria. The EU Council regulation in question specifies in Article 35 that the sanctions were to apply only within the territory of EU member states, to a national or business entity or onboard an aircraft or vessel "under the jurisdiction of a member state." ..."
"... The notice required the Gibraltar government to detain any such ship for at least 72 hours if it entered "British Gibraltar Territorial Waters." Significantly, however, the video statement by Gibraltar's chief minister Fabian Picardo on July 4 explaining the seizure of the Grace 1 made no such claim and avoided any mention of the precise location of the ship when it was seized. ..."
"... There is a good reason why the chief minister chose not to draw attention to the issue of the ship's location: it is virtually impossible that the ship was in British Gibraltar territorial waters at any time before being boarded. The UK claims territorial waters of three nautical miles from its coast, whereas the Strait of Gibraltar is 7.5 nautical miles wide at its narrowest point. That would make the limit of UK territory just north of the middle of the Strait. ..."
"... But international straits must have clearly defined and separated shipping lanes going in different directions. The Grace 1 was in the shipping lane heading east toward the Mediterranean, which is south of the lane for ships heading west toward the Atlantic and thus clearly closer to the coast of Morocco than to the coast of Gibraltar, as can be seen from this live view of typical ship traffic through the strait . So it is quite implausible that the Grace 1 strayed out of its shipping lane into British territorial waters at any time before it was boarded. ..."
"... Such a move clearly violates the global treaty governing the issue -- the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea . Articles 37 through 44 of that agreement, ratified by 167 states, including the UK and the European Union, establish a "regime of transit passage" for international straits like the Strait of Gibraltar that guarantees freedom of navigation for merchant ships. The rules of that regime explicitly forbid states bordering the strait from interfering with the transit passage of a merchant ship, with very narrowly defined exceptions. ..."
"... The evidence indicates, moreover, that the UK's actions were part of a broader scheme coordinated with the Trump administration to tighten pressure on Iran's economy by reducing Iran's ability to export goods. ..."
"... On July 19, Reuters London correspondent Guy Falconbridge reported , "[S]everal diplomatic sources said the United States asked the UK to seize the vessel." ..."
"... Detailed evidence of Bolton deep involvement in the British plan to seize the Iranian tanker has surfaced in reporting on the withdrawal of Panamanian flag status for the Grace 1. ..."
"... The role of Panama's National Security Council signaled Bolton's hand, since he would have been the point of contact with that body. The result of his maneuvering was to leave the Grace 1 without the protection of flag status necessary to sail or visit a port in the middle of its journey. This in conjunction with the British seizure of the ship was yet another episode in the extraordinary American effort to deprive Iran of the most basic sovereign right to participate in the global economy. ..."
"... Back in 2013 2013 there was a rumour afoot that Edward Snowden, who at the time was stuck in the Moscow airport, trapped there by the sudden cancellation mid-flight of his US passport, was going spirited away by the President of Bolivia Evo Morales aboard his private jet. So what the US apparently was lean on it European allies to stop him. This they duly and dutifully did. Spain, France, and others denied overflight rights to the Bolivian jet, forcing it to turn back and land in Austria. There was even a report that once on the ground, the Spanish ambassador to Austria showed up and asked the Bolivian president if he might come out to the plain for a coffee--and presumably to have a poke around to see he could catch Snowden in the act of vanishing into the cargo hold. ..."
"... The rumor turned out to be completely false, but it was the Europeans who wound up with the egg on their face. Not to mention the ones who broke international law. ..."
"... Bolton persuaded the British to play along with the stupid US "maximum pressure" strategy, regardless of its illegality. (Maybe the British government thought that it would placate Trump after Ambassadorgate.) And then of course Pompeo threw them under the bus. It's getting hard to be a US ally (except for Saudi Arabia and Israel.) ..."
"... Spain lodged a formal complaint about the action, because it considers the sea around Gibraltar to be part of its international waters, "We are studying the circumstances and looking at how this affects our sovereignty," Josep Borell, Spain's acting foreign minister, said. So Gibraltar or Spanish waters? Gibraltar – Territorial Waters (1 pg): ..."
"... Worse than the bad behavior of Bolton, and the poodle behavior of Britain, is the utter failure of our press to provide us a skeptical eye and honest look at events. They've been mere stenographers and megaphones for power doing wrong. ..."
"... And this just in. A UK government official has just stated, related to the Iranian tanker stopped near Gibraltar, the UK will not be part of Trump's 'maximum pressure' gambit on Iran. We shall see if Boris Johnson is for or against that policy. ..."
"... John Bolton, war criminal. ..."
"... John Bolton has been desperate for a war with Iran for decades. This is just another escalation in his desperate attempt to get one. He's the classic neocon chicken hawk who is bravely ready to risk and sacrifice other people's lives at the drop of a hat. ..."
"... Since UK is abusing its control of Gibraltar by behaving like a thug, maybe it is better for the international community to support an independent state of Gibraltar, or at least let Spain has it. It will be better for world peace. ..."
"... While I agree with the gist of the article, remember that Bolton has no authority except that which is given to him. So stop blaming Bolton. Blame Trump. ..."
"... The provocations will go on and on until Iran shoots back and then Wash. will get the war it's been trying to start for some time now to pay back all those campaign donors who will profit from another war. ..."
"... The MIC needs constant wars to use up munitions so new ones can be manufactured. It's really just about business and politicians working together for mutual benefit to keep those contributions coming in. With all the other issues facing America, a war with Iran will just add to the end of the USA which is coming faster than you think. ..."
Jul 23, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Did John Bolton Light the Fuse of the UK-Iranian Tanker Crisis? Evidence suggests he pressured the Brits to seize an Iranian ship. Why? More war. By Gareth Porter • July 23, 2019

While Iran's seizure of a British tanker near the Strait of Hormuz on Friday was a clear response to the British capture of an Iranian tanker in the Strait of Gibraltar on July 4, both the UK and U.S. governments are insisting that Iran's operation was illegal while the British acted legally.

The facts surrounding the British detention of the Iranian ship, however, suggest that, like the Iranian detention of the British ship, it was an illegal interference with freedom of navigation through an international strait. And even more importantly, evidence indicates that the British move was part of a bigger scheme coordinated by National Security Advisor John Bolton.

British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt called the Iran seizure of the British-flagged tanker Stena Impero "unacceptable" and insisted that it is "essential that freedom of navigation is maintained and that all ships can move safely and freely in the region."

But the British denied Iran that same freedom of navigation through the Strait of Gibraltar on July 4.

The rationale for detaining the Iranian vessel and its crew was that it was delivering oil to Syria in violation of EU sanctions. This was never questioned by Western news media. But a closer look reveals that the UK had no legal right to enforce those sanctions against that ship, and that it was a blatant violation of the clearly defined global rules that govern the passage of merchant ships through international straits.

The evidence also reveals that Bolton was actively involved in targeting the Grace 1 from the time it began its journey in May as part of the broader Trump administration campaign of "maximum pressure" on Iran.

Contrary to the official rationale, the detention of the Iranian tanker was not consistent with the 2012 EU regulation on sanctions against the Assad government in Syria. The EU Council regulation in question specifies in Article 35 that the sanctions were to apply only within the territory of EU member states, to a national or business entity or onboard an aircraft or vessel "under the jurisdiction of a member state."

The UK government planned to claim that the Iranian ship was under British "jurisdiction" when it was passing through the Strait of Gibraltar to justify its seizure as legally consistent with the EU regulation. A maritime news outlet has reported that on July 3, the day before the seizure of the ship, the Gibraltar government, which has no control over its internal security or foreign affairs, issued a regulation to provide what it would claim as a legal pretext for the operation. The regulation gave the "chief minister" of the British the power to detain any ship if there were "reasonable grounds" to "suspect" that it had been or even that it was even "likely" to be in breach of EU regulations.

The notice required the Gibraltar government to detain any such ship for at least 72 hours if it entered "British Gibraltar Territorial Waters." Significantly, however, the video statement by Gibraltar's chief minister Fabian Picardo on July 4 explaining the seizure of the Grace 1 made no such claim and avoided any mention of the precise location of the ship when it was seized.

There is a good reason why the chief minister chose not to draw attention to the issue of the ship's location: it is virtually impossible that the ship was in British Gibraltar territorial waters at any time before being boarded. The UK claims territorial waters of three nautical miles from its coast, whereas the Strait of Gibraltar is 7.5 nautical miles wide at its narrowest point. That would make the limit of UK territory just north of the middle of the Strait.

But international straits must have clearly defined and separated shipping lanes going in different directions. The Grace 1 was in the shipping lane heading east toward the Mediterranean, which is south of the lane for ships heading west toward the Atlantic and thus clearly closer to the coast of Morocco than to the coast of Gibraltar, as can be seen from this live view of typical ship traffic through the strait . So it is quite implausible that the Grace 1 strayed out of its shipping lane into British territorial waters at any time before it was boarded.

But even if the ship had done so, that would not have given the UK "jurisdiction" over the Grace 1 and allowed it to legally seize the ship. Such a move clearly violates the global treaty governing the issue -- the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea . Articles 37 through 44 of that agreement, ratified by 167 states, including the UK and the European Union, establish a "regime of transit passage" for international straits like the Strait of Gibraltar that guarantees freedom of navigation for merchant ships. The rules of that regime explicitly forbid states bordering the strait from interfering with the transit passage of a merchant ship, with very narrowly defined exceptions.

These articles allow coastal states to adopt regulations relating to safety of navigation, pollution control, prevention of fishing, and "loading or unloading any commodity in contravention of customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations" of bordering states -- but for no other reason. The British seizure and detention of the Grace 1 was clearly not related to any of these concerns and thus a violation of the treaty.

The evidence indicates, moreover, that the UK's actions were part of a broader scheme coordinated with the Trump administration to tighten pressure on Iran's economy by reducing Iran's ability to export goods.

The statement by Gibraltar's chief minister said the decision to seize the ship was taken after the receipt of "information" that provided "reasonable grounds" for suspicion that it was carrying oil destined for Syria's Banyas refinery. That suggested the intelligence had come from a government that neither he nor the British wished to reveal.

BBC defense correspondent Jonathan Beale reported: "[I]t appears the intelligence came from the United States." Acting Spanish Foreign Minister Joseph Borrell commented on July 4 that the British seizure had followed "a demand from the United States to the UK." On July 19, Reuters London correspondent Guy Falconbridge reported , "[S]everal diplomatic sources said the United States asked the UK to seize the vessel."

Detailed evidence of Bolton deep involvement in the British plan to seize the Iranian tanker has surfaced in reporting on the withdrawal of Panamanian flag status for the Grace 1.

Panama was the flag state for many of the Iranian-owned vessels carrying various items exported by Iran. But when the Trump administration reinstated economic sanctions against Iran in October 2018, it included prohibitions on industry services such as insurance and reinsurance. This decision was accompanied by political pressure on Panama to withdraw Panamanian flag status from 59 Iranian vessels, many of which were owned by Iranian state-affiliated companies. Without such flag status, the Iranian-owned vessels could not get insurance for shipments by freighter.

That move was aimed at discouraging ports, canal operators, and private firms from allowing Iranian tankers to use their facilities. The State Department's Brian Hook, who is in charge of the sanctions, warned those entities last November that the Trump administration believed they would be responsible for the costs of an accident involving a self-insured Iranian tanker.

But the Grace 1 was special case, because it still had Panamanian flag status when it began its long journey around the Southern tip of Africa on the way to the Mediterranean. That trip began in late May, according to Automatic Identification System data cited by Riviera Maritime Media . It was no coincidence that the Panamanian Maritime Authority delisted the Grace 1 on May 29 -- just as the ship was beginning its journey. That decision came immediately after Panama's National Security Council issued an alert claiming that the Iranian-owned tanker "may be participating in terrorism financing in supporting the destabilization activities of some regimes led by terrorist groups."

The Panamanian body did not cite any evidence that the Grace 1 had ever been linked to terrorism.

The role of Panama's National Security Council signaled Bolton's hand, since he would have been the point of contact with that body. The result of his maneuvering was to leave the Grace 1 without the protection of flag status necessary to sail or visit a port in the middle of its journey. This in conjunction with the British seizure of the ship was yet another episode in the extraordinary American effort to deprive Iran of the most basic sovereign right to participate in the global economy.

Now that Iran has detained a British ship in order to force the UK to release the Grace 1, the British Foreign Ministry will claim that its seizure of the Iranian ship was entirely legitimate. The actual facts, however, put that charge under serious suspicion.

Gareth Porter is an investigative reporter and regular contributor to The American Conservative . He is also the author of Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare.

john • 17 hours ago

Honestly the Brits are such idiots, we lied them into a war once. They knew we were lying and went for it anyway. Now the are falling for it again. Maybe it is May's parting gift to Boris?
kouroi • 17 hours ago
Same EU legislation only forbids Syria exporting oil and not EU entities selling to Syria (albeit with some additional paperwork). However, it doesn't forbid other non-EU states to sell oil to Syria. They are not behaving like the US. And this is also not UN sanctioned. In fact, UK is also acting against the spirit of JPCOA towards Iran. Speak about Perfidious Albion (others would say US lapdog).
Stephen54321 • 15 hours ago • edited
This story has certain familiar elements to it.

Back in 2013 2013 there was a rumour afoot that Edward Snowden, who at the time was stuck in the Moscow airport, trapped there by the sudden cancellation mid-flight of his US passport, was going spirited away by the President of Bolivia Evo Morales aboard his private jet. So what the US apparently was lean on it European allies to stop him. This they duly and dutifully did. Spain, France, and others denied overflight rights to the Bolivian jet, forcing it to turn back and land in Austria. There was even a report that once on the ground, the Spanish ambassador to Austria showed up and asked the Bolivian president if he might come out to the plain for a coffee--and presumably to have a poke around to see he could catch Snowden in the act of vanishing into the cargo hold.

The rumor turned out to be completely false, but it was the Europeans who wound up with the egg on their face. Not to mention the ones who broke international law.

Now we find that once again a European country had (apparently) gone out on a limb for the US--and wound up with egg on its face for trying to show its loyalty to the US in an all-too-slavish fashion by doing America's dirty work.

When will they learn?

Geoff Arnold • 15 hours ago
Bolton persuaded the British to play along with the stupid US "maximum pressure" strategy, regardless of its illegality. (Maybe the British government thought that it would placate Trump after Ambassadorgate.) And then of course Pompeo threw them under the bus. It's getting hard to be a US ally (except for Saudi Arabia and Israel.)
cka2nd • 14 hours ago
Does the British establishment have any self-respect at all, or do they really enjoy playing lapdog for the USA?
JPH • 11 hours ago • edited
The very fact that the UK tried to present its hijack of Iran Oil as an implementation of EU sanctions dovetail well with Bolton's objective of creating another of those "international coalitions" without a UN mandate engaging in 'Crimes of Aggression".

The total lack of support from the EU for this UK hijack signals another defeat to both the UK and the neocons of America.

chris chuba • 10 hours ago
Too bad there isn't an international version of the ACLU to argue Iran's legal case before the EU body. What typically happens is that Iran will refuse to send representation because that would in effect, acknowledge their authority. The EU will have a Kangaroo court and enter a vacant decision. This has happened numerous times in the U.S.

Would anyone in the U.S. or EU recognize an Iranian court making similar claims? Speaking of which, the entire point of UN treaties and international law is to prevent individual countries from passing special purpose legislation targeting specific countries. Why couldn't Iran pass a law sanctioning EU vessels that tried to use their territorial waters, what is so special about the EU, because it is an acronym?

britbob • 9 hours ago
Spain lodged a formal complaint about the action, because it considers the sea around Gibraltar to be part of its international waters, "We are studying the circumstances and looking at how this affects our sovereignty," Josep Borell, Spain's acting foreign minister, said. So Gibraltar or Spanish waters? Gibraltar – Territorial Waters (1 pg): https://www.academia.edu/30...
Mark Thomason • 8 hours ago
Worse than the bad behavior of Bolton, and the poodle behavior of Britain, is the utter failure of our press to provide us a skeptical eye and honest look at events. They've been mere stenographers and megaphones for power doing wrong.
JeffK from PA • 5 hours ago
Fake News! Fake News! Fake News! <sarcasm off="">

Thanks for the investigative reporting. Trump has lied almost 11,000 times, so I think nobody expects the truth from The Trump Administration anytime soon. Especially if it goes against the narrative.

JeffK from PA • 5 hours ago
And this just in. A UK government official has just stated, related to the Iranian tanker stopped near Gibraltar, the UK will not be part of Trump's 'maximum pressure' gambit on Iran. We shall see if Boris Johnson is for or against that policy.
EmpireLoyalist • 4 hours ago
Job number one for Johnson - even before Brexit - must be to purge the neo-con globalists and anybody under their influence from Government.
Fran Macadam • 4 hours ago
John Bolton, war criminal.
HenionJD Fran Macadam • 2 hours ago
To be considered as such he would have to actually have been involved in a war. Give him a few more weeks and your charge will be valid.
Sid Finster • 3 hours ago
OK, so why did the Brits go along with it? Are they so stupid as to not figure out that Iran might respond in kind, or did the Brits not also want war?
LFC • 3 hours ago
John Bolton has been desperate for a war with Iran for decades. This is just another escalation in his desperate attempt to get one. He's the classic neocon chicken hawk who is bravely ready to risk and sacrifice other people's lives at the drop of a hat.
david • 3 hours ago
Since UK is abusing its control of Gibraltar by behaving like a thug, maybe it is better for the international community to support an independent state of Gibraltar, or at least let Spain has it. It will be better for world peace.
Sid Finster • 2 hours ago
While I agree with the gist of the article, remember that Bolton has no authority except that which is given to him. So stop blaming Bolton. Blame Trump.
Zsuzsi Kruska • 2 hours ago
The provocations will go on and on until Iran shoots back and then Wash. will get the war it's been trying to start for some time now to pay back all those campaign donors who will profit from another war.

The MIC needs constant wars to use up munitions so new ones can be manufactured. It's really just about business and politicians working together for mutual benefit to keep those contributions coming in. With all the other issues facing America, a war with Iran will just add to the end of the USA which is coming faster than you think.

[Jul 21, 2019] Trump, election and GB provocation against Iran tanker

The key problem for Trump is reaction of China and Russia... If Russia supports Iran the USA attack onIran might well be the second Vietnam and KSA will probably seize to exit.
Notable quotes:
"... The bottom-line is this -- if Trump launches military strikes against Iranian military targets it is very likely he will ignite a series of events that will escalate beyond his control, expose him as a paper tiger full of empty bellicose threats and risk a war with other countries, including Russia and China. ..."
"... The "War" class in Washington and the media are exhorting tough action and doing all within their power to portray Iran as an imminent threat to the West. The mantra, "the must be stopped," is being repeated ad nauseam in all of the media echo changers. President Trump, regrettably, is ignorant of military history and devoid of strategic intelligence when it comes to employing military force. He reminds me of Lyndon Johnson during the early stages of the Vietnam War -- i.e., being exhorted to take action, increase forces and not back down rather than lose face on the international front. ..."
"... it is more likely the Brits intended this as a provocation, in coordination with some members of Trump's team, that would bait the Iranians to respond in similar fashion. Iran has taken the bait and given the Brits what Iran sees as a dose of its own medicine. ..."
"... There is a dangerous delusion within the Trump National Security team. They believe we are so dominant that Iran will not dare fight us. I prefer to rely on the sage counsel of Colonel Patrick Lang -- the Iranians are not afraid to fight us and, if backed into a corner, will do so. ..."
"... The tanker is too big to use the Suez canal and too big to discharge oil in a Syrian port. It was possibly going to a Mediterranean port, but Iran will not back-down to the UK. ..."
"... As the Saudi's appear to be losing their war with Yemen, the UAE has announced that they are not desirous of being in the middle of any US-Iran conflict. Qatar is doing a huge nat gas deal with Iran. ..."
"... A 50% reduction in oil & LNG output for greater than 3 months would crush already weakening Asian economies who are the manufactured products supply chain for most of the world and in particular the US. Will voters in Ohio, Wisconsin & Michigan cheer Trump's military strikes on Teheran when prices at Walmart double? ..."
"... I have no faith in Donald Trump when it comes to Israeli's interests. Embassy moved to Jerusalem check, Golan Heights check. Deal of the Century by his Anti-Christ Son-In-Law check. Not sure if that is a joke or not. ..."
"... "Trump's advisers have a demented obsession with Iran. They've been spoiling for a fight with Iran for decades. They have no idea how destructive it would be. It would make Iraq look like a tea party." ..."
"... Yes. A demented obsession that is not in US interests. Is it really in Saudi and Israeli interests when they may be hurt too? ..."
"... The same idiots running the show seem to believe that American oil and gas fracking makes it impervious to the loss of Middle Eastern oil (in fact, a secret motivation might be to save American frackers economically), but they forget that oil is a fungible commodity and always flows to the highest bidder. They could try of ban oil exports, but the Europe and Japan's economies would be utterly toast as there would be virtually no oil available to them, especially if Russia backed Iran and cut them off. ..."
"... Rather than blaming this on the media, neocons or the Pentagon, put the blame where it lies - with President Trump. Trump campaigned on tearing up the Iran nuclear agreement which he did once he was elected. The Trump administration re-imposed sanctions on Iran which are meant to inflict serious hardship on the Iranian people. Trump hired Bolton and Pompeo - both hawks from previous administrations. Trump is attempting to enforce the sanctions. Is there anyone else to blame but Trump? ..."
"... The use of the golden rule suggests problems with your logic. Would we sit still, for example, if Russia and/or China started fostering guerrilla movements in South America? Of course not. We would actively intervene in support of what we see as our local security imperatives. That appears to me to be all Iran is doing in its region. ..."
"... If the Gulf oilfields in Saudi Arabia and the UAE are heavily rocketed and put out of commission along with tanker loading docks and pipeline infrastructure, there won't be any oil to ship out of the Gulf anyway. ..."
"... The primary damage from a war with Iran will be economic. Oil flowing through the Staits will come to a halt and that will hit China, Japan and the rest of Asia very hard and their buying power will decrease significantly hurting our exports. Even though the U.S is self-sufficient in oil if oil prices hit $100+ on the world market look for the U.S. oil companies to increase their prices to approach the world price driving gas prices into the $5.00+/gallon range. Trump will undoubtably prohibit U.S oil exports but the damage to the economies world wide will still negatively impact the U.S. ..."
"... Post Scriptum: Signs of a dying paradigm as the western elite have gone into total sclerotic mode. Dangerous as a rabid dog. ..."
Jul 21, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.com
Donald Trump appears to be on the verge of doing what the "Never Trumpers" could not--destroy his Presidency and make re-election impossible. It all boils down to whether or not he decides to launch military strikes on Iran. The bottom-line is this -- if Trump launches military strikes against Iranian military targets it is very likely he will ignite a series of events that will escalate beyond his control, expose him as a paper tiger full of empty bellicose threats and risk a war with other countries, including Russia and China.

The "War" class in Washington and the media are exhorting tough action and doing all within their power to portray Iran as an imminent threat to the West. The mantra, "the must be stopped," is being repeated ad nauseam in all of the media echo changers. President Trump, regrettably, is ignorant of military history and devoid of strategic intelligence when it comes to employing military force. He reminds me of Lyndon Johnson during the early stages of the Vietnam War -- i.e., being exhorted to take action, increase forces and not back down rather than lose face on the international front.

The media is busy pushing the lie that Iran launched an unprovoked "attack" on a British flagged ship. They ignore the British action two weeks ago, when the British Navy seized an Iranian flagged tanker heading to Syria. Britain justifies its action as just keeping the sanction regime in place. But it is more likely the Brits intended this as a provocation, in coordination with some members of Trump's team, that would bait the Iranians to respond in similar fashion. Iran has taken the bait and given the Brits what Iran sees as a dose of its own medicine.

There is a dangerous delusion within the Trump National Security team. They believe we are so dominant that Iran will not dare fight us. I prefer to rely on the sage counsel of Colonel Patrick Lang -- the Iranians are not afraid to fight us and, if backed into a corner, will do so.

I see at least four possible scenarios for this current situation. If you can think of others please add in the comments section.

... ... ...

Fred ,

"two weeks ago, when the British Navy seized an Iranian flagged tanker"

Via Associated Press:

Royal Marines took part in the seizure of the Iranian oil tanker by Gibraltar, a British overseas territory off the southern coast of Spain. Officials there initially said the July 4 seizure happened on orders from the U.S." .......

It gets even better than on orders from the U.S.
"Britain has said it would release the vessel, which was carrying more than 2 million barrels of Iranian crude, if Iran could prove it was not breaching EU sanctions"

We are supposed to believe that Syria is importing oil on ships which sail through the Straights of Gibraltar rather than getting oil from, say, Russia! or going from Iran (it is Iranian oil, so they say) through the Suez Canal? What did they do, sail around the continent of Africa to stage this?

So the brilliant minds at GCHQ that brought us Christopher Steele and the dossier have decided that they really, really, need to get rid of the Orange Man and they don't care how many Iranian or American lives it takes. I wonder just how many people the man not in the news, Jeffrey Epstein, had the dirty goods on and just which government was behind his operation.

Стивен said in reply to Fred ... ,
The tanker is too big to use the Suez canal and too big to discharge oil in a Syrian port. It was possibly going to a Mediterranean port, but Iran will not back-down to the UK.
Fred -> Стивен... ,
Stephen,

Thanks for the comment. I did a bit more research. It seems strange to me that Iran would use a ship to large for the canal to make such a shipment to Syria, if indeed that was where it was heading.

The Twisted Genius , 20 July 2019 at 08:10 PM
Larry, your intel about the JCS not advising caution is most disheartening. I wouldn't be surprised if the warmongers surrounding Trump are also telling him that his rally attending base is all for taking it to the raghead terrorists. That may not be far off. Sure those who support Trump for his professed aversion to adventurism will be appalled at war with Iran, but his more rabid base may follow him anywhere. Trump has no ideological need for war, but he does have a psychological need for adoration. That's not a good situation.
blue peacock said in reply to The Twisted Genius ... , 21 July 2019 at 10:09 AM
"...his rally attending base is all for taking it to the raghead terrorists.."

TTG

I have seen private surveys commissioned by a deep pocketed hedge fund of working class folks in the mid-west & the south. When the consequences of a military confrontation with Iran are described the overwhelming majority oppose it.

Larry is spot on. Trump will lose his re-election bid if he kowtows to Bibi & MbS. The short-term financial & economic effects would crush his base and the half-life of jingoism after Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, & Syria will be rather short. Trump will be blamed by the "right" for cocking up teaching Iran a lesson and demonized by the "left "for getting us into another ME quagmire.

J -> The Twisted Genius ... , 21 July 2019 at 10:09 AM
How does one wake POTUS Trump to the reality that his NEOCONS and Israel Firsters in his Cabinet will destroy his Presidency if he doesn't jettison them out the door.
eakens , 20 July 2019 at 10:22 PM
There is an effort underway to undermine Israeli influence in the US, and I think the calculus might be to use the exact thing Israelis want most (war with Iran) to do that. I think the resurrection of the Epstein case is also part of that effort. Thus, war with Iran is inevitable.
Artemesia said in reply to eakens... , 21 July 2019 at 07:41 AM
"There is an effort underway to undermine Israeli influence in the US"

Is it an organized effort? Where do I sign up?

Rick Wiles heads TruNews, a Christian evangelical network. He's been outspoken in his criticism of zionism, calls out Christian zionists, and deplores that "the US has been taken over by zionists." To be sure, ADL has labeled Wiles an "antisemite." If TruNews survives, it may be part of game-changing.

Only from TruNews did I learn about HR1837, US-Israel united cyber command, "an alliance to direct energy space weapons"
https://www.trunews.com/stream/united-zionist-cyber-command-congress-forges-us-israel-alliance-in-direct-energy-space-weapons

"The Squad" mouthing rhetoric is weak tea to counteract Israeli's deep penetration of US military and other key institutions.

Petrel , 20 July 2019 at 11:00 PM
"From what I am hearing from knowledgeable sources [is that] no one on the Joint Chiefs of Staff at DOD are advising caution."

We should probably ignore the notion that the Joint Chiefs are bullish about a war with Iran -- the situation in the area is terrible for us and the Joint Chiefs know it.

For example, Turkey, Iraq and Pakistan have military understandings with Iran and the former is now installing advanced S-400 Russian missiles to defend itself from us. Furthermore, Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkmenistan, Azerbajian and Armenia will not allow transit of war materiel or aircraft en-route to Iran. So how does the US project anything into that country?

Then again, US Central Command is located in Iran friendly Quatar, which merely hosts us and could require us to leave. How come? Wouldn't you know it, Quatar is developing a massive gas reserve with Iran in the Gulf, is now very, very friendly with big-brother Turkey and presently negotiating with Russia for S-400 missiles -- clearly against us.

Well, what about our Navy?

Alas, recent improvements in missiles have rendered our deep water Navy a liability -- not that the narrow Persian Gulf / Sea of Oman is deep in any case. (President Trump learned about our Navy's vulnerability to missile attack last year as the Pentagon quickly pulled our three carrier group force from Korea and parked those impressive ships on the south coast of Australia! )

Then there is Iran's near east client / ally Hezbollah, which has made clear that any bombing of Iran, a huge country, would trigger heavy missile attack on postage-stamp Israel.

The Neocons may have managed to silence public Pentagon doubts, but President Trump is clearly attempting to avoid military adventures. "No, the Iran downed drone was old and not that expensive." "The UK captured an Iranian tanker and the Iranians have reciprocated. The two should sit down and work the situation out."

JamesT , 20 July 2019 at 11:00 PM
I believe that Iran is going to want to avoid war if they can. Their program of adding precision guidance to Hezbollah missiles in Lebanon means that the longer they postpone war, the better for them. If they get to a point where they have 10,000 precision guided missiles in Lebanon then the next Israel-Lebanon war will force Israel into a humiliating defeat.

Eighty percent of Israel's water comes from water desalination plants - and then there are electricity generation plants, sewage treatment plants, and numerous other infrastructure targets that can be hit. Israeli civilians are soft and will cry uncle as soon as their air conditioning cuts out.

The neocons know that time is not on their side.

Castellio said in reply to JamesT ... , 21 July 2019 at 12:30 AM
It's your last line which is the most worrying.

Why not, then, have the Americans initiate the deed now... destroy Iran and Lebanon, and then, with France, the UK, Germany, Canada et al. spend billions to rebuild Israel, with the Palestinians being sent to Jordan (if not worse).

Israel has gambled on a broader war several times in the past, and they believe (despite the fiasco in Lebanon) that each was a win.

What do you do, when "time is not on your side?".

smoke , 20 July 2019 at 11:37 PM
When did this group, leading the charge overseas in D.C. for the past 20 years, once get it right, as far as assumptions and expectations of military necessities or outcomes? I am beginning to think this creating a greater danger out of a lesser mess is a feature, not a defect. If so, why? To what end? Or is the policy process that broken?
Fred -> smoke... , 20 July 2019 at 11:37 PM
Smoke,

Saddam ain't around any more, neither is Muammar Gaddafi. The neocons take those as great victories since the sacred state of Israel is safe from those two.

ted richard , 21 July 2019 at 06:50 AM
imo a war with iran is theatre and will not take place.

should iran be attacked imo you can kiss the UAE goodbye as well as most if not all of the Saudi oil infrastructre along the gulf. i would also expect a massive direct bombardment of israeli cities and other important targets from hezbollah starting with the massive ammonia storage system in haifa whose destruction would annihilate that entire region. all of useful israel is in the middle to upper third of the country closest to lebanon and easy reach for all of hezbollahs missiles.

the persian gulf upon the start of the war becomes the hotel california for any warship within. none would likely escape. and the coup de gra for iran is whether they have the ballistic missile reach and or can gain access to russian long range bombers fitted with kalibr or better cruise missiles able to smash diego garcia absolutely critical american relaestate in the indian ocean.

trump imo is not crazy and can read a map as well as anyone with help from his REAL pentagon military professionals.

we have not even gotten to what happens to all those oil and interest rate derivatives far out of the money right now in somewhat normal times. if war starts they go from notional to real fast and the western financial system implodes even with a force majeure declaration

my vote is no war.

Error404 , 21 July 2019 at 07:46 AM
An Iran war would indeed most probably kill off Trump's chance of re-election. The almost inevitable spike in the price of oil which it would bring about would have two implications:

1/ ROTW xUS manufacturing is already in recession, with services close to joining it in many countries. The US is clearly slowing down and appears headed on the same course. The global economy is in no shape to withstand even a relatively short-lived surge in oil prices.

2/ There is no knowing what lurks out there in the oil derivatives market, but the banking system - particularly the European banking system - is far too fragile to sustain another bout of counterparty risk aversion along the lines of 2007/08. (And amongst the trillions of gross derivatives exposure, one has to wonder just how many US and other banks are sitting across from Deutsche Bank oil positions and happily netting off the counterparty risk.)

Regretably, from my side of the Atlantic the US looks like a traditional imperial power, addicted to war and conquest and with a significant proportion of the population fetishizing (probably not a real verb) all things military. Whether Trump can be truly damaged by extending the 'forever war' to Iran depends very much on how it goes - and I doubt he has the knowledge required to think through all the plausible scenarios. We can be a lot more confident that carrying the blame for an unnecessary recession into the election campaign has a solid chance of sinking him.

Fred -> Error404... , 21 July 2019 at 11:00 AM
Error404,

Just what good has the past two decades of "war and conquest" done for America, whether flyover country, Jussie Smollett's "Maga Country" section of Chicago or the homeless encampments of Seattle, LA or Portland?

CK , 21 July 2019 at 09:59 AM
As the Saudi's appear to be losing their war with Yemen, the UAE has announced that they are not desirous of being in the middle of any US-Iran conflict. Qatar is doing a huge nat gas deal with Iran.

Bolton is heading to Japan to "mediate" the current economic disagreements between Japan and S. Korea.
Pompeo is declaring that the Iranian Ballistic Missile program is suddenly on the table. It would appear that the whole Iranian atomic bomb thing was smoke and mirrors and hasbara.

There is a deal available, preparation for making the deal will involve political kabuki, grand posturing, the beating of drums without rhythm and the flooding of the Old American Infotainment outlets with much wailing and whining about "the only democracy in the MENA."

A deal will eventuate that allows both the USA and Iran to move on, about a week before the 2020 presidential election. Or maybe not.

blue peacock , 21 July 2019 at 10:23 AM
I have a question for those of you well versed with Iranian military capability. What are the capabilities of Iranian ballistic missiles in terms of range, precision and payload lethality?

As Col. Lang has noted in the transition to war, before the US Navy gets its ducks in a row, that is the window of opportunity that Iran has to strike back. What damage could they inflict on oil & gas infrastructure including LNG, port & pipelines across UAE, Oman, Qatar and Saudi Arabia?

A 50% reduction in oil & LNG output for greater than 3 months would crush already weakening Asian economies who are the manufactured products supply chain for most of the world and in particular the US. Will voters in Ohio, Wisconsin & Michigan cheer Trump's military strikes on Teheran when prices at Walmart double?

blue peacock , 21 July 2019 at 10:53 AM
All

As Larry notes "..President Trump, regrettably, is ignorant of military history and devoid of strategic intelligence when it comes to employing military force.." , but I believe he has good political instincts and as his Reality TV/Twitter presidency shows he has an excellent sense of how it plays both in the MSM and social media. He must know that while the "shock & awe" and "boom-boom" videos may give him an instant boost the stock market that he has rested his presidency on may not soar but in fact plummet. And he can't blame Jay Powell for that.

He must also instinctually know that November 2020 is a year away and a lot can go wrong as it is economically and in financial markets since he's been harping at the Fed to lower rates in supposedly the best economy evah. Uncertainty spikes volatility and the credit markets are already stressed particularly in offshore eurodollar funding which is an order of magnitude larger than mortgage credit markets were in 2007.

Maybe Rand Paul is his counter to the ziocon fifth column? I don't think he's that foolish to pull the trigger on Iran and sink his presidency when the Deep State & NeverTrumpers are out for his blood. He must know he'll lose immunity from legal jeopardy when he's no longer POTUS.

walrus -> blue peacock... , 21 July 2019 at 04:00 PM
As Col. Lang has repeatedly observed, the decisions to go to war do not necessarily follow economic, nor domestic political logic. It is therefore better to speculate on the players state of mind rather than looking at the aforesaid rational drivers like economics and votes.

Who knows what is being whispered in Trumps ear?

Noregs gard , 21 July 2019 at 10:57 AM
http://resistancenewsunfiltered.blogspot.com/
here you will find many of Nasrallah`s speeches and tv appearances with english subtitles..
Harlan Easley , 21 July 2019 at 11:46 AM
I have no faith in Donald Trump when it comes to Israeli's interests. Embassy moved to Jerusalem check, Golan Heights check. Deal of the Century by his Anti-Christ Son-In-Law check. Not sure if that is a joke or not.

Israeli wants Iran destroyed and their ability to pressure US Presidents to do their bidding all the way back to President Truman is 100% success. Trump so cravenly promotes the Zionist interest that I see no reason he will not pursue regime change in Iran to its logical conclusion.

The plan is ultimately Greater Israeli and the leaders of Iran are well aware of this.

Many comments say that Israeli will be badly damaged by any regional war. Why do you believe Israeli is just going to take the blows? Analysis is not advocacy as Col. Lang says.

My fear is the ultimate weapons of mass destruction are introduced into the Middle East.

Jack , 21 July 2019 at 11:48 AM
"Trump's advisers have a demented obsession with Iran. They've been spoiling for a fight with Iran for decades. They have no idea how destructive it would be. It would make Iraq look like a tea party."

@Tom_Slater_ on Sky https://t.co/A50M6bghj8


https://twitter.com/spikedonline/status/1152926344466063360?s=19

Yes. A demented obsession that is not in US interests. Is it really in Saudi and Israeli interests when they may be hurt too?

Flavius , 21 July 2019 at 12:01 PM
Option 1 - Diplomatic solution: The UK will do what it must do, ie what the US allows it to do. The GB Imperial project is no more and the UK is riding along somewhere in the wake of the Imperial City. Whatever influence it exerts on power there is by flattery or deception (Steele dossier.) Trump slapped the UK Ambassador out of Washington as if he were a fly. Moreover, the UK alone carries no stick to wield against Iran. Iran is no Falklands.

Options 2 thru 4 - some degree of military attack on Iran: as you point out, the return on investment for any kind of attack on Iran is highly unpredictable. It depends entirely on how Iran chooses to respond and whether it decides to roll the dice, go all in, and endure the onslaught, and inflict what damage it can where it can, which it very well may. Does anyone in Washington have an intel based fix on Iran's intentions when attacked? I doubt it.

Not a single intervention in the last 18 years, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya resulted in the anticipated outcome. Do they have rear view mirrors in Washington?

My weakly held expectation, especially now with the passing of a few days, is that Washington will decide to temporize and tell the UK to accept the humiliation, in effect kicking the can down the road. Everyone will know it is only doing what it has been told to do.

Of course they will announce more face saving sanctions. The Donald will hope that he will be able to gut it out to 2020 without having to make a decision that could blow him up, and likely would - but who knows? Iran will hope to gut it out to 2020 and in the interim pray to God that some Democrat floats back down to earth with some issues, like the Donald once espoused, that will be used to beat the Donald and send him and his family back to the upper East Side.

With the escalation game fully in play, it's going to be a close call.

GeneO , 21 July 2019 at 01:06 PM
LJ -

I find it a bit hard to believe that leaders like Dunford, Selva, Milley, Richardson, and the others on the Joint Chiefs are not advising caution. Milley, the next Chairman, for sure has advised caution at his recent Senate hearing. Dunford has only pushed for an international coalition Task Force to guard ships transiting the Strait. Selva and Richardson appear to be more worried about China.

Let us all hope that your knowledgeable sources are wrong.

The real danger is if Fred Fleitz gets to be DNI. If that happens be prepared for another scam like the Office of Special Plans a la Wolfowicz and Feith. Probably Bolton and/or PomPom already have one hiding in the basement ready to go.

GeneO , 21 July 2019 at 01:48 PM
Iran's FM Zarif made a peaceful impression during Fareed Zakaria's interview. But all the headlines focus on his one statement: "Start a war with Iran and we will end it" . Although those were NOT his words, what he said was "We will never start a war,...But we will defend ourselves, and anybody who starts a war with Iran will not be the one who ends it."

The question is whether he speaks for the hardliners.

Karl Kolchak , 21 July 2019 at 03:12 PM
You forgot to mention what will happen to the world economy if the Strait of Hormuz is closed to all shipping by Iranian missiles an mines. Stock marks would collapse and a deep recession if not depression would ensue quickly.

The same idiots running the show seem to believe that American oil and gas fracking makes it impervious to the loss of Middle Eastern oil (in fact, a secret motivation might be to save American frackers economically), but they forget that oil is a fungible commodity and always flows to the highest bidder. They could try of ban oil exports, but the Europe and Japan's economies would be utterly toast as there would be virtually no oil available to them, especially if Russia backed Iran and cut them off.

turcopolier , 21 July 2019 at 03:29 PM
Karl Kolchak

the strait would not stay closed long, ut there would be considerable economic damage while it is.

Tom Wonacott , 21 July 2019 at 03:36 PM
Rather than blaming this on the media, neocons or the Pentagon, put the blame where it lies - with President Trump. Trump campaigned on tearing up the Iran nuclear agreement which he did once he was elected. The Trump administration re-imposed sanctions on Iran which are meant to inflict serious hardship on the Iranian people. Trump hired Bolton and Pompeo - both hawks from previous administrations. Trump is attempting to enforce the sanctions. Is there anyone else to blame but Trump?

The scenario proposed by Moon of Alabama seems to be coming to fruition as an Iranian strategy to counter the sanctions - imposing hardships on the world economy by attacking western and Arab interests in the Middle East, but stopping short of a provocation which will require a military response ( https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/06/iran-decided-to-put-maximum-pressure-on-trump-here-is-how-it-will-do-it.html). Iran is not going to go quietly into the night.

Iran is also not entirely innocent in the affairs of the Middle East. Israel believes with some evidence that Iran is building forward bases in Syria - an unacceptable condition for Israel considering the thousands of missiles owned by Hezbollah and the ballistic missile testing by Iran. Iran is also supplying weapons directly to Hezbollah (as they always have). In addition, Iran is supplying weapons and (likely) ballistic missile technology to the Houthis. The Houthis have used ballistic missiles to attack the Saudis. Yemen is on the border of Saudi Arabia - and a (Shia) Houthi government is unacceptable to the Saudis. The Trump administration tore up the nuclear agreement because of the destabilizing political agenda of Iran (to US interests).

Trump campaigned on a more isolationist foreign policy so option 1 is still the most likely possibility for the moment (IMO).

walrus -> Tom Wonacott... , 21 July 2019 at 04:12 PM
The use of the golden rule suggests problems with your logic. Would we sit still, for example, if Russia and/or China started fostering guerrilla movements in South America? Of course not. We would actively intervene in support of what we see as our local security imperatives. That appears to me to be all Iran is doing in its region.
ex-PFC Chuck said in reply to Tom Wonacott... , 21 July 2019 at 06:57 PM
Your third paragraph is a stretch. Iran's actions that you describe are realistic (in the strategic sense of the word) responses to Israel's overt hostility, overwhelming superiority in air power and its possession of scores of nuclear weapons.
Antoinetta III , 21 July 2019 at 05:54 PM
I'm wondering if in case of war, Iran would need to "close the Gulf" at all.

If the Gulf oilfields in Saudi Arabia and the UAE are heavily rocketed and put out of commission along with tanker loading docks and pipeline infrastructure, there won't be any oil to ship out of the Gulf anyway.

Except Iran's own oil, of course.

Antoinetta III

jdledell , 21 July 2019 at 06:25 PM
The primary damage from a war with Iran will be economic. Oil flowing through the Staits will come to a halt and that will hit China, Japan and the rest of Asia very hard and their buying power will decrease significantly hurting our exports. Even though the U.S is self-sufficient in oil if oil prices hit $100+ on the world market look for the U.S. oil companies to increase their prices to approach the world price driving gas prices into the $5.00+/gallon range. Trump will undoubtably prohibit U.S oil exports but the damage to the economies world wide will still negatively impact the U.S.

Insurance on oil vessels will become almost impossible to get. The U.S will have to indemnify ship owners and I suspect many will not trust the U.S. to come through with the money for claims. Trump has a history of this and thus many ships will stay in port.

A war with Iran will not be won or lost militarily, but economically. Iran is 4 times the size of Iraq and has 3 times the population and I simply do not think we can successfully occupy the country. That being the case, I don't think the U.S can permanently prevent sabatoge in the Staits - meaning an oil induced recession will linger world wide for many years.

In a word - SNAFU

falcemartello , 21 July 2019 at 08:41 PM
UNO: increased false flag incident instigated by the anglo-zionist

DUE:Increased takfiri movements in Idlib and provocatiev attacks InnAleppo ,Hama Dara and Dier Ezurr as the Syrian Arab Army is consolidating around Northern Hama and Around Idlib .

TRE: More tanker siezures by the Nato cohorts and portraying Iran as breachoing the JCPCOA treaty. Nevr mentioning the breach of contract from the western alliance from Pax-Americana and its Western European vassals

Quattro Russia and China will be either utilised as middle men or further labelled as agressors and Iranian?Syrian?Yemeni apologist.

Post Scriptum: Signs of a dying paradigm as the western elite have gone into total sclerotic mode. Dangerous as a rabid dog.

[Jul 21, 2019] As Trump Backs Down, the Pips Squeak -- Strategic Culture

Jul 21, 2019 | www.strategic-culture.org

Last week it was all fire and brimstone. The US was threatening more sanctions on Iran, the Brits were seizing oil tankers and Iran was violating the JCPOA.

This week things look different all of a sudden. An oil tanker goes dark while passing through the Strait of Hormuz, the story fails to get any real traction and the US allows Iranian Foreign Minister, recently sanctioned, to do his job at the United Nations.

Trump then holds a cabinet meeting where he reiterates that "We're not looking for regime change. We want them out of Yemen."

I thought National Security Advisor John Bolton said the US would apply pressure until "the pips squeak."

Where the pips are squeaking is on the Arabian Peninsula, not across the Persian Gulf in Bandar Abbas. Specifically, I'm talking about the United Arab Emirates. The UAE sent a delegation to Tehran recently that coincided with its partial withdrawal of troops from Yemen.

That meeting, according to Elijah Magnier , focused on Emirates realizing they are in the middle of this conflict, up to their skyscrapers.

"The UAE would like to avoid seeing their country transformed into a battlefield between the US and Iran in case of war, particularly if Trump is re-elected. The Emirates officials noted that the US did not respond to Iran's retaliation in the Gulf and in particularly when the US drone was downed. This indicates that Iran is prepared for confrontation and will implement its explicit menace, to hit any country from which the US carries out their attacks on Iran. We want to be out of all this ", an Emirates official told his Iranian counterpart in Tehran.

Iran promised to talk to the Yemeni officials to avoid hitting targets in Dubai and Abu Dhabi as long as the UAE pulls out its forces from the Yemen and stops this useless war. Saudi Crown Prime Mohammad Bin Salman is finding himself without his main Emirates ally, caught in a war that is unwinnable for the Saudi regime. The Yemeni Houthis have taken the initiative, hitting several Saudi strategic targets. Saudi Arabia has no realistic objectives and seems to have lost the appetite to continue the war in Yemen.

So, with the Houthis successfully striking major targets inside Saudi Arabia and the UAE abruptly pulling forces out, the war in Yemen has reached a critical juncture. Remember, the Republican-controlled Senate approved a bill withdrawing support for the war back in March, which the White House had to veto in support of its fading hopes for its Israeli/Palestinian deal pushed by Jared Kushner.

But things have changed significantly since then as that deal has been indefinitely postponed with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu facing a second election this fall after he failed to secure a stable coalition.

After that there was the failed economic conference in Bahrain in June where Kushner revealed the economic part of the plan to a half-empty room where only the backers of the plan showed any real support.

And that's the important part of this story, because it was Kushner's plan which was the impetus for all of this insane anti-Iran belligerence in the first place. Uniting the Gulf states around a security pact leveraging the U.S/Israeli/Saudi alliance was part of what was supposed to pressure the Palestinians to the bargaining table.

By placing maximum economic sanctions on both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Iran while continuing to foment chaos in Syria was supposed to force Israel's enemies to fold under the pressure which would, in turn, see the Palestinians surrender to the will of Kushner and Bibi.

The problem is, it didn't work. And now Trump is left holding the bag on this idiotic policy which culminated in an obvious provocation when Iran shot down a $220 million Global Hawk surveillance drone, nearly sparking a wider war.

But what it did was expose the US and not Iran as the cause of the current problems.

Since then Trump finally had to stand up and be the grown-up in the room, such as he is, and put an end to this madness.

The UAE understood the potential for Iran's asymmetric response to US belligerence. The Saudis cannot win the war in Yemen that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman began. The fallout from this war has been to push Qatar out of the orbit of the rest of the Gulf Cooperation Council, cutting deals with Iran over developing the massive North Pars gas field and pipelines to Europe.

And now the UAE has realized it is facing an existential threat to its future in any confrontation between Iran and the US

What's telling is that Trump is making Yemen the issue to negotiate down rather than Iran's nuclear ambitions. Because it was never about the nuclear program. It was always about Iran's ballistic missile program.

And Secretary of State Mike Pompeo would have us believe that for the first time Iran's missile program is on the negotiating table. I have no idea if that's actually true, but it's a dead giveaway that it's what the US is after.

The main reason why Trump and Netanyahu are so angry about the JCPOA is the mutual outsourcing of the nuclear ballistic missile program by Iran and North Korea. North Korea was working on the warhead while Iran worked on the ballistic missile.

Trump tweeted about this nearly two years ago, confirming this link. I wrote about it when he did this. Nearly everything I said about North Korea in the blog post is now applicable to Iran. This was why he hated the JCPOA, it didn't actually stop the development of Iran and North Korea into nuclear states.

But tearing up the deal was the wrong approach to solving the problem. Stop pouring hundreds of billions of dollars in weapons to the region, as Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif pointed out recently, is the problem . By doing this he took both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese Premier Xi Jinping off his side of the table.

Now he stands isolated with only the provocateurs – Israel, the U.K., Saudi Arabia – trying to goad him forward into doing something he doesn't want to do. And all of those provocations that have occurred in the past month have failed to move either Trump or the Iranians. They've learned patience, possibly from Putin. Call it geopolitical rope-a-dope, if you will.

I said last month that the key to solving Iran's nuclear ambitions was solving the relationship with North Korea. Trump, smartly, went there, doing what only he could do , talk with DPRK Chairman Kim Jong-Un and reiterate his sincere desire to end proliferation of nuclear weapons.

He can get Iran to the table but he's going to have to give up something. So, now framing the negotiations with Iran around their demands we stop arming the Saudis is politically feasible.

Trump can't, at this point, back down directly with Iran. Yemen is deeply unpopular here and ending our support of it would be a boon to Trump politically. Trading that for some sanctions relief would be a good first step to solving the mess he's in and build some trust.

Firing John Bolton, which looks more likely every day, would be another.

He's already turning a blind eye to Iranian exports to China, and presumably, other places. I think the Brits are acting independently trying to create havoc and burnish Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt's resume as Prime Minister against Boris Johnson. That's why they hijacked the oil tanker.

But all the little distractions are nothing but poison pills to keep from discussing the real issues. Trump just cut through all that. So did Iran. Let's hope they stay focused.

[Jul 20, 2019] On Iran, Why Not Rand

Notable quotes:
"... Daniel R. DePetris is a foreign policy analyst, a columnist at ..."
"... , and a frequent contributor to ..."
"... That TAC columnists continue to hold out hope that Trump will revert to his 2016 form astounds me. ..."
"... It's like watching Obama cultists convince themselves that The Real Obama®, the hopey changey guy from 2008, will finally put in an appearance, even as he betrays them over and over again. ..."
Jul 20, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com

If there is any direct communication between American and Iranian officials, it is hidden from public view. All of this has made Senator Rand Paul's initiative to open dialogue with Tehran urgent, necessary, and prudent.

According to a July 17 story in Politico , Paul recently pitched himself to President Trump as a possible presidential emissary to the Iranians -- someone who could sit down with Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif and begin a conversation on the issues that have nearly resulted in military conflict. Trump apparently accepted Paul's pitch while the two were on the golf course last weekend. His decision, while not yet confirmed by the White House, suggests that Trump is slowly beginning to recognize the deficiencies of the maximum pressure policy that National Security Adviser John Bolton, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and outside counsels like the Foundation for Defense of Democracies' Mark Dubowitz have peddled for years. Far from forcing Tehran's surrender, economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation have yielded more Iranian aggression. Iran is now a wounded animal backed into a corner, ready to fight rather than submit. The chances of a clash have increased substantially.

In a town filled with tough talkers who see foreign policy as an extension of domestic politics, Rand Paul is one of those strange creatures who is willing to throw himself in front of a bus for the sake of preventing a war. His foes (of which there are many, from Bill Kristol and Lindsey Graham to Marco Rubio and Liz Cheney) use the lazy isolationist epitaph to paint him as a gadfly on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. But at his core, Paul is neither a gadfly nor an isolationist. The junior senator from Kentucky is a non-interventionist who has the audacity to search for diplomatic solutions before doing what most of his colleagues on Capitol Hill would have long preferred -- involuntarily reaching for more punitive options.

This isn't the first time Paul has tried to create space for dialogue with a U.S. adversary. Last year, when so much as talking to a Russian was universally frowned upon by the political class, Paul flew to Moscow and delivered a letter on behalf of President Trump to Russian parliamentarians. A month later, he introduced an amendment that would have lifted travel restrictions on Russian lawmakers if Moscow did the same for their American counterparts. The amendment was a small and reasonable gesture that removed largely symbolic sanctions in order to encourage Americans and Russians to familiarize themselves with each other. It was lambasted in committee and killed .

Paul's latest initiative with Iran could run into the same brick wall. The fact that the arrangement was leaked to the media is an indication that somebody in the Trump administration is totally opposed to the idea and wants to bury any potential conversations with the Iranians before they begin. One can almost picture John Bolton, holed up in the White House basement, hearing the news and frantically ordering his minions on the National Security Council to expose it in the press.

There are also practical questions that need to be answered. With Zarif only in New York for another few days, does Paul have the time for a one-on-one meeting? Would the Iranians be interested in meeting with the senator, even if he does have the president's ear? Or is Khamenei, still seething over the administration's withdrawal from the nuclear deal and watching his government's oil exports disappear, dead set on banning any contact with the Americans for as long as Trump remains in the Oval Office?

It's Not Too Late for Trump to Ignore Bolton and Get Iran Right Is America Ready for John Bolton's War With Iran?

Organizing a backchannel with the Iranians could be difficult, in large measure because it will be fought tooth-and-nail by the usual suspects. But Rand Paul's potential role as an envoy should be pursued. After all, it isn't like the hawks have such a great track record.

Daniel R. DePetris is a foreign policy analyst, a columnist at Reuters , and a frequent contributor to The American Conservative.

Sid Finster • 2 days ago • edited

That TAC columnists continue to hold out hope that Trump will revert to his 2016 form astounds me.

It's like watching Obama cultists convince themselves that The Real Obama®, the hopey changey guy from 2008, will finally put in an appearance, even as he betrays them over and over again.

Sid Finster • 2 days ago • edited
That TAC columnists continue to hold out hope that Trump will revert to his 2016 form astounds me.

It's like watching Obama cultists convince themselves that The Real Obama®, the hopey changey guy from 2008, will finally put in an appearance, even as he betrays them over and over again.

dbriz Sid Finster • 2 days ago
Your pessimism is certainly warranted and frequently seconded by Larison and others at TAC. Agreed. But, what choice do we have but to encourage proposals like this one and recognize that Trump, as infuriatingly inconsistent as he has been, needs to be encouraged when he does something sensible.

Rand at least seems to have his ear, no small feat.

Sid Finster dbriz • 2 days ago
I am not saying that such moves, if they come to pass, should not be encouraged.

But let's see if anything comes of it, or if the Boltons, Pompeos and Haspels of this world make sure that Rand fails and then chant "But we have to go to war because we tried so hard we tried everything ZOMG war war war!"

bbkingfish • 2 days ago
The best reason I can think of to choose to send someone other than Rand Paul to negotiate with Iran is that Paul was NOT one of the seven WPP senators who didn't sign Tom Cotton's odious open letter to Iran trying to put the kibosh on the Obama nuke deal with Iran.

Maybe try Corker, or Alexander or Murkowski...someone whom the Iranians might have some reason to trust.

I seriously doubt that Rand Paul has a whit more credibility in Tehran than Trump does, and why would he?. I can't think of a single reason why Iran should trust him.

Fayez Abedaziz • 2 days ago
Good and very to the point made in this article about the hawks, these neo-cons, these war lovers, not having a good track record.
They have a record of death and destruction and they could care less about people suffering.
Just why do they want America to continue attacking and threaten and make war on numerous nations?
Why...
Sid Finster Fayez Abedaziz • a day ago
Because most Americans have the memory and attention span of a mosquito.

[Jul 20, 2019] ... Not the men we thought we were ... - Sic Semper Tyrannis

Jul 20, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.com

EEngineer , 13 May 2019 at 11:45 AM

I see the parallels, but not that one. I think the neocons hope to force the Iranians into making that "all-in" call though. Perhaps as the neocons see it, such a strike would magically rally the American populous to the war they so desire. Imperial conquest performed as a defensive reflex. So they needle nearly everyone in the hopes of triggering a replay of the WW2 saga which has taken on a mythical good vs evil aura in the US. Ironically, I would say it is the neocons who think they need to start a war with the Iranians so that they can be the men they think they are. The only thing still holding them back is the passive-aggressive need to make it look like someone, anyone, else started it so they can play the victim card once the body bags start coming home.
Ed Lindgren , 13 May 2019 at 11:51 AM
USN CDR A. H. McCollum was the man who conceived the so-called "Eight Action Plan" which he outlined in his Oct 7, 1940 memo. This was his proposal for the U.S. and Britain to initiate actions which would essentially force Japan into making a decision to wage war against the United States.

The key elements of the plan, as outlined in McCollum's memo, include the following:

A. Make an arrangement with Britain for the use of British bases in the Pacific, particularly Singapore
B. Make an arrangement with the Netherlands for the use of base facilities and acquisition of supplies in the Dutch East Indies
C. Give all possible aid to the Chinese government of Chiang-Kai-Shek
D. Send a division of long range heavy cruisers to the Orient, Philippines, or Singapore
E. Send two divisions of submarines to the Orient
F. Keep the main strength of the U.S. fleet now in the Pacific[,] in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands
G. Insist that the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese demands for undue economic concessions, particularly oil
H. Completely embargo all U.S. trade with Japan, in collaboration with a similar embargo imposed by the British Empire

Not too terribly different from the squeeze currently being placed on Iran by the team of Pompeo/Boton.

The text of the McCollum memo can be found here:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/McCollum_memorandum


turcopolier , 13 May 2019 at 12:09 PM
Lindgren

Was this plan approved by Roosevelt? the embargoes had been in effect for some time by then.

Ed Lindgren said in reply to turcopolier ... , 13 May 2019 at 05:40 PM
COL Lang -

The journalist Robert Stinnett in his now 20 year old book 'Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor' made the case that FDR was aware of McCollum's memorandum. I have not read Stinnett's book, but historians apparently doubted the veracity of Stinnett's thesis regarding FDR's knowledge of the McCollum memo.

You are correct that initial embargoes of essential defense materials went to effect under the Export Control Act during the summer of 1940. Additional items were added to the list of embargoed materials subsequent to October 1940, following the drafting of the McCollum memo.

Fred -> Ed Lindgren... , 14 May 2019 at 08:29 AM
So no FOR did not approve of that plan, but some guy wrote a book 20 years ago, one you didn't read. That's quite helpful in evaluating current war mongering over Iran today.
ex-PFC Chuck said in reply to Ed Lindgren... , 20 July 2019 at 07:33 AM
I read Day of Deceit a month ago and found Stinnett's analysis and sourcing quite convincing. He demolishes the standard narrative that the attack was a total tactical surprise and to a large extent a strategic one as well. Admiral Yamamoto's orders to maintain radio silence were honored very much in the breach, one of the worst offenders being the at-sea mission commander himself, Admiral Nagumo. Many individual ship captains continued reporting their positions at specified times of the day, as was their peacetime practice. This enabled the US, British and Dutch signals monitoring stations, which were sharing information in spite of the fact that the US was not yet a combatant, to triangulate and track the Japanese mission fleet from its assembly point near the Kurile Islands eastward to their launch position several hundred miles north of Oahu. Stinnett assembles a strong circumstantial case asserting this information was available to the intelligence circles in Washington DC and in the US radio detection/cryptanalysis stations at Corregidor, the Aleutian Islands, and Station H on Oahu itself, practically within sight of Admiral Kimmel's office, but it never made it to the admiral himself or to General Short. He got much of the supporting information through the FOIA process, but some of the most damning documents he cited he found by walking into various historical archive sites outside of the DC area and simply asking to see what they had. He makes the point that many of the documents he cites never saw the light of day during any of the three formal investigations of the affair: in the months immediately after the attack; shortly after the end of the war; and half a century later in the early 1990s. What he is unable to cite are documents that concretely connect the president, Admiral Stark the CNO, or General Marshall the Army Chief of Staff with knowledge of the available intelligence. Those known to have existed which might have been smoking guns that he sought via the FOIA were either still highly classified or were "unable to be found." However the circumstantial case that they must have known and been on board, in some cases reluctantly, is strong. For example, it is known that the McCollum memo gained the attention of FDR himself soon after it was published, and the White House chief usher's log documents that the commander had several meetings with the president. McCollum, a USNA graduate, had spent much of his childhood in Japan as the child of Christian missionaries and was almost natively fluent in the language as well as deeply steeped in the culture.
Willy B said in reply to turcopolier ... , 20 July 2019 at 11:29 AM
Col,

I don't know if it came from the McCollum memo or not, but at the ABC-1 meetings in early 1941, the British delegation proposed that the US take over the defense of Singapore from the Royal Navy, a proposal that was rejected by the American delegation.

The minutes of the ABC-1 meetings were published by the British National Archives some years ago and I have it somewhere on my hard drive but I couldn't give you a link. As I recall, it was interesting to see the American side rejecting the Singapore and other schemes to get the US to defend British colonial territories.

blue peacock , 13 May 2019 at 12:21 PM
Col. Lang

It would seem that the best strategic option for Iran is to lay low and absorb the economic squeeze. The Chinese are unlikely to support the oil sanctions, so they'll be able to continue to sell them until the US navy starts to interdict their tankers. But oil is fungible.....

It would also seem that their best military strategy is a defensive one. Obtaining the best air defense systems and significant medium-range missiles with high payload capacity and accuracy. At the very least they'll be able to give a black-eye while going down.

Of course the question is how the Ayatollah controls his fire breathing, martyrdom loving hawks who bristle at their treatment by the US, Israel & the Saudis. My sense is Bibi will get more itchy than the Ayatollah to take advantage of his perception of complete control of Trump.

EEngineer said in reply to blue peacock... , 13 May 2019 at 01:01 PM
I've wondered if the Chinese will use their own tankers to pick up Iranian oil or re-flag Iranian ones with Chinese colors as the US did for Kuwait during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980's.

I can see the neocons wanting open conflict with Iran, but I don't know if they would risk war with China.

John Minehan said in reply to blue peacock... , 19 July 2019 at 05:14 PM
I'm not sure how much control Iran has of its proxies (the Houthi rebels, Hezbollah, the Shia Militias in Iraq, etc.). That strikes me as a reason fo both the US/Britain AND Iran to go carefully and slowly.
turcopolier , 13 May 2019 at 12:23 PM
BP Merely logical
Tidewater said in reply to turcopolier ... , 13 May 2019 at 04:15 PM
Sir,

Nice map, I assume it can't be considered a chart. Maps make me think. Anyway, when I heard about the four tankers at Fujairah damaged by "sabotage" I took a look up at Qeshm island in front of Bandar Abbas (it looks to me like a shark) and wondered how far it was down to Fujairah. I get about 140 nautical miles.

I know that there are hardened sub-pens on the land side of Queshm Island probably out to the western end. Recently I have read comments speculating what the Iranian class of mini- or midget subs would be useful for. One learns that one use would be to deliver a sea-mine; another to launch the one torpedo it can carry; and another would be as a transport for naval commandos, or swimmers trained in demolition and mine warfare.

Then I remembered something. I took a look at the last place down on the right side of the map on the Iranian mangrove shore, Trask, once an old fishing port. Trask is also where the pipeline down from the CIS countries will end, and a large refinery, manufacturing, and shipping complex is planned. Since 2008, Trask has been developed for a number of military uses. First as a naval base which berths fast motor patrol boats of the kind that can launch missiles like the Qader, a sea-skimmer carrying a warhead of 200 kilos which can reach out to 186 miles; also as a drone base, complete with a rail launcher which could indicate proficiency in big stay-aloft reconnaisance drones, soon enough to be weaponized, if not already. Significantly, it is also a base for littoral-class submarines, which would include mini-subs design based on the North Korean Yono class, submarines that would be similar to the one that is thought to have sunk the ROKS Cheonan in 2011 with a torpedo. Travelling at nine or ten knots, the Iranian model of the Yono, the Ghadir, could make the crossing to Fujairah in about twelve hours. That's a distance of 127 miles or so.
It looks to me as if the stern location of the tanker the news videos show would not have been hit unless the ship backed into a mine. And it doesn't look like the kind of damage a naval mine would do. A naval mine would have made an enormous ten or twenty foot cavernous dent in that stern, at the least. What it looks like to me was that a swimmer or swimmers placed a sticky explosive or satchel charge. (?) I think it is meant as a warning. 'We can get you any time..."

There's another message. Fujairah and also the ports of Salalah, Sohar, and Duqm, in Oman, have been billing themselves as "the Gateway to the Arabian Gulf." (For that historical and scholarly insult alone they should pay.) Fujairah is the only one of the UAE that is on the eastern side of the Musandam Peninsula. It has been advertised as the emirate that would not be involved in a Gulf war. Out of range. Think again me buckaroos.

The United States has just signed an agreement in late March with Oman which allows US naval and air forces to use the new state- of-the art port facilities and airport at Duqm, down in the middle of the Oman coast, and also Salalah. Sultan Qaboos, a very impressive leader, one of the best, who happens to be gay (but the father of his country), balances carefully between the various powers he must deal with. Iran is already there in Oman and has the right to establish companies and to store materiel there, and to ship cargoes. Just as Iran does in Qatar, where two hundred trucks come across from Bushire every day and have since June 2017 since Trump the Brain gave the OK to Mohammed Bin Salman to lay siege to Qatar. Consider this: "Sohar Freezone has options for leasing pre-built warehouses and commercial offices, as well as 100% foreign ownership...and a One-Stop-Shop for all relevant permits and clearances." (From Overview--SOHAR Port and Freezone.) As to how you get this cargo to points south, that is an interesting question...

Russia will come in if push comes to shove. Russia will not countenance the idea of an America naval and drone base on the Caspian, which is what will happen if Iran is bombed flat. Russia will second pilots to the Iranians and will send bombers like the Tu-95 Bear or the Backfire capable of carrying the KH-101 which will carry Iranian markings etc. These bombers, with enormous range, could wreck havoc on Diego Garcia, and could destroy a carrier group.

The Iranians show us now that they were the ones who invented the game of chess. Trump can look at China, and then he can look at Fujairah, and he can see the American economy going down... The Iranian move is worthy of a grand master...

Tidewater said in reply to Tidewater... , 13 May 2019 at 04:56 PM
Tidewater to Tidewater,

Ouch. The place is called Jask.

ancientarcher said in reply to Tidewater... , 14 May 2019 at 06:08 AM
Great comment!
I think transferring a Tu-95 bomber will be a bit too much since the Iranians don't have much of an air force. But missiles will do the job anyways, so why bother with planes. You don't need to hit Diego Garcia, Israel is close enough. So is Al Udeid. Plus there will be attacks on all US bases spread across Iraq and I suspect Syria. There is no shortage of targets for sure for the Iranians, it this leads to war.
By the way, Chess was invented in India not ancient Persia. So was the numeral system which is now called Arabic numerals (the Arabs have been trying to give their names to stuff which is not theirs for a long time now) including the decimal system and negative numbers.
Tidewater said in reply to ancientarcher... , 14 May 2019 at 05:00 PM
Thank you for your comment. You remind me that I have a group of expensive, unread books about that part of the world. I may never read them, the way things are going.

I want to stress that Russia and Iran have already worked out the diplomatic agreements which allow Russia to have based bombers at Hamadan, from which attacks were made on Isis in Syria. In other words, Russia knows the way. The question is, is Russia going to stand by and do nothing while the United States bombs Iran back to the stone ages, as it did in North Korea during the Korean conflict? I find that hard to believe. I assume that at some point Russia will, as Russia has previously done in other conflicts, or places, such as in Yemen, in the 1970s and early 80's, assign pilots, and transfer planes ostensibly to the control of the Iranian military.

Diego Garcia is an atoll in the middle of the Indian Ocean. It is a critical anchorage for prepositioning supply ships for any land operations, such as the invasion of Iraq; it is also a support facility, where submarines and other ships can get repairs. It is also an airbase, where B-2 bombers might be assembling as I write, though given everything else that is NOT happening, I assume that is doubtful. Speaking in a general way, the distance from the Persian Gulf, Muscat, or Bahrain, say, to Diego Garcia, is about 2600 or 2700 miles.

If Russia seconded a squadron of bombers such as the TU-22M3 (NATO reporting name Backfire C) under the aegis of Iran, and based them out of Bandar Abbas, Iran will have gotten a lot of reach out into the Indian Ocean, since the Backfire has a combat radius of about 1300-1500 miles.
The missile it will be carrying would be the standard Russian cruise missile--it is not hypersonic-- but it is a sea-skimmer, with a range of about 1550 miles. This is the KH-101/102 (nuclear). It seems certain to me that the Backfire can get the KH-101 (Raduga) missile out there; as can the Blackjack and the Bear. The mission of four or five bombers delivering each about eight missiles could be to sink some of those prepositioning ships; and to wreck the drone base/the airfield, and certain warehouse facilities. There is another thing such an attack could do. Diego Garcia has more than ample rainfall. As things stand today, it has never had a better fresh water supply system. Pipes and water storage, all has been greatly improved. Fresh water for two to three thousand support personnel and base activities is not a problem. I don't think Diego Garcia even needs to have a desalination system. There is one thing, though. Diego Garcia is built on a series of coral reefs, the one stacked on the other in geologic history as ocean levels rose 300 feet from 13,000 years ago. The coral beneath the island is permeated with salt water. The fresh water aquifers of the atoll sit on top of the salt water in what are called "lenses". These lenses hold an enormous amount of water kept stable and tappable by isostatic pressure, I am guessing. If an attack were made by JDAM missiles in areas determined from studies of the island to have these lense aqufiers, and if the missiles went deep into them before exploding, then I think the entire fresh water structure of the island could be ruined. The lenses would be penetrated and ruined. Salt water would permeate, mix and spread through the aquifer. It would become like Basra Governate, which now has an evil polluted salt brine aquifer where once it had fresh water. (And which means that there is already considerable migration from southern Iraq into Kurdish areas around Irbil, to the north.)

eaken , 13 May 2019 at 01:29 PM
Iran should publicly invite Trump to Tehran without his posse.
Artemesia said in reply to eaken... , 14 May 2019 at 03:26 PM
Iran should arrange with Italy for a meeting in Rome with Putin, Xi Jinping, and Trump. The Donald could take the role of Churchill in that meeting, who got an inkling that he was the odd-man out.
Six months later, Mark Clark went to Rome alone rather than execute the British - American pincer plan.

Historian Andrew Buchanan argues that Clark was ordered to take that action by FDR himself in a meeting with Clark at Bernard Baruch's plantation in North Carolina https://www.c-span.org/video/?322137-1/discussion-us-engagement-italy-world-war-ii US forces in control of Rome shut out all diplomats, including Churchill's representatives, from the diplomacy that then took place that determined Italy's future; USA became, effectively, in charge of Mediterranean and trade routes to Levant and North Africa.

Israel and its US lobbies, Jewish & Christian, have GOT to be reined in, or the American empire is on its way to the dustbin of history.

Tidewater said in reply to Artemesia... , 15 May 2019 at 03:40 PM
That historian Andrew Buchanan does not know that Bernard Baruch's plantation was off of Winyah Bay on Waccamaw Neck across from Georgetown, SOUTH Carolina, is, in my view, a red flag about his scholarship. The plantation, Hobcaw Barony, was for FDR, in 1944, a month-long retreat which made it, in effect, the southern White House. Buchanan obviously doesn't know anything at all about southerners in FDR's administration and the New Deal. I cannot help but wonder if Buchanan has ever looked at the papers of James Francis Byrnes, which are held at the University of South Carolina. My guess is that Byrnes might have made some comment about significant matters which happened at Hobcaw, including the visit of General Clark. Shrewd, devious Byrnes is a fascinating figure. (His handiwork is the Santee-Cooper hydroelectric project which you get a glimpse of on I-95 as you drive over lake Marion there, created by damming the Santee. It provided electricity for the whole depression hit state of South Carolina.) Byrnes knew them all, including Stalin. Also, it ought to be noted that Buchanan himself says that there is not a shred of evidence that at Hobcaw FDR personally ordered Mark Clark to disobey the clear orders of Field Marshall Alexander and break away from what could have been a decisive victory and instead go into Rome. It ought to be noted as well that Buchanan's argument that by putting into power the more left-wing politician Ivanoe Bonomi instead of the British backed General Pietro Badoglio, it meant that the communist partisans in northern Italy therefore accepted the new government and willingly laid down their arms, whereas under Badoglio and the King they might not have. I don't think they had a choice; and I wonder if they actually didn't maintain a clandestine arsenal thereafter. They were by no means ready to quit. A quick look at Wikipedia tells us that it was Churchill's government that persuaded Bonomi, who came in in June and was ready to quit by November, to stay on. He did so. The communists were a powerful force in Italy all the way up almost into the 1980s--it was the Red Brigade which kidnapped and murdered Aldo Moro, for example. Further, as a reaction , to the communist threat, there is the whole question of "strategic tension" which gave Italy the "years of lead"-- years of terror bombings by the right, such as the Bologna train station bombing, the bombing of the passenger plane which fell off of Ustica, and the whole mysterious thing that was Gladio. Michael Scammel in 'Koestler', his biography of the writer Arthur Koestler, gives an account of the near hysteria in western Europe in 1948 after the Communist coup in Czechoslovakia. "The coup fulfilled Koestler's direst predictions and worst fears: there was no room for a third force in Europe anymore--not, at least, in countries where the Communists were strong. In France, rife with rumors of a coup of its own and convulsed by increasingly violent strikes, he found a populace growing more jittery by the day. Malraux talked darkly of a plot to foment civil war and publicly threatened "a reorganization of the Resistance" to oppose communism. Charles "Chip" Bohlen, the new American ambassador, talked wildly about dropping an atom bomb on Baku, and newspapers were full of the threat of a new world conflict." (Page 311.) Koestler, when he left Europe for the United States, actually believed that Europe was going to go communist. That Europe was a lost cause.

This is not to say that I am disagreement with what you are saying overall. I find Andrew Buchanan someone new and interesting. Very provocative. Perhaps he overreaches. Don't know enough, really, to make the call. Thank you for the introduction to him. Hobcaw Barony is now a large natural preserve for environmental, oceanographic and coastal studies. Remarkable story about how the foundation was created, mostly by Baruch's daughter, who must have worked a lifetime on it. Sixteen thousand acres on a neck of land that has the Atlantic ocean on one side and marshes and Winyah Bay on the other. It's worth a visit.

ted richard , 13 May 2019 at 01:37 PM
if the true goal of the neocons is war, provoked upon iran then any naval battle group which includes a usa carrier sent into the persian gulf is the match the neocons are looking for once they decide to ''remember the maine'' to it sending it to the bottom, then use that false flag as their pretext.

if its obvious to me wouldn't you suppose its obvious to the pentagon?

O'Shawnessey , 13 May 2019 at 01:39 PM
An apt comparison, no doubt, to "The Day of Deceit."

Then there is the high probability that, even if Iran shows restraint and plays the long game, a provocation in the manner of "Assad gasses his own people" will be arranged for them.

Even so, time is not on the side of the US Entity. How much longer can the Fed's fraudulent T-bill scheme keep running? My sense is that they wouldn't be weaponizing the dollar if they had other actual weapons to hand.

Jack , 13 May 2019 at 01:58 PM
Sir

What real choices do the Iranians have? It would be foolish on their part to launch any kind of military action.

LA Sox Fan -> Jack... , 19 July 2019 at 06:43 PM
While some may think military action from Iran is foolish, a slow death from sanctions isn't going to be something Iran chooses either.
catherine , 13 May 2019 at 01:59 PM

No sooner 'warned' then done. Who did it?

Saudi Arabia said two of its oil tankers were sabotaged off the coast of the United Arab Emirates and described it as an attempt to undermine the security of crude supplies amid tensions between the United States and Iran.
The reports come as the US warned ships that "Iran or its proxies" could be targeting maritime traffic in the region, and as the US is deploying an aircraft carrier and B-52 bombers to the Gulf to counter what it called "threats from Tehran".

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/05/saudi-oil-tankers-sabotaged-ships-uae-coast-190513055332524.html

ancientarcher , 13 May 2019 at 01:59 PM
Exceptionally good argument. I would also posit that the element of religious belief makes the argument even more potent.
I can't help but think back to more recent instances where the neocons were basically daring the other party to do something - anything. Ukraine in 2014 and Syria later on, come to mind. They had been waiting for the Russians to send in their troops to Ukraine after which they could have totally choked the economy. They also waited for mistakes from Assad, which he wisely avoided.
Similarly, Iran will be wise to avoid reacting in any way to these provocations. Since these provocations are meant to provoke a reaction, if the Iranians bite their lips and hold their hands, they would do more to hurt the neocons than by reacting blindly as the situation and their nature perhaps goads them towards.
D , 13 May 2019 at 03:08 PM
I humbly suggest you watch this series. Unfortunately, I don't know Persian so I can't help with translation. I watched these series with my sister in law who is a Persian Jew with an excellent command of Farsi; the videos are pretty informative.

https://youtu.be/LUHY17zF-9g?t=789

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LersWbaymTM
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUHY17zF-9g
3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abODp1BeuAg
4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePDXnAe_zm4
5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNboW6WcC3U

Rocketrepreneur , 13 May 2019 at 03:08 PM
Pat,
I share your concern, but for the neocons I fear that they see that backing Iran into a position where it has nothing to lose with a war is a feature, not a bug.
~Jon
walrus , 13 May 2019 at 03:43 PM
Time is not on America's side

In my opinion, the critical element is the forthcoming deployment of advanced Russian and Chinese systems such as the Sarmat heavy ICBM, scheduled I think for 2021, new submarines, etc., etc. and I am not even talking about joint Russo/sino developments.

As Col. Lang/Gingrich explained, we are talking economics here. But unlike Japan, the Russian, Iranian, Syrian, Chinese and associated economies under the stimulus of OBOR are only going to get stronger if left to themselves. The American economy, in my opinion, is no longer capable of replacing ageing infrastructure, matching Russo Chinese military technical capabilities, fielding a million man Army and supporting allies like Korea, Taiwan, Australia, Japan, Poland, etc. without beggaring its population.

To put that another way, the American economic marvel of military production came off a low base with millions of underemployed work hungry people available as a result of the depression. I don't think those conditions obtain today.

Hence the Washington logic of picking off the weakest of the Axis - Iran, right now.

Fred -> walrus ... , 13 May 2019 at 07:51 PM
You mean a million H1B visa holders and 20 million illegal immigrants aren't our strength? Who knew! Maybe we should outsource more manufacturing to China, that'll teach the bastards to mess with us!
ISL said in reply to walrus ... , 19 July 2019 at 07:46 PM
Good points, I would correct:

The "American Political class," rather than the US economy - solutions are available and affordable, but not within the current US political and economic and legal and hence power structures.

FIRE take up too much of the US economy and the best and brightest and has bought the political class hook, line and Epstein.

LJ , 13 May 2019 at 04:09 PM
The chances of war diminished?

https://ejmagnier.com/2019/05/13/from-karbala-to-al-fujairah-an-act-of-sabotage-may-end-prospects-of-a-summer-war-in-the-middle-east/

Eliot said in reply to LJ... , 13 May 2019 at 08:14 PM
LJ

"the chances of war..."

Those damn fools.

This makes war more likely.

- Eliot

Eliot , 13 May 2019 at 04:30 PM
Walrus,

"The American economy, in my opinion, is no longer capable of replacing ageing infrastructure, matching Russo Chinese military technical capabilities"

I was in Russia for the first time last summer. I loved it, but I was surprised by how poor they are. Our debt load aside, they have do have more limited resources.

Sylvia 1 said in reply to Eliot ... , 14 May 2019 at 10:35 AM
I would love to know more about what you mean about Russian poverty. I was there last September and will return again. I would not say the same.
rho , 13 May 2019 at 04:48 PM
I think the key difference is that Japan was isolated on its continent when it made the decision to go to war. (only being allied with Nazi Germany and Italy, which were so far away that the alliance made little difference to Japan's economic situation in 1941)

Going to war must appear more attractive when you have your back against the wall than when you have regional allies who are still willing to support you politically and economically in a meaningful way.

E Publius , 13 May 2019 at 05:17 PM
I have to admit Colonel that this post reminded me of an April 29th profile in the New Yorker of John Bolton. Several days ago after reading the lengthy New Yorker piece I realized how slowly but surely, the Trump admin has been consistently heading toward outright madness with the gradual departure of people like Tillerson, J. Kelly, and Mattis from the office. It was mentioned in the piece how Gen. Mattis thwarted multiple outright crazy attempts by McMaster (who is now at FDD shilling for the "Long War" strategy; once a neocon, always a neocon), Bolton and Mira Ricardel aimed at declaring war against Iran. Now that there are a few key vacant positions in the administration such as the UN Ambs, Homeland Sec, a few at the State Dep, and most importantly at the Pentagon, shouldn't these vacancies act as major restraining factor against war or the Trump admin "is" stupid enough to go full war mode regardless? IMO some things still just do not add up. just wondering...
Christian J Chuba , 13 May 2019 at 07:06 PM
Just curious about something. I hear news stories that we are sending the Lincoln inside the Persian Gulf. That seems like it would negate a lot of our advantage if we actually did fight Iran. It would be in range of every anti-ship missile they have as well as most of their navy which is designed specifically for the Gulf and not much of a blue water navy. Why wouldn't we keep it just outside the Gulf in the open water where our carrier and escorts would seemingly have a bigger advantage?

I don't want a fight and I'm not pretending that I understand naval tactics, but this just seems a bit odd to me.

VietnamVet , 14 May 2019 at 01:16 AM
Colonel,

The damage was above the water line and a slash as if perhaps a missile but did not penetrate the oil bunkers. It does not look like a limpet mine. There are no reports of airplanes or ships but is described as sabotage. It is unlikely to be a false flag. Media reporting has been muted. Simply that it is being investigated. But as pointed out here before there is no stockpiling of supplies needed for an invasion of Iran by a million-man army. Inside the Persian Gulf is the last place the Commander of the Carrier Group wants to be if war breaks out. My guess is that the sabotage to four tankers was a signal of what the Revolutionary Guards could do if they really wanted to and as a counter to ultra-mad man U.S. diplomacy and sanctions. Lloyd's of London must raise their insurance rates. This will raise oil prices at the same time as prices rise due to Mid-West flooding, China's African Swine Fever outbreak, and the imposing of a 25% tariff on Chinese imports. All sorts of bad things are happening at once. Rather than 2003's misleading Shock and Awe propaganda, the 2019 Iranian war drums indicate total incompetence.

Eric Newhill , 14 May 2019 at 09:25 AM
The Imperial Japanese believed that Americans were soft and that US troops would crumble when faced with the mighty spirit of Bushido. They were ultimately banking on that mistaken conclusion. I don't think the Iranians have any such delusions.

I don't see how Iran can do anything more than make some trouble that is minor in the big scheme of things - and which will dig their hole deeper - and then lose.

I don't approve of what is being done, but I think the current Iranian regime could be destroyed if the neocons have their way; albeit with US casualties and great material and financial expense. I don't like how US troops and sailors may be used as bait by the neocons.

Eric Newhill said in reply to Eric Newhill... , 14 May 2019 at 10:12 AM
I should add that to my mind the real question is what would follow in the wake of war. Would the Iranians be happy to be free of the Islamic Revolutionary govt? Or would they go on for generations with wounded pride that demands revenge, like the Palestinians? I think the latter. In which case war/regime change solves nothing. I'm willing to bet the neocons, as usual, have their own delusions about flowers, candy, purple thumbs, smiling faces and freedom.
John Minehan said in reply to Eric Newhill... , 19 July 2019 at 08:26 PM
They had a front row seat for OIF and what came after. I suspect they have a good feeling for our capability and weaknesses . . . whether they can exploit that or not, might be the issue.
turcopolier , 14 May 2019 at 10:03 AM
Eric Newhill - IMO you are underestimating how much damage Iran could do to the fleet in a transition to war situation before the US Navy got its ducks in line and crushed them. As for the illusion about US willingness to fight, all our opponents have believed the same thing before the house fell on them.
Eric Newhill said in reply to turcopolier ... , 14 May 2019 at 10:17 AM
Sir,
Oh, I understand what Iran could do. As you know, it has been war gamed and the US Navy gets hit pretty hard.

But Iran still loses. Each hit the US Navy takes, strengthens the resolve to crush Iran that much harder.

Again, I am in no way approving of what I think may happen. I have been told by someone I know well in the DIA that we are doing to war with Iran sooner or later. The first time I was told this was when Obama was still in office. Then I was told that the election of Trump has changed nothing. Make what you will of that.

blue peacock said in reply to turcopolier ... , 20 July 2019 at 01:58 AM
Col. Lang

"in a transition to war situation before the US Navy got its ducks in line and crushed them" what damage could Iranian ballistic missiles do to UAE, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia? Could they devastate oil & gas, LNG, port and pipeline infrastructure sufficiently that it would take a year to re-build back to full capacity?

It seems it would be a lose-lose proposition for everyone including Trump's re-election prospects. I have seen private surveys of working class people in the mid-west and the south who by an overwhelming majority oppose a war with Iran when informed about some of the potential consequences.

turcopolier , 14 May 2019 at 11:12 AM
Eric Newhill

People in the information parts of the USIC do not know what the US government may do, but they all have opinions.

turcopolier , 14 May 2019 at 11:13 AM
Eric Newhill

We won the Pacific War as well but if you were entombed alive in the bowels of USS Arizona that did nit mean much to you.

Eric Newhill , 19 July 2019 at 05:26 PM
Well, Sir, unfortunately I think you called this one spot on.

IMO, if there's going to be war, then the Europeans and Brits should fight it. Their the ones most impacted (though I recognize that everyone in the global markets will feel the pain resulting from a closure of the straight).

Of course none of them will step up on their own and the US will have to do this. Still holding out hope that some kind of negotiation is possible, but becoming skeptical. The Iranians want to prove they are the men they thought they were. Still, maybe a good deal will satisfy that need.

LA Sox Fan -> Eric Newhill... , 19 July 2019 at 06:58 PM
The Bolton/neoconservative plan of starting a war with Iran is working perfectly. In a tit for tat action, Iran has captured one or more U.K. tankers. My hopes for avoiding a completely unnecessary war with Iran, one we have a fair chance of losing, are becoming slimmer and slimmer.
Walrus said in reply to Eric Newhill... , 19 July 2019 at 10:34 PM
Eric, I'm in Europe right now and I don't think any Europeans are prepared in the slightest to support a war with Iran. For starters, if Iran did not surrender instantaneously, an oil shortage will collapse the European and Chinese economies and that is only one of the minor, first order effects.

The question of "not being the men they thought they were" cuts both ways. Does the European union want to see war with Iran? No. Do the Europeans want to see Britain, egged on by the Neocons, take "a hard line" with Iran? No. Do the Europeans want to aid and abet the U. S. in fighting a war with Iran through NATO? No. Do they want to be "saved from Iran " by the U.S. galloping all over hemisphere as in 1944? No.

So do you really want to see NATO and American relationships with Europe, Russia and China, India and the rest of the world put under severe stress in a @#@# waving contest between Trump and the Mullahs? At the behest of Israel? Because that is what you are going to get.

Then there is the prospect of the Chinese and Russians retaliating, and I don't even want to go there.

The Mullahs have ruined the weekend for the leaders of each and every major nation. What will be happening this weekend in every capital is a series of committee meetings asking the same questions; What should our response to Iran be? What should our response to possible American action be? What is the likely effect of war with Iran on our energy supplies? What is the likely effect of war with Iran on our own security? What is the likely effect of war with Iran on our economy? Public servants will be working late into the night to answer these questions. The only thing for sure is that the price of gold is going to skyrocket when markets open and that a lot of troops are going to get warning orders about notice to move monday morning.

This is the same type of situation that started WW1. ....... So we decide to give those pesky Iranian Mullahs a good whupping because they had it coming. Should be easy, after all they are just more sand niggers, right? All of a sudden Russia drops an air defence regiment into Tehran, We lose aircraft. China let's North Korea off the leash and at the same time issues an ultimatum to Taiwan. Suddenly we are taking losses, have three war theatres going at the same time. What happens then?

I suppose you think nothing is going to affect the continental U.S., so who cares?


Charles Michael -> Eric Newhill... , 20 July 2019 at 08:19 AM
Eric newhill,

There I must disagree:
Nethanyaou is again in election campaign same goes for President Trump; IMHO no war for the newt 6 months and probably never.

A deal is possible ? maybe
but it should encompass the Syrian issue from where all this Iranian crisis is actually born-again.
For example Iran could agree to withdraw its troops from Syria if USA and partners did the same as Trump was considering.
This move would surely have some effect on the YPG position, thus on Turkey's activism along its frontier with Syria (Afrin being not included).


Entering in negociations for a JCPOA bis will not be acceptable for Iran if sanctions (some at least) are not lifted. My educated guess is that is precisely what's going on.

turcopolier , 19 July 2019 at 05:43 PM
JM

IMO the Houthis, the Hizbullah and Hamas are not proxies of Iran. They are allies.

John Minehan said in reply to turcopolier ... , 19 July 2019 at 08:19 PM
Much better choice of words than mine. Thus they are a significant wild card here, I would guess.
Harlan Easley , 19 July 2019 at 06:10 PM
When I read the Iranians captured a British Oil tanker it immediately reminded me of this article.
GeneO , 19 July 2019 at 06:18 PM
pl -

I was hoping yesterdays Zarif/Rand Paul discussion would lead to a ratcheting down of tensions. But the hardliners on both sides would hate to have that happen and will attempt to wreck any détente.

Did Zarif offer the idea of allowing more intrusive inspections of its nuclear program before or after his meeting with Paul? In any case some unnamed US officials said it was a non-starter. Probably the unnamed ones were the Mousetache-of-Idiocy and his minions?

Never should have cancelled JCPOA. Why should we have to do Israel/KSA/UAE's dirty work?

Timothy Hagios , 19 July 2019 at 07:50 PM
One recalls the immortal words of former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: "Absolutely no one could have predicted this."
ambrit , 19 July 2019 at 11:12 PM
Sir;
Isn't the "wild card" here the Israelis?
I can imagine an Iranian government, or perhaps the IRGC in a 'bitter ender' phase targeting Israel proper before they collapse. As the fate of Gerald Ball indicates, the Israelis are understandably paranoid about their regional competitors.
Christian Chuba , 19 July 2019 at 11:34 PM
Iranian grain ships stuck in Brazil due to U.S. sanctions
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-brazil-iran-sanctions/iran-grain-ships-stuck-in-brazil-without-fuel-due-to-u-s-sanctions-idUKKCN1UD2QM

We are now engaging in cartoon villainy in terms of trying to squeeze Iran into a tiny box. Iran cannot transact in dollars so they are reduced to bartering with Brazil for corn. Oops, even their urea export is sanctioned but that doesn't matter because we won't let Brazil sell them fuel oil to ship corn back to their home port. This is flat out evil.

Jim Ticehurst , 20 July 2019 at 12:04 AM
I wondering if the former Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejah ...2005 to 2013 and His "Apocalyptic Shiites" were put in the background...with disinformation about His falling out of Favor....So Iran could play strategic games with the P5+1 agreement IN 2015 especially with President Obama..
SysATI , 20 July 2019 at 12:06 AM
Eric Newhill

"But Iran still loses. Each hit the US Navy takes, strengthens the resolve to crush Iran that much harder."

Cm'on man... wake up and open your eyes...

The US hasn't won any war since... Eternity...
Do I have to remind you what happens in Afghanistan, in Irak or more recently in Syria ?

Well Iran is FIVE times bigger than Syria and is not a divided multicultural/multi-religious country. Do you think that anything you do could change the fact that those 80 something millions people will survive and will ALL be behind their leaders whoever he might be ?

If I was Iranian and even if the leader of the country was Adolf Hitler or some fanatic religious Abu Satanist al Muslim, I would still be behind him if my country was attacked by some foreign bully. My guess is that 99% of the Iranians think the same way....

Forget about allies like Hamas, Hezbollah or Houtis or even China and Russia.
Iran exists since 7000 BC and you really think that the new kid in the block with a couple hundred years of existence would be able to take it out ?
Given your history of military victories ???!!! Don't make me laugh...

Even if you naively believe that, do you think about the consequences of such a war ? Not on Iran, OK, you might level part of the country, but then what ?

Israel would most probably cease to exist. But so as the middle eastern Arab monarchies and most the world's oil industry, which we all depend on...

Which means that the whole planet will suffer for years to come...

If I can't feed my kids because my country can't get enough oil thanks to some nutcase in WDC guess how I'll feel about the US ?

Most of the world already hate you for a reason. If you want to be not just hated but treated like enemies where ever you go, go ahead, bomb Iran, start a war, have the whole world crumble...

And for what ???
Just "because you can" is not a valid answer...

"IMO, if there's going to be war, then the Europeans and Brits should fight it... Of course none of them will step up on their own and the US will have to do this."

Will HAVE TO do this ???!!!

Who the hell is forcing you not to mind your own business ?

Has Iran attacked the US ? Or Britain ? Or Europe ?
Or anyone else in the past several hundreds of years ?
No...


But.... Does the US oil industry would like the oil prices to go up ? YES !!!
Do the crazies in DC want to make more money by selling more weapons ? YES !!!
Do the crazies in Wahabistan hate the Shias and want to get rid of them ? YES !!!
Do the crazies in Israel want to get rid of a powerful neighbor ? YES !!!
Do even some crazies in the US want Israel to go in flames so that Jesus comes back ?

Unfortunately yes...

turcopolier , 20 July 2019 at 11:29 AM
Charles Michael
You are not correct. The Israelis have a deep psychopatholgy about Iranian ballistic missiles and a possible nuclear weapon that might - might exist someday. That has nothing to do with Syria.
David Habakkuk , 20 July 2019 at 01:29 PM
All,

I think the comment by 'Elliot' back in May reflects assumptions which are very deep-seated in the West, are questionable, and if wrong, could prove extraordinarily dangerous. So an extended response seems appropriate.

Of course the Russians have far more limited resources than the United States. What is important is to understand the implications of that fact for their strategic thinking.

On this I would strongly recommend two pieces at the top of the 'Russia' page on the 'World Hot Spots' section of the 'Army Military Press' site.

(See https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Special-Topics/World-Hot-Spots/Russia/ )

The first is a translation of a 2017 article from the journal of the 'Academy of Military Science', entitled 'Color Revolutions in Russia', by A.S. Brychkov and G.A. Nikonorov.

Among other things, this illustrates very well the rather central fact that Russian military strategists are very well aware that one of the things that wrecked the Soviet Union was the attempt to maintain permanent preparedness for a prolonged global war with a power possessing an enormously greater military-industrial potential.

As to the implications for contingency planning for war, these are spelt out in a piece, also published in 207, by the invaluable Major Charles K. Bartles of the Foreign Military Studies Office at Fort Leavenworth, entitled 'Recommendations for Intelligence Staffs Concerning Russian New Generation Warfare.'

At the risk of glossing his meaning overmuch, what is involved is a kind of 'higher synthesis' of the ideas of two figures who were on opposing sides of the arguments of the 'Twenties of the last century, Georgiy Isserson, the pioneering theorist of 'deep operations', and Aleksandr Svechin, who cautioned against an exclusive focus of the 'Napoleonic' strand in Clausewitz.

Both are quoted by the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, General Valery Gerasimov, in his crucial and much misunderstood address to the Academy of Military Science in February 2013, reproduced on the same page as the articles to which I have referred.

What Svechin was saying, in essence, was that an attentive reader of Clausewitz would realise that 'toujours la'audace' should be replaced as a motto by 'l'audace at the right place and time'.

It was crucial to be able to judge when an offensive approach was absolutely the right choice, and caution suicidal, and when the promise of a decisive victory was a snare and a delusion, and defensive and attritional responses appropriate.

(This argument crops up in many contexts: the 'Tabouleh Line' strategy adopted by Hizbullah, which Colonel Lang discussed in posts during and following the 2006 Lebanon War, and also that advocated by James Longstreet at Gettysburg, are classic examples of what Svechin would have seen as circumstances where a sound 'defensive' strategy was the key to victory.)

As regards contemporary Russian thinking, an implication is that one of things they have been trying to create is the ability, in appropriate situations, to use characteristics of 'deep operations' – surprise, speed, shock – in support of clearly limited objectives.

The kind of possibility involved was alluded to in the conversation between the 'Security Adviser' and the 'American Soldier' – seemingly involved on the ground in the 'deconfliction' process – which accompanied Seymour Hersh's June 2017 article in 'Die Welt' on the Khan Sheikhoun sarin incident the previous April, and the U.S. air strikes that resulted.

(See https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article165905618/We-got-a-fuckin-problem.html )

A key exchange:

'SA: There has been a hidden agenda all along. This is about trying to ultimately go after Iran. What the people around Trump do not understand is that the Russians are not a paper tiger and that they have more robust military capability than we do.

'AS: I don't know what the Russians are going to do. They might hang back and let the Syrians defend their own borders, or they might provide some sort of tepid support, or they might blow us the fuck out of the airspace and back into Iraq. I honestly don't know what to expect right now. I feel like anything is possible. The russian air defense system is capable of taking out our TLAMs. this is a big fucking deal...we are still all systems go...'

And that brings one to another critical strand in the approach of contemporary Russian strategic thinkers.

Not simply for war-fighting, but, critically, for 'deterring' the United States from escalating if the Russians do successfully achieve limited objectives, they have been concentrating on 'asymetric' involving focused investment in specific technologies.

So, Bartles explains that the Russian Ground Forces are 'significantly ahead' of the U.S. Army in electronic warfare, key objectives being to disrupt the demonstrated American capability for precision strikes, and also exploit the latent vulnerabilities involved in the dependence of so much equipment on GPS. (As an Army man, he does not discuss the interesting question of naval and air applications.)

And crucially, there has been a focus on developing a very wide range of missiles which 'missile defence' technologies are not going to be able to counter effectively in any forseeable future, and which have steadily increasing range, accuracy and lethality. One central purpose of this, which Gerasimov has spelt out in later addresses to the Academy of Military Science, also available on the page to which I have linked, is to provide non-nuclear 'deterrence' options.

It is, of course, always difficult to be clear as to what is, or is not, hype in claims made for new weapons systems. That said, it is I think at least worth reading some contributions by the Brussels-based American analyst Gilbert Doctorow.

In February, he produced a piece entitled 'The INF Treaty is dead: will the arms race be won this time by the most agile or by the biggest wallet?', and another, headlined 'The Kremlin's Military Posture Re-considered: strategic military parity with the U.S. or absolute military superiority over the U.S.'

(See https://gilbertdoctorow.com/2019/02/05/the-inf-treaty-is-dead-will-the-arms-race-be-won-this-time-by-the-most-agile-or-by-the-biggest-wallet/ ; https://gilbertdoctorow.com/2019/02/24/the-kremlins-military-posture-re-considered-strategic-military-parity-with-the-u-s-or-absolute-military-superiority-over-the-u-s/ .)

Certainly, a good many assertions Doctorow made merit being taken with a pinch of salt, if not a great deal more. However, before one empties the full salt-cellar over them, a few observations are worth making.

How much salt should be applied to Shoigu's assertion that the cost of the systems being developed is hundreds of times less than that of the systems being developed by the United States against Russia I cannot say.

Some questions are however worth putting. It would be interesting to be clearer than I am as to how relevant, or irrelevant, is the fact that for a long time now Russian universities have, frankly, wiped the floor with their Western counterparts in international programming competitions is one.

Another relevant range of issues relates to how expensive the 'software' component of the relevant weaponry actually produced, once it is developed. A third relates to that of how far the new missiles, with their greater range, can be effectively deployed, either by updating old platforms – like Soviet-era bombers – or by creating relatively low cost-ones.

And then of course one comes to the question of how the technical military issues interact with the 'geopolitics' involved. In recent years, a range of different Russian analysts have been claiming, in essence, that the 'Petrine' era of Russian history is over. Three examples, from Dmitri Trenin, Sergei Karaganov, and Vladislav Surkov, can be found at

https://carnegie.ru/2016/12/25/russia-s-post-soviet-journey-pub-66569 ; https://eng.globalaffairs.ru/pubcol/We-Have-Used-Up-the-European-Treasure-Trove-19769 ; https://eng.globalaffairs.ru/book/The-Loneliness-of-the-Half-Breed-19575 .

If, as Trenin argued back in 2016, Russia has moved from aspiring to become part of a 'Greater Europe' to seeing itself as a central part of a 'Greater Eurasia', then this has implications for how it should react to the asymetry which was central to Soviet views of INF in the 'Eighties.'

Put simply, INF in Europe can pose a 'decapitation' threat to Russia, while Russian INF do not do so to the United States.

At that time, the deployment of cruise and Pershing II helped to encourage a burgeoning awareness among important sections of the 'security intelligentsia' in Moscow of the extent to which their own security policies – of which the SS-20 deployment was just one of many examples – had created suspicion, fear and antagonism.

The conclusion – classically expressed in Georgiy Arbatov's joke about the terrible thing that Gorbachev was going to do to the United States, deprive it of an enemy – turned out hopelessly naive. The liquidation of the existing Soviet security posture did not lead to any lesssening of Western antagonism.

In his second piece, Doctorow has an interesting discussion of views expressed by Yakov Kedmi, the sometime 'refusenik' who became a pivotal figure in organising Russian Jewish emigration to Israel, and is now a regular guest on Russian television. And he writes:

'Perhaps Kedmi's most interesting and relevant observation is on the novelty of the Russian response to the whole challenge of American encirclement. He noted that for the past 200 or more years the United States considered itself secure from enemies given the protection of the oceans. However, in the new Russian military threat, the oceans will now become the most vulnerable point in American defenses, from which the decapitating strike can come.'

Putting the point another way. Potentially at least, the 'Greater Eurasia' as Trenin describes it includes the Western European countries – indeed, it appears to include Ireland. It is, obviously, enormously in the interest of the Russians to include these, in that doing so both makes it possible to isolate the 'Anglo-Saxons', and also to provide a counterweight to Chinese preponderance.

To do so however – and at this point I am moving towards my own speculations, rather than simply relying upon better-informed observers – requires a complicated balancing act.

On the one hand, the West Europeans – above all the Germans – have to be persuaded that if they persist in following with the 'Russia delenda est' agendas of traditional 'Anglo' Russophobes, and 'revanchists' from the 'borderlands', they should not think this is going to be cost-free.

But on the other, the promise has to be implied that, if they 'see sense' and realise that their future is with a 'Greater Eurasia', without their needing to 'remilitarise' in any serious way, then they will not be threatened militarily.

This balancing act, ironically, makes it absolutely imperative for the Russians not to threaten the Baltics – particularly given their historical links to Germany.

By the same token, it provides a particularly cogent reason for threatening to respond to new American IMF deployments in Europe with ones that target the United States.

[Jul 20, 2019] The UK's Dubious Role in the New Tanker War With Iran naked capitalism

Jul 20, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

https://c.deployads.com/sync?f=html&s=2343&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nakedcapitalism.com%2F2019%2F07%2Fthe-uks-dubious-role-in-the-new-tanker-war-with-iran.html

https://eus.rubiconproject.com/usync.html

https://acdn.adnxs.com/ib/static/usersync/v3/async_usersync.html <img src="http://b.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=2&c2=16807273&cv=2.0&cj=1" /> Iran has also said that it will not only follow graded response to the sanctions, including possible exiting from the JCPOA, but also reconsider its participation in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a thinly veiled threat to follow in North Korea's footsteps. It is clear that Iran will fight the status quo arising out of Trump's maximum pressure policies in various ways, and not allow itself to be economically strangulated.

The UK's position has now become very dubious. Why did it seize Iran's supertanker Grace 1 in the Gibraltarwaters? Four of Grace 1 's officers, including the ship's captain, all Indians, have been charged in a Gibraltar court and are now out on bail.

In a new twist on this issue, we now know that Gibraltar changed its law underpinning the seizure just one day before it occurred . This adds weight to reports in Spain quoting government sources that the UK carried out the seizing of the tanker under U.S.instructions.

The argument that Grace 1 was carrying crude oil to Syria's Baniyas refinery, and so was violating European sanctions on Syria, sounds weak on various counts.The Gibraltar court's order mentions EU Regulation 36/2012 on sanctions on Syria as the basis for action against Grace 1 . Oil exports from Syria to the EU have been banned, but not oil imports to Syria under EU regulations. Also, imports to the Baniyas refinery are banned for machinery and equipment , not oil.

More important: In international trade, do countries through which transit takes place have the right to impose their laws on the merchandise in transit? For example, can pharmaceutical products from India, which arein consonance with Indian and the receiving country's laws, be seized in transit in Europe if they violate the EU's patent laws? Such seizures have happened , creating a trade dispute between India and the EU. The EU finally agreed not to seize such goods in transit. So can the EU extend its sanctions to goods in transit through its waters? Assuming the crude was indeed for Syria -- which Iran has denied -- do EU sanctions apply when transiting through Gibraltar waters? In short, was the UK imposing EU sanctions on Syria -- or U.S.sanctions on Iran?

There has also been another incident involving Iran and the UK in the developing Tanker War 2. This makes the UK's role even more suspect. Iran has denied the UK's story of its empty tanker Heritage being blocked by Iranian boats in the Persian Gulf. The U.S., which first broke the story, claimed it was five Iranian boats that tried to seize a British tanker. The UK authorities claimed that it was three Iranian boats that were impeding the tanker's journey, which were driven off by a British warship. The Iranians deny that any such incident took place. No video or satellite image of the incident has been made public, though a U.S.aircraft reportedly took video footage of the incident. In his Twitter feed, BBC's Defense Correspondent Jonathan Beale condemned the failure of the British government to release images of the incident: "UK MOD say they will NOT be releasing any imagery from incident in Gulf when @HMS_MONTROSE confronted #Iran IRGC boats. Shame as far as I'm concerned."

What remains unexplained is why the empty UK tanker switched off its transponder before the alleged incident for about 24 hours, particularly in the period when it was passing through the Strait of Hormuz -- or why an empty tanker was accompanied by a British warship. Was the UK baiting Iran by manufacturing a maritime incident in the Gulf?

UK Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt has said on Twitter that after a phone call with Javad Zarif, Iran's foreign minister, he offered to release the tanker Grace 1 on the condition that it will not send the oil to Syria. This still begs the question of the UK's locus in deciding the destination of Iranian oil -- or why Iran should accept EU sanctions.

[Jul 18, 2019] The more "effective" the sanctions, the closer to war

Jul 18, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

elkern , Jul 17 2019 16:08 utc | 31

Trailer Trash is exactly right about brittle supply chains. To "maximize Shareholder value" (the Prime Directive from Wall Street), corporations are maximizing (not optimizing) efficiency, at the expense of long-term priorities.

Summer Diaz is sorta right about what I might describe as US cultural/political obesity, but I don't look forward to living here after the shit hits the fan. There are lotsa crazy bastards with guns. We'll see real race war, starvation, all 4 Horsemen.

Re questions about Israel's fate in Marandi's scenario: I think it's smart that he/they don't talk about retaliation against Israel. Everybody knows that Iran has the ability to really hurt Israel (sans Nukes, they probably can't obliterate it); but this threat is much better left unsaid, just hanging in the air. Threatening Israel would be bad PR, decreasing chances that EU, Russia, & China can talk the US back from the brink of WWIII. And making sure Israel knows they're in danger - without bragging about it - gets (non-crazy) Zionists in USA to help prevent all-out war!

It's OK for Iran to talk about the threat to KSA, UAE, etc, because everybody hates them anyway, and cutting off the world's energy supply is their Doomsday Bomb. They need to remind the world that if the US attacks Iran, everybody loses.

karlof1 , Jul 17 2019 16:23 utc | 32

Three main antagonists have aimed at post-revolution Iran: The Outlaw US Empire, Occupied Palestine, and Saudi Arabia, the latter being the most recent and vulnerable, while the first two have already waged varying degrees of war with the Empire's Economic War having existed for 40+ years. The Levant's former Colonial powers--Turkey, France, UK--are feeble, and in Turkey's case is allied with Iran while being spurned by NATO and EU. Lurking in the background are Russia and China's designs for Eurasian Integration which only the Outlaw US Empire seeks to prevent as such integration benefits Saudi Arabia, Occupied Palestine, France and UK. Thus the only entity that might benefit from non-hybrid war with Iran is the Outlaw US Empire--Occupied Palestine's interests actually lie with becoming part of an Integrated Eurasia not in trying to impede it. And the same goes for the other nations occupying the Arabian Peninsula--but they all need to come to their senses by deeply examining their actual long term interests as Qatar seems to have done in its rapprochement with Iran.

But, just how would a non-hybrid conflict with Iran benefit the Outlaw US Empire if it consumes its regional allies? Would it bring more riches or create greater debt atop the human cost? Most analysts have pointed to the Empire's vulnerability upon the trashing of the current global economic structure. Indeed, the only visible benefit might accrue from slowing Eurasian Integration. Then there's the highly negative result to the Empire's global credibility which is already scrapping rock bottom and the likely end of Dollar Hegemony and the Free Lunch it's lived on for the past 70+ years. But what about the fulfillment of the Christian Rapture Myth? Sorry, but there should be no need to answer that fantastical, magical, thinking. Not a very good balance sheet is it as liabilities seem to vastly outweigh assets. Unfortunately, such logic is ignored by ideologues drunk on magical thinking. And these results don't take into consideration an escalation into global nuclear conflict that's in nobody's interest.

But as noted, Trump's up a tree and keeps climbing higher onto ever thinner, more precarious branches. Iran offered him a chance to climb down if he removes illegal sanctions and returns to JCPOA, which Pompeo promptly replied to with a lie that Iran would negotiate on its ballistic missiles, thus giving the overall goal away.

So, Trump can't/won't climb down and non-hybrid conflict would do great damage to Outlaw US Empire interests, which is where we were at July's beginning.

goldhoarder , Jul 17 2019 16:41 utc | 33
Iran will respond to a limited military strike with a massive and disproportionate counterstrike targeting both the aggressor and its enablers.
Which will be the green light for an even more violent & disproportionate counterstrike on Iran. Make no mistake - there are plenty of gung-ho Washington & Tel Aviv power brokers who want to trash Iran. And they will do it, given the chance. The above scenario is precisely what the war gods are hoping for.

I don't know about that. The US and Israel would really be opening up a can of worms. Any over reaction by the USA and Israel gives Russia, India, and China a precedent to follow. China might it easy to settle their difficulties with Taiwan. Kiev might go up in a mushroom cloud. The USA isn't the only country in the world with problems. If they don't play by the rules it just leads to more rule breakers.

arata , Jul 17 2019 16:47 utc | 34
An Alternate Scenario
There is a saying in Persian language called "Namad Maali" translates as "feltman massag", it means slow killing.
This proverb is very often used in contemporary Persian language but most of the people do not know the actual origin of the proverb.
There is an interesting legend behind it. Holagu Khan, a Mongol ruler, the grandson of Chengiz Khan conquered Baghdad on year 1258, and captured the Caliph Al-Mo'tasam, the last Caliph of Abbasid dynasty. Holagu decided to execute the Caliph and finish the 500 years Muslim caliphate.
Many statesmen begged him to hold on. They told him that the caliph is legitimate successor of prophet Mohammad. Caliphate is the pillar of the world, if you remove this pillar there will be sun eclipse, thunder storm and total darkness. Holagu, with his shamanistic believes fearing sky revenge was yielding, but he consulted his prime minister a Persian mullah, Nasir al-Din Tusi. Nasir told him do not worry, these are total nonsense, all of our great Shai twelve imams were direct descendants of prophet Mohammad, they were inherently innocent, while Abbasid are not direct descendants of prophet. See that our imams, eleven out of twelve, were martyred, there was no sun eclipse, no thunder storm, no darkness of the world.
Holagu was bold enough to carry out the execution. Other statesmen brought forward a group of astrologists who searched through their horoscopes and studied signs of stars and concluded that all the signs are catastrophic, if a drop of caliph's blood drops on earth, there will be a devastating thunder storm, rain of bloods pours down from sky and end of world ...
Holagu consulted Nasi again. Nasir being a great humorist, told him not worry, we can devise a pretty easy solution for your peace of mind, send the caliph to hot bath of feltman workshop, order to be wrapped in felt, they will give him a hot water bath with soap, they will roll him slowly over and over, as they are crafting a felt, his life will be ended peacefully in massage, without a drop of blood, meanwhile I will assign one of my intelligent apprentice who is familiar with sky ways ( Nasir was a great mathematician and Astronomer, he founded a famous observatory, he was inventor of trigonometry), to sit on the roof top of the feltman workshop, he will monitor any changes on sky if there is a minor change, he will signal to the feltman to release the caliph.
President Vladimir Khan has been giving warnings to Ayatollah do not burn JCPOA, do not close Strait of Hurmoz. Ayatollah is telling him do not worry we are giving a feltman massage. Just tell Xi khan do not lean his back against the wall street pillar, clean up your hands from future fund casino, the pillars are collapsing slowly.



jason , Jul 17 2019 17:13 utc | 35
the US and its allies are bluffing. don't get caught up in wars and rumors of it. the only way it was going to happen was if syria and iraq fell and both of them didn't.

when it didn't. they resort back to the usual MO, look busy.

OutOfThinAir , Jul 17 2019 17:31 utc | 36
A reminder from Iran that they can hit back.

Hopefully folks who can influence power have been reading the Guns of August.

Possible miscalculations are everywhere and the parties are no strangers to false flags and proxy actors.

So I'm crossing my fingers for strong back channel communications.

I'm not expecting outright major war. Perhaps a skirmish or two, but a negotiated deal is still the most likely outcome.

c1ue , Jul 17 2019 17:56 utc | 37
@C I eh? #14
I don't see China as the same situation as Russia.
The Russians who have largely supported Putin despite economic ill-effects from sanctions are, at best, 1 generation removed from 1991-1996 post-Soviet collapse privation. They remember the bad times and how to get through them.
The mainland Chinese today are 2 generation removed from the famines in the 50s and 60s, and furthermore there is a largely generational break due to the Cultural Revolution.
I don't see China collapsing, but I also don't see the mainstream population taking a oil-starvation induced economic collapse well at all, because the deal is social repression if the economy and standards of living continue to improve.
The difference is French cheese and EU fruits and vegetables - luxury goods vs. oil = energy = everything.
Uncle Jon , Jul 17 2019 17:57 utc | 38
There seems to be misconception about Kuwait, in particular.

Kuwaitis are fed up with the Saudis and are more Iranophile than anything. They see who is a true regional power.

Recently, I happen to be invited to a diplomatic function, welcoming a new Kuwaiti ambassador (Not in US). There were several businessmen associates of the new ambassador at that function. In an impromptu conversation, they professed their love for anything Iranian or Persian, from culture and history to food and the people, and their disdain for the Saudis and their ruling family.

In fact, one of them, much to my shock, uttered the circulating rumor that the ruling family in SA are actually Jews. He said everyone in the region knows about this open secret but afraid to talk about. That was a revelation for me coming from a Kuwaiti since I never did pay attention to those rumors.

I think in the event of a regional conflict, Kuwait will be spared by Iran. What would happen to the ruling family will be another story.

james , Jul 17 2019 18:04 utc | 39
thanks Seyed Mohammad Marandi.. i agree with your headline...

the usa is not agreement friendly.. everything is on their terms only... they rip up contracts when a new president doesn't like it, and make endless demands of others under threat, just like bullies do. they sanction countries and don't mind killing, starving and subjecting people in faraway lands to their ongoing and desperate means of domination.. nothing about the usa is friendly... they spend all their money on the military not just because it works so well for wall st and the corporations but because they think they can continue to bully everyone and anyone indefinitely.. they get support from the obvious suspects and all the other colonies of the usa - europe, canada and etc - turn a type of blind eye to it all, fearful they might be next if they step out of line.. thus, all these chattel countries fail in line with the usa regime sanctions...

basically, the prognosis isn't good.. none of the colonies are capable of speaking up to the usa regime, largely because they lack strong leadership and independence of thought in all this... we continue to slip towards ww3 and at present all the observing countries sit on their hands waiting for the next shoe to drop.. that is where we are at present with regard the ramp up to war on iran...

Harry Law , Jul 17 2019 21:24 utc | 60
The Gulf states know they would be in the front lines in any conflict, Saudi and UAE infrastructure destruction would mean Kings, Princes and Emir's scurrying from their destroyed countries because of their inability to sell oil and feed their people, as one Iranian General said.. the US bases in the region are not threats, "they are targets". Its true Iran has an army of 500,000, they also have millions of military aged men who would form militias and have the reputation of taking their shrouds with them into battle.
I think a major miscalculation by Trump, initiating this kind of scenario is unlikely, those other whack jobs Pence, Pompeo and Bolton are a cause for concern, just hear this nutcase Lindsey Graham threatening the Europeans....
"The United States should sanction "to the ground" European countries that continue to trade with Iran under the 2015 nuclear deal and refuse to join America's pressure campaign against the Islamic Republic, says top Republican Senator Lindsey Graham.
"I will tell the Europeans, 'If you want to side with the Iranians, be my guest, but you won't use an American bank or do business with the American economy,'" Graham said".
https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2019/07/16/601067/US-Graham-Trump-Iran-JCPOA-EU-sanction-to-ground
William Herschel , Jul 17 2019 21:39 utc | 61
Punitive sanctions against nations with a powerful military establishment have an incredibly poor track record. Germany after WWI. Japan prior to Pearl Harbor. And one might add Russia today. The more "effective" the sanctions, the closer to war.

But, of course, military planners in the U.S. and Israel have already picked out the targets for nuclear strikes during the very first wave of attacks on Iran. It will be nuclear first, ask questions later. Heil Trump has already said he will use nuclear weapons: "obliterate". But will even that work? I doubt it. Iran must expect nuclear attacks in the first wave. Yes, their urban populations will be destroyed, but their military? I doubt it.

Formerly T-Bear , Jul 17 2019 21:54 utc | 62
@ Harry Law | Jul 17 2019 21:24 utc | 60

The folks who now are called Iranian once fought the most militaristic society ever - the Spartans. There is likely a memory of that conflict still, and the lessons learned. They face a military that no longer remembers Vietnam or its lessons. Sanctions are an act of war, not military war but war against another who have been made into enemies nonetheless. Be mightily careful who you make your enemy, one sage reminds that you become like them. Look at those the U.S. has made enemy: Hitler and National Socialism; Mussolini and Fascism; Stalin and State Authoritarianism; Franco and Military Repression; and the list continues substantially, and then look at the U.S. in a distortion free mirror and what does one see?

Maracatu , Jul 17 2019 22:00 utc | 63
Taking into consideration the novel Rand Paul intervention, the likely way forward is this, and I'm sure it is what Putin (the master negotiator) has in mind: Trump blundered badly by throwing out the JCPOA, but he needs a way out that allows him to save face and even turn it into a partial "win". On the world stage (ie. for the public) it needs to look like Trump accedes to reinstate the JCPOA IN EXCHANGE for Iran withdrawing from Syria! This will not only save the nuclear deal, thereby reducing tensions, but it will force Israel to back down and shut up. Israel can't complain and Trump can sell it as an achievement of his, "without having to go to war". The US, of course will have to give Iran, Syria and Russia something in exchange: Iran and Russia ultimately bolstered their forces in Syria in order to save Assad. All things considered, Assad has won the war, so the reason for the bolstered Iranian and Russian presence no longer applies. What the US must agree to is to suspend its efforts to overthrow Assad (which Trump has been trying to do via the withdrawal of US troops in northern Syria), thereby returning the country to the status quo ante. The wild card in all of this, however, is Turkey's presence in Syria. Perhaps China can lend a helping hand on that issue?
Yeah, Right , Jul 17 2019 22:14 utc | 64
@35 "when it didn't. they resort back to the usual MO, look busy."

I agree with that comment, though I will add that for this Administration "looking busy" has a Keystone Cops look about it.

I mean, let's be real here: Norman Schwarzkopf did not make a single move against Iraq until he had well over 500,000 GI's at his command, and Tommy Franks was not willing to restart the Crash Boom Bang until he had built up his army to just shy of 500,000 soldiers.

And Iraq then was nowhere near as formidable as Iran is now.

Where are the troop buildups? Where is the CENTCOM army?
Nowhere. And no sign of it happening.

There is a real possibility that Bolton might get his way and start his dinky little war, only to find that the USA loses a great big war before he even manages to get out of bed.

CENTCOM is not ready for war, nowhere close to it, and for that reason alone Iran is correct to tell the USA that if Trump launches a "limited strike" then their response will be "it's on, baby".

Beibdnn. , Jul 17 2019 22:51 utc | 67
@ William Herschel 61. If the U.S. or anyone else uses any type of Nuclear weapons against Iran, a declared ally of Russia, it will result in an immediate and full scale Nuclear retaliation. This is a recent statement made by Vladimir Putin. Pompeo, Bolton et all are well aware of this. The U.S. might talk of using tactical nukes but despite their Hubris, even the most pro war in the Pentagon know what the results of that type of planned anihilation will have on the U.S. mainland. People like Lindsey Graham are merely empty vessels making a lot of noise.
karlof1 , Jul 17 2019 23:14 utc | 69
Why would Iran allow any Western nation to save face through negotiations or otherwise? Khamenei yesterday tweeted several statements that were later posted to his website:

"At this meeting, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran stressed that Western governments' arrogant behavior is the main obstacle in establishing ties and maintained: Western governments' major vice is their arrogance. If they face a weak government, their arrogance will be effective. But if that country knows the truth about them and resists, the Western governments will be defeated.

"Referring to problems rising between Iran and the European partners of the JCPOA, Ayatollah Khamenei said: Now, in the matters between us and the Europeans, the problems persist, because of their arrogance.

"The Leader of the Islamic Revolution highlighted Iran's commitment to the JCPOA -- also known as the Iran Deal -- and criticized European dignitaries of the deal for breaching it, saying: As stated by our Foreign Minister, who works hard, Europe has had eleven commitments, none of which it has met. The Foreign Minister, despite his diplomatic considerations, is clearly stating that. But what did we do? We acted based on our commitments, and even beyond that.

"Ayatollah Khamenei reiterated that Iran continued to stay within the JCPOA despite the fact that the EU partners of the JCPOA as well as the British government violated the international plan of action and yet demanded Iran to stay with its promises: Now that we have started to reduce our commitments, they step forward. They are very insolent, and they have not abided by their eleven commitments. We have just started to reduce some of our commitments, and this process will surely continue."

The hypothetical suggestion Zarif made in his interview with NBC News was just that--hypothetical--as it had to spell out again for the apparently illiterate, deaf or both SoS Pompeo and BigLie Media presstitutes.

In his arrogance, Trump climbed up the tree he's now stuck within; and as I've pointed out again and again, Iran isn't going to help him in his climb down--they'll be no face saving for the arrogant Western nations. I mean, how clear can the Iranians make that?! They quite well understand the very real interests at stake I put forth in my comment @32. And the Turks on their own have upped the stakes with Erdogan assuring :

"that his country is prepared to leave NATO during a meeting with Russian Deputy Vladimir Zhirinovsky.

"'I met twice with Turkish President Recep Erdogan and he told me personally that Turkey was willing to withdraw from NATO,' Zhirinovsky wrote."

Trump seems desperate for a way to climb down from his tree. Controversial Kentucky Senator Rand Paul apparently volunteered his services as an emissary to Iran , which Trump okayed but Paul's office is being mum about. As noted, Iran isn't going to talk unless tangible, visible concessions are made prior to any talks occurring--concessions Zarif and Rouhani have already stated as the minimum required: Ending all illegal sanctions and return to JCPOA.

Uncle Jon , Jul 17 2019 23:38 utc | 72
@karlof1 69

Iran just announced that they would be open to talk about ballistic missiles when US stops selling arms in the Middle East.

You have to hand it to the Iranians. In the one-up-manship game, they are a formidable opponent. Obviously, there is less than zero chance that would ever happen, but they are super smart in driving the message of US arrogance home. I am happy to see they don't take any shit from the Empire.

Master negotiators at work.

[Jul 17, 2019] Oil Is Driving the Iran Crisis by Michael T. Klare

Highly recommended!
Washington's aggression is part of a decades-long quest to control the spigot in the Persian Gulf.
Notable quotes:
"... As it happens, the world economy -- of which the United States is the leading beneficiary (despite President Trump's self-destructive trade wars) -- relies on an uninterrupted flow of oil from the Persian Gulf to keep energy prices low. By continuing to serve as the principal overseer of that flow, Washington enjoys striking geopolitical advantages that its foreign policy elites would no more abandon than they would their country's nuclear supremacy. ..."
"... True, Washington fought wars in the Middle East when the American economy was still deeply vulnerable to any disruption in the flow of imported oil. In 1990, this was the key reason President George H.W. Bush gave for his decision to evict Iraqi troops from Kuwait after Saddam Hussein's invasion of that land. "Our country now imports nearly half the oil it consumes and could face a major threat to its economic independence," he told a nationwide TV audience. ..."
"... All told, 33.6 percent of world energy consumption last year was made up of oil, 27.2 percent of coal (itself a global disgrace), 23.9 percent of natural gas, 6.8 percent of hydro-electricity, 4.4 percent of nuclear power, and a mere 4 percent of renewables. ..."
"... Concluding that the increased demand for oil in Asia, in particular, will outweigh reduced demand elsewhere, the IEA calculated in its 2017 World Energy Outlook that oil will remain the world's dominant source of energy in 2040, accounting for an estimated 27.5 percent of total global energy consumption. That will indeed be a smaller share than in 2018, but because global energy consumption as a whole is expected to grow substantially during those decades, net oil production could still rise -- from an estimated 100 million barrels a day in 2018 to about 105 million barrels in 2040. ..."
"... More dramatic yet is the growing centrality of the Asia-Pacific region to the global flow of petroleum. In 2000, that region accounted for only 28 percent of world consumption; in 2040, its share is expected to stand at 44 percent, thanks to the growth of China, India, and other Asian countries, whose newly affluent consumers are already buying cars, trucks, motorcycles, and other oil-powered products. ..."
"... To lend muscle to what would soon be dubbed the "Carter Doctrine," the president created a new US military organization, the Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force (RDJTF), and obtained basing facilities for it in the Gulf region. Ronald Reagan, who succeeded Carter as president in 1981, made the RDJTF into a full-scale "geographic combatant command," dubbed Central Command, or CENTCOM, which continues to be tasked with ensuring American access to the Gulf today (as well as overseeing the country's never-ending wars in the Greater Middle East). ..."
"... When ordering US forces into combat in the Gulf, American presidents have always insisted that they were acting in the interests of the entire West. In advocating for the "reflagging" mission of 1987, for instance, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger argued (as he would later recall in his memoir Fighting for Peace ), "The main thing was for us to protect the right of innocent, nonbelligerent and extremely important commerce to move freely in international open waters -- and, by our offering protection, to avoid conceding the mission to the Soviets." Though rarely so openly acknowledged, the same principle has undergirded Washington's strategy in the region ever since: The United States alone must be the ultimate guarantor of unimpeded oil commerce in the Persian Gulf. ..."
"... Look closely and you can find this principle lurking in every fundamental statement of US policy related to that region and among the Washington elite more generally. My own personal favorite, when it comes to pithiness, is a sentence in a report on the geopolitics of energy issued in 2000 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies , a Washington-based think tank well-populated with former government officials (several of whom contributed to the report): "As the world's only superpower, [the United States] must accept its special responsibilities for preserving access to [the] worldwide energy supply." You can't get much more explicit than that. ..."
"... As things stand today, any Iranian move in the Strait of Hormuz that can be portrayed as a threat to the "free flow of commerce" (that is, the oil trade) represents the most likely trigger for direct US military action. Yes, Tehran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and its support for radical Shiite movements throughout the Middle East will be cited as evidence of its leadership's malevolence, but its true threat will be to American dominance of the oil lanes, a danger Washington will treat as the offense of all offenses to be overcome at any cost. ..."
Jan 11, 2019 | thenation.com

EDITOR'S NOTE: This article originally appeared at TomDispatch.com .

It's always the oil. While President Trump was hobnobbing with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the G-20 summit in Japan, brushing off a recent UN report about the prince's role in the murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was in Asia and the Middle East, pleading with foreign leaders to support "Sentinel." The aim of that administration plan: to protect shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf.

Both Trump and Pompeo insisted that their efforts were driven by concern over Iranian misbehavior in the region and the need to ensure the safety of maritime commerce. Neither, however, mentioned one inconvenient three-letter word -- O-I-L -- that lay behind their Iranian maneuvering (as it has impelled every other American incursion in the Middle East since World War II).

Now, it's true that the United States no longer relies on imported petroleum for a large share of its energy needs. Thanks to the fracking revolution , the country now gets the bulk of its oil -- approximately 75 percent -- from domestic sources. (In 2008, that share had been closer to 35 percent.) Key allies in NATO and rivals like China, however, continue to depend on Middle Eastern oil for a significant proportion of their energy needs.

As it happens, the world economy -- of which the United States is the leading beneficiary (despite President Trump's self-destructive trade wars) -- relies on an uninterrupted flow of oil from the Persian Gulf to keep energy prices low. By continuing to serve as the principal overseer of that flow, Washington enjoys striking geopolitical advantages that its foreign policy elites would no more abandon than they would their country's nuclear supremacy.

This logic was spelled out clearly by President Barack Obama in a September 2013 address to the UN General Assembly in which he declared that "the United States of America is prepared to use all elements of our power, including military force, to secure our core interests" in the Middle East. He then pointed out that, while the United States was steadily reducing its reliance on imported oil, "the world still depends on the region's energy supply and a severe disruption could destabilize the entire global economy."

Accordingly, he concluded, "We will ensure the free flow of energy from the region to the world." To some Americans, that dictum -- and its continued embrace by President Trump and Secretary of State Pompeo -- may seem anachronistic. True, Washington fought wars in the Middle East when the American economy was still deeply vulnerable to any disruption in the flow of imported oil. In 1990, this was the key reason President George H.W. Bush gave for his decision to evict Iraqi troops from Kuwait after Saddam Hussein's invasion of that land. "Our country now imports nearly half the oil it consumes and could face a major threat to its economic independence," he told a nationwide TV audience.

But talk of oil soon disappeared from his comments about what became Washington's first (but hardly last) Gulf War after his statement provoked widespread public outrage . ("No Blood for Oil" became a widely used protest sign then.) His son, the second President Bush, never even mentioned that three-letter word when announcing his 2003 invasion of Iraq. Yet, as Obama's UN speech made clear, oil remained, and still remains, at the center of US foreign policy. A quick review of global energy trends helps explain why this has continued to be so.

THE WORLD'S UNDIMINISHED RELIANCE ON PETROLEUM

Despite all that's been said about climate change and oil's role in causing it -- and about the enormous progress being made in bringing solar and wind power online -- we remain trapped in a remarkably oil-dependent world. To grasp this reality, all you have to do is read the most recent edition of oil giant BP's "Statistical Review of World Energy," published this June. In 2018, according to that report, oil still accounted for by far the largest share of world energy consumption, as it has every year for decades. All told, 33.6 percent of world energy consumption last year was made up of oil, 27.2 percent of coal (itself a global disgrace), 23.9 percent of natural gas, 6.8 percent of hydro-electricity, 4.4 percent of nuclear power, and a mere 4 percent of renewables.

Most energy analysts believe that the global reliance on petroleum as a share of world energy use will decline in the coming decades, as more governments impose restrictions on carbon emissions and as consumers, especially in the developed world, switch from oil-powered to electric vehicles. But such declines are unlikely to prevail in every region of the globe and total oil consumption may not even decline. According to projections from the International Energy Agency (IEA) in its " New Policies Scenario " (which assumes significant but not drastic government efforts to curb carbon emissions globally), Asia, Africa, and the Middle East are likely to experience a substantially increased demand for petroleum in the years to come, which, grimly enough, means global oil consumption will continue to rise.

Concluding that the increased demand for oil in Asia, in particular, will outweigh reduced demand elsewhere, the IEA calculated in its 2017 World Energy Outlook that oil will remain the world's dominant source of energy in 2040, accounting for an estimated 27.5 percent of total global energy consumption. That will indeed be a smaller share than in 2018, but because global energy consumption as a whole is expected to grow substantially during those decades, net oil production could still rise -- from an estimated 100 million barrels a day in 2018 to about 105 million barrels in 2040.

Of course, no one, including the IEA's experts, can be sure how future extreme manifestations of global warming like the severe heat waves recently tormenting Europe and South Asia could change such projections. It's possible that growing public outrage could lead to far tougher restrictions on carbon emissions between now and 2040. Unexpected developments in the field of alternative energy production could also play a role in changing those projections. In other words, oil's continuing dominance could still be curbed in ways that are now unpredictable.

In the meantime, from a geopolitical perspective, a profound shift is taking place in the worldwide demand for petroleum. In 2000, according to the IEA, older industrialized nations -- most of them members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) -- accounted for about two-thirds of global oil consumption; only about a third went to countries in the developing world. By 2040, the IEA's experts believe that ratio will be reversed, with the OECD consuming about one-third of the world's oil and non-OECD nations the rest.

More dramatic yet is the growing centrality of the Asia-Pacific region to the global flow of petroleum. In 2000, that region accounted for only 28 percent of world consumption; in 2040, its share is expected to stand at 44 percent, thanks to the growth of China, India, and other Asian countries, whose newly affluent consumers are already buying cars, trucks, motorcycles, and other oil-powered products.

Where will Asia get its oil? Among energy experts, there is little doubt on this matter. Lacking significant reserves of their own, the major Asian consumers will turn to the one place with sufficient capacity to satisfy their rising needs: the Persian Gulf. According to BP, in 2018, Japan already obtained 87 percent of its oil imports from the Middle East, India 64 percent, and China 44 percent. Most analysts assume these percentages will only grow in the years to come, as production in other areas declines.

This will, in turn, lend even greater strategic importance to the Persian Gulf region, which now possesses more than 60 percent of the world's untapped petroleum reserves, and to the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow passageway through which approximately one-third of the world's seaborne oil passes daily. Bordered by Iran, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates, the Strait is perhaps the most significant -- and contested -- geostrategic location on the planet today.

CONTROLLING THE SPIGOT

When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979, the same year that militant Shiite fundamentalists overthrew the US-backed Shah of Iran, US policy-makers concluded that America's access to Gulf oil supplies was at risk and a US military presence was needed to guarantee such access. As President Jimmy Carter would say in his State of the Union Address on January 23, 1980,

The region which is now threatened by Soviet troops in Afghanistan is of great strategic importance: It contains more than two thirds of the world's exportable oil. The Soviet effort to dominate Afghanistan has brought Soviet military forces to within 300 miles of the Indian Ocean and close to the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway through which most of the world's oil must flow. Let our position be absolutely clear: an attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.

To lend muscle to what would soon be dubbed the "Carter Doctrine," the president created a new US military organization, the Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force (RDJTF), and obtained basing facilities for it in the Gulf region. Ronald Reagan, who succeeded Carter as president in 1981, made the RDJTF into a full-scale "geographic combatant command," dubbed Central Command, or CENTCOM, which continues to be tasked with ensuring American access to the Gulf today (as well as overseeing the country's never-ending wars in the Greater Middle East).

Reagan was the first president to activate the Carter Doctrine in 1987 when he ordered Navy warships to escort Kuwaiti tankers, " reflagged " with the stars and stripes, as they traveled through the Strait of Hormuz. From time to time, such vessels had been coming under fire from Iranian gunboats, part of an ongoing " Tanker War ," itself part of the Iran-Iraq War of those years. The Iranian attacks on those tankers were meant to punish Sunni Arab countries for backing Iraqi autocrat Saddam Hussein in that conflict. The American response, dubbed Operation Earnest Will , offered an early model of what Secretary of State Pompeo is seeking to establish today with his Sentinel program.

Operation Earnest Will was followed two years later by a massive implementation of the Carter Doctrine, President Bush's 1990 decision to push Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. Although he spoke of the need to protect US access to Persian Gulf oil fields, it was evident that ensuring a safe flow of oil imports wasn't the only motive for such military involvement. Equally important then (and far more so now): the geopolitical advantage controlling the world's major oil spigot gave Washington.

When ordering US forces into combat in the Gulf, American presidents have always insisted that they were acting in the interests of the entire West. In advocating for the "reflagging" mission of 1987, for instance, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger argued (as he would later recall in his memoir Fighting for Peace ), "The main thing was for us to protect the right of innocent, nonbelligerent and extremely important commerce to move freely in international open waters -- and, by our offering protection, to avoid conceding the mission to the Soviets." Though rarely so openly acknowledged, the same principle has undergirded Washington's strategy in the region ever since: The United States alone must be the ultimate guarantor of unimpeded oil commerce in the Persian Gulf.

Look closely and you can find this principle lurking in every fundamental statement of US policy related to that region and among the Washington elite more generally. My own personal favorite, when it comes to pithiness, is a sentence in a report on the geopolitics of energy issued in 2000 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies , a Washington-based think tank well-populated with former government officials (several of whom contributed to the report): "As the world's only superpower, [the United States] must accept its special responsibilities for preserving access to [the] worldwide energy supply." You can't get much more explicit than that.

Of course, along with this "special responsibility" comes a geopolitical advantage: By providing this service, the United States cements its status as the world's sole superpower and places every other oil-importing nation -- and the world at large -- in a condition of dependence on its continued performance of this vital function.

Originally, the key dependents in this strategic equation were Europe and Japan, which, in return for assured access to Middle Eastern oil, were expected to subordinate themselves to Washington. Remember, for example, how they helped pay for Bush the elder's Iraq War (dubbed Operation Desert Storm). Today, however, many of those countries, deeply concerned with the effects of climate change, are seeking to lessen oil's role in their national fuel mixes. As a result, in 2019, the countries potentially most at the mercy of Washington when it comes to access to Gulf oil are economically fast-expanding China and India, whose oil needs are only likely to grow. That, in turn, will further enhance the geopolitical advantage Washington enjoyed as long as it remains the principal guardian of the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf. How it may seek to exploit this advantage remains to be seen, but there is no doubt that all parties involved, including the Chinese, are well aware of this asymmetric equation, which could give the phrase "trade war" a far deeper and more ominous meaning.

THE IRANIAN CHALLENGE AND THE SPECTER OF WAR

From Washington's perspective, the principal challenger to America's privileged status in the Gulf is Iran. By reason of geography, that country possesses a potentially commanding position along the northern Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, as the Reagan administration learned in 1987–88 when it threatened American oil dominance there. About this reality President Reagan couldn't have been clearer. "Mark this point well: The use of the sea lanes of the Persian Gulf will not be dictated by the Iranians," he declared in 1987 -- and Washington's approach to the situation has never changed.

In more recent times, in response to US and Israeli threats to bomb their nuclear facilities or, as the Trump administration has done, impose economic sanctions on their country, the Iranians have threatened on numerous occasions to block the Strait of Hormuz to oil traffic, squeeze global energy supplies, and precipitate an international crisis. In 2011, for example, Iranian Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi warned that should the West impose sanctions on Iranian oil, "not even one drop of oil can flow through the Strait of Hormuz." In response, US officials have vowed ever since to let no such thing happen, just as Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta did in response to Rahimi at that time. "We have made very clear," he said , "that the United States will not tolerate blocking of the Strait of Hormuz." That, he added, was a "red line for us."

It remains so today. Hence, the present ongoing crisis in the Gulf, with fierce US sanctions on Iranian oil sales and threatening Iranian gestures toward the regional oil flow in response. "We will make the enemy understand that either everyone can use the Strait of Hormuz or no one," said Mohammad Ali Jafari, commander of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards, in July 2018. And attacks on two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman near the entrance to the Strait of Hormuz on June 13 could conceivably have been an expression of just that policy, if -- as claimed by the United States -- they were indeed carried out by members of the Revolutionary Guards. Any future attacks are only likely to spur US military action against Iran in accordance with the Carter Doctrine. As Pentagon spokesperson Bill Urban put it in response to Jafari's statement, "We stand ready to ensure the freedom of navigation and the free flow of commerce wherever international law allows."

As things stand today, any Iranian move in the Strait of Hormuz that can be portrayed as a threat to the "free flow of commerce" (that is, the oil trade) represents the most likely trigger for direct US military action. Yes, Tehran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and its support for radical Shiite movements throughout the Middle East will be cited as evidence of its leadership's malevolence, but its true threat will be to American dominance of the oil lanes, a danger Washington will treat as the offense of all offenses to be overcome at any cost.

If the United States goes to war with Iran, you are unlikely to hear the word "oil" uttered by top Trump administration officials, but make no mistake: That three-letter word lies at the root of the present crisis, not to speak of the world's long-term fate.

Michael T. Klare The Nation 's defense correspondent, is professor emeritus of peace and world-security studies at Hampshire College and senior visiting fellow at the Arms Control Association in Washington, DC. His newest book, All Hell Breaking Loose: The Pentagon's Perspective on Climate Change , will be published this fall.

[Jul 09, 2019] The real issue is the control of Iranian oil by the USA and EU

Notable quotes:
"... It is the Iranian (upper/middle class) exiles who hate and detest the revolutionary regime, because the regime has deprived them of the right to rule, that they thought was their hereditary ..."
"... But the Gulf States don't give a fig about that. They are concerned about the simple renaissance of Iranian power, which might deprive the Sunni potentates of their own position. ..."
"... Yes, it is precisely Iran's success that threatens the Gulf Autocrats, Israel, and Uncle Sugar, each for slightly different reasons, or perhaps the same reasons in different amounts. ..."
Jul 09, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Laguerre , Jul 8 2019 16:29 utc | 14

re Don 7

Crooke points out, correctly I believe, that the real issue is not nuclear, or the oft-repeated foolish "largest state sponsor of terrorism," it is the revolutionary basis of Iran's success in the Middle East, besting the Gulf dictators.
That bit about the revolution, I don't agree with. It's more the Iranian renaissance that the Gulf States fear.

Two separate aspects need to be distinguished:

1) It is the Iranian (upper/middle class) exiles who hate and detest the revolutionary regime, because the regime has deprived them of the right to rule, that they thought was their hereditary right. Even within Iran, upper/middle class people I met had the same attitude - a kind of hurt that they weren't running the country. The regime is of course populist.

2) But the Gulf States don't give a fig about that. They are concerned about the simple renaissance of Iranian power, which might deprive the Sunni potentates of their own position. The classic case is of course Bahrain, where the "king" is Sunni, and the vast mass of the population Shi'a, and they're kept down by force, supported by the guns of the US 5th fleet. But the case of Saudi is much more serious, because it's so much bigger, and every single oil well is sitting under the feet of the Shi'a, and there are none anywhere else, certainly not in the Saudi homeland of Najd, which is real camel-herder territory (to which we can expect the Saudi princes to return, if ever the poor suffering Shi'a ever manage a successful revolt).

I think Crooke confused the two issues a bit.

Bemildred , Jul 8 2019 16:43 utc | 16

Yes, it is precisely Iran's success that threatens the Gulf Autocrats, Israel, and Uncle Sugar, each for slightly different reasons, or perhaps the same reasons in different amounts.

Those being: it's Shiia, it's populist, and it was indeed a political revolution. And for all of them it represents a viable alternative to the way they wanted things to be. Now, I think, it's too late. Many will take note of what they have done and how, it will be studied.

[Jul 09, 2019] Iran's Judiciary Chief Ebrahim Raisi has demanded an immediate release of an Iranian oil tanker seized by the British government, Fars reported.

Jul 09, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Don Bacon , Jul 8 2019 17:16 utc | 23

@ UJ 21

As b mentioned, stay tuned for a major op. against the British East India Company.

from the Tehran Times:

TEHRAN – Iran's Judiciary Chief Ebrahim Raisi has demanded an immediate release of an Iranian oil tanker seized by the British government, Fars reported.

"It seems that the British and Europeans are well aware of the Islamic Republic's reach and potential , and accordingly, it is to their own benefit that they immediately release this oil tanker, otherwise they should await the ramifications of their action," Raisi said on Monday.

[Jul 06, 2019] Why is Iran such a high priority for US elite? Because Iran successfully booted out the CIA and CIA-imposed regime out of their country and successfully remained independent since then

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... There is at present no other powerful leadership group that is so adamantly unwilling to compromise with the U.S. The potential loss of U.S. control over Middle East oil being at the root of it. ..."
"... The Saudis et al have it, and Israel is a forward operating base for protecting it. The Saudi royal family rightly fear an Iran-inspired popular uprising against them and Israel fears the loss of lands granted to them by their invisible friend as related in a popular fairy tale. ..."
"... Iran is a relatively large country with a semi independent foreign policy and banking,/ financial system, and they want to control their own resources independent of western dictates about opening up their system to the neo liberal system. ..."
"... Because Iran successfully booted out the CIA and CIA-imposed regime out of their country and successfully remained independent since then. ..."
"... Iran was after WW2 a client state of both the US and the UK, the latter installing the Shah as a ruler. Iran was important for the US and the UK through its oil resources and its border with the USSR. ..."
"... Iran is still a major player when it comes to oil, but contrary to the Shah years quite hostile to the aspirations of Israel to become the “western” power in the middle east. ..."
"... The enmity clearest showed up when Israel and the USA supplied Saddam Hussein with intelligence and Germany and France with the capability to produce chemical weapons during the Iraq/Iran war. ..."
"... America essentially followed the old British approach towards Iran: keep it semi-alive so that it can put up enough resistance to the USSR until America’s more important and intrinsic interests, such as those in the Persian Gulf, were safeguarded. But Washington never wanted to turn Iran into a strong ally that one day might be capable of challenging America. ..."
"... By changing the international balance of power and removing the risk of Soviet penetration, the USSR’s fall eliminated Iran’s value to the United States even as a buffer state. In fact, the fundamental shift to a US approach based on the principle of no compromise, can be traced to 1987, when Gorbachev’s reforms began. ..."
"... Since then, the United States has refused to accept any solution to the Iran problem that has not involved the country’s absolute capitulation. ..."
"... For instance, in 2003, Iran offered to put all the outstanding issues between the two countries on the table for negotiations, but the US refused. ..."
"... Because Iran refuses to be a second-class citizen in its own neighborhood. Theirs is an ancient culture whose legacy to the world is enormous, their history is the stuff of legend, and they are the geopolitical power player in the region, not to mention the most powerful Shia Muslim nation. ..."
Jul 06, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Joe Well, July 5, 2019 at 11:47 am

>>US President Donald Trump’s ruthless use of the centrality of his country’s financial system and the dollar to force economic partners to abide by his unilateral sanctions on Iran has forced the world to recognise the political price of asymmetric economic interdependence.

Why is Iran such a high priority for so many US elites?

Lee, July 5, 2019 at 12:28 pm

Just spit-balling here: The Iranian leadership, with good cause, wants to diminish or eliminate the U.S. grip on the region and this subversive, potentially destabilizing sentiment resonates among the citizenry of various Middle Eastern countries.

There is at present no other powerful leadership group that is so adamantly unwilling to compromise with the U.S. The potential loss of U.S. control over Middle East oil being at the root of it.

The Saudis et al have it, and Israel is a forward operating base for protecting it. The Saudi royal family rightly fear an Iran-inspired popular uprising against them and Israel fears the loss of lands granted to them by their invisible friend as related in a popular fairy tale.

This is hardly definitive and I’m sure others could elaborate.

workingclasshero, July 5, 2019 at 12:53 pm

Iran is a relatively large country with a semi independent foreign policy and banking,/ financial system, and they want to control their own resources independent of western dictates about opening up their system to the neo liberal system.

I’m sure this is obvious to most people at this kind of web site and is overly simplistic but i sense sometimes some people are shocked about the conflict with Iran and don’t get that basic dynamic of this conflict.

Underdog Revolutions, July 5, 2019 at 1:34 pm

Because Iran successfully booted out the CIA and CIA-imposed regime out of their country and successfully remained independent since then.

US elites never forgave them for it. Same reason they hate and punish Cuba, another country that poses no threat to anyone but its own citizens.

Peter Moritz, July 5, 2019 at 1:46 pm

Why is Iran such a high priority for so many US elites?

Iran was after WW2 a client state of both the US and the UK, the latter installing the Shah as a ruler. Iran was important for the US and the UK through its oil resources and its border with the USSR.

Mossadegh, by nationalising the oil supply until, played against the status and he was overthrown in a MI/CIA sponsored coup in 1953, leaving the Shah as the sole ruler in Iran till the revolution of 1979 when Iran came under theocratic rule and basically diminished the power the US had throughout the years of the Shah’s rule.

The US was also shown to be quite powerless -- short of an invasion -- to deal with the hostage crisis in the US embassy, which was finally after more than a year resolved with the help of Canada.

Iran is still a major player when it comes to oil, but contrary to the Shah years quite hostile to the aspirations of Israel to become the “western” power in the middle east.

The enmity clearest showed up when Israel and the USA supplied Saddam Hussein with intelligence and Germany and France with the capability to produce chemical weapons during the Iraq/Iran war.

Here is a more in-depth look:

https://lobelog.com/the-real-causes-of-americas-troubled-relations-with-iran/

This U.S. approach towards Iran has been the result of its lack of an intrinsic interest in the country. The same was true of Britain. The late Sir Denis Right, the UK’s ambassador to Iran in the 1960s, put it best by writing that Britain never considered Iran of sufficient value to colonize it. But it found Iran useful as a buffer against the competing great power, the Russian Empire. Thus, British policy towards Iran was to keep it moribund but not dead, at least not as long as the Russian threat persisted.

America essentially followed the old British approach towards Iran: keep it semi-alive so that it can put up enough resistance to the USSR until America’s more important and intrinsic interests, such as those in the Persian Gulf, were safeguarded. But Washington never wanted to turn Iran into a strong ally that one day might be capable of challenging America.

By changing the international balance of power and removing the risk of Soviet penetration, the USSR’s fall eliminated Iran’s value to the United States even as a buffer state. In fact, the fundamental shift to a US approach based on the principle of no compromise, can be traced to 1987, when Gorbachev’s reforms began.

Since then, the United States has refused to accept any solution to the Iran problem that has not involved the country’s absolute capitulation.

For instance, in 2003, Iran offered to put all the outstanding issues between the two countries on the table for negotiations, but the US refused.

ChiGal in Carolina, July 5, 2019 at 6:38 pm

Because Iran refuses to be a second-class citizen in its own neighborhood. Theirs is an ancient culture whose legacy to the world is enormous, their history is the stuff of legend, and they are the geopolitical power player in the region, not to mention the most powerful Shia Muslim nation.

[Jul 06, 2019] Ilargi: Memo to the US The Winds Are Shifting

Notable quotes:
"... Yes. It's piracy. USA a Pirate Nation. UK a useful part of the gang. ..."
"... I mean, empires have always been expansionist, violently expansionist. I mean, this is bad, but the empire is the empire. What bothers me is the lying. The filthy unbelievable lies emanating from the likes of Hillaria Terroristica and Pompeus Maximus and even from Obama the Salesman emperor, Emperor Tex Bush the second, and our current Carnival Barker Emperor Trumpius the Rube Caller. Let alone the generals lying thru their teeth. ..."
"... There should have a new slogan for this international cabal -- "Strength through Chaos". To be precise, OUR strength through THEIR chaos. ..."
"... You could safely leave out anywhere in the Americas, I think, after reading Confessions of an Economic Hitman . Less bombs, same benevolent results. The US/Mexican Border comes to mind, filled with refugees from Guatemala and Honduras. ..."
"... I very much agree with Illargi on this. Nothing good can come from the "heroic" seizure of the tanker. Mission accomplished: we are more idiotic every passing day. ..."
"... The purpose, and effect, of empire is theft. ..."
Jul 06, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Posted on July 5, 2019 by Yves Smith

By Raúl Ilargi Meijer, editor of Automatic Earth. Originally published at Automatic Earth

How do you define terror? Perhaps, because of the way the term has evolved in the English language, one wouldn't call the west 'terrorists' per se, but 'we' are certainly spreading terror and terrorizing very large groups of people. Yeah, bring on the tanks and parade them around town. Add a marching band that plays some war tunes.

The 'official' storyline : at the request of the US, Gibraltar police and UK marines have seized an oil tanker in Gibraltar. The super-tanker, 1000 feet (330 meters) long, carrying 2 million barrels, had stopped there after sailing all around the Cape of Good Hope instead of taking the Suez canal on its way, ostensibly, from Iran to Syria.

And, according to the storyline as presented to and in the western press, because the EU still has sanctions on Iran, the British seized the ship. Another little detail I really appreciate is that Spain's acting foreign minister, Josep Borrell, said Madrid was looking into the seizure and how it may affect Spanish sovereignty since Spain does not recognize the waters around Gibraltar as British.

That Borrell guy is the newly picked EU foreign policy czar, and according to some sources he's supportive of Iran and critical of Israel. Them's the webs we weave. He's certainly in favor of Palestinian statehood. But we're wandering

Why did the tanker take that giant detour along the African coastline? Because potential problems were anticipated in the Suez canal. But also: why dock in Gibraltar? Because no problems were anticipated there. However, the US had been following the ship all along, and set this up.

A trap, a set-up, give it a name. I would think this is about Iran, not about sanctions on Syria; that's just a convenient excuse. Moreover, as people have been pointing out, there have been countless arms deliveries to Syrian rebels in the past years (yes, that's illegal) which were not seized.

The sanctions on Syria were always aimed at one goal: getting rid of Assad. That purpose failed either miserably or spectacularly, depending on your point of view. It did achieve one thing though, and if I were you I wouldn't be too sure this was not the goal all along.

That is, out of a pre-war population of 22 million, the United Nations in 2016 identified 13.5 million Syrians requiring humanitarian assistance; over 6 million are internally displaced within Syria, and around 5 million are refugees outside of Syria. About half a million are estimated to have died, the same number as in Iraq.

And Assad is still there and probably stronger than ever. But it doesn't even matter whether the US/UK/EU regime change efforts are successful or not, and I have no doubt they've always known this. Their aim is to create chaos as a war tactic, and kill as many people as they can. How do you define terror, terrorism? However you define it, 'we' are spreading it.

That grossly failed attempt to depose Assad has left Europe with a refugee problem it may never be able to control. And the only reason there is such a problem is that Europe, in particular Britain and France, along with the US, tried to bomb these people's homelands out of existence. Because their leaders didn't want to conform to "our standards", i.e. have our oil companies seize and control their supplies.

But while you weren't looking some things changed, irreversibly so. The US and Europe are no longer the undisputed and overwhelming global military power they once were. Russia has become a target they cannot even consider attacking anymore, because their armies, assembled in NATO, wouldn't stand a chance.

China is not yet at the 'might' level of Russia, but US and NATO are in no position to attack a country of 1.4 billion people either. Their military prominence ended around the turn of the century/millennium, and they're not going to get it back. Better make peace fast.

So what we've seen for a few decades now is proxy wars. In which Russia in particular has been reluctant to engage but decisive when it does. Moscow didn't want to let Assad go, and so they made sure he stayed. Syria is Russia's one single stronghold in the Middle East, and deemed indispensable.

Meanwhile, as over half of Syrians, some 11 million people, have been forced to flee their homes, with millions of them traumatized by war, 'we' elect to seize a tanker allegedly headed for a refinery in the country, so we can make sure all those people have no oil or less oil for a while longer.

So the refugees that do have the courage and will to return will find it that much harder to rebuild their homes and towns, and will tell those still abroad not to join them. At the same time Assad is doing fine, he may be the target of the sanctions but he doesn't suffer from them, his people do.

Yes, let's parade some tanks around town. And let's praise the heroic UK marines who seized an utterly defenseless oil tanker manned by a bunch of dirt-poor Philippinos. Yay! There is probably some profound irony that explains why Trump and Bolton and Pompeo want a military parade at the very moment the US military must concede defeat in all theaters but the propaganda one.

Still there it is. The only people the US, the west, can still credibly threaten, are defenseless civilians, women, children. The leaders of nations are out of reach. Maduro, Assad, let alone Putin or Xi.

Happy 4th of July. Not sure how independent you yourself are, but I can see a few people who did achieve independence from western terror. Just not the poor, the ones that count. But don't look at the tanks, look at the wind instead. The winds are shifting.

Clive , July 5, 2019 at 4:32 am

The EU has been a sticking plaster and a shot of Novocain at the open wound that is Gibraltar. Without that stabilising influence, that plaster is about to be ripped off and a slash of neat peroxide is about to be poured onto it.

Watch for more -- unpleasant -- developments coming soon on this one.

The Rev Kev , July 5, 2019 at 5:44 am

I wondered about that myself. There could be an unspoken message now out that the UK gets to say who gets to use the Straits of Gibraltar. I am sure that the Spanish would see no problem with that. One thing is sure. That is a few more countries that the UK has completely antagonized now which will come back to bite it post-Brexit.

Colonel Smithers , July 5, 2019 at 6:20 am

Thank you and well said, Gentlemen, Clive, the Reverend and the author, and to Yves for sharing.

The winds are indeed shifting, but as long as defeat is not obvious in the propaganda theatre, that's all that matters.

The NC community, especially Anonymous 2, David and Harry, have often written about the calibre of civil servants in the Treasury with regard to Brexit, it's the same with the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence.

Middle East experts, often termed "Arabists", have left, often forced out for ideological reasons. They would have cautioned against such adventures. The newer and younger breed of Foreign Office officials, e.g. the co-author of the dodgy / sexed up (WMD) dossier Matthew Rycroft, and some veterans like John Scarlet, now retired and consulting with former Tory MP James Arbuthnott (whose wife "presided" over Assange's recent hearing), are far more ideological (neo con) and willing to blur the boundaries between impartial advice and enabling what politicians want. There are few, if any regional, specialists at the Foreign Office any more.

Sadly, it's the same with the officer corps, more ideological, enablers and less, if at all, cognizant of the strategic implications of such actions.

As the above happens, HMG becomes more and more dependent on advice from the likes of US neo con think tanks, especially the Henry Jackson Society. Unlike at the Treasury and Bank of England, so far, no such neo cons and neo liberals have been imported from the former colonies by the Foreign Office.

As both Clive and the Reverend conclude, watch out for more unpleasant developments things that come back to bite the UK.

PlutoniumKun , July 5, 2019 at 9:23 am

Maybe there is something else behind it, but it does seem to be a very clumsy operation – its annoyed a lot of important people (not least in Spain) at just the time when this isn't needed for the UK. I wonder if the neocon element in Whitehall is using the interregnum in power to seek to bind the UK even more firmly to the US post Brexit.

Alex Cox , July 5, 2019 at 1:56 pm

"Russia has become a target they cannot even consider attacking anymore, because their armies, assembled in NATO, wouldn't stand a chance."

I am not sure the current crop of politicians and bureaucrats in the UK (or the US) know this.

As the Colonel observes, people with specialist knowledge are being replaced with ideologically-motivated enablers. And the Pentagon and its NATO assets stress their ability to wage a "limited" nuclear war

animalogic , July 6, 2019 at 6:11 am

"China is not yet at the 'might' level of Russia, but US and NATO are in no position to attack a country of 1.4 billion people either."

Indeed. And I would suggest China's "might level" is very close to not only Russia's but the US's. Just as a for instance: the PLAN (Peoples' Liberation Army Navy) has instituted probably the largest ship building program in history. All its newer vessels are equal to or (significantly?) better than comparable US types.

JBird4049 , July 6, 2019 at 8:17 pm

All this war talk about just how fabulously strong, or not, this and that polity is annoyingly ignorant; let's look at the reality that China, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and the Philippines, would all be facing strong food shortages without any harvest failures. With even moderate shortfalls, add in the rest of the world as countries start scrambling for food to stockpile even those who are completely self sufficient. The United States has destroyed it industrial base so much that it cannot provide all the parts, tools, white goods, clothing, etc that it needs just to function daily. I have not checked Russia's economy, but I suspect that like the UK, or any European country it needs other countries to survive.

One of the reasons that the British almost lost World War One, that Germany did, and the nations that used to be the Austro-Hungarian Empire did so poorly after that war was the breaking up of all those trade connections. Everyone was gung-ho on war or independence, but no-one has made any plans whatsoever on to run their economy(ies) after the first few years of war or peace. And no, sticking it all on the Germans did not work either.

skippy , July 5, 2019 at 6:58 am

I'm starting to get that last election feeling where previous sorts went a bit curious when confronted with the choices and the past went poof . strangest thing[s]

cnchal , July 5, 2019 at 5:38 am

Peace though procurement malpractice. The current batch of military hardware is so much garbage that when the President wants to use the "superb" pieces of crap (F35 and the new boats are prime examples) a general will have to become the sacrificial lamb and give the president the news that this stuff is for show only.

Bill Smith , July 5, 2019 at 6:15 am

The Israelis claim to like the F-35 and to have used it in Syria to attack Syrian Air Defense installations after the Syrian Air Defense installations fired at their other manned aircraft.

That's something of an endorsement of it's capabilities. How much I don't know.

PlutoniumKun , July 5, 2019 at 9:04 am

It has been claimed that an F-35 was damaged beyond repair on one attack . I don't know if anyone has got to bottom of these claims. It does seem a bit hard to accept that a bird strike could have led to the scrapping of an entire airframe.

I think the issue of Israeli use of US aircraft is complex – the US seems to have pressurised Israel to drop its own aircraft, the Lavi , and it may well have been that giving Israel priority with the F-35 was part of the quid quo pro over that. For many countries, choosing the F-35 seems to owe more to politics than defence considerations.

jrkrideau , July 6, 2019 at 6:39 pm

I have, for some time, been of the opinion that one of the (relatively minor) reasons that Turkey went with the S-400's is that it gets them out of the F-35 contract without legal financial penalties. I bet the reports of the Turkish crews training in the US have been scathing.

I have wondered if the Saab JAS 39 Gripen or the Su-57 might be good contenders.

I think it was RT that reported the other day that Russia is planning on starting full production of the Su-57 in 2020. Given that it was speculated that production of the Su-57 was too expensive with the Russian Federation as the only customer, I wonder who might be interested. China? Renewed Indian interest? Turkey ?

Personally, I think we in Canada should ask Sukho to submit a bid for our fighter replacement program.

drumlin woodchuckles , July 5, 2019 at 6:29 pm

Israelis may have been instructed to say that as a favor in return for all the aid.

cnchal , July 6, 2019 at 6:37 am

> But this time I thought how awful it would be to hear those monsters and know they were loaded with missiles and there was no safe place to hide.

Around here there is a boat race where the military flies jets for show and quite a few years ago, on a Saturday,while I was tinkering in the garage, this one pilot, and he or she must have been having a grand old time, really put on a show. For half an hour to an hour the neighborhood was subjected to the most thunderous roar, it made my skin crawl and hair stand up, and I started thinking about and getting a tiny taste of the terror people that are actual targets of this machine get.

On Sunday, there was no "air" show. So many people bitched and complained about Saturday the military or show organizers called it off. Phone calls to stop the jets does not work in the middle east, however.

Synoia , July 6, 2019 at 3:33 pm

Drones appear effective. They certainly were at Gatwick.

Sharkleberry Fin , July 5, 2019 at 6:33 am

Am I supposed to feel sorry for the sanction-busting war profiteers losing their illicit cargo? Or am I supposed to feel sorry for Assad not being able to top off the gas tank on his human rights violating war wagon?

Nobody's cool with the jingoism coming from the White House. But if the tanks come out for only just this one very special episode of the Apprentice, the people of earth have dodged a very obnoxious golden BB.

pjay , July 5, 2019 at 7:24 am

" war profiteers." " human rights violating war wagon " Hmm. Those phrases call certain images and actors to mind. Iran? Syria? No, that's not it

timbers , July 5, 2019 at 8:09 am

You're supposed to feel sorry for millions America killed in Syria and many other nations, and the tens of millions she displaced from their homes.

According to the U.N., Nobel Peace prize winning Obama caused the greatest refugee crisis since WW2 with all the browned skinned nations he bombed until America ran out of bombs and then he made more and bombed again – Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Ukraine who have I missed there so many .

Said another way, The War on Terror IS terrorism.

About 10 years I started to realize the U.S. is an Evil Empire, a force for evil in the world.

Happy 4th.

And may the bombing continue until there is peace. There are so many countries this great nation has not yet bombed. Maybe we're just getting warmed up.

timbers , July 5, 2019 at 12:42 pm

Google "UN says greatest refugee crisis since world war" and you'll annual reports starting about 2014 till about 2017 – the Apex of the Obama wars – each year replacing the previous year as all time records as humanitarian disasters.

Carolinian , July 5, 2019 at 8:39 am

Interesting word "illicit" meaning "outside the law." So exactly what law gives the Americans and their faithful poodles the authority to do this?

Gibraltar was once the playground of the Barbary Pirates so it is an appropriate venue for the hegemon to engage in a little piracy of its own. But Ilargi may be right that the winds are shifting and bullies will get their comeuppance.

divadab , July 5, 2019 at 10:57 am

Yes. It's piracy. USA a Pirate Nation. UK a useful part of the gang.

I mean, empires have always been expansionist, violently expansionist. I mean, this is bad, but the empire is the empire. What bothers me is the lying. The filthy unbelievable lies emanating from the likes of Hillaria Terroristica and Pompeus Maximus and even from Obama the Salesman emperor, Emperor Tex Bush the second, and our current Carnival Barker Emperor Trumpius the Rube Caller. Let alone the generals lying thru their teeth.

It makes the whole enterprise ridiculous – no one but the stupidest and most brainwashed believes the filthy liars. Terrible that our ruling class are traitors to the country – because why lie unless you have no respect for those ruled? Lie to the stupid cattle – let them repeat the lies and laugh at their stupidity.

Carolinian , July 5, 2019 at 12:58 pm

The Iranians are calling it piracy and now claim the right to seize any British oil tanker in their waters. Perhaps they have passed "sanctions" against the Brits or the EU.

I'm thinking of passing some sanctions myself under my sovereign powers and seizing some stuff. Hey why not? EU says it's ok.

Oh , July 5, 2019 at 8:48 am

Sanctions are for OUR profiteers, not their. We impose them so that our corporations and profiteers can benefit from higher blackmark prices. When others cut into the profit it will not be tolerated.

skippy , July 5, 2019 at 7:16 am

I think the glass jaw is appropriate, long time PR machinations are finding it harder to peddle, considering the outcomes, hence the need for rather vulgar public displays of military Sergeant Major marching up and down the field too imbue greatness on the unwashed by proxy whilst swirling down the gurgler.

This is made even more surreal by grandiose gestures of minuscule proportions magnified way beyond their scope in the big scheme of things sans a modern news cycle.

For some ridiculous reason I keep envisioning all the new data on shipwrecks during the east indies company era and the findings .. silly me

Stephen Haust , July 5, 2019 at 7:32 am

I still don't understand why so many "commentators" have to try discussing
important topics without considering basic facts.

There are classes of ships called, for instance, Panamax or now specifically Suezmax.
These are the largest vessels that can transit said canals. The Panama Canal has locks
of a specific size and therefore there is a hard limit. Suezmax is a bit harder to define
because, without locks, it can vary some.

But there is a maximum and at just a first glance this vessel is at least near it.

"Why did the tanker take that giant detour along the African coastline? Because
potential problems were anticipated in the Suez canal." Well, yes. But which problems.
There seem to be many, starting with the fact that the Grace 1 is under the Iranian
flag. But besides that, it is not at all unusual for a vessel of that size to sail around the
Cape. There are many reasons. I, myself, have made a longer passage in a smaller
vessel – 13100 nautical miles from Kharg Island in Iran to New Brunswick
(Irving refinery). Around the Cape. Nobody was particularly surprised.

Reminiscent of all those US "journalists" piling on to an Aeroflot flight to Havana in
search of Edward Snowden. They, and the world, were certain he was aboard, until
the craft flew over downtown Miami.

Synoia , July 5, 2019 at 10:24 am

Cargos are sold and resold in transit, and thus destinatipns change.

I once was on a Tanker destined for Houston. The voyage then became a trip to the Persian Gulf.

Stephen Haust , July 5, 2019 at 5:47 pm

Yes, that would be unusual but according to the articles of engagement
it could happen.

More relevant though is that there are lots of reasons for
a loaded tanker to take an indirect route not necessarily having
much to do with the ownership of the cargo. The "tanker trackers"
don't seem to be unduly surprised by the itinerary. Happens every
day.

Incidentally, I was once on a tanker sailing from Providence, RI
with orders to "steam due south until you hear from us". That could
have led to some interesting results. In the event, however, we
ended up in India after a change in engagements. The return leg
of that voyage was the 13100 mile passage I mentioned earlier.
Another time I thought I was going somewhere in the Caribbean and
ended up on a circumnavigation. Hey, it's normal. Let's not get too
excited about somebody who wants to go around the Cape instead
of risking Suez.

By the way, my experiences all occurred under the US flag so why
try to find some strange dirt on the Iranians when they are only
doing what everybody else does.

Stephen Haust , July 5, 2019 at 7:38 am

Well, maybe Panamanian flag. But please, folks, can't we just "engage
brain before operating mouth".

Amusingly here CNN has outpaced NC in the field of journalistic accuracy.
They went and asked somebody who might know a little.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/04/uk/tanker-syria-gibraltar-intl-gbr/index.html

Awww! Them sneaky bastards.

The Rev Kev , July 5, 2019 at 10:30 am

I don't think that you get it. The US seized a North Korean ship a few weeks back and now the US had the UK seize an Iranian ship on 'suspicions'. Do you really want to see an international situation for trade where ships can be seized as political pawns and sold? Or maybe airplanes as well? The big insurance companies certainly want to know. The Iranians are saying that they now have the right to seize a British ship in retaliation. Will the Brits sell that captured ship? Will they sell the oil aboard or take it back to the UK for their own use? Do we really want to see a widespread return to Prize Laws again?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prize_(law)

a different chris , July 5, 2019 at 7:52 am

Can we give you some sort of award for admitting you made a mistake with your first post, and then admonishing us to "engage brain before operating mouth" ?

I mean that is a classic.

sierra7 , July 5, 2019 at 5:22 pm

"Game of Thrones" LOL!! The more time changes the more it stays the same!
It's "piracy" if "they" do it to us (or our co-conspirators); it's "legal sanctions" if we do "it" to "them".

What a farcical, lying, two-faced world we live in!

Mike , July 5, 2019 at 8:44 am

There should have a new slogan for this international cabal -- "Strength through Chaos". To be precise, OUR strength through THEIR chaos.

Has this been the "plan" for this period since the end of World War Two? Even if it is not a "conspiracy", but rather a "concatenation of interests", what difference does this terminology make to those suffering the boot heel?

JCC , July 5, 2019 at 1:58 pm

You could safely leave out anywhere in the Americas, I think, after reading Confessions of an Economic Hitman . Less bombs, same benevolent results. The US/Mexican Border comes to mind, filled with refugees from Guatemala and Honduras.

Neither the Reagan Years (and those years before) nor the Obama Years have been a picnic for many that live anywhere in CA (other than possibly CR and Panama). Not that most of those running those countries are in any way innocent, particularly those that we funneled arms and money to.

ex-PFC Chuck , July 5, 2019 at 11:36 am

". . but for the most part, the U.S. was fairly benevolent and . .

I suggest you read yesterday's post entitled, " Michael Hudson Discusses the IMF and World Bank: Partners In Backwardness ." That may lead to your rethinking the excerpt quoted above.

John Merryman. , July 5, 2019 at 11:55 am

The term, "ugly Americans" is fairly old.

Synoia , July 5, 2019 at 10:30 am

Cargos are sold and resold in transit, and thus destinatipns change.

I once was on a Tanker destined for Houston. The voyage then became a trip to the Persian Gulf.

Ignacio , July 5, 2019 at 11:08 am

I very much agree with Illargi on this. Nothing good can come from the "heroic" seizure of the tanker. Mission accomplished: we are more idiotic every passing day.

rjs , July 5, 2019 at 1:44 pm

re: Why did the tanker take that giant detour along the African coastline?

in case anyone else has not yet noted it, super tankers, VLCCs that can carry as much as 2 million barrels, cannot get through the Suez canal, which is limited to oil tankers in the aptly named "Suezmax" class, less than half that size

Tim , July 5, 2019 at 9:26 pm

Yeah this is not a well educated writer. Contradicts his own story at one point, and no the US can't afford to get into a major war,but that does mean they lose either, the other side would still lose more.

Tyronius , July 5, 2019 at 3:28 pm

The winds change are blowing, indeed. Is that the fog of war on the horizon, or the smokestacks of progress? Neither is good for the environment but as they say, fight one battle at a time.

America's War On Terror has long since become the War OF Terrorism and it's good to see the rest of the world has not only caught on but is doing something about it. Great Britain went quietly and prospered. Will America do the same or will it struggle against the inevitable? I suspect a bit of both. We do love to kill poor innocent brown people, after all. It's what we're best at.

Time to find another line of work. Surely we can find something more productive to do?

RBHoughton , July 5, 2019 at 9:32 pm

The war on terror is a war on non-combatants. Its western terrorists, spooks and soldiers, against Asian terrorists, Muslims.The other form of terrorism against non-combatants is nuclear war – that's when the military attacks civilian targets like we did in WWII in Hamburg and Dresden and Tokyo but using more destructive ordinance.

Can we say, in light of the regular failures of our initiatives overseas, that we the people are expecting something that is not intended. We imagine war is fought to achieve unconditional surrender and bring the humiliated enemy to our feet begging for life but perhaps these attacks in the Middle East and North Africa are not for a military victory at all but to take away the natural resources of those countries, using the fog of war to conceal our purpose?

Oregoncharles , July 6, 2019 at 12:20 am

The purpose, and effect, of empire is theft.

Eclair , July 6, 2019 at 6:44 am

Putting that on my approved list of bumper stickers. Or, maybe sticking it on the bathroom mirror as a daily reminder.

[Jul 06, 2019] >China calls Trump's bluff; Trump blinks on sanctions threat - caucus99percent

Jul 06, 2019 | caucus99percent.com

China calls Trump's bluff; Trump blinks on sanctions threat

span ed by gjohnsit on Fri, 07/05/2019 - 4:37pm

Trump made it perfectly clear: No one will buy Iranian oil and still do business with America. That includes China .

Two Trump administration officials said on Friday that neither a wind-down period nor a short-term waiver on China's oil purchases from Iran are being contemplated after Washington surprised Iran's customers on Monday by demanding they halt the purchases by May 1 or face sanctions.
The administration has been clear to China, Iran's top oil consumer, about no additional waivers to the sanctions after the ones granted last November, one of the senior officials said.

No additional waivers. No wind-down period.
It's clear and final.

Do you know who else is clear and final? China .

China is buying Iranian oil in defiance of US sanctions and providing what Tehran hopes will be a financial lifeline for the country's buckling economy.

Although Beijing customs data show crude purchases from Iran are down month-on-month, China is still importing Tehran's oil despite US measures designed to cut exports to "zero".

Last week the Chinese received their first delivery of an Iranian oil cargo since the Trump administration in May scrapped exemptions on Iranian sanctions.

So Trump is a big, tough, strongman. So what do you think he's going to do when he's challenged?
He's going to fold .

But according to three U.S. officials, the department's Iran czar, Brian Hook, and his team of negotiators have discussed granting China a waiver to a 2012 law intended to kneecap the Iranian oil industry. The alternative is allowing China, which recently welcomed a shipment of approximately a million barrels of Iranian oil, openly to defy U.S. sanctions.
...
The 2012 Iran Freedom and Counterproliferation Act targeted the Iranian shipping, shipbuilding and energy sectors, requiring states or companies that wish to import Iranian oil and conduct business with the U.S. to obtain waivers from the U.S. government. A separate law targeted purchases, rather than imports of that oil.

Officials say the State Department is discussing an arrangement that would allow China to import Iranian oil as payment in kind for sizable investments of the Chinese oil company Sinopec in an Iranian oil field -- and administration officials have offered to issue a waiver for the payback oil in official correspondence between the State Department and Sinopec, according to a source familiar with the situation.

The waiver is merely a face-saving measure. China is going to continue to defy the sanctions one way or another.
And if China gets a waiver then India will too.
As it stands, India has halted buying Iranian oil, but that has just pushed them into buying more Russian oil .

[Jul 05, 2019] Bolton Isn't Quitting by DANIEL LARISON

Jul 05, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Tom Wright makes some good observations about Trump's foreign policy here, but I think he underestimates Bolton's determination to cling to power:

It's hard to see how Bolton can stay. Trump has long known that Bolton wanted war more than he does. He sidelined him on North Korea and overruled him on Iran. For his part, Bolton has privately attacked Pompeo, long a Trump favorite, as falling captive to the State Department bureaucracy and has predicted that the North Korea policy will fail.

Bolton has given an unusually large number of interviews to reporters and has been rewarded with positive profiles lauding his influence and bureaucratic prowess. Those of us who predicted that he would cling to the post of national security adviser, as it would be the last job he'd ever get, may have been wrong. In fact, Bolton looks and sounds as if he is preparing to exit on his own terms. Better that than being sent on a never-ending tour of the world's most obscure places. For Bolton, leaving because he's too tough for Trump is the perfect way to save face. Otherwise, he may be remembered as the man who presided over one of the weakest national security teams in modern American history and someone whose myopic obsessions -- like international treaties or communism in Venezuela -- meant the United States lost precious time in preparing for the national security challenges of the future.

Bolton has been allowed to drive Iran policy to the brink of war, and I can't believe that he would voluntarily leave the position he has when he still has a chance of getting the war with Iran that he has been seeking for years. It is true that Bolton was sent to Mongolia to keep him out of sight during the president's visit with Kim at the DMZ, but where is the proof that Trump has abandoned the maximalist demands that Bolton has long insisted on? On Iran, Trump is still reciting hawkish talking points, sanctioning anything that moves, and occasionally making more deranged threats against the entire country. Unless Trump decides to get rid of Bolton, I don't see why Bolton would want to leave. He gets to set policy on the issue he has obsessed over for decades, and he gets to pursue a policy of regime change in all but name. Bolton will probably be happy to let Pompeo have all the "credit" for North Korea policy, since there is none to be had, and he'll keep stoking the Iran obsession that has already done so much harm to the Iranian people and brought the U.S. dangerously close to a war it has no reason to fight.

Banishing Bolton to Mongolia was briefly entertaining for those of us that can't stand the National Security Advisor, but it doesn't mean very much if administration policies aren't changing. Since Bolton is the one running the policy "process," it seems unlikely that there will be any real change as long as he is there. For whatever reason, Trump doesn't seem willing to fire him. Maybe that's because he doesn't want to offend Sheldon Adelson, a known Bolton supporter and big Trump donor, or maybe it's because he enjoys having Bolton as a lightning rod to take some of the criticism, or maybe it's because their militaristic worldviews aren't as dissimilar as many people assume. It doesn't really matter why Trump won't rid himself of Bolton. What matters is that Bolton is supposedly "humiliated" again and again by Trump actions or statements, and then Bolton gets back to promoting his own agenda no matter what the president does.

For that matter, Bolton's absence from the DMZ meeting may have been exactly what he wanted. Graeme Wood suggested as much just the other day:

Carlson has inserted himself into the frame of this bizarre and impromptu diplomatic trip, and that is exactly where the Boltonites want him: forever associated with a handshake that will be recorded as a new low in the annals of presidential gullibility.

Many observers have assumed that Bolton won't be able to stay in the administration at different points over the last several months. When Trump claimed that he didn't want regime change in Iran, that was supposed to be a break with Bolton. The only hitch is that Bolton maintains this same fiction that they aren't trying to bring down the Iranian government when they obviously are. The second summit with North Korea and the possibility of some initial agreement caused similar speculation that Bolton's influence was waning, and then he managed to wreck the Hanoi summit by getting Trump to make demands that he and everyone else must have known were unacceptable to the North Koreans. Every time it seems that Bolton's maximalism is giving way to something else, Bolton gets the last laugh.

Demolishing the architecture of arms control has been one of Bolton's main ambitions throughout his career. He has already done quite a bit of damage, but I assume he will want to make sure that New START dies. Bolton likely will "be remembered as the man who presided over one of the weakest national security teams in modern American history and someone whose myopic obsessions -- like international treaties or communism in Venezuela -- meant the United States lost precious time in preparing for the national security challenges of the future," but as long as he has the chance to pursue those obsessions and advance his agenda I don't think he's going to give it up. He is an abysmal National Security Advisor, a fanatic, and a menace to this country, and I would love it if he did resign, but I just don't see it. I doubt that Bolton cares about "saving face" as much as he does inflicting as much damage as he can while he has the opportunity. The only thing that Bolton believes in quitting is a successful diplomatic agreement that advances U.S. interests. That is why it is necessary for the president to replace him, because I don't see any other way that he is going to leave.

Lily Sandoz • 6 hours ago

Bolton quitting? Heck! He's just getting started. Britain, on orders from Bolton, detained an Panamanian flagged supertanker heading to Syria with Iranian oil. Spanish officials said the Grace 1, was seized by British patrol ships off Gibraltar, and boarded by Royal Marines and detained on Wash.'s orders.

Bolton's power is becoming unlimited because Trump and the rest of the gov. is doing nothing to stop his agenda, which most of Wash., must share, of starting a war with Iran, N. Korea, or anywhere else he can stir up trouble.

It's so obvious Wash. wants Iran to fire the first shot in order to go to war and make political donors like Sheldon Adelson happy, as well as Netanyahu who has more to say about US foreign policy than the American people who just want to stop the wars and concentrate on the issues and problems here at home.

After all, it's OUR MONEY going to finance all the atrocities abroad that the war industry and other countries benefit from. Unbelievable stuff going on in Wash. and seems everyday it gets worse and more absurd.

[Jul 05, 2019] Who are the arsonists of the petrol tankers in the Gulf, by Manlio Dinucci

Notable quotes:
"... The control of the energy corridors is of capital importance. By accusing Iran of attempting to " interrupt the flow of oil through the Straights of Hormuz ", Mike Pompeo announced that " the United States will defend freedom of navigation ". In other words, he has announced that the United States want to gain military control of this key area for energy supplies, including for Europe, by preventing above all the transit of Iranian oil (to which Italy and other European countries cannot in any case enjoy free access because of the US embargo). ..."
"... Natural gas might also have arrived directly in Italy from Russia, and from there be distributed to other European countries with notable economical advantages, via the South Stream route through the Black Sea. But the pipeline, already in an advanced stage of construction, was blocked in 2014 by the pressure of the United States and European Union itself, with heavy prejudice for Italy. ..."
"... In fact it was the reproduction of North Stream which continued, making Germany the centre of triage for Russian gas.. Then, on the basis of the " USA/EU strategic cooperation in the energy field " agreement stipulated in July 2018, US exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to the EU tripled. The triage centre was in Poland, from which was distributed the " Freedom Gas " which also arrived in Ukraine. ..."
"... Washington's objective is strategic – to hurt Russia by replacing Russian gas in Europe with US gas ..."
"... So what does Matteo Salvini have to say about all that? When he arrived in the " greatest democracy in the Western world ", he proudly declared - " I am part of a government which in Europe is no longer satisfied with breadcrumbs " ..."
Jun 19, 2019 | www.voltairenet.org

Manlio Dinucci invites us to take a step back. He replaces the sabotage of these petrol tankers, for which Washington accuses Teheran, in the context of the global energy policy of the United States. By doing so, he demonstrates that, contrary to appearances, Mike Pompeo is not targeting Iran, but Europe.

While the United States prepared a new escalation of tension in the Middle East by accusing Iran of attacking petrol tankers in the Gulf of Oman, Italian vice-Prime Minister Matteo Salvini met with one of the artisans of this strategy in Washington, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, assuring him that " Italy wants to regain its place as the major partner on the European continent of the greatest Western democracy ". Thereby he has allied Italy with the operation launched by Washington.

The " Gulf of Oman affair " , a casus belli against Iran, is a carbon copy of the " Gulf of Tonkin affair " of 4 August 1964, itself used as a casus belli to bomb North Vietnam, which was accused of having attacked a US torpedo boat (an accusation which was later proved to be false).

Today, a video released by Washington shows the crew of an alleged Iranian patrol boat removing an unexploded mine from the hull of a petrol tanker in order to conceal its origin (because the mine would allegedly have borne the inscription " Made in Iran ").

With this " proof " - a veritable insult to our intelligence - Washington is attempting to camouflage the goal of the operation. It is part of the strategy aimed at controlling the world reserves of oil and natural gas and their energy corridors [ 1 ]. It is no coincidence that Iran and Iraq are in US crosshairs. Their total oil reserves are greater than those of Saudi Arabia, and five times greater than those of the United States. Iranian reserves of natural gas are approximately 2.5 times those of the USA. Venezuela finds itself targeted by the USA for the same reason, since it is the country which owns the greatest oil reserves in the world.

The control of the energy corridors is of capital importance. By accusing Iran of attempting to " interrupt the flow of oil through the Straights of Hormuz ", Mike Pompeo announced that " the United States will defend freedom of navigation ". In other words, he has announced that the United States want to gain military control of this key area for energy supplies, including for Europe, by preventing above all the transit of Iranian oil (to which Italy and other European countries cannot in any case enjoy free access because of the US embargo).

Low-cost Iranian natural gas might also have reached Europe by way of a pipeline crossing Iraq and Syria. But the project, launched in 2011, was destroyed by the USA/NATO operation to demolish the Syrian state.

Natural gas might also have arrived directly in Italy from Russia, and from there be distributed to other European countries with notable economical advantages, via the South Stream route through the Black Sea. But the pipeline, already in an advanced stage of construction, was blocked in 2014 by the pressure of the United States and European Union itself, with heavy prejudice for Italy.

In fact it was the reproduction of North Stream which continued, making Germany the centre of triage for Russian gas.. Then, on the basis of the " USA/EU strategic cooperation in the energy field " agreement stipulated in July 2018, US exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to the EU tripled. The triage centre was in Poland, from which was distributed the " Freedom Gas " which also arrived in Ukraine.

Washington's objective is strategic – to hurt Russia by replacing Russian gas in Europe with US gas. But we have no guarantees, neither on the price, nor on the time-scale for US gas extracted from the bituminous shale by the technique known as fracking (hydraulic fracturation), which is disastrous for the environment.

So what does Matteo Salvini have to say about all that? When he arrived in the " greatest democracy in the Western world ", he proudly declared - " I am part of a government which in Europe is no longer satisfied with breadcrumbs ". Manlio Dinucci

Translation
Pete Kimberley

Source
Il Manifesto (Italy)

[Jul 04, 2019] Daesh oil vs Iran oil

Jul 04, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 , Jul 4 2019 18:20 utc | 29

SyrianaAnalysis founder Kevork Almassian spins the tanker arrest thusly:

"While #ISIS was stealing the Syrian oil & selling it to #Turkey, the so-called #US led coalition (#UK included) against Daesh wasn't interested in stopping the theft of #Syria's oil.

"But today the UK stopped an oil tanker delivering energy to the Syrian people."

Quite witty, IMO. Note the EU-3 all supported the terrorist invasion of Syria, the destruction of Libya, and NATO's accusing Iran of sponsoring terrorism.

Pompeo's new slogan: Terrorism daily baby!

james , Jul 4 2019 17:10 utc | 11

Spain's caretaker Foreign Minister Josep Borrell said the British targeted the tanker on a request from the US. He added that Spain, which considers the waters off Gibraltar as its own, was assessing the implications of the operation.

Iran has reportedly acknowledged ownership of the cargo. Its foreign ministry summoned the British ambassador in Tehran to protest the "unlawful seizure of the Iranian tanker," according to the IRNA news agency.

According to Reuters, the MT Grace 1 has been used by Iran in the past to ship crude to Singapore and China in defiance of unilateral sanctions imposed against Iran by the US. The current trip allegedly started in Iran's port of Bandar Assalyeh, thought the papers state that the crude was loaded in the Iraqi port of Basra.

In seizing the tanker under the pretext of sanctions on Syria, the EU seems to be at least partially siding with Washington, which is trying to cripple the Iranian economy through harsh economic sanctions. The pressure campaign was escalated after the US broke its commitment under the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran.

"Maybe the EU was trying to show that it was siding with the Americans, playing its part in anti-Iranian policy? We know that the Trump administration has been critical of the European countries," Ali Rizk, a Middle East-based journalist and writer, told RT.

"And it's likely a demonstration against Syria. It all helps an ongoing plan of parting Syria with its allies."

https://www.rt.com/news/463379-iran-crude-tanker-gibraltar/

Ant. , Jul 4 2019 17:13 utc | 12

@1 Allegedly(?), this oil tanker sailed from Basra in Iraq (not Iran) and remarkably went around Africa rather than sail through the Suez, and further it allegedly also turned it's transponder off(?)... as usual, we'll have to wait for real facts to emerge. It's still quite unusual to intercept an oil tanker so blatantly when much more nefarious shipments are going on.

Seems to me certain western governments do whatever they want, and no longer care about international legalities.

gzon , Jul 4 2019 17:28 utc | 18

Grace1 tanker was being tracked for a long time

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-sanctions-oil-exclusive/exclusive-how-iran-fuel-oil-exports-beat-u-s-sanctions-in-tanker-odyssey-to-asia-idUSKCN1R10G9

is from three months ago.

She is now Panama flagged (presumably) Russian owned

IMO number 9116412
Name of the ship GRACE 1
Type of ship CRUDE OIL TANKER
MMSI 355271000
Gross tonnage 156880 tons
DWT 273769 tons
Year of build 1997
Builder HYUNDAI HEAVY INDUSTRIES - ULSAN, SOUTH KOREA
Flag PANAMA
Class society LLOYD'S SHIPPING REGISTER
Manager & owner RUSSIAN TITAN SHIPPING LINES - DUBAI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
Former names MERIDIAN LION until 2013 Mar
OVERSEAS MERIDIAN until 2011 Jun
MERIDIAN LION until 2006 Feb

The reason for holding the ship is given as breaking EU sanctions on Syria. Not JCPOA related (in principle).

Here is a short but incomplete primer on Gibraltar territorial waters. The even more extreme Spanish view is that only the port is Gibraltarian, or simply that Gibraltar is Spanish.

https://www.quora.com/As-Gibraltar-is-surrounded-by-Spanish-waters-can-Spain-block-any-ship-coming-from-or-to-Gibraltar


gzon , Jul 4 2019 17:48 utc | 23

Just to note Grace1 is anchored off the south east of Gibraltar, within the 3 mile Gibraltar limit now, I don't know if she was stopped inside that zone, or why she would venture into that 3 mile zone. In short it will be important to know what position she was when boarded, the only info I have is that she veered hard to port into the Gibraltar 3 mile limit, but am not sure if before or after being boarded. The Spanish government has said it tolerates Gibraltar "acting in its waters" in this case because the action was based on EU sanctions.

[Jul 01, 2019] On Friday, Russia signalled its commitment to secure Iran's oil and banking sectors, should the EU's INSTEX clearing mechanism not be working effectively by July 7

Jul 01, 2019 | www.strategic-culture.org

Trump's Iran Policy Dangerously Flawed Assumptions, With No Plan 'B' by Alastair Crooke

Ultimately, Trump will find himself in a corner in which he never wished to find himself: It may already be too late. He is there.

Professor Russell-Mead tells us "that the key to the president's Iran policy is that his nose for power [and Trump is a keen judge of power, R-M insists] is telling him Iran is weaker, and the US stronger than the foreign-policy establishment believes What Mr. Trump wants is a deal with Iran that matches his sense of the relative power of the two countries " (emphasis added).

"At the level of public diplomacy, [Trump] is engaging in his standard mix of dazzle and spin[turning American politics into the Donald Trump Show, with the country and the world fixated on his every move, speculating feverishly about what will come next, R-M suggests] And at the level of power politics he is steadily and consistently tightening the screws on Iran: arming its neighbors and assuring them of his support, tightening sanctions, and raising the psychological pressure on the regime.

"Mr. Trump well understands the constraints under which his Iran policy is working. Launching a new Middle East war could wreck his presidency. But if Iran starts the war, that's another matter. A clear Iranian attack on American or even Israeli targets could unite Mr. Trump's Jacksonian base like the attack on Pearl Harbor united America's Jacksonians to fight Imperial Japan."

Russell-Mead's analysis probably has it right. But there is more to it than that: Trump's approach is based on some further underlying key assumptions: Firstly, that, with the Iranian economy tanking, and inflation soaring (Trump repeats this unfounded assertion frequently), the Iranian revolutionary system will either implode, or approach Washington, on its knees, asking for a new nuclear deal.

Two: Trump can afford to wait out this impending implosion, and just lever up the economic pressures in the meanwhile. Three: Trump claims that a war with Iran would be short: "I'm not talking boots on the ground," he said . "I'm just saying if something would happen, it wouldn't last very long". And four: Trump said, (and appears to believe), that he wouldn't need an "exit strategy" in the event of a war with Iran, which suggests that he may really think that the war would be limited to a brief air campaign, and then it would be over.

What to say? Well, only that all of these assumptions are almost certainly wrong – and, as Daniel Larison in The American Conservative notes , "if the US president thinks that a war with Iran "wouldn't last very long," he is probably going to be more willing to start it. Iran hawks are already predictably emphasizing that attacking Iran wouldn't be like Iraq or Afghanistan, and they are saying that in part to overcome Trump's apparent reservations about getting bogged down in a protracted conflict". Iran indeed would not be like Afghanistan or Iraq, but in an entirely different way to that claimed by the hawks.

Well, Iran will not be imploding economically: On Friday, Russia signalled its commitment to secure Iran's oil and banking sectors, should the EU's INSTEX clearing mechanism not be working effectively by 7 July (when Iran's window to Europe on this issue closes). Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said on Friday that Moscow is ready to help Iran export its crude and ease restrictions on its banking system should Europe fail to make INSTEX a viable mechanism. China too, has stated that "normal energy dealings" with Tehran are in accordance with law, and should be respected. The Governor of the Central Bank of Iran said this week that Iran has "climbed past the peak of sanctions. Our oil exports are on the rise", Hemmati said .

If the 'implosion hypothesis' is flawed, so too is the claim that Iran will come begging for a new nuclear deal from Mr Trump. Here, by way of illustration, is the (Iranian) account of what the Supreme Leader said to Prime Minister Abe:

"During the meeting with Abe Shinzo (on 13 June), the latter told Ayatollah Khamenei that "I would like to give you a message from the President of the United States".

"Ayatollah Khamenei responded by pointing to the US ingenuity and untrustworthiness, and argued, "We do not doubt your [Abe's] sincerity and goodwill. However, regarding what you mentioned about the President of the US, I do not consider Trump as a person worth exchanging any message with and I have no answer for him, nor will I respond to him in the future ."

"[But] what I am going to say, is said to you as the Japanese Prime Minister, and because we consider Japan a friend of ours

"Ayatollah Khamenei noting Shinzo's assertion that the US intends to prevent Iran's production of nuclear weapons said, "We are opposed to the nuclear weapons and my religious Fatwa bans production of nuclear weapons; but you should know that if we intended to produce nuclear weapons, the US could do nothing; and its non-permission [would] not be any obstacle."

"The Supreme leader, in response to the message that "the United States is not after regime change in Iran", insisted that "Our problem with the United States is not about regime change. Because even if they intend to pursue that, they won't be able to achieve it When Trump says that he is not after regime change, it is a lie. For, if he could do so, he would. However, he is not capable of it."

"Ayatollah Khamenei similarly referred to the Japanese prime minister's remarks regarding the United States' request to negotiate with Iran about the nuclear issue, and said, "The Islamic Republic of Iran negotiated for 5 to 6 years with the United States and the Europeans -- the P 5+1 -- which led to an agreement. But the United States disregarded and breached this definite agreement. So, does common sense permit negotiations with a state that has thrown away everything that was agreed upon?"

"He pointed to the forty years of hostility that the US has showed to the Iranian nation and its continued hostility, and said, "We believe that our problems will not be solved by negotiating with the US, and no free nation would ever accept negotiations under pressure."

And 'pressures' are precisely what the US is adding: i.e. increasing pressures, rather than easing them – which stands probably as the sine qua non to resuming negotiations with Iran. But then Trump holds to the view that America is entitled – by virtue of its greater power – to negotiate with others only when the counterparties are under 'maximum pressure'. Plainly, he has not been briefed well on the Iranian history of stoically enduring far worse and violent cataclysms. Nor, that Iranians can draw on a stratum of spiritual resilience from the narrative of Imam Hussein at times of crisis.

How so? The notion of an 'Iran on the cusp of collapse' is a meme being peddled by various disgruntled Iranian exiles, and by the MEK, as well as by prominent hawks in the US. But equally – and importantly, given Trump's own family predilections – this narrative of 'just one push' and the Iranian Revolution 'is over' is being constantly urged by Netanyahu. (Other Israelis are not so happy at their PM's open and avid support for Trump's policy on Iran – recalling how Israel (and Netanyahu) were accused of having pushed for the 2003 Iraq war).

So. If the assumption that Iran will either collapse, or capitulate under economic pressure, is false; and that the presumption that 'no exit strategy' is required, because Iran is weak and the US is militarily strong (implying that a short, quick air strike would settle matters) – is similarly flawed, where then are we headed?

If these underlying assumptions continue to pass without serious challenge, then, as time passes, Iran will neither have imploded, nor capitulated, as presaged; but rather, it will have continued to send calibrated, incrementally ascending 'messages' to demonstrating the potential costs of pursuing such a policy – with the pain being experienced principally by those US allies who continually advocate for harsh US 'measures' against Iran.

Ultimately, Trump will find himself in a corner in which he never wished to find himself: It may already be too late. He is there. Either having to react militarily to Iranian 'messages', with all the potential for asymmetric Iranian counterstrikes and ratchetting escalation: A prospect from which instinctively he recoils, because he fears this route of indecisive military tit-for-tat may not play out well for him in terms of the 2020 elections. And even could risk his Presidency.

Or, a humiliating, concessionary journey of return into a process closely mirroring the (despised) JCPOA – whatever be its new name: And hope to call the defeat as 'victory'.

Quite possibly, President Putin may have it in mind to lay out some of this prospective landscape when he met with Trump at Osaka. We probably won't be told. We'll never know.

[Jun 30, 2019] Aggressive US Lies and Misleads to Justify War on Iran by William Boardman

Notable quotes:
"... The secretary of state delivered this appallingly Orwellian official assessment of the US government within hours of the five explosions on two tankers, well before any credible investigation establishing more than minimal facts could be carried out. As is his habit, Mike Pompeo flatly lied about whatever might be real in the Gulf of Oman, and most American media ran with the lies as if they were or might be true. There is almost no chance that Mike Pompeo and the US government are telling the truth about this event, as widespread domestic and international skepticism attests. ..."
"... Pompeo's official assessment was false even in its staging. For most of his four-minute appearance, Pompeo stood framed by two pictures behind him, each showing a tanker with a fire amidships. This was a deliberate visual lie. The two pictures showed the same tanker, the Norwegian-owned Front Altair , from different angles. The other tanker, Japanese-owned Kokuka Courageous , did not catch fire and was not shown. ..."
"... Pompeo did not identify the unnamed intelligence entities, if any, within the government who made this assessment. He offered no evidence to support the assessment. He did offer something of an argument that began: ..."
"... He didn't say what intelligence. He didn't say whose intelligence. American intelligence assets and technology are all over the region generating reams of intelligence day in, day out. Then there are the intelligence agencies of the Arab police states bordering the Persian Gulf. They, too, are busy collecting intelligence 24/7, although they are sometimes loath to share. Pompeo didn't mention it, but according to CNN an unnamed US official admitted that the US had a Reaper Drone in the air near the two tankers before they were attacked. He also claimed that Iran had fired a missile at the drone, but missed. As CNN inanely spins it, "it is the first claim that the US has information of Iranian movements prior to the attack." As if the US doesn't have information on Iranian movements all the time . More accurately, this is the first admission that the US had operational weaponry in the area prior to the attack. ..."
"... Pompeo did not name a single weapon used. Early reporting claimed the attackers used torpedoes or mines, a claim that became inoperative as it became clear that all the damage to the tankers was well above the waterline. There is little reason to believe Pompeo had any actual knowledge of what weapons were used, unless one was a Reaper Drone. ..."
"... There are NO confirmed "recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping," and even if there were, they would prove nothing. Pompeo's embarrassingly irrelevant list that follows includes six examples, only one of which involved a shipping attack ..."
"... Instead of "recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping," Pompeo offers Iran's decades-old threat to close the Strait of Hormuz (which it's never done), together with three attacks by the Houthis on Saudi Arabia, an unattributed rocket attack on the US Embassy in Baghdad, and an unattributed car bomb in Afghanistan. Seriously, if that's all he's got, he's got nothing. But he's not done with the disinformation exercise: ..."
"... The US is stumbling down a path toward war with no justification ..."
Jun 26, 2019 | dissidentvoice.org

It is the assessment of the United States Government that the Islamic Republic of Iran is responsible for the attacks that occurred in the Gulf of Oman today. This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed to execute the operation, recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping, and the fact that no proxy group operating in the area has the resources and proficiency to act with such a high degree of sophistication.

This is only the latest in a series of attacks instigated by the Islamic Republic of Iran and its surrogates against American and allied interests, and they should be understood in the context of 40 years of unprovoked aggression against freedom-loving nations.

-- US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announcement , June 13, 2013

The secretary of state delivered this appallingly Orwellian official assessment of the US government within hours of the five explosions on two tankers, well before any credible investigation establishing more than minimal facts could be carried out. As is his habit, Mike Pompeo flatly lied about whatever might be real in the Gulf of Oman, and most American media ran with the lies as if they were or might be true. There is almost no chance that Mike Pompeo and the US government are telling the truth about this event, as widespread domestic and international skepticism attests.

Pompeo's official assessment was false even in its staging. For most of his four-minute appearance, Pompeo stood framed by two pictures behind him, each showing a tanker with a fire amidships. This was a deliberate visual lie. The two pictures showed the same tanker, the Norwegian-owned Front Altair , from different angles. The other tanker, Japanese-owned Kokuka Courageous , did not catch fire and was not shown.

First, what actually happened, as best we can tell five days later? In the early morning of June 13, two unrelated tankers were heading south out of the Strait of Hormuz, sailing in open water in the Gulf of Oman, roughly 20 miles off the south coast of Iran. The tankers were most likely outside Iran's territorial waters, but within Iran's contiguous zone as defined by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea . At different times, some 30 miles apart, the two tankers were attacked by weapons unknown, launched by parties unknown, for reasons unknown. The first reported distress call was 6:12 a.m. local time. No one has yet claimed responsibility for either attack. The crew of each tanker abandoned ship soon after the explosions and were rescued by ships in the area, including Iranian naval vessels, who took the Front Altair crew to an Iranian port.

Even this much was not certain in the early afternoon of June 13 when Mike Pompeo came to the lectern at the State Department to deliver his verdict:

It is the assessment of the United States Government that the Islamic Republic of Iran is responsible for the attacks that occurred in the Gulf of Oman today.

Pompeo did not identify the unnamed intelligence entities, if any, within the government who made this assessment. He offered no evidence to support the assessment. He did offer something of an argument that began:

This assessment is based on intelligence .

He didn't say what intelligence. He didn't say whose intelligence. American intelligence assets and technology are all over the region generating reams of intelligence day in, day out. Then there are the intelligence agencies of the Arab police states bordering the Persian Gulf. They, too, are busy collecting intelligence 24/7, although they are sometimes loath to share. Pompeo didn't mention it, but according to CNN an unnamed US official admitted that the US had a Reaper Drone in the air near the two tankers before they were attacked. He also claimed that Iran had fired a missile at the drone, but missed. As CNN inanely spins it, "it is the first claim that the US has information of Iranian movements prior to the attack." As if the US doesn't have information on Iranian movements all the time . More accurately, this is the first admission that the US had operational weaponry in the area prior to the attack. After intelligence, Pompeo continued:

This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used .

Pompeo did not name a single weapon used. Early reporting claimed the attackers used torpedoes or mines, a claim that became inoperative as it became clear that all the damage to the tankers was well above the waterline. There is little reason to believe Pompeo had any actual knowledge of what weapons were used, unless one was a Reaper Drone. He went on:

This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed to execute the operation

The "level of expertise needed" to carry out these attacks on a pair of sitting duck tankers does not appear to be that great. Yes, the Iranian military probably has the expertise, as do the militaries of the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, Israel, or others with a stake in provoking a crisis in the region. And those who lack the expertise still have the money with which to hire expert surrogates. The number of credible suspects, known and unknown, with an interest in doing harm to Iran is easily in double figures. Leading any serious list should be the US. That's perfectly logical, so Pompeo tried to divert attention from the obvious:

This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed to execute the operation, recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping .

There are NO confirmed "recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping," and even if there were, they would prove nothing. Pompeo's embarrassingly irrelevant list that follows includes six examples, only one of which involved a shipping attack. The one example was the May 12, 2019, attack on four ships at anchor in the deep water port of Fujairah. Even the multinational investigation organized by the UAE could not determine who did it. The UAE reported to the UN Security Council that the perpetrator was likely some unnamed "state actor." The logical suspects and their surrogates are the same as those for the most recent attack.

Instead of "recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping," Pompeo offers Iran's decades-old threat to close the Strait of Hormuz (which it's never done), together with three attacks by the Houthis on Saudi Arabia, an unattributed rocket attack on the US Embassy in Baghdad, and an unattributed car bomb in Afghanistan. Seriously, if that's all he's got, he's got nothing. But he's not done with the disinformation exercise:

This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed to execute the operation, recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping, and the fact that no proxy group operating in the area has the resources and proficiency to act with such a high degree of sophistication.

The whole proxy group thing is redundant, covered by "the level of expertise needed" mentioned earlier. Pompeo doesn't name any proxy group here, he doesn't explain how he could know there's no proxy group that could carry out such an attack, and he just throws word garbage at the wall and hopes something sticks that will make you believe – no evidence necessary – that Iran is evil beyond redemption:

Taken as a whole, these unprovoked attacks present a clear threat to international peace and security, a blatant assault on the freedom of navigation, and an unacceptable campaign of escalating tension by Iran.

The attacks in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Afghanistan have all been provoked by the US and its allies. The US has long been a clear threat to international peace and security, except when the US was actually trashing peace and security, as it did in Iraq, as it seems to want to do in Iran. There is, indeed, "an unacceptable campaign of escalating tension," but it's a campaign by the US. The current phase began when the Trump administration pulled out of the multinational nuclear deal with Iran. The US wages economic warfare on Iran even though Iran continues to abide by the Trump-trashed treaty. All the other signatories and inspectors confirm that Iran has abided by the agreement. But Iran is approaching a point of violation, which it has been warning about for some time. The other signatories allow the US to bully them into enforcing US sanctions at their own cost against a country in compliance with its promises. China, Russia, France, GB, Germany, and the EU are all craven in the face of US threats. That's what the US wants from Iran.

Lately, Trump and Pompeo and their ilk have been whining about not wanting war and claiming they want to negotiate, while doing nothing to make negotiation more possible. Iran has observed US actions and has rejected negotiating with an imperial power with a decades-long record of bad faith. Lacking any serious act of good faith by the US, does Iran have any other rational choice? Pompeo makes absolutely clear just how irrational, how dishonest, how implacable and untrustworthy the US is when he accuses Iran of:

40 years of unprovoked aggression against freedom-loving nations.

This is Big Lie country. Forty years ago, the Iranians committed their original sin – they overthrew one of the world's most brutal dictatorships, imposed on them by the US. Then they took Americans hostage, and the US has been playing the victim ever since, out of all proportion to reality or justice. But the Pompeos of this world still milk it for all it's worth. What about "unprovoked aggression," who does that? The US list is long and criminal, including its support of Saddam Hussein's war of aggression against Iran. Iran's list of "unprovoked aggressions" is pretty much zero, unless you go back to the Persian Empire. No wonder Pompeo took no question on his statement. The Big Lie is supposed to be enough.

The US is stumbling down a path toward war with no justification. Democrats should have objected forcefully and continuously long since. Democrats in the House should have put peace with Iran on the table as soon as they came into the majority. They should do it now. Democratic presidential candidates should join Tulsi Gabbard and Elizabeth Warren in forthrightly opposing war with Iran. Leading a huge public outcry may not keep the president from lying us into war with Iran any more than it kept the president from lying us into war with Iraq. But an absence of outcry will just make it easier for this rogue nation to commit a whole new set of war crimes.

Intellectually, the case for normal relations with Iran is easy. There is literally no good reason to maintain hostility, not even the possibility, remote as it is, of an Iranian nuclear weapon (especially now that Trump is helping the Saudis go nuclear). But politically, the case for normal relations with Iran is hard, especially because forty years of propaganda demonizing Iran has deep roots. To make a sane case on Iran takes real courage: one has to speak truth to a nation that believes its lies to itself.

William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences. This article was first published in Reader Supported News . Read other articles by William .

[Jun 29, 2019] John Bolton is that you? on ZH? cooool, maybe pompeo will show up later?

Jun 29, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

LaugherNYC , 2 hours ago link

You gotta love the SCI. This shallowly-disguised Russian propaganda arm writes in the most charming awkward idiomatic English, bouncing from a "false neutral" tone to a jingoistic Amercia-phobic argot to produce its hit pieces.

Russian propaganda acts like Claude Raines in "Casablanca" : "i am shocked, shocked to discover (geopolitics) going on here!" Geeeee, Europe and the US are in a struggle to avoid Europe relying on Russia for strategic necessities like fuel, even if it imposes costs on European consumers. If you have a dangerous disease, and your pharmacist is known for cutting off their customers' vital drugs to extort them, you might consider using another provider who not only doesn't cut off supplies, but also provides the police department that protects you from your pharmacist's thugs who are known to invade customers' homes using the profits from their own business.

The US provides the protective umbrella that limits Putin's adventurism. Russia cuts of Ukraine's gas supplies in winter to force them into submission. Gasprom is effectively an arm of the Russian military, weaponizing Russia's only product as a geopolitical taser. Sure, it costs more to transport LNG across the Atlantic and convert it back to gas, but the profits from that business are routinely funneled back to Europe in the form of US trade, contributions to NATO, and the provision of the nuclear umbrella that protects Europeans from the man who has publicly lamented the fall of the Soviet Union, called for the return of the former SSRs, and violated the IRM treaty to place nuclear capable intermediate-range missiles and cruise missiles within range of Europe and boasted about his new hypersonic weapons' theoretic capability to decapitate NATO and American decision-making within a few minutes of launch.

... ... ...

Anonymous IX , 2 hours ago link

Oh, for pity's sake, Laugher. Everything...absolutely everything you attribute to Russia in your post can be said of the U.S. I'm not much of a Wiki fan, but for expediency, here's their view on military bases.

The establishment of military bases abroad enables a country to project power , e.g. to conduct expeditionary warfare , and thereby influence events abroad. Depending on their size and infrastructure, they can be used as staging areas or for logistical, communications and intelligence support. Many conflicts throughout modern history have resulted in overseas military bases being established in large numbers by world powers and the existence of bases abroad has served countries having them in achieving political and military goals.

And this link will provide you with countries worldwide and their bases.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_overseas_military_bases

Note that Russia, in this particular list, has eight bases all contiguous to Russia. The U.S. has 36 listed here with none of them contiguous to the U.S.' borders.

[Jun 29, 2019] Have You Heard Of The CIA s Iran Mission Center by Vijay Prashad

Notable quotes:
"... To head the Iran Mission Center, the CIA appointed Michael D'Andrea. D'Andrea was central to the post-9/11 interrogation program, and he ran the CIA's Counterterrorism Center. Assassinations and torture were central to his approach. ..."
"... What is germane to his post at the Iran Mission Center is that D'Andrea is close to the Gulf Arabs, a former CIA analyst told me. The Gulf Arabs have been pushing hard for action against Iran, a view shared by D'Andrea and parts of his team. For his hard-nosed attitude toward Iran, D'Andrea is known -- ironically -- as "Ayatollah Mike." ..."
"... D'Andrea and people like Bolton are part of an ecosystem of men who have a visceral hatred for Iran and who are close to the worldview of the Saudi royal family . These are men who are reckless with violence, willing to do anything if it means provoking a war against Iran. Nothing should be put past them. ..."
"... D'Andrea's twin outside the White House is Thomas Kaplan, the billionaire who set up two groups that are blindingly for regime change in Iran. The two groups are United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) and Counter Extremism Project. There is nothing subtle here. These groups -- and Kaplan himself -- promote an agenda of great disparagement of Muslims in general and of Iran in particular. ..."
"... It is fitting that Kaplan's anti-Iran groups bring together the CIA and money. The head of UANI is Mark Wallace, who is the chief executive of Kaplan's Tigris Financial Group, a financial firm with investments -- which it admits -- would benefit from "instability in the Middle East." Working with UANI and the Counter Extremism Project is Norman Roule, a former national intelligence manager for Iran in the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence. ..."
"... These men -- Kaplan and Bolton, D'Andrea and Shihabi -- are eager to use the full force of the U.S. military to further the dangerous goals of the Gulf Arab royals (of both Saudi Arabia and of the UAE). When Pompeo walked before cameras, he carried their water for them. These are men on a mission. They want war against Iran. ..."
Jun 29, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Vijay Prashad via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,

In 2017, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) created a special unit -- the Iran Mission Center -- to focus attention on the U.S. plans against Iran . The initiative for this unit came from CIA director John Brennan, who left his post as the Trump administration came into office. Brennan believed that the CIA needed to focus attention on what the United States sees as problem areas -- North Korea and Iran, for instance. This predated the Trump administration.

Brennan's successor -- Mike Pompeo, who was CIA director for just over a year (until he was appointed U.S. Secretary of State) -- continued this policy. The CIA's Iran-related activity had been conducted in the Iran Operations Division (Persia House). This was a section with Iran specialists who built up knowledge about political and economic developments inside Iran and in the Iranian diaspora.

It bothered the hawks in Washington -- as one official told me -- that Persia House was filled with Iran specialists who had no special focus on regime change in Iran. Some of them, due to their long concentration on Iran, had developed sensitivity to the country.

Trump's people wanted a much more focused and belligerent group that would provide the kind of intelligence that tickled the fancy of his National Security Adviser John Bolton .

To head the Iran Mission Center, the CIA appointed Michael D'Andrea. D'Andrea was central to the post-9/11 interrogation program, and he ran the CIA's Counterterrorism Center. Assassinations and torture were central to his approach.

It was D'Andrea who expanded the CIA's drone strike program, in particular the signature strike. The signature strike is a particularly controversial instrument. The CIA was given the allowance to kill anyone who fit a certain profile -- a man of a certain age, for instance, with a phone that had been used to call someone on a list. The dark arts of the CIA are precisely those of D'Andrea.

What is germane to his post at the Iran Mission Center is that D'Andrea is close to the Gulf Arabs, a former CIA analyst told me. The Gulf Arabs have been pushing hard for action against Iran, a view shared by D'Andrea and parts of his team. For his hard-nosed attitude toward Iran, D'Andrea is known -- ironically -- as "Ayatollah Mike."

D'Andrea and people like Bolton are part of an ecosystem of men who have a visceral hatred for Iran and who are close to the worldview of the Saudi royal family . These are men who are reckless with violence, willing to do anything if it means provoking a war against Iran. Nothing should be put past them.

The initiative for this unit came from CIA director John Brennan, who left his post as the Trump administration came into office. Getty Image.

D'Andrea and the hawks edged out several Iran experts from the Iran Mission Center, people like Margaret Stromecki -- who had been head of analysis. Others who want to offer an alternative to the Pompeo-Bolton view of things either have also moved on or remain silent. There is no space in the Trump administration, a former official told me, for dissent on the Iran policy.

Saudi Arabia's War

D'Andrea's twin outside the White House is Thomas Kaplan, the billionaire who set up two groups that are blindingly for regime change in Iran. The two groups are United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) and Counter Extremism Project. There is nothing subtle here. These groups -- and Kaplan himself -- promote an agenda of great disparagement of Muslims in general and of Iran in particular.

Kaplan blamed Iran for the creation of ISIS, for it was Iran -- Kaplan said -- that "used a terrible Sunni movement" to expand its reach from "Persia to the Mediterranean." Such absurdity followed from a fundamental misreading of Shia concepts such as taqiya, which means prudence and not -- as Kaplan and others argue -- deceit. Kaplan, bizarrely, shares more with ISIS than Iran does with that group -- since both Kaplan and ISIS are driven by their hatred of those who follow the Shia traditions of Islam.

It is fitting that Kaplan's anti-Iran groups bring together the CIA and money. The head of UANI is Mark Wallace, who is the chief executive of Kaplan's Tigris Financial Group, a financial firm with investments -- which it admits -- would benefit from "instability in the Middle East." Working with UANI and the Counter Extremism Project is Norman Roule, a former national intelligence manager for Iran in the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

Roule has offered his support to the efforts of the Arabia Foundation, run by Ali Shihabi -- a man with close links to the Saudi monarchy. The Arabia Foundation was set up to do more effective public relations work for the Saudis than the Saudi diplomats are capable of doing. Shihabi is the son of one of Saudi Arabia's most well-regarded diplomats, Samir al-Shihabi, who played an important role as Saudi Arabia's ambassador to Pakistan during the war that created al-Qaeda.

These men -- Kaplan and Bolton, D'Andrea and Shihabi -- are eager to use the full force of the U.S. military to further the dangerous goals of the Gulf Arab royals (of both Saudi Arabia and of the UAE). When Pompeo walked before cameras, he carried their water for them. These are men on a mission. They want war against Iran.

Evidence, reason. None of this is important to them. They will not stop until the U.S. bombers deposit their deadly payload on Tehran and Qom, Isfahan and Shiraz. They will do anything to make that our terrible reality.

This article was produced by Globetrotter , a project of the Independent Media Institute.

[Jun 29, 2019] EU Busts Iran Sanctions. Dollar No Longer Reserve for Oil Trades caucus99percent

Notable quotes:
"... India pays Iran for oil in gold. Europe would be smart to convert to the Yuan/gold convertible bond as a trading currency to use with Iran, and hold reserves in that. It's redeemable for gold at many settlement banks around the world. It was designed as a trading currency to use outside the SWIFT system. All the groundwork was painstakingly laid just for this purpose. ..."
"... Food for oil. What an insult. Europe wants it both ways. They should grow up and start leading the world instead of hiding behind Uncle Sams petticoat. ..."
"... Iran's main demand in talks aimed at saving its nuclear deal is to be able to sell its oil at the same levels that it did before Washington withdrew from the accord a year ago, an Iranian official said on Thursday. ... ..."
"... Trump is a bull in a china shop. Someone will have to pick up the pieces and it won't be the one percent. YOU and I are expendable. ..."
"... Iran's main demand in talks aimed at saving its nuclear deal is to be able to sell its oil at the same levels that it did before Washington withdrew from the accord a year ago, an Iranian official said on Thursday. ... ..."
"... Senior officials from Iran and the deal's remaining parties will meet in Vienna on Friday with the aim of saving the agreement. But with European powers limited in their ability to shield Iran's economy from U.S. sanctions it is unclear what they can do to provide the large economic windfall Tehran wants. ..."
Jun 28, 2019 | caucus99percent.com

leveymg on Fri, 06/28/2019 - 4:41pm In a surprise move, the EU special purpose vehicle for trade with Iran (INSTEX) exercised its first trade today. The body was set up to facilitate exports of Iranian oil without U.S. dollars, avoiding a sanctions regime imposed unilaterally by the U.S.

Instex is now operational despite U.S. threats to European banks and officials of reprisal sanctions if they violated Iran sanctions.

Bloomberg had reported on May 7 the Treasury Department's undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, Sigal Mandelker, issued a warning letter that Instex and anyone associated with it could be barred from the U.S. financial system if it goes into effect.

In defiance of U.S. pressure, Instex was set up by EU diplomats in January as a means to prevent total collapse of the Iranian nuclear deal, officially called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The first official trades occurred today, in the shadow of the Group of 20 Summit meeting. https://www.thenational.ae/world/europe/eu-claims-iran-deal-held-togethe...

A senior EU diplomat has said the first transactions were being made by a special purpose vehicle for trade with Iran at a meeting of the remaining members of the 2015 nuclear deal in Vienna.

Friday's meeting in Vienna featured "constructive discussions," Helga Schmid, the head of the EU diplomatic service said, confirming the entity, named Instex, was making its first transactions.

"INSTEX now operational, first transactions being processed and more EU Members States to join. Good progress on Arak and Fordow [fuel enrichment] projects," she posted.

The Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges (Instex) is designed to facilitate trade of essential goods, such as food and medicine, mainly from the EU to Iran. A Chinese official said Beijing was open to using the facility.

The platform has been set up in France, with a German managing director in a coordinated European effort to counterbalance the US economic power displayed by its sanctions policy.

President Donald Trump last year pulled out of the Iranian nuclear deal, officially called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which curbed Iran's nuclear activities in return for the lifting of sanctions.

According to today's report:

As the talks kicked off on Friday, seven EU nations expressed support for Instex and the JCPOA, asking Iran "to abide by and fully respect the terms and provisions of the nuclear agreement".

"We are working with France, Germany and the United Kingdom, as well as with the European External Action Service and the European Commission, to establish channels to facilitate legitimate trade and financial operations with Iran, one of the foremost of these initiatives being the establishment of Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges," read the statement from Austria, Belgium, Finland, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.

Whether the declaration of support and first tranche of transactions will be enough to keep Iran committed to the 2015 nuclear deal is still in question.

leveymg on Fri, 06/28/2019 - 6:07pm
Here's more on how INSTEX works free from Dollar exchange

@Linda Wood

While major US media have so far ignored the story (anyone here surprised?), Deutsch Weldt (DW) confirms the report that INSTEX started operations today. https://www.dw.com/en/eu-mechanism-for-trade-with-iran-now-operational/a...

A linked background article explains how the special exchange will bypass U.S. sanctions and the U.S. currency controls over oil exports to Europe: https://www.dw.com/en/opinion-eu-taking-a-stand-through-legal-trading-wi...

Crucial for INSTEX's success will be whether participating states also develop mechanisms for European companies and their employees that protect them from the expected American sanctions and compensate for any damages incurred. The legislative instrument for this exists: The EU's blocking statute. It just needs to be updated to meet the new requirements.

Read more: US welcomes German firms' compliance on Iran sanctions

International transactions independent of the dollar

The knowledge and experience gained in the process could later be transferred to other areas, such as European initiatives in international monetary transactions. This expertise could then come in handy for establishing payment channels independent of the American financial system and the dollar, which the US also uses as a lever in its sanctions policy.

Two pieces of good news in two days, Tulsi Gabbard winning acknowledgement and respect in the debate, and this encouraging sign from Europe. A person could almost get used to thinking common sense is gaining ground. Thank you, leveymg, for posting this.

wendy davis on Fri, 06/28/2019 - 6:36pm
thanks for bringing

this news. earlier today (yesterday?) i'd grabbed this link at RT.com that includes this baffling part toward the end, with zero citation, i'll add:

"However, the EU's efforts to set up the long-promised payment channel have not satisfied Tehran. Earlier this week, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Seyed Abbas Moussavi called INSTEX a " faux thing of no practical use ," according to Iranian media.

He later said that if this turns out to be the case, the Islamic Republic will not accept it and may change its commitments under the nuclear deal that Brussels is trying to hold on to."

i do remember tehran had complained earlier (as the EU dithered) that it wasn't operational, and when it was so, it would mainly be for medicines and...food (?)

leveymg on Fri, 06/28/2019 - 9:50pm
If this is another Oil for Food thing, it's a nonstarter.

@wendy davis

Right now, it's unclear which way this is going to go. If Europe bows to American power, again, it will turn out very badly for everyone. Iraq times ten.

this news. earlier today (yesterday?) i'd grabbed this link at RT.com that includes this baffling part toward the end, with zero citation, i'll add:

"However, the EU's efforts to set up the long-promised payment channel have not satisfied Tehran. Earlier this week, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Seyed Abbas Moussavi called INSTEX a " faux thing of no practical use ," according to Iranian media.

He later said that if this turns out to be the case, the Islamic Republic will not accept it and may change its commitments under the nuclear deal that Brussels is trying to hold on to."

i do remember tehran had complained earlier (as the EU dithered) that it wasn't operational, and when it was so, it would mainly be for medicines and...food (?)

Pluto's Republic on Sat, 06/29/2019 - 2:25am
India has been trading with Iran

@wendy davis

...just fine. India pays Iran for oil in gold. Europe would be smart to convert to the Yuan/gold convertible bond as a trading currency to use with Iran, and hold reserves in that. It's redeemable for gold at many settlement banks around the world. It was designed as a trading currency to use outside the SWIFT system. All the groundwork was painstakingly laid just for this purpose.

Food for oil. What an insult. Europe wants it both ways. They should grow up and start leading the world instead of hiding behind Uncle Sams petticoat.

[edited to correct]

this news. earlier today (yesterday?) i'd grabbed this link at RT.com that includes this baffling part toward the end, with zero citation, i'll add:

"However, the EU's efforts to set up the long-promised payment channel have not satisfied Tehran. Earlier this week, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Seyed Abbas Moussavi called INSTEX a " faux thing of no practical use ," according to Iranian media.

He later said that if this turns out to be the case, the Islamic Republic will not accept it and may change its commitments under the nuclear deal that Brussels is trying to hold on to."

i do remember tehran had complained earlier (as the EU dithered) that it wasn't operational, and when it was so, it would mainly be for medicines and...food (?)

joe shikspack on Fri, 06/28/2019 - 9:20pm
this is excellent news ...

i'll throw in this bit that i read today which i think might make this a breakthrough:

'We only want to sell our oil,' Iran official says before nuclear talks

Iran's main demand in talks aimed at saving its nuclear deal is to be able to sell its oil at the same levels that it did before Washington withdrew from the accord a year ago, an Iranian official said on Thursday. ...

Senior officials from Iran and the deal's remaining parties will meet in Vienna on Friday with the aim of saving the agreement. But with European powers limited in their ability to shield Iran's economy from U.S. sanctions it is unclear what they can do to provide the large economic windfall Tehran wants.

"What is our demand? Our demand is to be able to sell our oil and get the money back. And this is in fact the minimum of our benefit from the deal," the official told reporters on condition of anonymity. "We are not asking Europeans to invest in Iran... We only want to sell our oil."

The Voice In th... on Fri, 06/28/2019 - 10:15pm
Be careful what you wish for.

@joe shikspack
Doing all oil business in dollars is the only thing holding up the dollar.

Trump is a bull in a china shop. Someone will have to pick up the pieces and it won't be the one percent. YOU and I are expendable.

i'll throw in this bit that i read today which i think might make this a breakthrough:

'We only want to sell our oil,' Iran official says before nuclear talks

Iran's main demand in talks aimed at saving its nuclear deal is to be able to sell its oil at the same levels that it did before Washington withdrew from the accord a year ago, an Iranian official said on Thursday. ...

Senior officials from Iran and the deal's remaining parties will meet in Vienna on Friday with the aim of saving the agreement. But with European powers limited in their ability to shield Iran's economy from U.S. sanctions it is unclear what they can do to provide the large economic windfall Tehran wants.

"What is our demand? Our demand is to be able to sell our oil and get the money back. And this is in fact the minimum of our benefit from the deal," the official told reporters on condition of anonymity. "We are not asking Europeans to invest in Iran... We only want to sell our oil."

[Jun 28, 2019] Bolton Gets Ready to Kill New START by Daniel Larison

Jun 27, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com
If Bolton gets his way, New START is not long for this world :

At the same time, the administration has signaled in recent days that it plans to let the New Start treaty, negotiated by Barack Obama, expire in February 2021 rather than renew it for another five years. John R. Bolton, the president's national security adviser, who met with his Russian counterpart, Nikolai Patrushev, in Jerusalem this week, said before leaving Washington that "there's no decision, but I think it's unlikely" the treaty would be renewed.

Mr. Bolton, a longtime skeptic of arms control agreements, said that New Start was flawed because it did not cover short-range tactical nuclear weapons or new Russian delivery systems. "So to extend for five years and not take these new delivery system threats into account would be malpractice," he told The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative outlet.

Like all of his complaints about arms control agreements, Bolton's criticisms of New START are made in bad faith. Opponents of New START have long pretended that they oppose the treaty because it did not cover everything imaginable, including tactical nuclear weapons, but this has always been an excuse for them to reject a treaty that they have never wanted ratified in the first place. If the concern about negotiating a treaty that covered tactical nuclear weapons were genuine, the smart thing to do would be to extend New START and then begin negotiations for a more comprehensive arms control agreement. Faulting New START for failing to include things that are by definition not going to be included in a strategic arms reduction treaty gives the game away. This is what die-hard opponents of the treaty have been doing for almost ten years, and they do it because they want to dismantle the last vestiges of arms control. The proposal to include China as part of a new treaty is another tell that the Trump administration just wants the treaty to die.

The article concludes:

Some experts suspect talk of a three-way accord is merely a feint to get rid of the New Start treaty. "If a trilateral deal is meant as a substitute or prerequisite for extending New Start, it is a poison pill, no ifs, ands or buts," said Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. "If the president is seeking a trilateral deal as a follow-on to New Start, that's a different thing."

Knowing Bolton, it has to be a poison pill. Just as Bolton is ideologically opposed to making any deal with Iran, he is ideologically opposed to any arms control agreement that places limits on the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The "flaws" he identifies aren't really flaws that he wants to fix (and they may not be flaws at all), but excuses for trashing the agreement. He will make noises about how the current deal or treaty doesn't go far enough, but the truth is that he doesn't want any agreements to exist. In Bolton's worldview, nonproliferation and arms control agreements either give the other government too much or hamper the U.S. too much, and so he wants to destroy them all. He has had a lot of success at killing agreements and treaties that have been in the U.S. interest. Bolton has had a hand in blowing up the Agreed Framework with North Korea, abandoning the ABM Treaty, killing the INF Treaty, and reneging on the JCPOA. Unless the president can be persuaded to ignore or fire Bolton, New START will be his next victim.

If New START dies, it will be a loss for both the U.S. and Russia, it will make the world less secure, and it will make U.S.-Russian relations even worse. The stability that these treaties have provided has been important for U.S. security for almost fifty years. New START is the last of the treaties that constrain the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals, and when it is gone there will be nothing to replace it for a long time. The collapse of arms control almost certainly means that the top two nuclear weapons states will expand their arsenals and put us back on the path of an insane and unwinnable arms race. Killing New START is irrational and purely destructive, and it needs to be opposed.

Taras77 • a day ago

bolton is opposed to any treaty, to any agreement, whereby the other side can expect to obtain equally favorable terms-he wants the other side on their knees permanently without any expectation of compromise by the empire.
Sid Finster • a day ago
I wonder how long it will take for Trump to finally figure out that Bolton and Pompeo regard him as expendable.

Whether Trump wins or loses in 2020 will not matter, as long as the neocons get what they want.

Tony • 9 hours ago
John Bolton will not be satisfied until he has got us all killed.
He is an extremely dangerous man.

[Jun 28, 2019] Tulsi Gabbard vs Bolton

Highly recommended!
Jun 28, 2019 | www.unz.com

Chris Mallory , says: June 28, 2019 at 2:04 am GMT

Miss Gabbard just served two tours in the ME, one as enlisted in the HI National Guard.

Brave Mr. Bolton kept the dirty communists from endangering the US supply of Chesapeake crab while serving in the Maryland Guard. Rumor also has it that he helped Tompall Glaser write the song Streets of Baltimore. Some say they saw Mr. Bolton single handily defending Memorial Stadium from a combined VC/NVA attack during an Orioles game. The Cubans would have conquered the Pimlico Race Course if not for the combat skill of PFC Bolton.

[Jun 27, 2019] 'The Ugly Americans' From Kermit Roosevelt to John Bolton Iran Al Jazeera

Highly recommended!
Jun 27, 2019 | www.aljazeera.com

Sixty-six years later, I am witnessing how another "Ugly American" is walking in the footsteps of Roosevelt. His name is John Bolton, a chief advocate of the disastrous US invasion of Iraq, a nefarious Islamophobe, and former chairman of the far-right anti-Muslim Gatestone Institute. This infamous institution is known for spreading lies about Muslims - claiming there is a looming "jihadist takeover" that can lead to a "Great White Death" - to incite hatred against them and intimidate, silence, and alienate them.

In his diabolical plans to wage war on Iran, Bolton is taking a page from Roosevelt's playbook. Just as the CIA operative used venal Iranian politicians and fake news to incite against the democratically elected Iranian government, today his successor, the US national security adviser, is seeking to spread misinformation on a massive scale and set up a false flag operation with the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), a militant terrorist organisation. Meanwhile, he has also pressed forward with debilitating sanctions that are further worsening the economic crisis in the country and making the lives of ordinary Iranians unbearable.

... ... ...

Bolton is the dreadful residue of the pure violence and wanton cruelty that drive Zionist Christian zealots in their crusades against Muslims. He is the embodiment of the basest and most racist roots of American imperialism.

The regime he serves is the most naked and vulgar face of brutish power, lacking any semblance of legitimacy - a bullying coward flexing its military muscles. At its helm is an arrogant mercantile president, who - faced with the possibility of an impeachment - has no qualms about using the war machine at his disposal to regain political relevance and line his pockets.

But the world must know Americans are not all ugly, they are not all rabid imperialists - Boltons and Roosevelts. What about those countless noble Americans - the sons and daughters of the original nations that graced this land, of the African slaves who were brought to this land in chains, of the millions after millions of immigrants who came to these shores in desperation or hope from the four corners of the earth? Do they not have a claim on this land too - to redefine it and bring it back to the bosom of humanity?

[Jun 27, 2019] For a man who did whatever he could to avoid fighting in a war, Bolton certainly seems to love the concept.

Jun 27, 2019 | viableopposition.blogspot.com

Sally Snyder , June 27, 2019 at 08:18

Here is an interesting look at John Bolton's Three State Solution for the Middle East:

http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2019/02/john-boltons-three-state-middle-east.html

For a man who did whatever he could to avoid fighting in a war, he certainly seems to love the concept.

[Jun 27, 2019] What Will It Take to Get Bolton Fired by Daniel Larison

Notable quotes:
"... Just as Obama turned out to be a slightly more articulate version of Dubya, Trump has turned out to be a meaner, more dysfunctional, more reckless version of Dubya. ..."
"... Bolton is a neo-con, neo-cons are Trotskyites. They believe in an eternal revolution. Bolton believes in eternal war. ..."
"... Sid, the natural conclusion is that the 'deep state' is real, and for the most part runs the country. Whoever is President is less important than the goals of the American elite, most importantly the 'War Party' (the MIC and the IC) and Wall Street, but including Health Care. A side party of equal importance is the Israel Lobby. What happens in America is pretty much what the leaders of those groups want. ..."
"... Trump is too weak to push back on Bolton. He likes bluster. If starting a war will make Trump look macho, he very well might start one. Bolton wants war, Trump may let us stumble into one. ..."
"... "What will it take to get Bolton fired?" One phone call from Israel. Then again, one phone call from Israel would also stop Trump from firing him, and there's no reason to suspect that Bibi is anything other than ecstatic over Bolton's performance. ..."
"... Find out who "told" Donald Trump he HAD to hire Bolton (and Pompeo and others as well) and you'll probably learn the identity of the real puppet master pulling the strings in the "Deep State." It's simply impossible to believe Trump – who ran for president on a platform of "non-interventionism" – appointed this guy on his own volition. ..."
"... The headline asks, "What Will It Take to Get Bolton Fired?" This is a great question. If he CAN'T be fired, this tells us who is really running our country. Another question along the same lines: What will it take to get America to cease its support of Saudi Arabia? ..."
"... The petodollar makes these wars possible; it also defends or preserves the Status Quo, which makes so many of our elite ultra wealthy and powerful. Our carte blanche support of Saudi Arabia is telling us something important just like Trump's appointment of Bolton told us something important. ..."
May 07, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com
For someone "not playing along," Trump has obediently given Bolton and the Iran hawks practically everything they have wanted so far. He has gone much further in laying the groundwork for war with Iran than any of his predecessors, and the only reason that many people seem confident that he won't order an attack is their mistaken belief that he is a non-interventionist when all of the evidence tells us that he is no such thing. Trump presumably doesn't want to start a multi-year, extremely expensive war that could also throw the economy into a recession, but then every president that launches an illegal war of choice assumes that the war would be much easier and take less time than it does. No one ever knowingly opts for a bloody debacle. The absurdly optimistic hawkish expectations of a quick and easy triumph are always dashed on the rocks of reality, but for some reason political leaders believe these expectations every time because "this time it's different." There will come a point where Bolton will tell Trump that attacking Iran (or Venezuela) is the only way to "win," and Trump will probably listen to him just as he has listened to him on all of these issues up until now.

There is no question that Bolton should lose his job. Even if you aren't an opponent of Trump, you should be unhappy with the way Bolton has been operating for the last year. He has made a point of sabotaging administration policies he doesn't like, resisting decisions he doesn't agree with, and effectively reversing policy changes while pretending to be carrying out the president's wishes. His mismanagement of the policy process is a bad joke, and the reason he runs the National Security Council this way is so that he can stop views and information that don't suit his agenda from reaching the president. But Trump pays little or no attention to any of this, and as long as Bolton remains loyal in public and a yes-man in person he is likely safe in his job. If Bolton gets his wish and the U.S. starts a war with Iran, he may not be in that job for much longer, but the damage will have already been done. Instead of counting on Trump to toss Bolton overboard, Congress and the public need to make absolutely clear that war with Iran and Venezuela is unacceptable and Trump will be destroying his presidency if he goes down that path in either country.

Sid Finster says: May 7, 2019 at 10:53 am

Obama entered office in 2008 promising to close Guantanamo and end the stupid wars.

Not only did Obama fail to end a single war, he gave us new and stupider wars in Syria, Yemen and Ukraine, to name but three. Guantanamo is still open.

Just as Obama turned out to be a slightly more articulate version of Dubya, Trump has turned out to be a meaner, more dysfunctional, more reckless version of Dubya.

Kouros says: May 7, 2019 at 11:26 am

The banality of Evil, eh?!

No One Listens says: May 7, 2019 at 1:37 pm

" some reason political leaders believe these expectations every time because "this time it's different."

Like communists, political leaders think 'this time we'll get it right. Bolton is a neo-con, neo-cons are Trotskyites. They believe in an eternal revolution. Bolton believes in eternal war.

EarlyBird says: May 7, 2019 at 1:52 pm

As much of a disaster for American institutions Trump has been, I believe he does not want to go to war. The times are a'changin'. Average Americans have figured out that these wars are self-defeating nonsense. Trump knows that, and doesn't want to alienate the middle American types who support him and would go to war.

But he does want to sound and look tough, hence Bolton. The problem is that while Trump may believe he's just blustering, reneging on the nuclear deal, cranking back brutal sanctions and sending US flotillas to the Strait of Hormuz looks and feels like war to the Iranians.

We could stumble into a very big and ugly war like America stumbled into the ugly era of Trump. And Trump is the absolute last person I would want to serve as a commander in chief during war time.

SteveK9 says: May 7, 2019 at 1:57 pm

Sid, the natural conclusion is that the 'deep state' is real, and for the most part runs the country. Whoever is President is less important than the goals of the American elite, most importantly the 'War Party' (the MIC and the IC) and Wall Street, but including Health Care. A side party of equal importance is the Israel Lobby. What happens in America is pretty much what the leaders of those groups want.

Zgler says: May 7, 2019 at 2:52 pm

Trump is too weak to push back on Bolton. He likes bluster. If starting a war will make Trump look macho, he very well might start one. Bolton wants war, Trump may let us stumble into one.

Sid Finster says: May 7, 2019 at 3:59 pm

Of course the "Deep State", the "permanent government" the "Borg" or whatever you want to call it is real.

Every winning candidate since arguably Bush 1.0 ("kinder gentler nation") ran for office as a non-interventionist. Even Dubya promised a humbler foreign policy in 2000.

Once inaugurated, each candidate morphed into a foaming-at-the-mouth hawk.

I don't pretend to know how the process works, or even if it is the same for every president, but the results speak for themselves. I suspect without evidence that it is something like what we saw in "Yes, Minister".

Whine Merchant says: May 7, 2019 at 5:18 pm

The neo-cons are busy studying the Israeli playbook of declaring themselves surrounded and launching a preemptive strike. Pompeo's view is that the occupation of Iraq is/was so difficult because the US isn't as ruthlessly efficient as the IDF in the West Bank and allowed Iraq some self-governance.He won't allow that in the conquered Iran.

Step 1: send a doctored telegram to Kaiser Trump and leak it to the press.
Step 2: Get the GOP Senate to pass the "Gulf of Hormuz" declaration.
Step 3: sink a ship, perhaps one called USS Maine or USS Liberty.

Good night

Oleg Gark says: May 7, 2019 at 6:32 pm

Trump would fire Bolton in a heartbeat, but Adelson won't let him.

Oscar Peterson says: May 7, 2019 at 7:43 pm

"What Will It Take to Get Bolton Fired?"

The first question is "What did it take to get Bolton hired?"

The answer to the author's question is that making Trump look bad (in a way that Trump recognizes) is what will get Bolton fired. But like Dick Cheney, Bolton has a very good sense of what a Richelieu needs to do to seem loyal and obedient to an idiot king. Rummy appended Bible verses to schemes that he wanted Bush to approve. Bolton does something similar, no doubt.

Westerbrook says: May 7, 2019 at 8:50 pm

"What will it take to get Bolton fired?" One phone call from Israel. Then again, one phone call from Israel would also stop Trump from firing him, and there's no reason to suspect that Bibi is anything other than ecstatic over Bolton's performance.

The mammoth "donations" from Adelson et al to Trump and the corrupt Republicans have paid off royally for Israel. With Trump and Bolton in the White House, Israel barely even needs a foreign ministry, a treasury, or a military anymore. Uncle Sam does it all for free.

Uncle Billy says: May 7, 2019 at 9:44 pm

Bolton needs a rabies shot. The man is a rabid neocon.

Deacon Blue says: May 8, 2019 at 9:40 am

Find out who "told" Donald Trump he HAD to hire Bolton (and Pompeo and others as well) and you'll probably learn the identity of the real puppet master pulling the strings in the "Deep State." It's simply impossible to believe Trump – who ran for president on a platform of "non-interventionism" – appointed this guy on his own volition.

Also, if it was so important to appoint Bolton, why would this be the case?

I think it's because – in the minds of those pulling the strings – it's crucial to them that America does the things Bolton wants to do.

That is, Bolton wasn't named National Security Advisor to do nothing.

Lessons?

1) Trump's not calling the important shots here.

2) Better buckle up your chinstrap.

Deacon Blue says: May 8, 2019 at 10:08 am

The headline asks, "What Will It Take to Get Bolton Fired?" This is a great question. If he CAN'T be fired, this tells us who is really running our country. Another question along the same lines: What will it take to get America to cease its support of Saudi Arabia?

We know the answer to this one. NOTHING. Consider that

  • We will support a nation whose leader orders the gruesome murder of a journalist.
  • We will support a nation that is committing war crimes and attrocities against a poor nation like Yemen, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent children.
  • We will support a nation that beheads 37 citizens in one day – some whose alleged crimes occurred when the victims were teenagers, or whose alleged offenses include practicing homosexuality or simply criticizing the government.

The answer (Saudi Arabia can do whatever it wants with no risk of incurring the wrath of America) begs the question: Why is "letting Saudi Arabia do whatever it wants" so important to America?

This answer, I believe, has everything to do with the vital role the petrodollar plays in maintaining the Status Quo.

If the Deep State is calling the shots, what is most important to the Deep State?

Answer: Protecting the U.S. dollar (fiat) printing press. Absent this printing press and the dollar's status as the world's reserve currency, none of our current wars and future wars would even be possible.

And the fact we are willing to wage these wars sends a vital message to the nations of the world: We WILL use our military against anyone who threatens the Status Quo.

The petodollar makes these wars possible; it also defends or preserves the Status Quo, which makes so many of our elite ultra wealthy and powerful. Our carte blanche support of Saudi Arabia is telling us something important just like Trump's appointment of Bolton told us something important.

TheSnark says: May 8, 2019 at 12:04 pm

The only way people like Bolton get fired is the same way Bannon got dumped. It is when Trump sees on Fox News that they are getting more press coverage than him.

Tony says: May 9, 2019 at 8:13 am

The post of national security advisor needs to be subject to Senate confirmation.

Henry Kissinger in the Nixon administration and Zbigniew Brzezinski in the Carter administration were both more powerful/influential than the respective secretaries of state, William Rogers and Cyrus Vance.

The Senate needs to assert itself and ensure that national security advisors are appointed in the same way as secretaries of state. This would help to a certain extent.

[Jun 27, 2019] US sanctions against Iran amount to an act of war

Jun 27, 2019 | www.wsws.org

Scott Randall • 21 hours ago • edited

"...as Stratfor, put it, "Trump, fearing a much bigger escalation, got cold feet."

One is reminded of the scene from Oliver Stone's JFK (1991), a General in the Joint Chiefs comments disparagingly about Kennedy for keeping his finger "on the chicken switch" with regard to the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962.

Lyndon Johnson in the White House with Henry Cabot Lodge in 1963 declares: "Gentlemen, I want you to know I'm not going to let Vietnam go the way China did. I'm personally committed. I'm not going to take one soldier out of there 'til they know we mean business in Asia (he pauses) You just get me elected, and I'll give you your damned war ."

animalogic • a day ago
Another question exists: should the US resist the allure of military action against Iran, what can Iran do?
US sanctions against Iran amount to an act of war. Iran can bust sanctions up to some point -- but for how long? Will Iran suffer half a million dead children & elderly people as Iraq did in the 90's ? SHOULD Iran have to suffer such a criminally imposed loss of life?
Where is the way out of this insanity?
Iran won't negotiate with the US for the very good reason that the US clearly wants to sterilize Iranian sovereignty (ie the US won't accept ANY Iranian missiles -- that is, Iran has no right to self defense).
Sad to say, Trump does not need to launch military action against Iran, merely continue to economically terrorise Iran until it has NO choice but to initiate military action against its tormentors.
Ahson • 3 days ago
Trump being a demented fool that he is now says this:

https://www.presstv.com/Det...

This shows the deep divisions within the imperialist elites on what to do about Iran. They don't have a real plan. Just making it up as they go along.

Ahson • 3 days ago
The war on Iran will continue till kingdom come, until it falls. Its clear as day that both Russia and China back their Iranian allies against US provocations. China hasn't flinched under US threats to embargo Iranian crude, and continues to purchase it, and Russia has an oil swap agreement with Iran, where it buys Iranian oil and sells it as Russian on the international market. This must be a severe irritation to the imperialists in Washington and London as it renders their Iran sanctions regime practically toothless.

https://www.tasnimnews.com/...

Nobody should be surprised when the next US provocation unfolds, yet again taking us to the brink of disaster.

Ahson • 3 days ago • edited
Iranian fishermen are finding parts of the CIA drone exposing the lie that the drone was in 'international airspace':

https://www.presstv.com/Det...

Ahson • 3 days ago • edited
The imperialists are not backing down in their quest for subduing Iran. Seems like the idea here is to put as many large ships in harms way as possible....and provoke Iran to attack one of these......This will ensure the probability of miscalculation and/ or accidents becomes almost unavoidable. There must be regime change in Tehran, on the road to Beijing and Moscow:

https://sputniknews.com/mil...

John Upton • 3 days ago
Iran has every right to defend itself from US imperialisms constant violence, as is the case with China and Russia. It is also pleasing to see the almighty war machine get a bloody nose.

But we should never lose sight of the fact that it is always the working class that suffers the most in terms of death, injuries and destitution.
End all wars!
End production for profit and the Nation state upon which it is built!

John Upton • 3 days ago
America's history demonstrates that loss of (foreign) life is of little concern to those in power.
The Manhattan Project was established, and mightily financed because of reasonably well established fears that Nazi Germany was on track to build its own A-bombs.
With the defeat of Germany that fear was gone. Nevertheless, knowing full well that Imperial Japan had no such program, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were vapourised. A clear demonstration that they, atomic weapons, WMD, worked and a warning to the Soviet Union that it too could be annihilated.
Robert Oppenheimer and others refused to take part in building an H-bomb for class and humane reasons. This fell on Truman's deaf ears.
American Imperialism is indifferent to death and destruction of billions.
As WSWS has stated, Trumps announcement that the loss of 150 Iranian lives is the the reason he pulled backs so much bilge.
FireintheHead • 3 days ago • edited
Trump is in a catch 22. When push has come to shove , he simply cannot sell another war to the US working class, and he knows it , and he's been well and truly spooked by the Iranian response.

All the US garbage of itself as ''victim'', all the 'good cop bad cop' routines are wearing thin. Nobody is buying it anymore , especially from a gangster.

Perhaps a predicted massive spike in global temperatures will clear out the collective cobwebs further.

Gracchus • 3 days ago
Good point about the possibility of Iran sinking a carrier. The Chinese have developed advanced anti-ship weapons that, if the results of a RAND corporation war game can be believed, will be able to neutralize carriers. This highlights the fact that, whatever the salesmen of advanced weaponry might say, it will not win wars alone. All of the smart weapons in the world have not ended the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan in the favour of American imperialism.

We can see an historical precedent in the British development of the dreadnought, the modern battleship, in the arms race that preceded WWI. Dreadnoughts were supposed to be the decisive super weapons of the day, but the British and German battle fleets remained in their moorings for most of the war for fear that these expensive ships would fall prey to torpedos. The sinking of the HMS Formidable in 1915 is a case in point. The only major engagement between dreadnoughts was at Jutland and it was inconclusive.

For all of the contemporary bluster about super weapons and the fetishism of smart bombs and cyber weapons, they will not decisively win a war alone. As in the world wars of the last century, the bourgeoisie will be forced to mobilize society for a war. This will mean bringing the working class - against its will - into the maelstrom.

Gracchus • 3 days ago • edited
Yet again the WSWS demonstrates the incredible foresight and clarity of Marxist analysis. I would like to extend my thanks to Comrade Andre and the editors of the WSWS for their indefatigable efforts to impart Marxist consciousness to the masses. For all of the naysayers who have attacked the WSWS as "sectarian" or as not involved in "practical work," need we point to anything other than the WSWSs explanation of the connection between eruption of American imperialism and the decline of the productive forces of that nation state? That analysis has placed the WSWS in the position of being better prepared politically for the consequences of war than the imperialists, as the latest farce in the Middle East demonstrates.

A quote from Trotsky will further emphasize my point:

"We will not concede this banner to the masters of falsehood! If our generation happens to be too weak to establish Socialism over the earth, we will hand the spotless banner down to our children. The struggle which is in the offing transcends by far the importance of individuals, factions and parties. It is the struggle for the future of all mankind."

The spotless banner is in good hands.

Robert Seaborne Gracchus • 3 days ago
thank you Gracchus,
for your inspiring comment, I couldn't agree more with it.
dmorista • 3 days ago • edited
The official story, as usual, is a bunch of hooey. Trump wouldn't bat an eye over the death of 150 Iranians. In addition to the worries about losing an aircraft carrier: the military high command probably let him know that the much vaunted, and outlandishly expensive, force of F-35s, will quickly lose its effectiveness if exposed to probing by the high tech radars the Russians have developed, and that are used in conjunction with at least the S-400 antiaircraft and antimissile defense system. So the question is, if the stealth advantage of the F-35 is only good for a limited time, is this particular geostrategic confrontation worth using up that particular asset??

Then there is the whole question of whether the Iranians would close the Straits of Hormuz in response to a major air raid on their nuclear facilities; this leads to some much more important issues. Despite the blathering about "international waters" and "freedom of navigation" the facts are that the Straits of Hormuz are only 21 miles wide. So all the water in them is either in Iranian territory to the north or Omani to the south. They would be entirely within their rights, as elucidated in the International Law of the Sea, to close the straits after some sort of military strike against them (for what that is worth, which is something at least as far as public opinion outside of the U.S. is concerned). The Iranians have stated that if and when they close the straits they will announce it publicly, no subterfuge or secret operations will be involved.

Since nearly 30% of the World's oil moves through those straits cutting them off will cause an immediate spike in oil prices. Prices of $100 - $300 a barrel would be reached within a few days. If the Straits of Hormuz were closed for a longer period we could easily see prices rise to $1,000 a barrel according to Goldman Sachs projections (see Escobar article cited below). Anything over $150 a barrel would trigger an economic, industrial, and financial crisis of immense proportions around the world. The financial and speculative house of cards, that the ruling classes of the U.S.-led Finance Capital Bloc depends on for their dominance of world capital and markets, would likely come tumbling down. The amount of derivatives that are swirling about the planet and that are traded and created constantly is estimated to be from $1.2 - $2.5 Quadrillion. That's right from $1,200 - $2,500 Trillion or $1,200,000 - $2,500,000 Billion {remember Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, who once said "a billion here and a billion there and first thing you know, You're talking BIG MONEY!!} (See "World Derivatives Market Estimated As Big As $1.2 Quadrillion Notional, as Banks Fight Efforts to Rein It In", March 26, 2013, Yves Smith, "Naked Capitalism", at < https://www.nakedcapitalism... >, and "Iran Goes for 'Maximum Counter-pressure' ", June 21, 2019, Pepe Escobar, "Strategic Culture Foundation", at < https://www.strategic-cultu... >, and "Global Derivatives: $1.5 Quadrillion Time Bomb", Aug 24, 2015, Stephen Lendman, Global Research, at
< https://www.globalresearch.... >). Just like during the 2007 - 2008 crisis the various elements of shadow banking, and speculation would collapse. Remember that total world production of and trade in actual products is only about about $70 - $80 Trillion, or perhaps less than 1/31st the size of the Global Derivatives markets.

All the world's elite capitalists, be they Western or Asian or from elsewhere, maintain homes in numerous places. One reason for this is so they have somewhere to go, if they need to flee from environmental and/or socioeconomic disaster and the resultant chaos in their primary place of residence. As we move ever deeper into this extremely severe and ongoing Crisis of Capitalism, these issues will continue to become more acute.

So we can rest assured that; in addition to the crazed war-mongers Bolton and Pompeo (and their supporters and backers) whispering in Trump's ear to "go ahead and attack the Iranians"; and in addition to the somewhat more sober counsel of General Dunford and other members of the top military command; that titans of finance capital were undoubtedly on the phone warning "Bone-Spur Don" that his digs in Manhattan and Florida might not be entirely safe if the worst were to happen in response to a military strike. The absurd story of Don worrying about 150 Iranians is so ludicrous that it did not even pass the smell test with the corporate controlled media for very long.

Irandle dmorista • 2 days ago
Oil reached $147 a barrel in 2007-08. That caused the so-called Great Recession.

As WSWS has pointed out there are few if any US options left but war.

Charlotte Ruse • 3 days ago
"Thirty years of endless war have created a veritable cult of militarism within the American ruling elite, whose guiding assumption seems to be that wars can be waged without drastic global consequences, including for the United States itself."

The military/security surveillance state is a trillion dollar enterprise that instigates conflicts to expand its profits. Militarism works hand-in-hand with the neoliberal corporatists who deploy the military to secure natural resources, wage slaves, and geostrategic hegemony. It should be noted, that the US imperialist agenda left unhindered after the dissolution of the Soviet Union only intensified.

However, in order for the US ruling class to achieve the "ultimate goal" of unilateral hegemony in the Middle East the military must confront Iran a powerful sizable country with economic and political ties to China and Russia. This is the dilemma confronting the warmongering psychopaths
who are influenced by Israel and Saudi Arabia.

A significant military attack against Iran will NOT go unanswered and if the Iranian Military destroys a US warship and kills hundreds of sailors it would unleash another major war in the Middle East igniting the entire region and possibly leading to a world war.

What should traumatize the US population and awaken them from their hypnotic warmongering stupur created by propaganda proliferated on FOX, MSNBC, and CNN is that the United States came within minutes of launching a war whose military consequences it had NOT seriously examined.

John Hudson • 3 days ago
There's a rumour going around that in preparation for the strike the US launched a massive cyber attack on Iran's air defence - and failed.
Ahson John Hudson • 3 days ago
Its no rumor:

https://sputniknews.com/mid...

Sebouh80 • 3 days ago
In light of these dangerous events it is obvious that a faction of the American ruling class circles including Trump were not prepared to face the consequences of a strike against Iran. That is precisely why Trump aborted the mission last Friday. Just yesterday Trump himself admitted for the first time that if it was up to John Bolton then we would be fighting the whole world. Today Pompeo has been sent to Middle East to broaden his alliance with Gulf Monarchical regimes most notably Saudi Arabia and UAE. It is aimed to prepare the ground for possible confrontation with Iran.
kurumba Sebouh80 • 2 days ago
Trump's comment re Bolton that the US "would fight the whole world" sums up what the US is really about. Take it from me, The US hates virtually every country save one: Israel. Illegal US Sanctions regimes now extend to almost 50% of the world's population. The US does not even like the advanced countries such as Europe and Japan. They tolerate them because of diplomatic support and large investment and trade ties. Outside that they have no affinity or connection. Until we all realise the true nature of The US and its exclusive cultural mindset [NFL, NBA, MLB etc etc], populations will merely continue to enable the US to attack and sanction everybody and anyone of their demented choosing. The tragedy is that if the other countries became united and were committed to ending this US terror by eg dumping the US Dollar as international reserve currency and sanctioning all US corporations, the US would face severe turmoil and its reign of endless terror brought to a sudden end.
Popart 2015 • 3 days ago • edited
"The strikes were called off at the last moment, amid deep divisions at the highest levels of the White House and the Pentagon over the consequences -- military, diplomatic and political -- of what would likely be the single most dangerous and reckless action of the entire Trump presidency."

I believe things simple didn't go as planned as an airplane was threatened to be taken down. Bolton was in Israel after that to most likely assure Netanyahu that a new attack would be conducted, Bolton Warned Iran Not to 'Mistake U.S. Prudence and Discretion for Weakness'...

https://www.nytimes.com/201...

Ahson • 3 days ago • edited
There needs to be a correction in the article on the older Raad system not having been used but instead the newer, 'Third of Khordad' system which brought down the MQ-4C Triton. Pictures/ Info on the Third of Khordad reveals that it is in effect an Iranian version of the Soviet Buk-M2 of the MH-17 downing fame which the western backed Kiev junta used from its hand me down Soviet weapons arsenal, to shoot down the ill fated Malaysian Airliner over the Ukraine. The system also is stark evidence of the close defense relationship between the Russians and the Iranians, confirming the suspicions in the west that whatever weaponry Putin transfers to Syria or Iraq is by default also available to Iran.
Andy Niklaus • 3 days ago
Great Perspective again to build antiwar movement in the global workingclass!
Ahson • 3 days ago • edited
Not to be outdone by his failure to bring Iran to its knees, Trump ordered a massive cyber attack on Iran's missile batteries and its command and control centers after rescinding the military order to physically attack Iran for downing the drone. The Iranians today announced the failure of this desperate US cyber attack:

https://www.presstv.com/Det...

This is in addition to the CIA placing an agent within the Iranian oil ministry for conducting sabotage. She has been arrested and faces the death penalty for espionage:

https://www.tasnimnews.com/...

The deep State in the US will not stop trying to subdue Iran until it capitulates. Iran must fall to Washington in order for the US to effectively counter and sabotage both Putin's Eurasian Integration and president Xi's BRI projects.

imaduwa • 3 days ago
Trump's alterration at this moment can be due to Iran's internal coherence against American imperialism. With santions being reinforced, one can anticipate more and more impovershment and quality of life geting lower unabated to the point that the basis for internal coherence gets eroded substantially. We saw working class uprisings in Iran recently and leadership accused imperialist as rabble-rousers to find a way out.That is why we need building SEP/IYSSE in Iran to hatch revolutionary force in Iran for Iran to join the peer in the rest of the world. Morsi in Egypt was overthrown by Sisi with the backing of US imperialism headed by Obama at that time. So is the imperialism and it will continue to work to weaken Iran as a force successfully confronting imperialism in the middle east currently. Let us therefore empower international working class to empower it to overthrow imperialism on one hand and Stalinism on the other hand. Russia too depend largely on its arms sale to maintain its economy. But human needs, not wepons, but basic needs including clean environment. Long live the socialist revolution in Iran and internationally. Death to imperialism. Thank you comrade Andre Damon.
jet1685 • 3 days ago
"The strikes were called off at the last moment, amid deep divisions at the highest levels of the White House and the Pentagon over the consequences -- military, diplomatic and political -- of what would likely be the single most dangerous and reckless action of the entire Trump presidency."
Economically it would be Armageddon. Although some think America does not rely on Mideast oil, the world economy does and America is a part of that despite what nationalists dream. Bolton is making threats from Israel and clearly some believe they stand to gain from war but militarily too it would be Armageddon. The Pentagon would answer the sinking of a carrier by nuking Iran to preserve American "credibility" i.e. fear. China and Russia would have to react, China at least to keep its oil supplied. India pushed against China could add more mushroom clouds not to mention Pakistan. Israel itself with Tel Aviv bombarded from Lebanon and maybe invaded unable to stop this might nuke Lebanon and maybe Tehran if any of it remains and Damascus besides. Just as ww1 started because military train timetables had to be followed there are nukewar plans in Washington, Moscow, and Beijing that won't take long. So world workers need to start our plan before others begin. Preemptive general strikes, antiwar and socialist revolutionary agitation and propaganda within imperialist rank and files and human blockades of war material networks should happen at an early date like now. Now also WikiLeaks should put out whatever it hasn't while people exist to read it. The rich are determined to kill Assange anyway and full wartime censorship is not far off.
erroll jet1685 • 3 days ago • edited
Some people have speculated that if the U.S. does attack Iran then Iran will launch missiles at Saudi Arabia's oil fields which will then send oil prices skyrocketing to $130 dollars a barrel. The article also notes that:

"While Trump's foreign policy team -- headed by National Security Advisor John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo -- 'unanimously' supported the attack, General Joseph Dunford, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 'cautioned about the possible repercussions of a strike, warning that it could endanger American forces,' the Times wrote."

Apparently the good general cannot get too worked up at the sight of thousands and thousands of Iranian children, women, and old men who would be slaughtered and grievously wounded by U.S. bombs and the water supply which would be contaminated when those bombs would land at a nuclear power plant. But these horrific actions by the United States are of no consequence because, as Madeline Albright observed on a television a few decades ago, the deaths of a half million Iraqi children by the U.S. was worth it. It would appear that the lives of foreigners are of little consequence to those who are in power. Threatening to start a war against another country for the most specious of reasons is simply another reason why a malignant narcissist like Trump needs to be removed from office as quickly as possible. Or perhaps Trump believes that the best way to improve his low poll numbers is to start dropping 500 lb. bombs on a country which does not in any remote way pose a threat to the United States.

"Almost all propaganda is designed to create fear. Heads of governments and their officials know that a frightened people is easier to govern, will forfeit rights it would otherwise defend, is less likely to demand a better life, and will agree to millions and millions being spent on 'Defense'."-John Boynton Priestly [1894-1984], English writer

"Kill a man, and you are an assassin. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill everyone, and you are a god."-Jean Rostand [1894-1977], French philosopher and biologist

лидия • 3 days ago
When a FOX-news man is the most sane voice in USA foreign policy (regarding aggression against Iran and Venezuela) - it is the real madness!
лидия • 3 days ago
After Hezballah had booted Zionist colonizers out of Lebanon, Zionist apartheid had lost its image of "invincibility".
Now even ghetto Gaza is fighting back.
Irandle • 3 days ago
Spies? What is that in reference to?
Gerry Murphy Irandle • 3 days ago • edited
The CIA payrolled press whores like CNN's Christiane Amanpour for example a prime warmonger and there are countless others embedded in every western media source.
Ahson Gerry Murphy • 3 days ago
Ironically, Amanpour is Iranian background, an avowed revolution hater and a devoted Iranian Pahlavi monarchist. She's on the record for saying that she wants to see the Shah's exiled son back on the throne in Iran, serving US imperialism for the 'benefit of the Iranian nation'.
The Top-Hatted Commie • 3 days ago
The sinking of an aircraft carrier, especially one as well known as the USS Lincoln, would have been one of the biggest PR disasters for both Trump and the military. It probably would have sparked demands from the people to know how, despite pouring trillions of dollars into the mouths of greedy defense contractors for decades, a supposedly inferior military could so easily take down one of our ships.
piet The Top-Hatted Commie • 3 days ago
Khrushchev once said of the Sverdlov class cruisers built in the early 1950's that their only practical purpose was as targets for anti ship missile training because of how outdated they where considering they where armed with guns.

Maybe the anti-ship missile now stands at the point where it can make carriers obsolete similar to how the battleship was made obsolete by the carrier.

Robert Buell Jr piet • 3 days ago
There are some who argue that surface navies became obsolete in the 1950's with the advent of long range missiles. For many years now, China has been helping to build up Iranian area defences...

https://www.mei.edu/publica...

Ahson The Top-Hatted Commie • 3 days ago • edited
Cold war weapons are unsuitable for countering Iran's asymmetric warfare doctrine. A dozen or two highly advanced US warships are no match for a thousand missile boats and thousands of Iranian anti-ship missiles in the narrow confines of the shallow gulf.
Corwin Haught • 3 days ago • edited
Minutes or hours, or Trump never signed on to them, as the accounts from different US media outlets and Trump have differed at several points. Fog of war indeed.

[Jun 27, 2019] Dem candidates has roundly criticized Trump for his approach to Iran. Many of the leading candidates said last week's military confrontation spawned from a crisis of the president's own making, precipitated by his withdrawal from that landmark accord.

That's good line of attack on Trump. People do not want yet another war and they are against overinflated military expenditures. and Trump essentially behaves like a rabid subservant to Israel neocon in those area. So he might share the Hillary destiny in 2020
Jun 27, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
Don Bacon , Jun 27, 2019 12:15:59 AM | 106
The Dem debaters want the failed JCPOA back, except one wants a more punitive one. So it's Obama/Trump redux with all of them, worthless people. We're less safe with Iranians . . .under the bed!

McClatchy

Klobuchar said that Trump's strategy on Iran had "made us less safe," after debate moderators took note of increased military tensions in the Strait of Hormuz last week. Washington has accused Iran of targeting shipping vessels, and Tehran acknowledged it shot down an unmanned U.S. drone on Thursday, nearly prompting Trump to order a retaliatory military strike. The 2015 nuclear deal "was imperfect, but it was a good deal for that moment," Klobuchar stated, characterizing the agreement's "sunset periods" – caps on Iran's enrichment and stockpiling of fissile material set to expire five to 10 years from the next inauguration– as a potential point of renegotiation.

The Democratic field has roundly criticized Trump for his approach to Iran. Many of the leading candidates said last week's military confrontation spawned from a crisis of the president's own making, precipitated by his withdrawal from that landmark accord.

But up until now, the Democratic candidates have not specified how they would salvage a deal that continues to fray – and that may collapse completely under the weight of steadily broadening U.S. sanctions by the time a new president could be sworn in.

Few Democrats had thus far hedged over adopting the agreement entirely should they win the presidency even if the deal survives that long. Leading candidates have characterized the nuclear agreement as "imperfect" and in need of "strengthening," suggesting subtle distinctions within the field over the potential conditions of U.S. re-entry into a pact. . . here


I've got a deal for them to salvage, get off your GD pedestals and say hello to the real world! . . .There, I feel better now.

[Jun 27, 2019] Short US-Iran war 'an illusion', Zarif tells Trump USA News Al Jazeera

Jun 27, 2019 | www.aljazeera.com

Iran's foreign minister has dismissed US President Donald Trump 's claim that a war between their countries would be short-lived, as Washington sought NATO's help to build an anti-Tehran coalition.

"'Short war' with Iran is an illusion," Mohammad Javad Zarif wrote on Twitter on Thursday, a day after Trump said he did not want a war with Iran but warned that if fighting did break out, it "wouldn't last very long".

Tehran has accused the United States of "economic terrorism" and "psychological warfare" over the Trump administration's application of punishing sanctions after the US president last year unilaterally withdrew Washington from an historic nuclear deal with world powers. Under the 2015 agreement, Iran agreed to scale back its nuclear programme in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions.

In his Twitter post, Zarif said the reimposed and tightened US sanctions "aren't an alternative to war - they are war".

[Jun 27, 2019] Iran Hawks Want to Create an Even Bigger Crisis by Daniel Larison

Notable quotes:
"... Iran hawks want to force Iran out of the deal to give them a pretext for conflict. These waivers are their latest target because without them other governments may be leery of cooperating on the nuclear projects that give Iran an incentive to remain in the deal. Iran has very few reasons to remain in the deal at this point, and canceling the waivers would likely be the last straw. This is what Bolton and his allies have been working towards all along. When the waivers came up for renewal this spring, the administration extended them, but now there is a real danger that they won't do that again. The last time this came up, Jarrett Blanc explained why extending the waivers is the obviously correct thing to do: ..."
"... Canceling the waivers would be another escalation by the Trump administration, and it would almost certainly prompt Iranian countermoves to further reduce or end their compliance with the deal. The Iran hawks in the administration may think they want a bigger crisis with Iran, but they may not like it when they get one. ..."
Jun 27, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Politico reports that the most rabid Iran hawks in the Senate and inside the administration are pushing to cancel the remaining waivers that enable international cooperation on civilian nuclear projects in Iran. Their explicit goal is to destroy the last pieces of the deal that the U.S. hasn't directly attacked yet.

The report has some interesting details, but the framing of the debate is awful:

Proponents of the nuclear deal have argued that the international nuclear projects facilitated by the waivers help give the U.S. greater visibility and intelligence into Iranian activities; critics say they give an international stamp of approval to Iran's illicit activities.

This is a great example of how ostensibly "neutral" reporting favors the side acting and arguing in bad faith. What "illicit activities" are supported by these waivers? There aren't any. The report makes it sound as if there are two equally valid, competing positions, but one of them is completely false. The hawks' objections to them have nothing to do with opposition to "illicit activities" and everything to do with their hatred for the deal. The activities that the waivers facilitate are endorsed by the JCPOA and a U.N. Security Council resolution.

They cannot be illicit because they are entirely consistent with Iran's obligations and international law. The U.S. has been providing these waivers up until now because of the obvious nonproliferation benefits that everyone derives from the deal, and the people that want to end the waivers are doing so because they don't care about nonproliferation.

Iran hawks want to force Iran out of the deal to give them a pretext for conflict. These waivers are their latest target because without them other governments may be leery of cooperating on the nuclear projects that give Iran an incentive to remain in the deal. Iran has very few reasons to remain in the deal at this point, and canceling the waivers would likely be the last straw. This is what Bolton and his allies have been working towards all along. When the waivers came up for renewal this spring, the administration extended them, but now there is a real danger that they won't do that again. The last time this came up, Jarrett Blanc explained why extending the waivers is the obviously correct thing to do:

Failing to renew the waivers would be indefensible. The fact that there is even an internal debate is illuminating: At least some Trump advisors want a crisis with Iran, and the sooner the better.

Withdrawing waivers for civil nuclear cooperation may sound less aggressive than steps like the overhyped Guard Corps designation, but it is one of the most dangerous steps the administration has left, threatening the international nuclear cooperation that is Iran's only remaining practical benefit from the deal.

Canceling the waivers would be another escalation by the Trump administration, and it would almost certainly prompt Iranian countermoves to further reduce or end their compliance with the deal. The Iran hawks in the administration may think they want a bigger crisis with Iran, but they may not like it when they get one.

[Jun 27, 2019] Iranian viewpoit in MoA blog

Jun 27, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Capt. Abdul Hassan , Jun 26, 2019 8:10:38 PM | 79

You Americans are for the most part cluelss.

Very few Americans have any realisation at all (certainly non that I have spoken to below the rank of Army Colonel or Navy Captain anyway) that a war with Iran will leave 100s of thousands if not millions of Americans dead, many capital ships at the bottom of the Gulf and the Med (think hard about how that will happen in the Med), and the US a broken 3rd world nation, if the states even stay together to maintain a 'US'.

You need to realise that the middle east (to include Cyprus and Turkey) will be cut off to you. No resupply, no support, no evac. There will be no troops left in the middle east to bring home after a few days of fighting exhaust all ammp and supplies and all positions are then overun or destroyed.

Every last troop in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan will be wiped out, and there will be no way at all of deploying any more troops (think why).

The shock to the weak American Psyche will be amplified by assymetrical spec ops / gorrilla warefare in every US city.

To begin with there will be gas station fires and power line cuts in every US town and city, followed by bridge collpases, interstate highway failures, railroad failures and then destruction, food and medical warehouse fires, forest fires, container port sabotage, cell phone and radio tower destruction, water mains destruction, sewage mains destruction, and of course contamination of water reservoirs - all of which are very simple and easy assymetrical attacks that can be rolled out nationwide by only by a few hundred well trained individuals (already well embedded).

Add these simple WW2 partisan style acts to other acts of sabotage against fire, ambulance, and police infrastruture (again, all very simple and easy assymetrical attacks) and the worst elements of your own society will continue and further amplify the conflageration.

The cities will implode and feed upon themselves, and when the carnage reaches a platau, or simply a stage that invites escalation, then the next phase begins - think MANPADS at every airport to bring down all relief flights and national guard units, ATGMs and HMG against military and police units, snipers against any opertunistic target - anywhere at any time.

There are further steps which I wont describe lest it give certain people ideas, but in the space of just 2 weeks the entire US could brought to its knees and made to realise that every nation on the earth, except the us, hates war and tries to avoid it.

If the US people think they can nuke Iran, kill millions more muslims, and then go back to watching the ball game they should think again.

The Iranians (and Russians and Chinese too) have been planning for a war with the US for decades.

The Iranians know full well that their cities will be nuked, but the Iranians believe the US is the embodyment of Satan (and they have lots of evidence to suggest this is indeed true) so they will fight without regard to life, to pain and to massive losses.

They, and there allies will utterly wipe out ever last US military unit in the middle east and bring the Continental US to its knees in ways few can yet imagine.

Yes, Iran will be glass, but the US will be ashes, or at least no longer a us - as much a victim of its own complexity and ignorance as any missiles or explosives used by Iranian spec ops.

A war with Iran will be the last war the US ever fights. It may 'win' but at what cost.

Don Bacon , Jun 26, 2019 9:34:15 PM | 86

@ Capt. Abdul Hassan 76
Thank you for that, very insighful, perhaps a little over the top, but right on.
Sunny Runny Burger , Jun 27, 2019 10:59:29 AM | 139
Don Bacon I think you're right and in addition the amendment won't matter because the exceptions are so encompassing nearly anything goes.

I'm going to crosspost the scenario (all I posted was the scenario, not the stuff afterwards):

1. US false flags in Iranian vicinity.
2. US military deaths due to provoked Iranian action.
3. US limited strikes.
4. US false flag Iranian dirty bomb in US city using surplus enriched material bought from Iran.
5. US submits evidence of Iranian nuclear attack in UNSC.
6. US attacks Iran using nuclear weapons.

A few (?) didn't buy 1 but the US got stuck on 2 so far and might get stuck on 3 as well.

How can one make 4 fail except to talk about it so people have a chance to think of it as a possibility when it happens?

5 is for "perception" and narrative, it doesn't matter if the UNSC doesn't agree with what the US says or the entire world ridicules the US or if the entire world starts marching like they "magically" and "spontaneously" did before the Iraq war (what was that about? Controlled opposition galore?).

Russia and China are repeatedly telling the US (and everybody else) what 6 will mean.

[Jun 27, 2019] No One Believes the President's War Claims Anymore

Notable quotes:
"... The possibility that the United States might be committing an act of war under false pretenses apparently did little to discourage the president's principal foreign policy advisers, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Adviser John Bolton, from pushing a military response. Tehran's action was presented as raw aggression, an act of war that deserved retaliation. ..."
"... The president apparently complained to a close associate, "These people want to push us into a war, and it's so disgusting." According to The Wall Street Journal , he further opined, "We don't need any more wars." He's right. But then why has Trump chosen to surround himself with advisers apparently so at variance with his views? ..."
"... Iran is preparing to breach the limits established by the agreement because Washington repudiated it . It is evident that the president doesn't understand the JCPOA or the nuclear issue more generally. ..."
"... Moreover, though he is focused on nuclear issues, his appointees have been demanding far more of Tehran, forestalling negotiations. For instance, last year, Pompeo ordered Iran to abandon its independent foreign policy and dismantle its missile deterrent, while accepting Saudi and American domination of the region. ..."
"... Pompeo's demands look a bit like the ultimatum to Serbia in June 1914 after a nationalist backed by Serbian military intelligence assassinated the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne. The Austrians set only 10, rather than 12, requirements, but they also were intended to be rejected. Vienna explained to its ally Germany that "the possibility of its acceptance is practically excluded." ..."
"... They were living out what Hermann Goering, on trial at Nuremberg, described in a private conversation to an American officer: "voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." Tragically, he's probably right. ..."
Jun 27, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com

... ... ...

Iran predictably claimed that the drone was within its airspace. American officials asserted that it was in international airspace. Reported by The New York Times :

"a senior Trump administration official said there was concern inside the United States government about whether the drone, or another American surveillance aircraft, or even the P-8A manned aircraft flown by a military aircrew, actually did violate Iranian airspace at some point. The official said the doubt was one of the reasons Mr. Trump called off the strike."

The point is worth repeating. The military was prepared to blast away when it wasn't even certain whether America was in the right. The episode brings to mind the 1988 shootdown of an Iranian airliner in the Persian Gulf by the guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes . Initially the U.S. Navy justified its action, making a series of false claims about Iran Air Flight 655, which carried 290 passengers and crew members. Eventually Washington did admit that it had made a horrific mistake, though the Vincennes captain was later decorated.

The possibility that the United States might be committing an act of war under false pretenses apparently did little to discourage the president's principal foreign policy advisers, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Adviser John Bolton, from pushing a military response. Tehran's action was presented as raw aggression, an act of war that deserved retaliation.

The president apparently complained to a close associate, "These people want to push us into a war, and it's so disgusting." According to The Wall Street Journal , he further opined, "We don't need any more wars." He's right. But then why has Trump chosen to surround himself with advisers apparently so at variance with his views?

Presumably the president believes that he can control his war-happy subordinates, using them as he sees fit. However, his overweening hubris ignores their power to set the agenda and influence his choices. Consider the basic question of objectives regarding Iran. Trump now says all he wants to do is keep nukes out of Tehran's hands: "Never can Iran have a nuclear weapon," he intoned after halting the proposed reprisal, adding that "restraint" has its limits. But the nuclear accord was drafted to forestall an Iranian nuclear weapon. Iran is preparing to breach the limits established by the agreement because Washington repudiated it . It is evident that the president doesn't understand the JCPOA or the nuclear issue more generally.

Moreover, though he is focused on nuclear issues, his appointees have been demanding far more of Tehran, forestalling negotiations. For instance, last year, Pompeo ordered Iran to abandon its independent foreign policy and dismantle its missile deterrent, while accepting Saudi and American domination of the region.

These mandates were an obvious non-starter -- what sovereign nation voluntarily accepts puppet status? In fact, Pompeo admitted that he didn't expect Iran to surrender, but instead hoped for a popular revolution. In recently stating that the administration would negotiate without preconditions, he added that Washington expected Iran to act like "a normal nation," meaning behaving just as he'd demanded last year. (Notably, there was no offer for America to act like a normal country.)

Sanctions: Trump's Cruel Substitute for an Actual Iran Policy A Century Later, the Versailles Treaty Still Haunts Our World

Pompeo's demands look a bit like the ultimatum to Serbia in June 1914 after a nationalist backed by Serbian military intelligence assassinated the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne. The Austrians set only 10, rather than 12, requirements, but they also were intended to be rejected. Vienna explained to its ally Germany that "the possibility of its acceptance is practically excluded."

Once it became evident that no one would willingly back down and conflict was likely, Germany's Kaiser and Russia's Tsar tried to halt the rush to war. However, they found themselves hemmed in by the war plans created by their nominal subordinates. With Austria-Hungary mobilizing against Serbia, Russia had to act to protect the latter. Germany then faced a two-front war. Thus, to aid its ally in Vienna, the Germans had to mobilize quickly in an attempt to defeat France before Russia could put its massive army into the field. No one had sufficient time for diplomacy.

However, cousins Kaiser Wilhelm and Tsar Nicholas did engage in a last minute "Willy-Nicky" exchange of telegrams. Wilhelm warned Nicholas that general Russian mobilization would require Germany to act, with war the result. In response, the tsar switched from general to partial mobilization. But he was soon besieged by his top officials who insisted that the entire army had to be called up.

Understanding that general mobilization meant war, the tsar observed: "Think of the responsibility you are asking me to take! Think of the thousands and thousands of men who will be sent to their deaths." But he gave in, approving mobilization on the evening of July 30. Nicholas's concern was warranted. More than 1.7 million Russian soldiers, along with hundreds of thousands of civilians, died in the conflict. The ensuing Russian Civil War was even more deadly, indeed far more so for noncombatants, among them the tsar and his family.

Kaiser Wilhelm was equally at the mercy of the "France-first" Schlieffen Plan. To wait would be to invite destruction between the French and Russians, so he approved German mobilization on August 1. He predicted the war would lead to "endless misery," and so it did. In 1918, he was forced to abdicate and he lived out his life in exile.

Pompeo, Bolton, and like-minded officials tried and failed to force another war last week. Next time they may succeed in leaving the president with no practical choice but the one they favor. In which case he will find himself starting the very conflict that he had declared against.

Ongoing administration machinations -- exacerbated by the opportunity to manipulate a president -- offer an important reminder as to the Founders' wisdom. Delegates to the Constitutional Convention made clear their intention to break with monarchical practice, minimizing the president's authority. Congress was assigned the powers to raise armies, decide on the rules of war, issue letters of marque and reprisal, and ratify treaties. Most importantly, the legislative branch alone could declare war.

As commander-in-chief, the president could defend against attack, but he could not even order a retaliatory strike without congressional authority. Wrote James Madison to Thomas Jefferson: "The Constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature." Delegate James Wilson insisted that the Constitution was intended to "guard against" being hurried into war: "It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress, for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large."

Most important, placing the war power with Congress ensured that the people would be heard. Of course, even that is not enough today. Presidents have adeptly concocted "evidence" and misled the public, such as during the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq.

They were living out what Hermann Goering, on trial at Nuremberg, described in a private conversation to an American officer: "voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." Tragically, he's probably right.

However, the Iraq debacle has resulted in greater skepticism of presidential claims. The Trump administration's unsupported judgment that Iran was behind attacks on oil tankers was greeted at home and abroad with a demand for more evidence. People were conscious of having been repeatedly played by Washington and did not want a repeat. Many found the U.S. government no more trustworthy than Iranian authorities, a humbling equivalence. And given the doubts apparently voiced by Pentagon officials out of public view, such skepticism was well-founded.

Last week, Donald Trump declared, "I want to get out of these endless wars." Unlike his predecessors, the president apparently recognizes the temptation to sacrifice lives for political gain. However, alone he will find it nearly impossible to face down the bipartisan War Party. The best way to get out of endless wars is to not get in them in the first place. And that requires changing personnel and respecting the constitutional limits established by the nation's Founders.

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan. He is the author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire

Kent • 8 hours ago

Unfortunately, the President is attempting to walk a tight-rope between peace and the most prominent funders of the GOP. Sheldon Adelson and his ilk are bent on the destruction of any nation that stands in the way of Israeli expansion. And of course military contractors need constant growth in tax-payer funding to support their margins and shareholder value. Hence the blustering to appease the aforementioned and keep the bribes flowing, while backing down to appease the base.

It would of course be in the interests of the base to oppose the bribe-taking to begin with, but I assume that must be beyond their intellectual capacity. Or perhaps they're simply in favor of it for ideological reasons.

Adriana Pena • 14 hours ago
Please stop this "czar good, ministers bad" narrative when discussing Trump standing up to the war party.

Trump hired Bolton
Trump hired Pompeo
Trump made the torturer Gina the head of the CIA

For someone who does not want war, he managed to put war lovers in sensitive posts.

John Michener • 15 hours ago
We might as well be honest about it. All politicians over simplify, shade the truth, and occasionally lie. But Trump's falsehoods are so continuous and extensive that there is no reason to believe anything he says - everything needs to be validated against external authorities - which is why he is so intent on tearing down all authorities that could contradict him.
Clyde Schechter • 15 hours ago
This is another in the long line of stories we are reading here (and in other places) that Trump really doesn't want to get involved in a war but is being manipulated by Bolton, Pompeo and the national security apparatus. Sorry, but I don't buy it.

Trump hired Bolton and Pompeo. Even somebody as apparently dimwitted as Trump could not possibly have failed to notice that they were warmongers. Indeed, Bolton is probably the most extreme warmonger around: he has an extensive public record of advocating war with Iran for about two decades now. I cannot believe that even Trump was unaware of this. And even if he was, why hasn't he fired them? He doesn't need anybody's permission to do that. Let's get real: Trump is every bit the warmonger as the people he hires. His statements to the contrary are just more additions to his endless string of lies.

What's more, he has another way to avoid being cornered into starting a war. All he has to do in that circumstance is acknowledge that the constitution doesn't grant him that authority and toss the decision making to Congerss, where it legally belongs. But he has done nothing that suggests he acknowledges that constitutional delegation of authority--even though it could provide him a way out if he felt he needed one.

So, no. I don't believe for a minute that Trump wants to avoid war. Actions speak louder than words, especially Trump's words.

JJ • 17 hours ago
You're falling for the "official" report that he called off the attack merely because 150 lives were at stake? Since when did he all of a sudden grow a conscious after the inexcusable defense he gave for our irresponsible military and intelligence ventures? He even bypasses Congress itself by his illegal presidential will to give weapons to the SAUDIS. The tyrannical, radical, scourge of humanity tribal savages turned psychopathic oligarchs that is the House of Saud.

Let's be perfectly honest with ourselves, Tucker Carson (a f*cking tv show host of all people) convinced a US president to not commit to another illegal war. Not because lives were at stake, heavens no. It's because going into a disastrous war with Iran would gauruntee his chances of not getting re-elected.

The American government is a living parody with no hope of redemption.

HenionJD • 9 hours ago
The President's almost daily outpouring of gibberish gives one little confidence that the notion of 'the truth' holds any importance for him or his crew. Who needs historical precedents to establish a feeling of mistrust when even the simplest statements from the White House are so often needlessly loaded with misapprehensions, distortions and out right BS?
EliteCommInc. • 15 hours ago
" He's right. But then why has Trump chosen to surround himself with advisers apparently so at variance with his views?"

I get this, position. You present an incredibly tough front as you press an entirely different goal. The problem is that the president has presented a very tough front himself. So when it appears to to actually be tough, he comes across as "not so much". It even provides opportunity to grand him fearful. In the scenario that I think is being played out or made to appear to play out --- the good cop, the reasonable cop has to sound reasonable all the time. He has to claim to be holding back the forces of evil that threaten to consume the target. But the president has been leading the way as "bad cop" so in the mind the targets, there are no good cops.

But in my view, all of this hoollla baaaloooey about Iran is a distraction to the real threat

the border. And the only common ground to be had is to enforce the law. That is why I think the president is weak. For all of the tough talk --- he folded -- again on immigration. Pretending to get concessions that is by agreement already expected from Mexico is the such naked weakness that launching hypersonic missiles obliterating Tehran would just give him sandals.

Uhhhh, no. I don't regret my vote. And and I still want the wall built and the laws enforced and the sovereignty of the US respected by guests and citizens alike,.

[Jun 27, 2019] Aggressive US Lies and Misleads to Justify War on Iran by William Boardman

Notable quotes:
"... Lately, Trump and Pompeo and their ilk have been whining about not wanting war and claiming they want to negotiate, while doing nothing to make negotiation more possible. Iran has observed US actions and has rejected negotiating with an imperial power with a decades-long record of bad faith. Lacking any serious act of good faith by the US, does Iran have any other rational choice? Pompeo makes absolutely clear just how irrational, how dishonest, how implacable and untrustworthy the US is when he accuses Iran of ..."
"... The US is stumbling down a path toward war with no justification. Democrats should have objected forcefully and continuously long since. Democrats in the House should have put peace with Iran on the table as soon as they came into the majority. They should do it now. Democratic presidential candidates should join Tulsi Gabbard and Elizabeth Warren in forthrightly opposing war with Iran ..."
Jun 26, 2019 | dissidentvoice.org

It is the assessment of the United States Government that the Islamic Republic of Iran is responsible for the attacks that occurred in the Gulf of Oman today. This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed to execute the operation, recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping, and the fact that no proxy group operating in the area has the resources and proficiency to act with such a high degree of sophistication.

This is only the latest in a series of attacks instigated by the Islamic Republic of Iran and its surrogates against American and allied interests, and they should be understood in the context of 40 years of unprovoked aggression against freedom-loving nations.

-- US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announcement , June 13, 2013

The secretary of state delivered this appallingly Orwellian official assessment of the US government within hours of the five explosions on two tankers, well before any credible investigation establishing more than minimal facts could be carried out. As is his habit, Mike Pompeo flatly lied about whatever might be real in the Gulf of Oman, and most American media ran with the lies as if they were or might be true. There is almost no chance that Mike Pompeo and the US government are telling the truth about this event, as widespread domestic and international skepticism attests.

Pompeo's official assessment was false even in its staging. For most of his four-minute appearance, Pompeo stood framed by two pictures behind him, each showing a tanker with a fire amidships. This was a deliberate visual lie. The two pictures showed the same tanker, the Norwegian-owned Front Altair , from different angles. The other tanker, Japanese-owned Kokuka Courageous , did not catch fire and was not shown.

First, what actually happened, as best we can tell five days later? In the early morning of June 13, two unrelated tankers were heading south out of the Strait of Hormuz, sailing in open water in the Gulf of Oman, roughly 20 miles off the south coast of Iran. The tankers were most likely outside Iran's territorial waters, but within Iran's contiguous zone as defined by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea . At different times, some 30 miles apart, the two tankers were attacked by weapons unknown, launched by parties unknown, for reasons unknown. The first reported distress call was 6:12 a.m. local time. No one has yet claimed responsibility for either attack. The crew of each tanker abandoned ship soon after the explosions and were rescued by ships in the area, including Iranian naval vessels, who took the Front Altair crew to an Iranian port.

Even this much was not certain in the early afternoon of June 13 when Mike Pompeo came to the lectern at the State Department to deliver his verdict:

It is the assessment of the United States Government that the Islamic Republic of Iran is responsible for the attacks that occurred in the Gulf of Oman today.

Pompeo did not identify the unnamed intelligence entities, if any, within the government who made this assessment. He offered no evidence to support the assessment. He did offer something of an argument that began:

This assessment is based on intelligence .

He didn't say what intelligence. He didn't say whose intelligence. American intelligence assets and technology are all over the region generating reams of intelligence day in, day out. Then there are the intelligence agencies of the Arab police states bordering the Persian Gulf. They, too, are busy collecting intelligence 24/7, although they are sometimes loath to share. Pompeo didn't mention it, but according to CNN an unnamed US official admitted that the US had a Reaper Drone in the air near the two tankers before they were attacked. He also claimed that Iran had fired a missile at the drone, but missed. As CNN inanely spins it, "it is the first claim that the US has information of Iranian movements prior to the attack." As if the US doesn't have information on Iranian movements all the time . More accurately, this is the first admission that the US had operational weaponry in the area prior to the attack. After intelligence, Pompeo continued:

This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used .

Pompeo did not name a single weapon used. Early reporting claimed the attackers used torpedoes or mines, a claim that became inoperative as it became clear that all the damage to the tankers was well above the waterline. There is little reason to believe Pompeo had any actual knowledge of what weapons were used, unless one was a Reaper Drone. He went on:

This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed to execute the operation

The "level of expertise needed" to carry out these attacks on a pair of sitting duck tankers does not appear to be that great. Yes, the Iranian military probably has the expertise, as do the militaries of the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, Israel, or others with a stake in provoking a crisis in the region. And those who lack the expertise still have the money with which to hire expert surrogates. The number of credible suspects, known and unknown, with an interest in doing harm to Iran is easily in double figures. Leading any serious list should be the US. That's perfectly logical, so Pompeo tried to divert attention from the obvious:

This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed to execute the operation, recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping .

There are NO confirmed "recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping," and even if there were, they would prove nothing. Pompeo's embarrassingly irrelevant list that follows includes six examples, only one of which involved a shipping attack. The one example was the May 12, 2019, attack on four ships at anchor in the deep water port of Fujairah. Even the multinational investigation organized by the UAE could not determine who did it. The UAE reported to the UN Security Council that the perpetrator was likely some unnamed "state actor." The logical suspects and their surrogates are the same as those for the most recent attack.

Instead of "recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping," Pompeo offers Iran's decades-old threat to close the Strait of Hormuz (which it's never done), together with three attacks by the Houthis on Saudi Arabia, an unattributed rocket attack on the US Embassy in Baghdad, and an unattributed car bomb in Afghanistan. Seriously, if that's all he's got, he's got nothing. But he's not done with the disinformation exercise:

This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed to execute the operation, recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping, and the fact that no proxy group operating in the area has the resources and proficiency to act with such a high degree of sophistication.

The whole proxy group thing is redundant, covered by "the level of expertise needed" mentioned earlier. Pompeo doesn't name any proxy group here, he doesn't explain how he could know there's no proxy group that could carry out such an attack, and he just throws word garbage at the wall and hopes something sticks that will make you believe – no evidence necessary – that Iran is evil beyond redemption:

Taken as a whole, these unprovoked attacks present a clear threat to international peace and security, a blatant assault on the freedom of navigation, and an unacceptable campaign of escalating tension by Iran.

The attacks in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Afghanistan have all been provoked by the US and its allies. The US has long been a clear threat to international peace and security, except when the US was actually trashing peace and security, as it did in Iraq, as it seems to want to do in Iran. There is, indeed, "an unacceptable campaign of escalating tension," but it's a campaign by the US. The current phase began when the Trump administration pulled out of the multinational nuclear deal with Iran. The US wages economic warfare on Iran even though Iran continues to abide by the Trump-trashed treaty. All the other signatories and inspectors confirm that Iran has abided by the agreement. But Iran is approaching a point of violation, which it has been warning about for some time. The other signatories allow the US to bully them into enforcing US sanctions at their own cost against a country in compliance with its promises. China, Russia, France, GB, Germany, and the EU are all craven in the face of US threats. That's what the US wants from Iran.

Lately, Trump and Pompeo and their ilk have been whining about not wanting war and claiming they want to negotiate, while doing nothing to make negotiation more possible. Iran has observed US actions and has rejected negotiating with an imperial power with a decades-long record of bad faith. Lacking any serious act of good faith by the US, does Iran have any other rational choice? Pompeo makes absolutely clear just how irrational, how dishonest, how implacable and untrustworthy the US is when he accuses Iran of:

40 years of unprovoked aggression against freedom-loving nations.

This is Big Lie country. Forty years ago, the Iranians committed their original sin – they overthrew one of the world's most brutal dictatorships, imposed on them by the US. Then they took Americans hostage, and the US has been playing the victim ever since, out of all proportion to reality or justice. But the Pompeos of this world still milk it for all it's worth. What about "unprovoked aggression," who does that? The US list is long and criminal, including its support of Saddam Hussein's war of aggression against Iran. Iran's list of "unprovoked aggressions" is pretty much zero, unless you go back to the Persian Empire. No wonder Pompeo took no question on his statement. The Big Lie is supposed to be enough.

The US is stumbling down a path toward war with no justification. Democrats should have objected forcefully and continuously long since. Democrats in the House should have put peace with Iran on the table as soon as they came into the majority. They should do it now. Democratic presidential candidates should join Tulsi Gabbard and Elizabeth Warren in forthrightly opposing war with Iran. Leading a huge public outcry may not keep the president from lying us into war with Iran any more than it kept the president from lying us into war with Iraq. But an absence of outcry will just make it easier for this rogue nation to commit a whole new set of war crimes.

Intellectually, the case for normal relations with Iran is easy. There is literally no good reason to maintain hostility, not even the possibility, remote as it is, of an Iranian nuclear weapon (especially now that Trump is helping the Saudis go nuclear). But politically, the case for normal relations with Iran is hard, especially because forty years of propaganda demonizing Iran has deep roots. To make a sane case on Iran takes real courage: one has to speak truth to a nation that believes its lies to itself.

William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences. This article was first published in Reader Supported News . Read other articles by William .

[Jun 27, 2019] Who are the arsonists of the petrol tankers in the Gulf by Manlio Dinucci

Notable quotes:
"... The control of the energy corridors is of capital importance. By accusing Iran of attempting to " interrupt the flow of oil through the Straights of Hormuz ", Mike Pompeo announced that " the United States will defend freedom of navigation ". In other words, he has announced that the United States want to gain military control of this key area for energy supplies, including for Europe, by preventing above all the transit of Iranian oil (to which Italy and other European countries cannot in any case enjoy free access because of the US embargo). ..."
"... Natural gas might also have arrived directly in Italy from Russia, and from there be distributed to other European countries with notable economical advantages, via the South Stream route through the Black Sea. But the pipeline, already in an advanced stage of construction, was blocked in 2014 by the pressure of the United States and European Union itself, with heavy prejudice for Italy. ..."
Jun 27, 2019 | www.voltairenet.org

While the United States prepared a new escalation of tension in the Middle East by accusing Iran of attacking petrol tankers in the Gulf of Oman, Italian vice-Prime Minister Matteo Salvini met with one of the artisans of this strategy in Washington, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, assuring him that " Italy wants to regain its place as the major partner on the European continent of the greatest Western democracy ". Thereby he has allied Italy with the operation launched by Washington.

The " Gulf of Oman affair " , a casus belli against Iran, is a carbon copy of the " Gulf of Tonkin affair " of 4 August 1964, itself used as a casus belli to bomb North Vietnam, which was accused of having attacked a US torpedo boat (an accusation which was later proved to be false).

Today, a video released by Washington shows the crew of an alleged Iranian patrol boat removing an unexploded mine from the hull of a petrol tanker in order to conceal its origin (because the mine would allegedly have borne the inscription " Made in Iran ").

With this " proof " - a veritable insult to our intelligence - Washington is attempting to camouflage the goal of the operation. It is part of the strategy aimed at controlling the world reserves of oil and natural gas and their energy corridors [ 1 ]. It is no coincidence if Iran and Iraq are in US crosshairs. Their total oil reserves are greater than those of Saudi Arabia, and five times greater than those of the United States. Iranian reserves of natural gas are approximately 2.5 times those of the USA. Venezuela finds itself targeted by the USA for the same reason, since it is the country which owns the greatest oil reserves in the world.

The control of the energy corridors is of capital importance. By accusing Iran of attempting to " interrupt the flow of oil through the Straights of Hormuz ", Mike Pompeo announced that " the United States will defend freedom of navigation ". In other words, he has announced that the United States want to gain military control of this key area for energy supplies, including for Europe, by preventing above all the transit of Iranian oil (to which Italy and other European countries cannot in any case enjoy free access because of the US embargo).

Low-cost Iranian natural gas might also have reached Europe by way of a pipeline crossing Iraq and Syria. But the project, launched in 2011, was destroyed by the USA/NATO operation to demolish the Syrian state.

Natural gas might also have arrived directly in Italy from Russia, and from there be distributed to other European countries with notable economical advantages, via the South Stream route through the Black Sea. But the pipeline, already in an advanced stage of construction, was blocked in 2014 by the pressure of the United States and European Union itself, with heavy prejudice for Italy.

In fact it was the reproduction of North Stream which continued, making Germany the centre of triage for Russian gas.. Then, on the basis of the " USA/EU strategic cooperation in the energy field " agreement stipulated in July 2018, US exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to the EU tripled. The triage centre was in Poland, from which was distributed the " Freedom Gas " which also arrived in Ukraine.

Washington's objective is strategic – to hurt Russia by replacing Russian gas in Europe with US gas. But we have no guarantees, neither on the price, nor on the time-scale for US gas extracted from the bituminous shale by the technique known as fracking (hydraulic fracturation), which is disastrous for the environment.

So what does Matteo Salvini have to say about all that? When he arrived in the " greatest democracy in the Western world ", he proudly declared - " I am part of a government which in Europe is no longer satisfied with breadcrumbs ".

[Jun 27, 2019] Immediate spike in oil prices and derivatives market after attack in Iran can unpredictable consequences for the US and world economy

Notable quotes:
"... Despite the blathering about "international waters" and "freedom of navigation" the facts are that the Straits of Hormuz are only 21 miles wide. So all the water in them is either in Iranian territory to the north or Omani to the south. They would be entirely within their rights, as elucidated in the International Law of the Sea, to close the straits after some sort of military strike against them (for what that is worth, which is something at least as far as public opinion outside of the U.S. is concerned). The Iranians have stated that if and when they close the straits they will announce it publicly, no subterfuge or secret operations will be involved. ..."
"... Anything over $150 a barrel would trigger an economic, industrial, and financial crisis of immense proportions around the world ..."
"... The amount of derivatives that are swirling about the planet and that are traded and created constantly is estimated to be from $1.2 - $2.5 Quadrillion. That's right from $1,200 - $2,500 Trillion or $1,200,000 - $2,500,000 Billion {remember Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, who once said "a billion here and a billion there and first thing you know, You're talking BIG MONEY!!} ..."
"... Just like during the 2007 - 2008 crisis the various elements of shadow banking, and speculation would collapse. Remember that total world production of and trade in actual products is only about about $70 - $80 Trillion, or perhaps less than 1/31st the size of the Global Derivatives markets. ..."
Jun 27, 2019 | www.wsws.org

dmorista • 3 days ago • edited

The official story, as usual, is a bunch of hooey. Trump wouldn't bat an eye over the death of 150 Iranians. In addition to the worries about losing an aircraft carrier: the military high command probably let him know that the much vaunted, and outlandishly expensive, force of F-35s, will quickly lose its effectiveness if exposed to probing by the high tech radars the Russians have developed, and that are used in conjunction with at least the S-400 antiaircraft and antimissile defense system.

So the question is, if the stealth advantage of the F-35 is only good for a limited time, is this particular geostrategic confrontation worth using up that particular asset??

Then there is the whole question of whether the Iranians would close the Straits of Hormuz in response to a major air raid on their nuclear facilities; this leads to some much more important issues.

Despite the blathering about "international waters" and "freedom of navigation" the facts are that the Straits of Hormuz are only 21 miles wide. So all the water in them is either in Iranian territory to the north or Omani to the south. They would be entirely within their rights, as elucidated in the International Law of the Sea, to close the straits after some sort of military strike against them (for what that is worth, which is something at least as far as public opinion outside of the U.S. is concerned). The Iranians have stated that if and when they close the straits they will announce it publicly, no subterfuge or secret operations will be involved.

Since nearly 30% of the World's oil moves through those straits cutting them off will cause an immediate spike in oil prices. Prices of $100 - $300 a barrel would be reached within a few days. If the Straits of Hormuz were closed for a longer period we could easily see prices rise to $1,000 a barrel according to Goldman Sachs projections (see Escobar article cited below).

Anything over $150 a barrel would trigger an economic, industrial, and financial crisis of immense proportions around the world . The financial and speculative house of cards, that the ruling classes of the U.S.-led Finance Capital Bloc depends on for their dominance of world capital and markets, would likely come tumbling down.

The amount of derivatives that are swirling about the planet and that are traded and created constantly is estimated to be from $1.2 - $2.5 Quadrillion. That's right from $1,200 - $2,500 Trillion or $1,200,000 - $2,500,000 Billion {remember Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, who once said "a billion here and a billion there and first thing you know, You're talking BIG MONEY!!} (See "World Derivatives Market Estimated As Big As $1.2 Quadrillion Notional, as Banks Fight Efforts to Rein It In", March 26, 2013, Yves Smith, "Naked Capitalism", at < https://www.nakedcapitalism... >, and "Iran Goes for 'Maximum Counter-pressure' ", June 21, 2019, Pepe Escobar, "Strategic Culture Foundation", at < https://www.strategic-cultu... >, and "Global Derivatives: $1.5 Quadrillion Time Bomb", Aug 24, 2015, Stephen Lendman, Global Research, at < https://www.globalresearch.... >).

Just like during the 2007 - 2008 crisis the various elements of shadow banking, and speculation would collapse. Remember that total world production of and trade in actual products is only about about $70 - $80 Trillion, or perhaps less than 1/31st the size of the Global Derivatives markets.

All the world's elite capitalists, be they Western or Asian or from elsewhere, maintain homes in numerous places. One reason for this is so they have somewhere to go, if they need to flee from environmental and/or socioeconomic disaster and the resultant chaos in their primary place of residence. As we move ever deeper into this extremely severe and ongoing Crisis of Capitalism, these issues will continue to become more acute.

So we can rest assured that; in addition to the crazed war-mongers Bolton and Pompeo (and their supporters and backers) whispering in Trump's ear to "go ahead and attack the Iranians"; and in addition to the somewhat more sober counsel of General Dunford and other members of the top military command; that titans of finance capital were undoubtedly on the phone warning "Bone-Spur Don" that his digs in Manhattan and Florida might not be entirely safe if the worst were to happen in response to a military strike. The absurd story of Don worrying about 150 Iranians is so ludicrous that it did not even pass the smell test with the corporate controlled media for very long.

Irandle dmorista • 2 days ago
Oil reached $147 a barrel in 2007-08. That caused the so-called Great Recession.

As WSWS has pointed out there are few if any US options left but war.

[Jun 27, 2019] The West's Trumped-Up Hatred of Iran Serves The Zionist Dream of a Greater Israel Dominating the Middle East by Stuart Littlewood

Notable quotes:
"... Any US attack on Iran in these circumstances could be a violation of the United Nations Charter, which only allows the use of military force in self-defense after an armed attack or with Security Council approval. ..."
"... UN Security Council resolution 487 of 1981 called on Israel "urgently to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards". Israel has been allowed to ignore it for nearly 40 years. In 2009, the IAEA called on Israel to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty, open its nuclear facilities to inspection and place them under comprehensive IAEA safeguards. Israel still refuses to join or allow inspections. ..."
"... When the CIA-engineered coup toppled Dr. Mossadeq, reinstated the Shah and his secret police, and let the American oil companies in, it was the final straw for the Iranians. The British-American conspiracy backfired spectacularly 25 years later with the Islamic Revolution of 1978-9, the humiliating 444-day hostage crisis in the American embassy and a tragically botched rescue mission. What should have been a sharp lesson for Western meddlers became a festering sore. ..."
Jun 27, 2019 | ahtribune.com

Any US attack on Iran in these circumstances could be a violation of the United Nations Charter, which only allows the use of military force in self-defense after an armed attack or with Security Council approval.

Let's remind ourselves of earlier US aggression and dishonesty during the Iran-Iraq war, as recorded in Wikipedia:

In the course of escorts by the US Navy, the cruiser USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 655 on 3 July 1988, killing all 290 passengers and crew on board. The American government claimed that Vincennes was in international waters at the time (which was later proven to be untrue), that the Airbus A300 had been mistaken for an Iranian F-14 Tomcat, and that Vincennes feared that she was under attack. The Iranians maintain that Vincennes was in their own waters, and that the passenger jet was turning away and increasing altitude after take-off. US Admiral William J. Crowe later admitted on Nightline that Vincennes was in Iranian territorial waters when it launched the missiles. At the time of the attack, Admiral Crowe claimed that the Iranian plane did not identify itself and sent no response to warning signals he had sent. In 1996, the United States expressed their regret for the event and the civilian deaths it caused.

Trump now wants to impose further crippling sanctions on Iran and her people while the UK's Foreign Office minister Andrew Murrison has just been to Tehran calling for "urgent de-escalation" and cheekily criticising Iran's "regional conduct" and its threat to stop complying with the nuclear deal, which the US recklessly abandoned but the UK remains committed to.

Good news about Murrison, though. A medical man, he voted against the Iraq war but as a Navy reservist was called up to do a 6 month tour of duty there. Perhaps Murrison should go see Trump and ask:

  • Why is he not more concerned about Israel's nuclear arsenal and the mental state of the Israeli regime, which are the real threat to the region and beyond?
  • Why isn't he slapping sanctions on Israel for its refusal to sign up to the NPT or engage constructively on the issue of its nuclear and other WMD programmes, not to mention its repeated defiance of international and humanitarian laws in the Holy Land?

Trump meanwhile has signed an executive order targeting Iran's leadership with hard-hitting new sanctions supposedly needed to deny their development of nuclear weapons. "Never can Iran have a nuclear weapon," Trump has decreed. He added: "We will continue to increased pressure on Tehran until the regime abandons its dangerous activities and its asperations, including the pursuit of nuclear weapons, increased enrichment of uranium, development of ballistic missiles, engagement and support for terrorism, fuelling of foreign conflicts and belligerent acts...." Achingly funny. Who else could all that apply to, I wonder? Exactly. The Bully-Boy-in-chief himself and his best buddies in Tel Aviv.

Sowing the seeds of hatred

We have conveniently short memories when it comes to our abominable conduct towards the Iranians in 1951-53 when a previous Conservative government, in cahoots with the USA, snuffed out Iran's fledgling democracy and reinstated a cruel dictator, the Shah. This eventually brought about the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and created the deep distrust between Iran and the West. Is it not shameful that the present Conservative government is spoiling for another fight? Shouldn't the Foreign Office now focus on exerting influence through trade and co-operation?

The Iranian regime, like many others, may not be entirely to our liking but nor was Dr Mossadeq's democracy 65 years ago. Besides, what threat is Iran to Britain? And why are we allowing ourselves to be driven by America's mindless hatred?

When new recruits join British Petroleum (BP) they are fed romantic tales about how the company came into being. William Knox D'Arcy, a Devon man, studied law and made a fortune from the Mount Morgan gold-mining operations in 1880s Australia. Returning to England he agreed to fund a search for oil and minerals in Persia and began negotiations with the Mozaffar al-Din Shah Qajar in 1901. A sixty year concession gave D'Arcy the oil rights to the entire country except for five provinces in the north. The Persian government would receive 16% of the oil company's annual profits.

Mozzafar ad-Din was naive in business matters and unprepared for kingship when the time came. He borrowed heavily from the Russians and in order to pay off the debt he signed away control of many Persian industries and markets to foreigners. The deal D'Arcy cut was too sharp by far and would eventually lead to trouble.

He sent an exploration team headed by geologist George B Reynolds. In 1903 a company was formed and D'Arcy had to spend much of his fortune to cover the costs. Further financial support came from Glasgow-based Burmah Oil in return for a large share of the stock.

Drilling in southern Persia at Shardin continued until 1907 when the search was switched to Masjid-i-Souleiman. By 1908 D'Arcy was almost bankrupt. Reynolds received a last-chance instruction: "Drill to 1,600 feet and give up". On 26 May at 1,180 feet he struck oil.

It was indeed a triumph of guts and determination. The Anglo-Persian Oil Company was soon up and running and in 1911 completed a pipeline from the oilfield to its new refinery at Abadan. But the company was in trouble again by 1914. The golden age of motoring hadn't yet arrived and the industrial oil markets were sewn up by American and European interests. The sulphurous stench of the Persian oil, even after refining, ruled it out for domestic use, so D'Arcy had a marketing problem.

Luckily Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty, was an enthusiast for oil and wanted to convert the British fleet from coal especially now that a reliable oil source was secured. He famously told Parliament: "Look out upon the wide expanse of the oil regions of the world!" Only the British-owned Anglo-Persian Oil Company, he said, could protect British interests. His resolution passed and the British Government took a major shareholding in the company just in time, for World War One began a few weeks later.

During the war the British government seized the assets of a German company calling itself British Petroleum for the purpose of marketing its products in Britain. Anglo-Persian acquired the assets from the Public Trustee complete with a ready-made distribution network and an abundance of depots, railway tank wagons, road vehicles, barges and so forth. This enabled Anglo-Persian to rapidly expand sales in petroleum-hungry Britain and Europe after the war.

In the inter-war years Anglo-Persian profited handsomely from paying the Iranians a miserly 16%, and an increasingly angry Persia tried to renegotiate terms. Getting nowhere, they cancelled the D'Arcy agreement and the matter ended up at the Court of International Justice at The Hague. A new agreement in 1933 provided Anglo-Persian with a fresh 60-year concession but on a smaller area. The terms were an improvement for the Persians but still didn't amount to a square deal.

In 1935 Iran formally replaced Persia as the country's official name internationally and Anglo-Persian changed to Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. By 1950 Abadan was the biggest oil refinery in the world and Britain, with its 51% holding, had affectively colonised part of southern Iran.

Iran's small share of the profits became a big issue and so did the treatment of its oil workers. 6,000 withdrew their labour in 1946 and the strike was violently put down with 200 dead or injured. In 1951 Anglo-Iranian declared £40 million profit after tax but handed Iran only £7 million. Meanwhile Arabian American Oil was sharing profits with the Saudis on a 50/50 basis. Calls for nationalisation were mounting.

As a result of the Persian Constitutional Revolution the first Majlis (parliament) was established in 1906 and the country became a constitutional monarchy with high hopes. By mid-century Iran not unreasonably wanted economic and political independence and an end to poverty. In March 1951 its Majlis and Senate voted to nationalise Anglo-Iranian, which had controlled Iran's oil industry since 1913 under terms disadvantageous to Iran. Respected social reformer Dr Mohammad Mossadeq was named prime minister the following month by a 79 to 12 majority. On 1 May Mossadeq carried out his government's wishes, cancelling Anglo-Iranian's oil concession due to expire in 1993 and expropriating its assets.

His explanation, given in a speech in June 1951 (M. Fateh, Panjah Sal-e Naft-e Iran , p. 525), ran as follows...

"Our long years of negotiations with foreign countries have yielded no results this far. With the oil revenues we could meet our entire budget and combat poverty, disease, and backwardness among our people. Another important consideration is that by the elimination of the power of the British company, we would also eliminate corruption and intrigue, by means of which the internal affairs of our country have been influenced. Once this tutelage has ceased, Iran will have achieved its economic and political independence.

"The Iranian state prefers to take over the production of petroleum itself. The company should do nothing else but return its property to the rightful owners. The nationalization law provides that 25% of the net profits on oil be set aside to meet all the legitimate claims of the company for compensation It has been asserted abroad that Iran intends to expel the foreign oil experts from the country and then shut down oil installations. Not only is this allegation absurd; it is utter invention "

For this he would eventually be removed in a coup by MI5 and the CIA, imprisoned for 3 years then put under house arrest until his death.

Britain, with regime change in mind, orchestrated a world-wide boycott of Iranian oil, froze Iran's sterling assets and threatened legal action against anyone purchasing oil produced in the formerly British-controlled refineries. It even considered invading. The Iranian economy was soon in ruins.... sounds familiar, doesn't it? Attempts by the Shah to replace Mossadeq failed and he returned with more power, but his coalition was slowly crumbling under the hardships imposed by the British blockade.

At first America was reluctant to join Britain's destructive game but Churchill let it be known that Mossadeq was turning communist and pushing Iran into Russia's arms at a time when Cold War anxiety was high. It was enough to bring America's new president, Eisenhower, on board and plotting with Britain to bring Mossadeq down.

Chief of the CIA's Near East and Africa division, Kermit Roosevelt Jr, arrived to play the leading role in an ugly game of provocation, mayhem and deception. An elaborate campaign of disinformation began, and the Shah signed two decrees, one dismissing Mossadeq and the other nominating the CIA's choice, General Fazlollah Zahedi, as prime minister. These decrees were written as dictated by Donald Wilbur the CIA architect of the plan

The Shah fled to Rome. When it was judged safe to do so he returned on 22 August 1953. Mossadeq was arrested, tried, and convicted of treason by the Shah's military court. He remarked

"My greatest sin is that I nationalised Iran's oil industry and discarded the system of political and economic exploitation by the world's greatest empire With God's blessing and the will of the people, I fought this savage and dreadful system of international espionage and colonialism.

"I am well aware that my fate must serve as an example in the future throughout the Middle East in breaking the chains of slavery and servitude to colonial interests ."

His supporters were rounded up, imprisoned, tortured or executed. Zahedi's new government soon reached an agreement with foreign oil companies to form a consortium to restore the flow of Iranian oil, awarding the US and Great Britain the lion's share - 40% going to Anglo-Iranian. The consortium agreed to split profits on a 50-50 basis with Iran but, tricky as ever, refused to open its books to Iranian auditors or allow Iranians to sit on the board.

A grateful US massively funded the Shah's government, including his army and secret police force, SAVAK. Anglo-Iranian changed its name to British Petroleum in 1954. Mossadeq died on 5 March 1967.

Apologise? Hell no Let's demonise Iran!

But the West's fun came to an abrupt halt with the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and a great British enterprise that started heroically and turned nasty ended in tears.

The US is still hated today for reimposing the Shah and his thugs and demolishing the Iranians' democratic system of government, which the Revolution unfortunately didn't restore. The US is widely known by Iranians as Big Satan and its regional handmaiden Israel rejoices in the name Little Satan . Britain, as the instigator and junior partner in the sordid affair, is similarly despised.

Moreover, Iran harbours great resentment at the way the West, especially the US, helped Iraq develop its armed forces and chemical weapons arsenal, and how the international community failed to punish Iraq for its use of those weapons against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war. The US, and eventually Britain, leaned strongly towards Saddam in that conflict and the alliance enabled Saddam to more easily acquire or develop forbidden chemical and biological weapons. At least 100,000 Iranians fell victim to them.

This is how John King writing in 2003 summed it up

"The United States used methods both legal and illegal to help build Saddam's army into the most powerful army in the Mideast outside of Israel. The US supplied chemical and biological agents and technology to Iraq when it knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranians. The US supplied the materials and technology for these weapons of mass destruction to Iraq at a time when it was know that Saddam was using this technology to kill his Kurdish citizens. The United States supplied intelligence and battle planning information to Iraq when those battle plans included the use of cyanide, mustard gas and nerve agents. The United States blocked UN censure of Iraq's use of chemical weapons. The United States did not act alone in this effort. The Soviet Union was the largest weapons supplier, but England, France and Germany were also involved in the shipment of arms and technology."

While Iranian casualties were at their highest as a result of US chemical and biological war crimes Trump was busy acquiring the Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Trump Castle , his Taj-Mahal casino, the Plaza Hotel in Manhattan and was refitting his super-yacht Trump Princess . What does he know, understand or care about Iran?

On the British side Foreign Secretary Jaremy Hunt was messing about at Oxford University; and the front-runner to fill our Prime Minister vacancy, Boris Johnson, former Foreign Secretary, was similarly at Oxford carousing with fellow Old Etonians at the Bullingdon Club. What do they know or care?

Which brings us to today Why are we hearing nonstop sabre-rattling against Iran when we should be extending the hand of reconciliation and friendship? And why are these clueless leaders demonising Iran instead of righting the wrongs? Because the political establishment is still smarting. And they are the new-generation imperialists, the political spawn of those Dr Mossadeq and many others struggled against. They haven't learned from the past, and they won't lift their eyes to a better future.

It's so depressing.

Economic sanctions: are they moral, or even legal?

The US and UK have led the charge on oil sanctions and other measures to make life hell for Iranians. But are they on safe legal ground?

The International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL) in a statement on 26 November 2011, said they were deeply concerned about the threats against Iran by Israel, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Referring to a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency, IADL stated that those threats were unacceptable and dangerous not only for all the region but for the whole of humanity, and that Article 2.4 of the UN Charter forbids not only use of force but also the threat of force in international relations. The right of defence does not include pre-emptive strikes.

The IADL also pointed out that while Israel was quick to denounce the possible possession of nuclear weapons by others, it had illegally possessed nuclear weapons for many years. The danger to world peace was so great as to require the global eradication of all nuclear weapons, and to immediately declare the Middle East a nuclear free zone and a zone free of all weapons of mass destruction, as required by UN Security Council resolution 687.

Furthermore, Article 33 states that "the parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means..." Economic 'terror' tactics such as the vicious sanctions deployed by the US, UK and their allies – and the similar measures used by Britain and America in the 1950s to bring down the government of Dr Mossadeq and reinstate the Shah – are simply not part of the approved toolkit.

Remember the context

UN Security Council resolution 487 of 1981 called on Israel "urgently to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards". Israel has been allowed to ignore it for nearly 40 years. In 2009, the IAEA called on Israel to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty, open its nuclear facilities to inspection and place them under comprehensive IAEA safeguards. Israel still refuses to join or allow inspections.

The Zionist regime is reckoned by some to have up to 400 nuclear warheads at its disposal. It is the only state in the region that is not a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (Iran is). It has signed but not ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. As regards biological and chemical weapons, Israel has not signed the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. It has signed but not ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention.

In early 2012 the US intelligence community was saying that Iran hadn't got an active nuclear weapons programme, and Israeli intelligence agreed. The Director of the National Intelligence Agency, James Clapper, reported: "We assess Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons..."

So the continual focus on Iran has been a deliberate distraction. We repaid Iranian co-operation in D'Arcy's oil venture with corporate greed and diplomatic double-cross. America and Britain are still smarting from the time when Iran democratically elected Dr. Mossadeq, who sensibly nationalized her vast oil resources. Up till then the grasping British were raking in far more profit from Iranian oil than the Iranians themselves.

Back in the 1920s the US State Department had described the oil deposits in the Middle East as "a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history". Ever since, its designs on Iraq and Iran have been plain to see and it is still ready to pounce on every opportunity.

When the CIA-engineered coup toppled Dr. Mossadeq, reinstated the Shah and his secret police, and let the American oil companies in, it was the final straw for the Iranians. The British-American conspiracy backfired spectacularly 25 years later with the Islamic Revolution of 1978-9, the humiliating 444-day hostage crisis in the American embassy and a tragically botched rescue mission. What should have been a sharp lesson for Western meddlers became a festering sore.

The quest for the energy prize is not over. But it is no longer just about oil. Zionist stooges in controlling positions in the West's corridors of power are pledged to ensure Israel remains the only nuclear power in the Middle East and continues to dominate the region militarily. And they are willing to spill Christian blood and spend Christian treasure in that cause.

US National Security Adviser John Bolton, recipient of the Defender of Israel Award last year and the Guardian of Zion Award the year before, is one such super-stooge. His stupefying remark: "No-one has granted Iran a hunting licence in the Middle East" typifies the arrogance of his ilk.

Stuart Littlewood worked on jet fighters in the RAF. Various sales and marketing management positions in manufacturing, oil and electronics. Senior associate with several industrial marketing consultancies. Graduate Member of the Chartered Institute of Marketing (MInstM). BA Hons Psychology, University of Exeter.

[Jun 26, 2019] VIPS Memo to the President Is Pompeo's Iran Agenda the Same As Yours Consortiumnews

Notable quotes:
"... UPDATED: VIPS says its direct experience with Mike Pompeo leaves them with strong doubt regarding his trustworthiness on issues of consequence to the President and the nation. ..."
"... As for Pompeo himself, there is no sign he followed up by pursuing Binney's stark observation with anyone, including his own CIA cyber sleuths. Pompeo had been around intelligence long enough to realize the risks entailed in asking intrusive questions of intelligence officers -- in this case, subordinates in the Directorate of Digital Innovation, which was created by CIA Director John Brennan in 2015. ..."
"... CIA malware and hacking tools are built by the Engineering Development Group, part of that relatively new Directorate. (It is a safe guess that offensive cybertool specialists from that Directorate were among those involved in the reported placing of "implants" or software code into the Russian grid, about which The New York Times claims you were not informed.) ..."
"... The question is whose agenda Pompeo was pursuing -- yours or his own. Binney had the impression Pompeo was simply going through the motions -- and disingenuously, at that. If he "really wanted to know about Russian hacking," he would have acquainted himself with the conclusions that VIPS, with Binney in the lead, had reached in mid-2017, and which apparently caught your eye. ..."
"... For the Steering Groups of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity: ..."
Jun 21, 2019 | consortiumnews.com

UPDATED: VIPS says its direct experience with Mike Pompeo leaves them with strong doubt regarding his trustworthiness on issues of consequence to the President and the nation.

DATE: June 21, 2019

MEMORANDUM FOR : The President.

FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

SUBJECT: Is Pompeo's Iran Agenda the Same As Yours?

A fter the close call yesterday when you called off the planned military strike on Iran, we remain concerned that you are about to be mousetrapped into war with Iran. You have said you do not want such a war (no sane person would), and our comments below are based on that premise. There are troubling signs that Secretary Pompeo is not likely to jettison his more warlike approach, More importantly, we know from personal experience with Pompeo's dismissive attitude to instructions from you that his agenda can deviate from yours on issues of major consequence.

Pompeo's behavior betrays a strong desire to resort to military action -- perhaps even without your approval -- to Iranian provocations (real or imagined), with no discernible strategic goal other than to advance the interests of Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. He is a neophyte compared to his anti-Iran partner John Bolton, whose dilettante approach to interpreting intelligence, strong advocacy of the misbegotten war on Iraq (and continued pride in his role in promoting it), and fierce pursuit of his own aggressive agenda are a matter of a decades-long record. You may not be fully aware of our experience with Pompeo, who has now taken the lead on Iran.

That experience leaves us with strong doubt regarding his trustworthiness on issues of consequence to you and the country, including the contentious issue of alleged Russian hacking into the DNC. The sketchy "evidence" behind that story has now crumbled, thanks to some unusual candor from the Department of Justice. We refer to the extraordinary revelation in a recent Department of Justice court filing that former FBI Director James Comey never required a final forensic report from the DNC-hired cybersecurity company, CrowdStrike.

Comey, of course, has admitted to the fact that, amid accusations from the late Sen. John McCain and others that the Russians had committed "an act of war," the FBI did not follow best practices and insist on direct access to the DNC computers, preferring to rely on CrowdStrike reporting. What was not known until the DOJ revelation is that CrowdStrike never gave Comey a final report on its forensic findings regarding alleged "Russian hacking." Mainstream media have suppressed this story so far; we reported it several days ago.

The point here is that Pompeo could have exposed the lies about Russian hacking of the DNC, had he done what you asked him to do almost two years ago when he was director of the CIA.

In our Memorandum to you of July 24, 2017 entitled "Was the 'Russian Hack' an Inside Job?," we suggested:

"You may wish to ask CIA Director Mike Pompeo what he knows about this.["This" being the evidence-deprived allegation that "a shadowy entity with the moniker 'Guccifer 2.0' hacked the DNC on behalf of Russian intelligence and gave DNC emails to WikiLeaks ."] Our own lengthy intelligence community experience suggests that it is possible that neither former CIA Director John Brennan, nor the cyber-warriors who worked for him, have been completely candid with their new director regarding how this all went down."

Three months later, Director Pompeo invited William Binney, one of VIPS' two former NSA technical directors (and a co-author of our July 24, 2017 Memorandum), to CIA headquarters to discuss our findings. Pompeo began an hour-long meeting with Binney on October 24, 2017 by explaining the genesis of the unusual invitation: "You are here because the President told me that if I really wanted to know about Russian hacking I needed to talk to you."

But Did Pompeo 'Really Want to Know'?

Apparently not. Binney, a widely respected, plain-spoken scientist with more than three decades of experience at NSA , began by telling Pompeo that his (CIA) people were lying to him about Russian hacking and that he (Binney) could prove it. As we explained in our most recent Memorandum to you, Pompeo reacted with disbelief and -- now get this -- tried to put the burden on Binney to pursue the matter with the FBI and NSA.

As for Pompeo himself, there is no sign he followed up by pursuing Binney's stark observation with anyone, including his own CIA cyber sleuths. Pompeo had been around intelligence long enough to realize the risks entailed in asking intrusive questions of intelligence officers -- in this case, subordinates in the Directorate of Digital Innovation, which was created by CIA Director John Brennan in 2015.

CIA malware and hacking tools are built by the Engineering Development Group, part of that relatively new Directorate. (It is a safe guess that offensive cybertool specialists from that Directorate were among those involved in the reported placing of "implants" or software code into the Russian grid, about which The New York Times claims you were not informed.)

If Pompeo failed to report back to you on the conversation you instructed him to have with Binney, you might ask him about it now (even though the flimsy evidence of Russia hacking the DNC has now evaporated, with Binney vindicated). There were two note-takers present at the October 24, 2017 meeting at CIA headquarters. There is also a good chance the session was also recorded. You might ask Pompeo about that.

Whose Agenda?

The question is whose agenda Pompeo was pursuing -- yours or his own. Binney had the impression Pompeo was simply going through the motions -- and disingenuously, at that. If he "really wanted to know about Russian hacking," he would have acquainted himself with the conclusions that VIPS, with Binney in the lead, had reached in mid-2017, and which apparently caught your eye.

Had he pursued the matter seriously with Binney, we might not have had to wait until the Justice Department itself put nails in the coffin of Russiagate, CrowdStrike, and Comey. In sum, Pompeo could have prevented two additional years of "everyone knows that the Russians hacked into the DNC." Why did he not?

Pompeo is said to be a bright fellow -- Bolton, too–with impeccable academic credentials. The history of the past six decades , though, shows that an Ivy League pedigree can spell disaster in affairs of state. Think, for example, of President Lyndon Johnson's national security adviser, former Harvard Dean McGeorge Bundy, for example, who sold the Tonkin Gulf Resolution to Congress to authorize the Vietnam war based on what he knew was a lie. Millions dead.

Bundy was to LBJ as John Bolton is to you, and it is a bit tiresome watching Bolton brandish his Yale senior ring at every podium. Think, too, of Princeton's own Donald Rumsfeld concocting and pushing the fraud about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to "justify" war on Iraq, assuring us all the while that "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Millions dead.

Rumsfeld's dictum is anathema to William Binney, who has shown uncommon patience answering a thousand evidence-free "What if's" over the past three years. Binney's shtick? The principles of physics, applied mathematics, and the scientific method. He is widely recognized for his uncanny ability to use these to excellent advantage in separating the chaff from wheat. No Ivy pedigree wanted or needed.

Binney describes himself as a "country boy" from western Pennsylvania. He studied at Penn State and became a world renowned mathematician/cryptologist as well as a technical director at NSA. Binney's accomplishments are featured in a documentary on YouTube, "A Good American." You may wish to talk to him person-to-person.

Cooked Intelligence

Some of us served as long ago as the Vietnam War. We are painfully aware of how Gen. William Westmoreland and other top military officers lied about the "progress" the Army was making, and succeeded in forcing their superiors in Washington to suppress our conclusions as all-source analysts that the war was a fool's errand and one we would inevitably lose. Millions dead.

Four decades later, on February 5, 2003, six weeks before the attack on Iraq, we warned President Bush that there was no reliable intelligence to justify war on Iraq.

Five years later, the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, releasing the bipartisan conclusions of the committee's investigation, said this :

" In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed."

Intelligence on the Middle East has still been spotty -- and sometimes "fixed" for political purposes. Four years ago, a U.S. congressional report said Central Command painted too rosy a picture of the fight against Islamic State in 2014 and 2015 compared with the reality on the ground and grimmer assessments by other analysts.

Intelligence analysts at CENTCOM claimed their commanders imposed a "false narrative" on analysts, intentionally rewrote and suppressed intelligence products, and engaged in "delay tactics" to undermine intelligence provided by the Defense Intelligence Agency. In July 2015, fifty CENTCOM analysts signed a complaint to the Pentagon's Inspector General that their intelligence reports were being manipulated by their superiors. The CENTCOM analysts were joined by intelligence analysts working for the Defense Intelligence Agency.

We offer this as a caution. As difficult as this is for us to say, the intelligence you get from CENTCOM should not be accepted reflexively as gospel truth, especially in periods of high tension. The experience of the Tonkin Gulf alone should give us caution. Unclear and misinterpreted intelligence can be as much a problem as politicization in key conflict areas.

Frequent problems with intelligence and Cheney-style hyperbole help explain why CENTCOM commander Admiral William Fallon in early 2007 blurted out that "an attack on Iran " will not happen on my watch," as Bush kept sending additional carrier groups into the Persian Gulf. Hillary Mann, the administration's former National Security Council director for Iran and Persian Gulf Affairs, warned at the time that some Bush advisers secretly wanted an excuse to attack Iran. "They intend to be as provocative as possible and make the Iranians do something [America] would be forced to retaliate for," she told Newsweek. Deja vu. A National Intelligence Estimate issued in November 2007 concluded unanimously that Iran had stopped working on a nuclear weapon in 2003 and had not resumed such work.

We believe your final decision yesterday was the right one -- given the so-called "fog of war" and against the background of a long list of intelligence mistakes, not to mention "cooking" shenanigans. We seldom quote media commentators, but we think Tucker Carlson had it right yesterday evening: "The very people -- in some cases, literally the same people who lured us into the Iraq quagmire 16 years ago -- are demanding a new war -- this one with Iran. Carlson described you as "skeptical." We believe ample skepticism is warranted.

We are at your disposal, should you wish to discuss any of this with us.

For the Steering Groups of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity:

  • William Binney , former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
  • Marshall Carter-Tripp , Foreign Service Officer & former Division Director in the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (ret.)
  • Bogdan Dzakovic , former Team Leader of Federal Air Marshals and Red Team, FAA Security (ret.) (associate VIPS)
  • Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
  • Mike Gravel, former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence Service; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator
  • James George Jatras , former U.S. diplomat and former foreign policy adviser to Senate leadership (Associate VIPS)
  • Michael S. Kearns, Captain, USAF (ret.); ex-Master SERE Instructor for Strategic Reconnaissance Operations (NSA/DIA) and Special Mission Units (JSOC)
  • John Kiriakou, former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former Senior Investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
  • Karen Kwiatkowski, former Lt. Col., US Air Force (ret.), at Office of Secretary of Defense watching the manufacture of lies on Iraq, 2001-2003
  • Clement J. Laniewski, LTC, U.S. Army (ret.) (associate VIPS)
  • Linda Lewis, WMD preparedness policy analyst, USDA (ret.) (associate VIPS)
  • Edward Loomis, NSA Cryptologic Computer Scientist (ret.)
  • Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA presidential briefer (ret.)
  • Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East & CIA political analyst (ret.)
  • Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)
  • Sarah Wilton , Commander, U.S. Naval Reserve (ret.) and Defense Intelligence Agency (ret.)
  • Ann Wright, U.S. Army Reserve Colonel (ret) and former U.S. Diplomat who resigned in 2003 in opposition to the Iraq War

[Jun 26, 2019] Pompeo is a MIC lobbyist, not a diplomat

Highly recommended!
Pretty harsh evaluation of Pompeo by usually very polite Chinese newspaper. And what is true that in no way Pompeo is a diplomat. He is a lobbyist for MIC, no more no less. Kind of Madeline Albright of different sex.
As Chinese journalist observed "Diplomacy is governed by international conventions, which require all countries to observe basic norms. Pompeo behaves like a gangster. He is abandoning the traditional US major-power diplomacy and defying the gentle style of diplomats. "
Notable quotes:
"... Chinese people will remember Pompeo as a representative who breaks the bottom line of US diplomatic ethics. Letting such a person dominate US diplomacy will unsettle the world and put global peace at risk. ..."
"... Pompeo also has turned the US State Department into a strategic headquarters used to antagonize the international community. By provoking conflict between countries who have unique differences, Pompeo has done nothing but threaten for world peace. ..."
"... Additionally, Pompeo is arguably the most active lobbyist and by all standards, a bully who coerces US allies to block Huawei. He has also spared no effort in criticizing China's policies in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. ..."
"... Pompeo's background reveals military and intelligence capabilities. While serving in the US House of Representatives, he initiated multiple foreign conflicts. Confrontation seems to be his preferred weapon of choice and the only option when engaging with anyone. Only when confronted with China, Russia, and Iran, can he see his true self. He feels such aggressive behaviour is necessary to prove his personal value. ..."
Jun 26, 2019 | www.globaltimes.cn

Chinese people will remember Pompeo as a representative who breaks the bottom line of US diplomatic ethics. Letting such a person dominate US diplomacy will unsettle the world and put global peace at risk.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo continues to be a politically troublesome figure in the global arena. Washington stands at a critical juncture as it redesigns the national strategy blueprint within a Cold War framework. The highest-ranking US diplomat has single-handedly activated an outdated mindset, smashing it to the point of climax.

Known as an extreme hardliner at the White House, Pompeo has redefined the traditional understanding of the chief diplomat's role among the world's major powers with his signature reckless behaviour.

Pompeo also has turned the US State Department into a strategic headquarters used to antagonize the international community. By provoking conflict between countries who have unique differences, Pompeo has done nothing but threaten for world peace.

During his visits to other nations, Pompeo has bad-mouthed and tried to suppress China, Russia, and Iran. His offensive remarks on China have destroyed the past China-US diplomatic language that was enjoyed for decades, preferring to use negligent words from his personal arsenal.

Additionally, Pompeo is arguably the most active lobbyist and by all standards, a bully who coerces US allies to block Huawei. He has also spared no effort in criticizing China's policies in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region.

His outspoken opinions on the recent events in Hong Kong was more of a Rubicon River crossing than someone was just merely speaking their mind. Rather than adhere to a big power game like his predecessors, Pompeo has transformed himself into anti-China flag on two legs.

The US relationship between China , Russia, and Iran will determine the future course of international relations. The condition of each relationship serves as a wind vane indicating stability or turbulence worldwide.

Pompeo is not only disrupting China, Russia, and Iran but also damaging the interests of other countries. His words and actions have jinxed the very notion of 21st-century peace.

It is understandable how the US could feel threatened, due to the pattern shift among world powers. However, Pompeo's goal has nothing to do with enhancing trust or easing concerns expressed by other countries. Instead, he wants to turn US insecurity into a form of visible hatred and increase hostility worldwide. He has consistently influenced stable international conditions to the point of deterioration.

"Make America Great Again" is not a one-man show. The notion, which is nothing more than an illiterate slogan, will never materialize and connect with the harmony enjoyed elsewhere throughout the world.

In the past decades, the US has engaged in too many wars and conflicts, while also issuing sanctions against foreign countries which were later drained of their national strength.

Pompeo has continued to push the US toward the flames of confrontation when dealing with major foreign powers. He has not helped Trump achieve earlier campaign promises, and on the contrary, he is making it difficult for the US president to keep them.

Pompeo's background reveals military and intelligence capabilities. While serving in the US House of Representatives, he initiated multiple foreign conflicts. Confrontation seems to be his preferred weapon of choice and the only option when engaging with anyone. Only when confronted with China, Russia, and Iran, can he see his true self. He feels such aggressive behaviour is necessary to prove his personal value.

Judging from the US and its Cold War reboot strategy, Pompeo has roamed too far outside of the perimeter and has officially lost his way. The US government has labelled China as its "strategic competitor." Meanwhile, Pompeo has ignited hostility from China.

Pompeo's words are by no means an accurate consensus of the US public who also want to enjoy a harmonious existence. By making volatile claims against China look reasonable, Pompeo has turned himself into a cheerleader of hatred, who uses slander and vitriol for pompoms.

Having a secretary of state of this calibre is a tragedy of US politics and the sorrow of international politics. The world needs to be exposed to the damage Pompeo has brought to humankind's peaceful existence. His destructive power should not be tolerated because of his title. He has repeatedly crushed diplomacy's constructive role while ignoring opportunities to ease international conflicts. He is a stain upon the professional honour of diplomacy. The global diplomatic community should detest his actions and join together in a crusade against him.

This article originally appeared on the Global Times website.

[Jun 26, 2019] Cost of potential US war with Iran $250 oil another Afghanistan

Notable quotes:
"... Should such a war really happen, the stakes would be very high, so there is every reason to assume that Iran's missiles would not only be equipped with conventional high explosive fragmentation warheads, but would also carry toxic agents and dirty bombs. ..."
"... even a handful of Tehran's missiles reaching critical infrastructure in the Persian Gulf region would be enough to cause devastation. ..."
"... On top of that, there are more questions than answers regarding the reliability of the antimissile and air defense systems that the Persian Gulf monarchies deployed to defend their hydrocarbon terminals and other oil and gas infrastructure. ..."
"... To solve the problem of Iran once and for all, the US would need to mount a large-scale ground operation, with the US Army invading the country. America would have to wipe out both regular Iranian forces and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, unseat the current leadership of Iran, and have a military presence in every major city for the next 10 to 15 years, keeping tight control over the entire country at the same time. ..."
Jun 26, 2019 | www.rt.com

Iran's downing of a US military surveillance drone last week predictably led to another flare-up in tense relations between Tehran and Washington. What could be the implications of a potential conflict between the two nations? Right after the Global Hawk UAV was shot down, the New York Times reported that US President Donald Trump approved military strikes against Iran, but then changed his mind.

Let's start by saying that the decision to launch a military operation against Iran (which is what this is really about), including the specific time and place, would have to be taken by a very small group of top US political and military officials. At such meetings, no leaks could possibly occur by definition.

Now, let's take a look at some of the details. The difference between a 'strike' and an 'operation' is quite significant, at the very least in terms of duration, and forces and equipment involved. It would be nice to know if the NYT actually meant a single airstrike or an entire air operation.

Also on rt.com US lapdog Jeremy Hunt prepping British public for war with Iran, just in case Trump asks

Amusingly enough, the publication reported that the strikes were scheduled for early morning to minimize the potential death toll among the Iranian military and civilians. It's worth pointing out that the US has never cared about the number of victims either among the military personnel or the civilian population of its adversaries.

Moreover, the purpose of any military conflict is to do as much damage to your enemy as possible in terms of personnel, military hardware and other equipment. This is how the goals of any armed conflict are achieved. Of course, it would be best if civilian losses are kept to a minimum, but for the US it's more of a secondary rather than a primary objective.

The US Navy and Air Force traditionally strike before dawn with one purpose alone – to avoid the antiaircraft artillery (both small and medium-caliber), as well as a number of air defense systems with optical tracking, firing at them. Besides, a strike in the dark hours of the day affects the morale of the enemy personnel.

Here we need to understand that Iran would instantly retaliate, and Tehran has no small capabilities for that. In other words, it would be a full-scale war. For the US, it wouldn't end with one surgical airstrike without consequences, like in Syria. And the US seems to have a very vague idea on what a military victory over Iran would look like.

Also on rt.com US will not 'stumble into' war with Iran by mistake. If it happens, it will be by design

There is no doubt that a prolonged air campaign by the US will greatly undermine Iran's military and economic potential and reduce the country to the likes of Afghanistan, completely destroying its hydrocarbon production and exports industries.

To say how long such a campaign could last would be too much of a wild guess, but we have the examples of Operation Desert Storm in 1991 when airstrikes lasted for 38 days, and Yugoslavia in 1991 when the bombing continued for 78 days. So, theoretically, the US could bomb Iran for, say, 100 days, wrecking the country's economy and infrastructure step by step.

However, the price the US would have to pay for starting such a military conflict may turn out to be too high.

For instance, Iran can respond to US aggression by launching intermediate and shorter-range ballistic missiles to target oil and gas fields and terminals in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, and the UAE.

Should such a war really happen, the stakes would be very high, so there is every reason to assume that Iran's missiles would not only be equipped with conventional high explosive fragmentation warheads, but would also carry toxic agents and dirty bombs.

Firstly, it should be pointed out that even though the capabilities of US intelligence agencies are almost limitless, quite a few Iranian missile launching sites remain undiscovered. Secondly, US air defense systems in the Persian Gulf, no matter how effective, would not shoot down every last Iranian missile. And even a handful of Tehran's missiles reaching critical infrastructure in the Persian Gulf region would be enough to cause devastation.

On top of that, there are more questions than answers regarding the reliability of the antimissile and air defense systems that the Persian Gulf monarchies deployed to defend their hydrocarbon terminals and other oil and gas infrastructure.

Also on rt.com $300 oil? US war with Iran spells catastrophe for global economy, expert tells RT

If such a scenario came true, that would bring inconceivable chaos to the global economy and would immediately drive up oil prices to $200-250 per barrel – and that's the lowest estimate. It is these implications that are most likely keeping the US from attacking Iran.

To solve the problem of Iran once and for all, the US would need to mount a large-scale ground operation, with the US Army invading the country. America would have to wipe out both regular Iranian forces and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, unseat the current leadership of Iran, and have a military presence in every major city for the next 10 to 15 years, keeping tight control over the entire country at the same time.

For the record, the US failed to do that even in Afghanistan, which is several times smaller than Iran in terms of both territory and population. And almost 18 years of fighting later, the US has achieved next to nothing.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

[Jun 26, 2019] Lawrence Wilkerson Trump Is Deepening the 'Economic War' Against Iran naked capitalism

Jun 26, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

GREG WILPERT It's not clear what impact these new sanctions will have on Iran, but the sanctions that have already been imposed since the US withdrew from the JCPOA last year have had a serious effect on Iran's economy. According to oil industry analysts, Iranian oil exports have dropped from 2.5 million barrels per day in April 2013, to about 300,000 barrels per day currently. The latest sanctions come on the heels of heightened tensions. Last week, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo accused Iran of attacking two oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz. Then later that week, Iran downed an expensive US drone over the same strait saying that it had entered Iranian airspace. President Trump later revealed that the US was about to retaliate over the weekend with an airstrike against Iran, but Trump changed his mind in the last minute and launched a cyber-attack against Iranian military facilities instead. Joining me now to discuss the latest in the confrontation between the US and Iran is Colonel Larry Wilkerson. He is former Chief of staff to the Secretary of State Colin Powell, and now a Distinguished Adjunct Professor of Government and Public Policy at the College of William and Mary. Thanks for joining us again, Larry.

COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON Good to be with you.

GREG WILPERT So let's start with the sanctions. As I said, it's far from clear whether these latest sanctions mean anything, but the earlier sanctions are certainly having an effect on Iran, shrinking its economy and causing shortages. Now Trump argued that he called off the airstrike on Iran because he had been told that up to 150 people could have been killed, and that this would have been a disproportionate response to shooting down their drone, but there are reports that Iranians are having trouble accessing lifesaving medicines, such as for cancer treatment. Now, what do you make of this rationale for calling off the airstrike but then at the same time intensifying sanctions?

COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON There is no question that the sanctions we have on Iran -- and for that matter on North Korea, and on Venezuela, perhaps even still do on Venezuela -- constitute economic warfare. That's the reality that the world doesn't seem to want to address because the United States is so powerful and that their economies and financial networks are so wrapped up with us. That said, it's not like -- And the crassness of the United States with regard to these sanctions was about saved by none other than Madeleine Albright best when she was confronted with a number of Iraqi children who were dying as a result of the sanctions we had on Saddam Hussein. And she simply said, well I thought it was worth it. Worth it -- to kill all those children? The sanctions regimes we execute though, are a little bit more sophisticated, a little bit more well-aimed, more precisely aimed these days.

I was very much associated with the ones on North Korea, ones on Iraq, the way we tried to smarten them up and so forth. The ones on Iran I think are having a very meaningful impact in terms of cutting down on Iran's ability to do everything that it does, including as you pointed out to sell oil. But that said, if Saddam Hussein could evade the sanctions that were on him to the extent that we now know he did, and we know from past experience how well the Kims evaded sanctions in North Korea and invented ways to get around them -- criminal activity like counterfeiting American hundred-dollar bills, for example. And other things that I know about sanctions, I would say the Iranians would be able to survive these no matter how tight we think we've made them. By and large, the Iranian government -- the Majlis, the judiciary, the Ayatollahs, the Guardian Council, the IRGC, the Quds Force -- they don't care about the Iranian people. That's one thing we ought to say more often and more frequently because it's true.

Corruption is so rife in Iran and all sanctions do is increase the money in the hands of those who are corrupt, like the IRGC and the Quds Force. So despite all these statistics and everything -- Look at oil, for example. ISIS, we now know, survived quite richly off its oil sales and we know that Turkey was behind most of the facilitation of those oil sales. The same thing is going to happen with Iran, so official statistics are really meaningless. That said, the sanctions are biting, but I don't think they're ever going to bite to the extent that someone's going to come forward like our Mr. Zarif and say, okay John. Okay Mike. Okay Donald. We're ready to talk. It is just not gonna happen.

Ashburn , June 26, 2019 at 1:50 pm

Even a so-called "surgical strike" on targets within Iran risks the Iranians closing the straight of Hormuz and blocking all oil shipments– somewhere between 20%- 30% or world's oil exports. World oil prices would skyrocket and the entire world's economy would be in chaos. Trillion$ in derivatives would instantly be at risk. There is no way the US military, or the Saudis can prevent this. I believe this is the real reason Trump supposedly cancelled the planned retaliatory strike for Iran's shoot-down of our drone.

Iran knows that sanctions on Iraq during the 90's killed over 500,000 Iraqi children. Even though Col. Wilkerson says Iran's leadership doesn't care about its people, they certainly care more than the US does and won't be willing to sit on their hands and watch this happen. They will resist with force if necessary and make the US and its subservient allies pay the price.

[Jun 25, 2019] Tulsi on Iraq war and Trump administration and some interesting information about Bolton

With minor comment editions for clarity...
Looks like Bolton is dyed-in-the-wool imperialist. He believes the United States can do what wants without regard to international law, treaties or the роlitical commitments of previous administrations.
Notable quotes:
"... Israel is an Anglo American aircraft carrier to control the Eastern Mediterranean ..."
Jun 25, 2019 | www.unz.com

J. Gutierrez says: June 24, 2019 at 5:37 pm GMT 300 Words

...Look at this man's video and remember he is a pervert, warmonger and a coward!

https://www.youtube.com/embed/hs35O_TBbbU

Ma Laoshi , says: June 24, 2019 at 11:56 pm GMT

@J. Gutierrez

...Zionists know what they want, are willing to work together towards their goals, and put their money where their mouth is. In contrast, for a few pennies the goyim will renounce any principle they pretend to cherish, and go on happily proclaiming the opposite even if a short while down the road it'll get their own children killed.

The real sad part about this notion of the goy as a mere beast in human form is maybe not that it got codified for eternity in the Talmud, but rather that there may be some truth to it? Another way of saying this is raising the question whether the goyim deserve better, given what we see around us.

Saka Arya , says: June 25, 2019 at 7:02 am GMT
@Malla

Israel is an Anglo American aircraft carrier to control the Eastern Mediterranean and prevent a Turko Egyptian and possibly Persian invasion of Greece & the West

[Jun 25, 2019] If the reports are true then Trump made an offer to the Iranians: let me bomb a few token sites - heck, I'll even let you nominate them - and then I'll declare victory and we can sit down and talk.

Notable quotes:
"... If the reports are true then Trump made an offer to the Iranians: let me bomb a few token sites - heck, I'll even let you nominate them - and then I'll declare victory and we can sit down and talk. ..."
"... Nope, said the Iranians. If you launch even a token attack then we will reply with everything we have got, and so will Hezbollah and so will Syria. Your call, Donald. ..."
"... That's the reality, apparently. One spark from Trump and the entire region goes up in flames. ..."
Jun 25, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Yeah, Right , Jun 25, 2019 6:17:41 AM | 156

@154 Hopkins

"how long before Iran realizes it will lose and calls on all of its asymmetric regional forces to attack in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, UAE, Saudi Arabia and the Straits of Hormuz"

Oh, about 12 hours, there or thereabouts. That is Iran's "Trump card". If the reports are true then Trump made an offer to the Iranians: let me bomb a few token sites - heck, I'll even let you nominate them - and then I'll declare victory and we can sit down and talk.

Nope, said the Iranians. If you launch even a token attack then we will reply with everything we have got, and so will Hezbollah and so will Syria. Your call, Donald.

That's the reality, apparently. One spark from Trump and the entire region goes up in flames.

[Jun 25, 2019] Trump may be in too deep to avoid war with Iran by Patrick Cockburn

Notable quotes:
"... But if a ground war is ruled out, then Iran is engaged in the sort of limited conflict in which it has long experience. A senior Iraqi official once said to me that the Iranians "have a PhD" in this type of part political, part military warfare. They are tactics that have worked well for Tehran in Lebanon, Iraq and Syria over the past 40 years. The Iranians have many pressure points against the US, and above all against its Saudi and Emirati allies in the Gulf. ..."
"... Saddam Hussein sought to throttle Iran's oil exports and Iran tried to do the same to Iraq. The US and its allies weighed in openly on Saddam Hussein's side – an episode swiftly forgotten by them after the Iraqi leader invaded Kuwait in 1990. From 1987 on, re-registered Kuwaiti tankers were being escorted through the Gulf by US warships. There were US airstrikes against Iranian ships and shore facilities, culminating in the accidental but very avoidable shooting down of an Iranian civil airliner with 290 passengers on board by the USS Vincennes in 1988. Iran was forced to sue for peace in its war with Iraq. ..."
Jun 25, 2019 | www.unz.com

But the dilemma for Trump is at a deeper level. His sanctions against Iran, reimposed after he withdrew the US from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018, are devastating the Iranian economy. The US Treasury is a more lethal international power than the Pentagon. The EU and other countries have stuck with the deal, but they have in practice come to tolerate the economic blockade of Iran.

Iran was left with no choice but to escalate the conflict. It wants to make sure that the US, the European and Asian powers, and US regional allies Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates, feel some pain. Tehran never expected much from the EU states, which are still signed up to the 2015 nuclear deal, and has found its low expectations are being fulfilled.

A fundamental misunderstanding of the US-Iran confrontation is shared by many commentators. It may seem self-evident that the US has an interest in using its vast military superiority over Iran to get what it wants. But after the failure of the US ground forces to win in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention Somalia, no US leader can start a land war in the Middle East without endangering their political survival at home.

Trump took this lesson to heart long before he became president. He is a genuine isolationist in the American tradition. The Democrats and much of the US media have portrayed Trump as a warmonger, though he has yet to start a war. His national security adviser John Bolton and secretary of state Mike Pompeo issue bloodcurdling threats against Iran, but Trump evidently views such bellicose rhetoric as simply one more way of ramping up the pressure on Iran.

But if a ground war is ruled out, then Iran is engaged in the sort of limited conflict in which it has long experience. A senior Iraqi official once said to me that the Iranians "have a PhD" in this type of part political, part military warfare. They are tactics that have worked well for Tehran in Lebanon, Iraq and Syria over the past 40 years. The Iranians have many pressure points against the US, and above all against its Saudi and Emirati allies in the Gulf.

The Iranians could overplay their hand: Trump is an isolationist, but he is also a populist national leader who claims in his first campaign rallies for the next presidential election to "have made America great again". Such boasts make it difficult to not retaliate against Iran, a country he has demonised as the source of all the troubles in the Middle East.

One US military option looks superficially attractive but conceals many pitfalls. This is to try to carry out operations along the lines of the limited military conflict between the US and Iran called the "tanker war". This was part of the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s and the US came out the winner.

Saddam Hussein sought to throttle Iran's oil exports and Iran tried to do the same to Iraq. The US and its allies weighed in openly on Saddam Hussein's side – an episode swiftly forgotten by them after the Iraqi leader invaded Kuwait in 1990. From 1987 on, re-registered Kuwaiti tankers were being escorted through the Gulf by US warships. There were US airstrikes against Iranian ships and shore facilities, culminating in the accidental but very avoidable shooting down of an Iranian civil airliner with 290 passengers on board by the USS Vincennes in 1988. Iran was forced to sue for peace in its war with Iraq.

Some retired American generals speak about staging a repeat of the tanker war today but circumstances have changed. Iran's main opponent in 1988 was Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Iran was well on its way to losing the war, in which there was only one front

Pat Kittle , says: June 24, 2019 at 2:01 am GMT

Patrick Cockburn:

Patrick Clawson tells us whose really calling the shots for war with Iran:

-- ( https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=israel+lobby+submarine+patrick+clawson&view=detail&mid=4881C02C42F22ED6F6164881C02C42F22ED6F616&FORM=VIRE ]

(Hint: It's not Saudi Arabia & the UAE.)

Cheers!
-- Patrick Kittle

Carlton Meyer , says: Website June 24, 2019 at 4:32 am GMT
"Trump took this lesson to heart long before he became president. He is a genuine isolationist in the American tradition."

Mr. Cockburn does not understand the meaning of isolationist. Trump has been pro-empire since the day he took office.

I have better stuff in my blog:

June 22, 2019 – Iran

People familiar with US military history know what just happened off Iran. American aircraft and drones have violated Iranian airspace every week for years, either by accident or because American officers like to screw with them, especially when lots of high-level American officials want war with Iran. Complaints were filed and ignored, so the Iranians shot one down. Note there is no international airspace in the Strait of Hormuz. Half belongs to Iran and the other to UAE and Oman. It is an international waterway, so all ships have the right to transit, but aircraft require permission from one of these nations.

The American people are clueless about this stuff since most only know what our warmongering media tells them, as Jimmy Dore explains in this video. I was shocked and pleased that President Trump saw through this ruse and bravely did nothing. If we bomb Iran they will hit back, maybe openly with a missile barrage, or covertly using Shia militias in Iraq, Bahrain, and Afghanistan. The USA has tens of thousands of soldiers and contractors all over the Arab world. I'm sure local teams have spent years scouting targets and preparing to attack after a green light from Tehran. Trump wisely cancelled this chaos, at least until after his reelection.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/MYhvOgN707k?feature=oembed

Robert Dolan , says: June 24, 2019 at 5:26 am GMT
"National security?"

Whose national security?

Iran is no threat to the United States.

We have no right to impose a "regime change" on Iran, no matter how much Israel
wants us to do so.

Israel should fight its' own wars.

We've had enough

Ma Laoshi , says: June 24, 2019 at 9:14 am GMT
"He is a genuine isolationist" Oh please; Mr. Cockburn, you're old enough to have heard of projection. There is nothing genuine about Trump's public persona, except for his greed and egotism. He's a world-class grifter and charlatan–i.e., still not to be underestimated. His calculation will probably be "Can I get re-elected without jumping into the breach? Then that's fine too. If the polls look awful, I'll roll the dice and be a War-Time President like Dubya."

At least, Mr. Cockburn understands that the "crippling sanctions" (the way Americans are always proud of those show that they're just knee-capping mafiosi) are leaving Iran no choice but to fight back. So the decision may not be in Donald's hands; he may be smarter than his media caricature, and yet not as smart as he thought.

Sally Snyder , says: June 24, 2019 at 11:53 am GMT
Here is a article that takes a detailed look at Iran's military capabilities:

https://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2019/06/irans-military-strength-2019-edition.html

Once American servicemen start dying for this rather nebulous cause, it will be the reaction of American voters that will ultimately determine the extent and duration of yet another Middle East military, nation re-engineering "adventure".

EliteCommInc. , says: June 24, 2019 at 4:32 pm GMT
"Note there is no international airspace in the Strait of Hormuz. Half belongs to Iran and the other to UAE and Oman. It is an international waterway, so all ships have the right to transit, but aircraft require permission from one of these nations."

You might want to examine the UNCLOS agreement. It's created some sticky issues in the South China Seas and in the straight in question, Iran and Oman are leaning very heavily on that the policy. In their view it is for use exclusively for noncombatant enterprise as part of their claim as territorial waters, they have a say in its use.

[Jun 25, 2019] Should Iran acquire nuclear bomb as a self-defense against attack of the USA

Jun 25, 2019 | consortiumnews.com

Dr. Ip , June 24, 2019 at 03:53

Pakistan is nuclear, pal.
Israel is nuclear, pal.
India is nuclear, pal.
North Korea is nuclear, pal.
Nobody attacks their territory these days, pal.
But Iran chose a long time ago not to go nuclear, pal.
The American Mullahs want their oil money back and so have issued yet another fatwah through their Supreme Leader.

KiwiAntz , June 24, 2019 at 04:08

Old Geezer are you familiar with the term"Mutual Assured Destruction"? Any Nuclear attack will be met with a Nuclear response by the Country attacked! This isn't 1945 where America could nuke Japan & get away with it? It's 2019 & alot of Nations have the Nukes to deter US Nuclear attacks? That's MAD in a nutshell!

Zhu , June 24, 2019 at 06:03

Who says Iran is going nuclear, Gezzer? If he usual liars.

AnneR , June 24, 2019 at 09:31

So *what* if the Iranians developed nuclear weapons? (Not that they are going to – as they have stated over and over again. But then they are not as bloodthirsty as Anglo-Americans always seem to be.)

Frankly, if they had done so, the US-IS-UK would be a lot less eager to bomb their country into smithereens – all for the benefit of their more westerly neighbor (the middle country above). NK understands this. Unfortunately, Qaddafi didn't.

And again – I repeat: which nation state is it that *has* used such weapons: twice? Only one. (Not to mention that same country's eager use of depleted uranium – far from its shores, of course – in bullets and shells.) Charming.

heathroi , June 24, 2019 at 09:45

is that you, John?

Steve in DC , June 24, 2019 at 09:47

Iran should go nuclear. The US doesn't f#%* with countries that have the bomb. The sooner Iran can thwart Washington the better off the world will be. Washington will have to get another hobbyhorse.

Tick Tock , June 24, 2019 at 11:45

How many generations has your family been inbreeding? Was it part of the US Guvment plan to create the race of morons? Without a doubt it has been a success in making you, make Forrest Gump look like an Einstein. Keep posting at least it might keep you off the streets.

Ol' Hippy , June 24, 2019 at 11:58

They won't need to. All they have to do is barricade the Strait of Hormuz and collapse the world economy that relies on oil from the Gulf States. Never mentioned in the corporate(MSM) media circles that want war. The ensuing depression would be like no other, ever.

Paul Merrell , June 24, 2019 at 12:36

@ Old Geezer:

My friend, you've been getting too much of your news from Israel-influenced mainstream media. Iran has not had a nuclear weapons program since 2003 (if it had one even then, which is doubtful). That is the consensus position of all U.S. intelligence agencies, Mossad, and several european intelligence agencies. See the reference links in my article at https://relativelyfreepress.blogspot.com/2015/09/a-question-about-ron-wydens-intelligence.html

Moreover, as Don Bacon summarizes, Iran doesn't need nukes to hold the U.S. at bay.

Finally, Iran's unquestionable ability to close all shipping of oil through the Hormuz Strait (30 percent of the world's supply) means that Iran has the ability to bring the western economic system to its knees. Who needs nukes?

DH Fabian , June 24, 2019 at 13:08

Are China and Russia nuclear-armed countries, in a world that has largely come to see the US as an unpredictable and dictatorial threat? Possibly too great of a threat to allow it to continue?

Linda Furr , June 24, 2019 at 13:12

Who's the 'they'? US officials have already talked of nuclear attacks on areas of Iran. The great 'democracy' of USA just ain't so. Its criminal psychopathy comes straight from Israel – against most Americans' desires. Washington DC is sick.

[Jun 25, 2019] Not to in any way absolve Trump, but as long as Bolton and Pompeo are on the scene there will be blood

Jun 25, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Qualtrough , Jun 24, 2019 8:15:58 PM | 104

Not to in any way absolve Trump, but as long as Bolton and Pompeo are on the scene there will be blood. Bolton in particular should be in jail for crimes against humanity. He is a madman. Scary times.

[Jun 25, 2019] Netanyahu's Iran Dilemma: Getting Trump to Act Without Putting Israel on the Front Line.

Jun 24, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
Don Bacon , Jun 23, 2019 10:37:20 AM | 4

Oscar Peterson , Jun 23, 2019 10:13:46 AM | 2

This recent 19 May piece from Ha'aretz documents precisely the manipulation of American policy by Israeli charlatans and their agents of influence in the US. The title says it all just by itself: "Netanyahu's Iran Dilemma: Getting Trump to Act Without Putting Israel on the Front Line." It goes on to assess that:
"In this conflict, Israel is hoping to have its cake and eat it too. Ever since Trump was elected president two and a half years ago, Netanyahu has been urging him to take a more aggressive line toward Iran, in order to force it to make additional concessions on its nuclear program and disrupt its support for militant organizations.

"Trump acceded to this urging a year ago when he withdrew America from the nuclear agreement with Iran. That was followed by tighter sanctions on Iran, as well as publication of a plan by U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo detailing 12 steps Tehran must take to satisfy Washington.

"But Israel isn't interested in being part of the front. That is why Jerusalem has issued so few official statements on the Iranian issue, and why Netanyahu has urged ministers to be cautious in what they say."

I'd say that passage captures the situation perfectly, and it just goes to show that when you want to know about what chicanery Israel and its lobby are up to in the US, you have to go and look at what Israelis are saying when they aren't particularly careful about who's observing. That sort of truth is sanitized from any MSM accounts in the US.

@ OP 2
Israel is an important part of Middle East US policy decisions but not the only part, and not the most important one. Going back to the Carter Doctrine, and before, the US has intended to be the top dog in the Middle East but instead, through its mistakes, has become second fiddle to Iran. The US and its allies have tens of thousands of troops with tons of military gear in the area and are still losing influence, replaced by Iran and its Shia Crescent. That must be reversed!

Lochearn , Jun 23, 2019 11:16:37 AM | 11

In Danielle Ryan’s article in RT's Op-ed “US will not ‘stumble into’ war with Iran by mistake. If it happens, it will be by design” she notes the prevalence of “strange terminology” used by mainstream media to describe how the US gets into wars. I have added to her list and checked that all have been used in the current US-Iran scenario. The US is in danger of being: “dragged into, sucked into, sliding into, stumbling into, slouching towards, lured into, bumbling into, blundering into and sleepwalking into” war with Iran.

Who are they trying to kid when they have already declared economic war on Iran, asphyxiating the Iranian economy, knowing full well that Iran has to respond.

John Bolton “sleepwalking” into war with Iran? He’ll be wide awake and so excited he’ll probably have to relieve himself.

NemesisCalling , Jun 23, 2019 11:23:57 AM | 12 Oscar Peterson , Jun 23, 2019 11:25:56 AM | 13
@Don Bacon #4
"Israel is an important part of Middle East US policy decisions but not the only part, and not the most important one. Going back to the Carter Doctrine, and before, the US has intended to be the top dog in the Middle East but instead, through its mistakes, has become second fiddle to Iran. The US and its allies have tens of thousands of troops with tons of military gear in the area and are still losing influence, replaced by Iran and its Shia Crescent. That must be reversed!"

Have to disagree with a good deal of this.

Israel's strategic preferences have indeed become the most important single influence on US Middle East policy. Up to a certain point in the past, that was not true, but it is now. The Carter Doctrine has, in effect, been undermined by the distortions that the ever-growing power of pro-Israel political Jewry in the US in both its neoconservative and Likudnik expressions are able to impose on our policy.

Neither big oil, nor Saudi Arabia, nor anything that could objectively be called US strategic considerations wields anything like the heft of political Jewry. And even metastasizing Christian Zionism is only an ideological adjunct to Zionism proper, primarily a function of the cultural damage stemming from Jewry's march through the institutions since WW II.

That said, I must also disagree that Iran has become "the top dog" in the Middle East. They are nowhere close, though, with their cultural and technological attainments, backed by oil and gas deposits, their long-term strategic position has a lot of promise. A "top dog" would not be in Iran's current underdog position vis-a-vis Israel and its US golem and having to fight back with the stratagems we are currently seeing.

The Shia crescent is essentially a myth, and Iran's ability to exercise dominating influence on Shia Arabs is largely a function of the hostility of Sunni Arabs to the Shia Arab empowerment of recent years. Yes, the US is losing influence, but that is mostly a function of our own policy dysfunction induced by dual-loyalist political Jewry and the Israel-Über-Alles strategic preferences it imposes.

ATH , Jun 23, 2019 11:34:04 AM | 14
@Don Bacon
That clarifies.
I do agree that Israel is one of the 2 important factors in US calculation in south-west Asia, the other being strategic leverage over big-league competitors. And, it is true that US military presence in the Persian Gulf has been the Carter doctrine's making - although one might argue the doctrine itself was created to fill the vacuum created with the departure of the British and the subsequent independence given to the southern Sheikhdoms. The issue with the current US strategy in the region is that it defies the reality with such an obstinance that it completely undermines its own goals. The origin of this obstinance is well known to everyone.
NJDuke , Jun 23, 2019 11:45:09 AM | 18 Don Bacon , Jun 23, 2019 11:52:24 AM | 19
Israel or no, failure is not an option for the US in the Middle East, especially Syria which was Hillary's Job-One during her SecState tenure.
AP, Dec 14, 2011--
US: Assad's Syria a 'dead man walking'
The State Department official, Frederic Hof, told Congress on Wednesday that Assad's repression may allow him to hang on to power but only for a short time. And, he urged the Syrian opposition to prepare for the day when it takes control of the state in order to prevent chaos and sectarian conflict.
"Our view is that this regime is the equivalent of dead man walking," said Hof, the State Department's pointman on Syria, which he said was turning into "Pyongyang in the Levant," a reference to the North Korean capital. He said it was difficult to determine how much time Assad has left in power but stressed "I do not see this regime surviving.". . . here

And Syria is only the most important US target country in the ME, the Iraq challenge still exists, Lebanon is important (receives some US military aid) and of course the old bugaboo Iran has become more vital than ever. Iran has a heavy political influence in Iraq and Syria, and that highway from Tehran to Beirut is a problem especially considering Iran ally (and "terrorist") Hezbollah. So. . .that's why 50,000+ US troops, an air force, and the Navy's Fifth fleet are there.

The main point is that the US world hegemon has to be strong everywhere, especially in Asia, and if it's forced out of anywhere it would set a bad example, going back to 'losing China.'

Oscar Peterson , Jun 23, 2019 11:55:55 AM | 20
@ATH #14
"The issue with the current US strategy in the region is that it defies the reality with such an obstinance that it completely undermines its own goals. The origin of this obstinance is well known to everyone."

Yes, I think that's the issue exactly, and Israel is at the heart of it all. We are undermining our own goals (and scoring own goals.) Your point here captures the current bottom line of US "strategy" in the region.

Don Bacon , Jun 23, 2019 12:01:08 PM | 21
"War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses." . ."I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.". . .General Smedley Butler, USMC, two Congressional Medals of Honor, veteran of wars in Central America, Europe and China
Don Bacon , Jun 23, 2019 12:19:00 PM | 25
Is Israel responsible for the US enmity toward North Korea? the bombing of Libya and Somalia? Eighteen years in Afghanistan?
No. In the US, to quote Randolph Bourne (1918), war is the health of the state.
. . .With the shock of war, however, the State comes into its own again. The Government, with no mandate from the people, without consultation of the people, conducts all the negotiations, the backing and filling, the menaces and explanations, which slowly bring it into collision with some other Government, and gently and irresistibly slides the country into war. For the benefit of proud and haughty citizens, it is fortified with a list of the intolerable insults which have been hurled toward us by the other nations; for the benefit of the liberal and beneficent, it has a convincing set of moral purposes which our going to war will achieve; for the ambitious and aggressive classes, it can gently whisper of a bigger role in the destiny of the world. The result is that, even in those countries where the business of declaring war is theoretically in the hands of representatives of the people, no legislature has ever been known to decline the request of an Executive, which has conducted all foreign affairs in utter privacy and irresponsibility, that it order the nation into battle. Good democrats are wont to feel the crucial difference between a State in which the popular Parliament or Congress declares war, and the State in which an absolute monarch or ruling class declares war. But, put to the stern pragmatic test, the difference is not striking. In the freest of republics as well as in the most tyrannical of empires, all foreign policy, the diplomatic negotiations which produce or forestall war, are equally the private property of the Executive part of the Government, and are equally exposed to no check whatever from popular bodies, or the people voting as a mass themselves.
Oscar Peterson , Jun 23, 2019 12:54:22 PM | 36

@Don Bacon #25

"Is Israel responsible for the US enmity toward North Korea? the bombing of Libya and Somalia? Eighteen years in Afghanistan?"

First, I did not claim that every move the US makes is Israel-induced. I said that Israel is at the heart of our overall strategic dysfunction in the Middle East. Libya and Somalia are peripheral, and Afghanistan is not truly in the region at all.

But let's be clear that the rise of both al Quaeda and, as a follow-on, the Islamic State have been greatly facilitated by the resentment generated by the imposition of Jewish state on the region at the expense of the local Arabs. Both bin Laden and Zawahiri have mentioned the Zionist conquest and its wars as formative experiences.

And the rise of IS was a direct result of the US invasion of Iraq, itself induced by the overlapping strains of Jewish neoconservatism and Likudnik hyper-Zionism. The overthrow of Saddam created the political and strategic space for IS to emerge and thrive, and the concerted attempt to overthrow Assad--another Israeli strategic preference--weakened the Syrian state so much that it permitted the establishment of a "caliphate" which then invaded Iraq. This expanding dynamic played a role in Libya as well.

With regard to Saudi Arabia, we have to ask why the US put its weight behind the replacement of Muhammed bin Naif (MbN) with Muhammed bin Salman (MbS) when almost all the USG wanted to tell Salman that we preferred staying with the known and trusted MbN. Almost certainly, Trump's ignorant support of MbS originated with the pro-Israel Jews who dominate his thinking. MbS has been a bonanza for Israel but a disaster for us (and the region.)

And with regard to Afghanistan, the denuding of that theater to resource the Iraq-Iran-Syria invasion/regime change scheme demanded by Israel and its operatives in the US had a definitively negative outcome on US policy in Afghanistan from which, it is now clear, it will never recover.

In East Asia, the negative impact of US Israel-centric Middle East policy can be seen as well. The neocon/Likudnik-induced morass of Iraq into which we marched distracted us from the Asia-Pacific and particularly China's move into the South China Sea, which might have been deterred, if we weren't expending the overwhelming majority of our energy, attention and resources in the Middle East.

And since you bring up North Korea, the Israeli influence on US policy there is certainly secondary but definitely not zero. Israel and its lobby seek an ultra-hard line on any US negotiations with North Korea because they see it as an extension of Iran policy, so in their view, any concession to North Korea is a bad example for Iran. This contributes to impeding any possible negotiated solution to the complex of issues on the Korean Peninsula.

It is truly amazing how far the insidious reach of Israel, its nefarious lobby and the "Is-it-good-for-the-Jews?" obsessions of political Jewry extends into US foreign policy. Our current strategy is, as ATH noted, self-undermining. There really is no historical precedent for it.

jared , Jun 23, 2019 1:24:50 PM | 45
Regarding blatant/outsized influence of israel. Appears they are being treated as 51st state.
Kristan hinton , Jun 23, 2019 12:32:50 PM | 27
Consider that Israel and the USA are one entity.

After all, this is what our elected, alleged representatives posit when they state collectively, in unison, loudly, repeatedly, on their knees, that "the USA maintains an irrevocable bond with Israel".

That statement should bring the condescension and the wrath of the USA public.

For what reason would the USA maintain an "irrevocable bond" with ANY other nation?

Regardless of the fact that ISrael is an apartheid state by its own definition as "The Jewish State of ISrael".

Don Wiscacho , Jun 23, 2019 1:44:16 PM | 51

Don Bacon @41
Oscar Peterson @46

You both have valid points, but I've always believed it's the dog that wags its tail. Sure, if it was simply Palestine, one could expect different nuances of US policy. But any qualitative difference? I don't see it.
The US would still back undemocractic strong men who would treat American interests as paramount in return for US backing of their regime and turning a blind eye to their enrichment at the expense of the general population. The US would be hellbent against any pan-Arab nationalism or anything resembling socialism or sovereignty.
The proof? Well take a look at how the US treats the rest of the world.
The US and Israel have overlapping interests as it relates to the Middle East with the added accelerator of the many dual nationals in seats of power.

lysias , Jun 23, 2019 2:21:16 PM | 57 bevin , Jun 23, 2019 2:22:35 PM | 58
"Israel's strategic preferences have indeed become the most important single influence on US Middle East policy. Up to a certain point in the past, that was not true, but it is now. The Carter Doctrine has, in effect, been undermined by the distortions that the ever-growing power of pro-Israel political Jewry in the US in both its neoconservative and Likudnik expressions are able to impose on our policy."

Oscar Peterson is correct not because Israel's interests are of such importance-they really are not- but because US Foreign policy has become totally incoherent.
This is because it is entirely aimed at fund raisers and influencers of the electorate. It is founded on the theory that the United States can do whatever it pleases, and need never care about consolidating its power or defending its positions because it is far more powerful than all its potential rivals added together. This being the case its Foreign Policy becomes a saleable commodity, just as its armed forces-which can never be defeated- are at the disposal of the highest bidders.
Note to Psychohistorian: the open democracy website has an article on Costa Rica's public banking today.

james , Jun 23, 2019 2:23:49 PM | 59
with regard to iran, the usa is tied at the hip to israel.. that is a fact... now, maybe it can change, but i think phil at mondoweiss lays it out pretty clearly for anyone interested..

Trump’s climbdown on Iran is a defeat to the Israel lobby

as i see it, this is just temporary... israel is gunning hard for war on iran.. anyone who can't see that is in fact very blind..

meanwhile - Trump: “I have some hawks. John Bolton is absolutely a hawk. If it was up to him he'd take on the whole world at one time.“

bolton is in this position due the fact trump owed sheldon adelson one... at least trump can see it, but i don't know that he can avoid where this is going... that would be putting too much faith in a con artist - grifter..

eagle eye , Jun 23, 2019 6:40:30 PM | 139
Wage labourer, , 91.

I suggest you download Douglas Reed's comprehensive review of Zionism's activities in "The Controversy of Zion" over the period you describe from a singular perspective and read it thoroughly. IN fact I commend that book to everyone on this site. Reed was a correspondent through WW2 and before and his work is detailed and readable, with extensive references.

Get it here: https://www.controversyofzion.info/

[Jun 25, 2019] Jimmy Dore: CBS News "War Expert" Is Being Paid By Raytheon

Jun 25, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Stever , Jun 23, 2019 2:19:31 PM | 55

Jimmy Dore: CBS News "War Expert" Is Being Paid By Raytheon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYhvOgN707k

Via ZeroHedge:

"CBS News Analyst And Iran "War Mongering Maniac" Also Raytheon Board Member: Dore"

"How do you know the MSM is nothing more than the media wing of the military-industrial-complex? A Raytheon board member masquerading as an objective analyst is a good start."

"On Friday, CBS News analyst and retired Navy Admiral James Winnefeld Jr. slammed President Trump for calling off retaliatory strikes on Iran over a downed US drone, while insisting we must strike Iran or else the United States will "lose a lot of credibility."

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-22/cbs-news-analyst-and-iran-war-mongering-maniac-also-raytheon-board-member-dore

[Jun 25, 2019] Iran Says New U.S. Sanctions Mean Diplomatic Path Closed 'Forever'

Jun 25, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Zachary Smith , Jun 25, 2019 1:39:41 AM | 140

The headline says it all:

Iran Says New U.S. Sanctions Mean Diplomatic Path Closed 'Forever'

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin also said financial restrictions would be imposed on Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif later this week. ............... Zarif, viewed as Iran's most skilled diplomat, was lead negotiator in the multi-party nuclear accord reached in 2015 under the Obama administration that Trump has since rejected.

If this was about a real estate deal in New York, Trump's bully-boy tactics might seem reasonable. Deliberately pissing off the real leader of Iran, and sanctioning their head diplomat means he doesn't want "negotiations". Only total surrender is permissible in light of his foolishness.

I've got a bad feeling about all of this. Time is running out for the apartheid Jewish state, and they're going to be mighty tempted to arrange for a bunch of US military men or women to be brought home in body bags. That's because they can't be absolutely positive one of the neocon Democrats will be in the White House soon.

[Jun 25, 2019] As foolish as it may seem, a war on Iran could be the perfect option that satisfies all power groups in the United States. The hawks would finally have their war against Tehran, the world economy would sink, and the blame would fall entirely on Trump.

Jun 25, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Uncle Jon , Jun 23, 2019 3:09:16 PM | 70

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2019/06/23/provoking-iran-could-start-a-war-and-crash-the-entire-world-economy/


A great article and an ominous one.


karlof1 , Jun 23, 2019 3:28:18 PM | 71

Behind the curtain :

"Trump is in danger of being crushed between a Fed that sees the US dollar's role as the world's reserve currency collapse, and the need for the Fed to blame someone not linked to the real causes of the collapse, that is to say, the monetary policies adopted through QE to prolong the post-crisis economic agony of 2008....

"As foolish as it may seem, a war on Iran could be the perfect option that satisfies all power groups in the United States. The hawks would finally have their war against Tehran, the world economy would sink, and the blame would fall entirely on Trump. The Donald, as a result, would lose any chance of being re-elected so it makes sense for him to call off possible strikes as he did after the US drone was shot out of the sky."

The author echoes my words from yesterday:

"I wonder if Europeans will understand all this before the impending disaster. I doubt it."

Regarding what I wrote about Sanders in my reply to Stever, here we have the Chancellery of the People's Republic of China spokesman, Hua Chun Ying:

"The American leaders say that 'the era of the commercial surrender of their country has come to an end', but what is over is their economic intimidation of the world and their hegemony.

"The United States must again respect international law, not arrogate to itself extraterritorial rights and mandates, must learn to respect its peers in safeguarding transparent and non-discriminatory diplomatic and commercial relations. China and the United States have negotiated other disputes in the past with good results and the doors of dialogue are open as long as they are based on mutual respect and benefits."

No, I didn't cite everything in the article. There's much more of importance there to read!

[Jun 25, 2019] Trump's action on Iran help to further diminish the USA credibility on international arena

Jun 25, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Harry Law , Jun 24, 2019 2:13:40 PM | 1

After a somewhat quiet weekend the Trump administration today engaged in another push against Iran.

Today the Treasury Department sanctioned the leaders of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). It also sanctioned Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and his office! There will be no more Disney Land visits for them.

There is more to come:

Josh Rogin - @joshrogin - 16:18 utc - 24 Jun 2019

Mnuchin: "The president has instructed me that we will be designating [Iran's foreign minister Javad] Zarif later this week." cc: @JZarif

The Treasury Secretary will designate Javad Zarif as what? A terrorist? Zarif is quite effective in communicating the Iranian standpoint on Twitter and other social media. Those accounts will now be shut down.

The Trump administration's special envoy for Iran, Brian Hook, said today that Iran should respond to U.S. diplomacy with diplomacy. Sanctioning Iran's chief diplomat is probably not the way to get there.

All those who get sanctioned by the U.S. will gain in popularity in Iran. These U.S. measures will only unite the people of Iran and strengthen their resolve.

Iran will respond to this new onslaught by asymmetric means of which it has plenty.

On Saturday Trump said that all he wants is that Iran never gets nuclear weapons. But the State Department wants much more. Hook today said that the U.S. would only lift sanctions if a comprehensive deal is made that includes ballistic missile and human rights issues. Iran can not agree to that. But this is not the first time that Pompeo demanded more than Trump himself. Is it Pompeo, not Trump, who is pressing this expanded version to make any deal impossible?

Brian Hook is by the way a loon who does not even understand the meaning of what he himself says:

laurence norman @laurnorman - 10:53 utc - 24 Jun 2019

US Hook says Iran knew what getting into when struck deal with president who had 1 1/2 yr left in office. "They knew what they were getting into...They knew that there was a great possibility that the next president could come in & leave the deal." Note: US elections 17 months away

Those are two good arguments for Iran to never again agree to any deal with the 'non-agreement-capable' United States.

It seems obvious from the above that the Trump administration has no real interest in reasonable negotiations with Iran:

"The administration is not really interested in negotiations now," said Robert Einhorn, a former senior State Department official who was involved in negotiations with Iranian officials during the Obama administration. "It wants to give sanctions more time to make the Iranians truly desperate, at which point it hopes the negotiations will be about the terms of surrender."

That is part of the strategy. But the real issue is deeper:

Max Abrahms @MaxAbrahms - 16:41 utc - 24 Jun 2019

Pro tip: Sanctions against #Iran aren't to retaliate for the downed drone or to punish tanker attacks or to improve the nuclear deal or to help the Iranian people but to foment revolution against the regime. The strategy is regime change with velvet gloves.

... ... ...

Pompeo was hastily sent to Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Brian Hook is now in Oman and Bolton is in Israel. The U.S. will also pressure Europe and NATO to join a new 'coalition of the willing'. The UK will likely follow any U.S. call as it needs a trade deal to survive after Brexit.

Other countries are best advised to stay out.

Posted by b at 02:05 PM | Comments (183) Our leaders have gone out of their tiny minds, first Trump confirms our suspicions that the deal he wants must include those legal ballistic missiles, then that nutcase Hunt pledged to stand by the US in the event of conflict with Iran, you could not make it up.
Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt, who is running against Boris Johnson for the Conservatives' leadership, has pledged to stand by the US even if its confrontation with Iran leads to a military conflict, according to The Daily Mail. https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201906241076032533-uk-foreign-secretary-hunt-admits-britain-could-follow-us-into-war-with-iran/

Trump is such a con man... He said he told Shinzō Abe, before the Japanese prime minister visited Tehran on 12 June: "Send the following message: you can't have nuclear weapons. And other than that, we can sit down and make a deal. But you cannot have nuclear weapons."

On further questioning he added the demand that Tehran should not have a ballistic missile programme, and suggested he wanted a tougher inspection regime.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/23/iran-may-pull-further-away-from-nuclear-deal-after-latest-sanctions

This whole saga is not about nuclear weapons, it is about those conventional ballistic missiles which Iran is manufacturing perfectly legally and changing the equation in the region. These are precision missiles and could turn Tel Aviv and Saudi oil infrastructure into rubble, US/Israel want to make Iran defenseless. It is not going to happen.

Sally Snyder , Jun 24, 2019 2:22:28 PM | 2

Here is a article that takes a detailed look at Iran's military capabilities:

https://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2019/06/irans-military-strength-2019-edition.html

... ... ...

psychohistorian , Jun 24, 2019 2:25:50 PM | 3
Pompeo is a lying ass.

The US faced empire is the largest state sponsor of terror

The big lie technique works when all levels of communication are controlled. Otherwise it makes you the laughing stock, which Trump will be at the G20 before he leaves

Virgile , Jun 24, 2019 2:25:56 PM | 4
In dealing with Iran Pompeo & Bolton are following the infantile pattern that Israel uses with Palestinians and Hezbollah: Make them suffer so they turn against their leaders and provoke a regime change
It never worked because the middle easterners do not think like the Jews or Westerners. They are resilient and have little to loose. The more hardship they get from foreign and hostile powers the more they unite and resist. Despite the overwhelming persecution of the Palestinians by Israel and its western allies for 50 years they are still resisting. Iran is not different.
They are under siege for 30 years and still defiant.
Many US presidents and Boltons have passed and disappeared in oblivion after attempting and failing regime changes in the middle east. Trump is not different.
Joe , Jun 24, 2019 2:39:29 PM | 5
Well, the end is most certainly nigh. Figure the US or Israel will resort to using nuclear weapons which will result in Russia and China unleashing theirs. At least we can expect Wash DC to be obliterated. May solve one of our problems.
Expect all nuclear facilities, military bases, and major airports to be targeted. Hopefully, major population centers would be spared but doubt the US will reciprocate so expect all major metropolitan areas to also be targeted.
fastfreddy , Jun 24, 2019 2:44:14 PM | 6
Here is the double down on stupid which should have been expected.

Double sanctions, double demands, double threats, double censorship and the assemblage of a fake posse - aka the coalition of the lapdogs.

Who will join the coalition of dumbfuckery? Here are the coalition members from Dubya's Iraqi invasion in 2003:

Of the 48 countries on the list, three contributed troops to the invasion force (the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland). An additional 37 countries provided some number of troops to support military operations after the invasion was complete.

The list of coalition members provided by the White House included several nations that did not intend to participate in actual military operations. Some of them, such as Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau and Solomon Islands, did not have standing armies. However, through the Compact of Free Association, citizens of the Marshall Islands, Palau and the Federated States of Micronesia are guaranteed US national status and therefore are allowed to serve in the US military. The members of these island nations have deployed in a combined Pacific force consisting of Guamanian, Hawaiian and Samoan reserve units. They have been deployed twice to Iraq. The government of one country, the Solomon Islands, listed by the White House as a member of the coalition, was apparently unaware of any such membership and promptly denied it.[5] According to a 2010 study, the Federal States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Palau (and Tonga and the Solomon Islands to a lesser extent) were all economically dependent on economic aid from the United States, and thus had an economic incentive to join the Coalition of the Willing.[6]

In December 2008, University of Illinois Professor Scott Althaus reported that he had learned that the White House was editing and back-dating revisions to the list of countries in the coalition.[7][8] Althaus found that some versions of the list had been entirely removed from the record, and that others contradicted one another, as opposed to the procedure of archiving original documents and supplementing them with later revisions and updates.[3]

By August 2009, all non-U.S./UK coalition members had withdrawn from Iraq.[9] As a result, the Multinational Force – Iraq was renamed and reorganized to United States Forces – Iraq as of January 1, 2010. Thus the Coalition of the Willing came to an official end.

psychohistorian , Jun 24, 2019 2:55:44 PM | 7
Thanks to fastfreddy with the Iraq related Coalition of the Willing history

Over on another thread it was noted that today Trump is trying to build another Coalition of the Willing to "protect" the shipping lanes.

My response was
@ Don Bacon and SRB with the comments about the crybaby defense over "protecting" shipping lanes

I think China will tell empire like I tell the guy in front of the Post Office wanting to protect my bicycle while I go in....."Why should I give you money to protect me from you?

karlof1 , Jun 24, 2019 2:57:31 PM | 8
100% Gangsterism. The Outlaw US Empire learned it cannot defeat Iran militarily, so it invites other nations to become outlaws too. The G-20's in 4 days. I'll wager Trump leaves before it's over having accomplished nothing other than absorbing abuse from most attendees. And just what will Trump do when this move fails as it will? IMO, he just dealt Sanders a great set of cards. The crowd expecting a repeat of Shock & Awe will grow smaller as they slowly realize the truth of my second sentence. Instead of climbing down the tree, Trump climbs higher onto thinner branches. What's more, Trump opens himself up to being challenged within the Republican Party for POTUS nominee as the Current Oligarchy cannot like this choice.

Here's Zarif's tweet in response:

"realDonaldTrump is 100% right that the US military has no business in the Persian Gulf. Removal of its forces is fully in line with interests of US and the world. But it's now clear that the #B_Team is not concerned with US interests -- they despise diplomacy, and thirst for war."

It appears Zarif concedes policy isn't made by Trump. The ignorance displayed in the thread's comments is astounding.

adrian pols , Jun 24, 2019 3:03:57 PM | 9
The only times I can think of when a country switched sides, ie: overthrew their leaders, was when they were caught in a squeeze between two other powers and decided to go with the winner. Example: Italy in 1943. External pressures causing people to overthrow their leaders? Essentially Nada.
Casey , Jun 24, 2019 3:08:09 PM | 10
So, what happens to derivatives if a shooting war ends up with the Straits closed? Escobar's recent piece on the derivatives implosion that would result from a shooting war suggests that the US/Saudi/Bibi axis is like a boys playing with matches around a can of gasoline or that they believe they have a work-around for the derivatives problem. I would like to know whether the BIS-types are on board with this fiasco or are trying to apply the brakes.
Harry Law , Jun 24, 2019 3:24:31 PM | 18
Bernie Sanders suggested that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was "the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of the country." Bernie you ain't seen nothing yet, if those slavering imbeciles have anything to do with it. The costs [including long term costs] of the Iraq/Afghan wars [still ongoing] are estimated at 6 Trillion dollars. Here is what just one Trillion dollars looks like http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html
"Yet the nation's longest and most expensive war is the one that is still going on. In addition to nearly 7,000 troops killed, the 16-year conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan will cost an estimated US$6 trillion due to its prolonged length, rapidly increasing veterans health care and disability costs and interest on war borrowing. On this Memorial Day, we should begin to confront the staggering cost and the challenge of paying for this war". http://theconversation.com/iraq-and-afghanistan-the-us-6-trillion-bill-for-americas-longest-war-is-unpaid-78241

[Jun 25, 2019] I'd say it's very likely Trump needs to be included on the list of those needing to hear Nasrallah.

Jun 25, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 , Jun 23, 2019 4:11:31 PM | 94

I've replied to numerous people lacking knowledge that they must listen to Nasrallah when it comes to what will occur if the Outlaw US Empire or any other entity attacks Iran. This short clip is one of several I'm referring to. I'd say it's very likely Trump needs to be included on the list of those needing to hear Nasrallah.

[Jun 25, 2019] Russia has stated that the drone was in Iranian airspace according to its own intelligence

Jun 25, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Nuff Sed , Jun 25, 2019 6:45:20 AM | 158

Iranian TV just announced that Russia has stated that the drone was in Iranian airspace according to its own intelligence. Not that that will make any difference to the madmen telling the Donald the Chump what to do...

[Jun 25, 2019] It is possible that the USA neocons were expecting that the low sophistication of the Iranian missiles would not be able to distinguish which object to target and therefore go for the larger object. I am sure that this was the game ....and it failed

Notable quotes:
"... karlof1 thinks, if I get him right, that the US underestimated the defensive radar capabilities of Iran, and that they got aware of their lack of knowledge right through the incidence. Which might have had a big impact on them, especially Trump. ..."
Jun 25, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Joe , Jun 25, 2019 5:51:53 AM | 153

I am a little puzzled that there is not more discussion about the plane that was flying close to the recently shot down drone in Iran. To me there is no doubt that the plane was a the real target that the US and it's owner Israel wanted to be shot down. I am completely sure of it.

All of the hocus pocus and bullshit statements about Iran being a nice guy for not shooting it down instead of the drone are just part of the coverup but this baffon Trump and company. I am sure that they were completely expecting that the sophistication of the Iranian missles would not be able to distinguish which object to target and therefore go for the larger object. I am sure that this was the game ....and it failed! There is no question that the Iranians are aware of it and will be even more careful in the future.

Imagine the supposed 30 or so people on board the P8 or whatever it is called .....they were Guinea Pigs and sacrificial offerings to Empire in order to start a real war with Iran .....for me no question about this. Surprised that more able people than myself are not picking up on it ......

mk , Jun 25, 2019 7:55:35 AM | 163


@Joe 153

For me the P-8 is the most intriguing puzzle of the affair. Your suggestion is reasonable, but I need more proof to take it as a given. The fact that Trump - as the only American - sided with the Iranians (if it was only for the existence of the plane and the crew size) is amazing. I guess the hours before and especially after the shoot down have been far more dramatic, for both sides, than what has emerged so far.

karlof1 thinks, if I get him right, that the US underestimated the defensive radar capabilities of Iran, and that they got aware of their lack of knowledge right through the incidence. Which might have had a big impact on them, especially Trump.


Anon , Jun 25, 2019 8:37:37 AM | 171 Peter AU 1 , Jun 25, 2019 8:40:23 AM | 172
mk 163

The Iranians stated a P-8 was also present which most took to be the Poseidon version.
I did a little research on the versions and posted some info on the open thread.
The P-8 Poseidon is a dedicated maritime surveillance aircraft, whereas a P-8 AGS would be the best the US has for the likes of tracking shoot and scoot SAM systems.
in the open thread, Paveway put up the thought that the number 35 could refer to an F-35 - that rather than a P-8 the other aircraft was an F-35. karlof1 speculated the 35 was a third plane. That would make it - drone as decoy, P-8 AGS to track SAM launchers and targeting radar when they launched at the decoy, and the F-35, as well as its own surveillance capabilities could also attack the SAM systems. An F-35 is pure speculation at the moment, but the incident does seem to involve the US creating an incident using the drone to give the excuse and information for fast strikes at least on some coastal SAM systems. Perhaps coming unstuck when the Iranians fired only one missile and did not use targeting radar.
Approved by Trump - or a plan hatched by his dogs of war - is anybodies guess.

[Jun 25, 2019] Some arguments that tanker attack was a false flag operation

Jun 25, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Arata , Jun 24, 2019 5:14:13 PM | 68

@48

It is clear for everyone that Iran was not behind the tankers attack.
1) American video evidence was fake, fabricated, they could not produce sequences before the event and after the event.
2) American military services is on auction in Persian Gulf: " ...So why are we protecting the shipping lanes for other countries (many years) for zero compensation"
it means:
My sales man and agent are in Suadia Barbaria and Oman for sales, please contact them for price ASAP.

3) Fortunately MoA and Elijah theory was not true.

[Jun 25, 2019] the reason so many Westerners are so willing to accept the unfounded notion that Iran is conducting a campaign of stealth attacks because Western propaganda has relentlessly called Iran a terrorist nation.

Jun 25, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Jackrabbit , Jun 25, 2019 12:26:17 AM | 135

Anon @121:

Even CNN had a headline at one point that it suited Iran fine to be blamed ...

"Even CNN ..." LMFAO

b will no doubt be pleased./sarc

... until proven these acts will remain enough of an unknown around which unfinished narratives will turn ...

Knowledgeable people have more reason to suspect an CIA-Mossad false flag than Iranian stealth attacks because:

>> it's US+Israel+Saudi that are the protagonists that are driving toward a result AND;

>> it makes no sense for Iran to play into the hands of their enemies by foolishly thinking that they can conducts attacks that will not be attributed to them. Those Iran-attributed attacks can be conveniently used as:

1) an excuse for a military build-up and;

2) justification for the undertaking of provocative actions (like sending more drones into Iranian airspace) .

Utimately, it's a prelude to a war that USA-Israel-Saudis want.

Furthermore, the reason so many Westerners are so willing to accept the unfounded notion that Iran is conducting a campaign of stealth attacks because Western propaganda has relentlessly called Iran a terrorist nation.

Given the above, it's not surprising that Iranian military leadership has essentially denounced the notion of "stealth attacks" as I noted in this comment on the earlier thread .

The idea that Iran can sit this out till whenever is not exactly true ...

They are not "sitting it out." You slyly present a false dichotomy, implicitly proposing that they must become the terrorists that the West claim they are or sit on their hands and accept their fate.

[Jun 25, 2019] Iran forces could attack the US in peripheral areas including especially Iraq

Notable quotes:
"... What usually stops the US are elections. The Vietnam War deeply threatened the US establishment and they "think" they learnt the lessons. ..."
"... The Russian military source says there is now active coordination between Russian and Iranian military staffs. "About coordination, of course there is participation of Russia in intelligence-sharing because of Bushehr and ISIS. We have a long and successful partnership with Iran, especially in terms of fighting against international terrorism." Two days after the drone incident, Russian specialist media published Iranian video footage of the movement of S-300's on trailer trucks. This report claims that although the S-300's are wheeled and motorized for rapid position changes, the use of highway transporters was intended to minimize road fatigue on the weapons. ..."
"... Iranian military sources have told western reporters they have established "a joint operations room to inform all its allies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Afghanistan of every step it is adopting in confronting the US in case of all-out war in the Middle East." ..."
"... The incident happened Thursday before U.S. markets opened. There was the usual confusion about exactly what happened most of the day and we had that odd statement by Trump just before Thursday market close to the effect that maybe a rouge Iranian general made a mistake in shooting down the (in this case: manned P-8A) in 'international waters'. ..."
Jun 25, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Don Bacon , Jun 25, 2019 9:23:37 AM | 177

Iran forces will attack the US in peripheral areas including especially Iraq. ..news reports...

U.S. officials are concerned that Iran has given the green light to Iranian-backed militias in Iraq to attack the more than 5,200 U.S. forces helping Iraqi Security Forces. And reflecting the unique situation in Iraq, some of those security forces are Iranian-backed militias that fall under the control of the Iraqi government.

For three days in a row this week, rockets have been fired at areas where U.S. forces or U.S. interests are located in Iraq. On Monday, rockets targeted Camp Taji, where the U.S.-led coalition against ISIS is training Iraqi security forces. On Tuesday, more rockets were fired at a compound in Mosul where U.S. troops are based. Then, another attack on Wednesday struck an oil facility near where ExxonMobil has employees.

Rocket attacks Wednesday on American and Turkish oil facilities in southern Iraq, which may have been carried out by Iranian-backed militias, are the latest example of how Iraq finds itself squarely in the middle of increasing tensions between its two closest partners, the United States and Iran.

Security measures were increased at one of Iraq's largest air bases that houses American trainers following an attack last week, a top Iraqi air force commander said Saturday. The U.S. military said operations at the base were going on as usual and there were currently no plans to evacuate personnel. The stepped-up Iraqi security measures at Balad air base, just north of the capital, Baghdad.

Don Bacon , Jun 25, 2019 9:27:36 AM | 178

@ Yeah, Right 1

Yes, correct, the US is over-extended, over-confident, and out-matched -- a bad mix.

Don Bacon , Jun 25, 2019 9:35:55 AM | 179
In Iran's immediate vicinity the US Navy is especially vulnerable. Iran has thousands of rockets and missiles, and knows how to use them, plus 34 submarines wirh 533mm torpedoes. There's the potential of over sixty torpedoes in the water in one salvo.

from USNI:

On Sunday, the Boxer Amphibious Ready Group with embarked 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit entered the U.S. 5th Fleet area of responsibility, joining the Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group already on station in 5th Fleet.

As a result, the Navy now has 28,000 personnel deployed to the region. In comparison, the Navy currently has 24,000 personnel deployed to the Western Pacific and Indian Oceans, according to Navy data reviewed by USNI News.

"All of our training and our transit to 5th Fleet have made us prepared to respond to any crises across the range of military operations," Capt. Brad Arthur, commander of Amphibious Squadron 5 and the Boxer ARG/11th MEU team, said in a statement. . . here

Don Bacon , Jun 25, 2019 9:35:55 AM | 179 somebody , Jun 25, 2019 9:39:52 AM | 180
@Yeah, Right | Jun 25, 2019 9:06:21 AM | 175

What usually stops the US are elections. The Vietnam War deeply threatened the US establishment and they "think" they learnt the lessons.

- no conscripts
- as few dead soldiers as possibele - see Iraq or Afghanistan never mind the death of foreign civilians

So either others have to do the fighting (Syria) or the US bomb the country extensively to make it safe for their soldiers. They miscalculated on this in Iraq.

This here is John Helmer's take - who I assume, gets his information from the Russian military

The range of the new surveillance extends well beyond the S-300 strike distance of 200 kilometres, and covers US drone and aircraft bases on the Arabian peninsula, as well as US warships in (and under) the Persian Gulf and off the Gulf of Oman. Early warning of US air and naval-launched attacks has now been cut below the old 4 to 6-minute Iranian threshold. Counter-firing by the Iranian armed forces has been automated from attack warning and target location.

This means that if the US is detected launching a swarm of missiles aimed at Iran's air-defense sites, uranium mines, reactors, and military operations bunkers, Iran will launch its own swarm of missiles at the US firing platforms, as well as at Saudi and other oil production sites, refineries, and pipelines, as well tankers in ports and under way in the Gulf.

"The armed forces of Iran," said a Russian military source requesting anonymity, "have air defence systems capable of hitting air targets at those heights at which drones of the Global Hawk series can fly; this is about 19,000 to 20,000 metres. Iran's means of air defence are both foreign-purchased systems and systems of Iran's own design; among them, in particular, the old Soviet system S-75 and the new Russian S-300.

Recently, Iran transported some S-300's to the south, but that happened after the drone was shot down [June 20]. Russian specialists are working at Bushehr now and this means that the S-300's are also for protection of Bushehr."

... ... ...

The Russian military source says there is now active coordination between Russian and Iranian military staffs. "About coordination, of course there is participation of Russia in intelligence-sharing because of Bushehr and ISIS. We have a long and successful partnership with Iran, especially in terms of fighting against international terrorism." Two days after the drone incident, Russian specialist media published Iranian video footage of the movement of S-300's on trailer trucks. This report claims that although the S-300's are wheeled and motorized for rapid position changes, the use of highway transporters was intended to minimize road fatigue on the weapons.

Iranian military sources have told western reporters they have established "a joint operations room to inform all its allies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Afghanistan of every step it is adopting in confronting the US in case of all-out war in the Middle East."

... ... ...

In briefings for sympathetic western reporters, Iranian commanders are emphasizing the Armageddon option; that is, however weak or strong their defenses may prove to be under prolonged US attack, the Iranian strategy is not to wait. Their plan, they say, is to counter-attack against Arab as well as American targets as soon as a US missile attack commences; that's to say, at launch, not in-flight nor at impact.

The US cannot sustain any prolonged war with Iran (see elections, dead soldiers), nor can they risk an escalation of small attacks. Nor can they isolate Iran diplomatically.

Don Bacon , Jun 25, 2019 9:47:32 AM | 181
@ 180

The Russian military source says there is now active coordination between Russian and Iranian military staffs.

from Mehr News today

Heading a high delegation of Iran's Defense Ministry and the Army, Iranian Deputy Defense Minister Brigadier General Ghasem Taghizadeh traveled to Moscow at the invitation of Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoygu on Tuesday morning.

He will hold talks with Russian Defense Minister and officials, as well as visit International Military-Technical Forum (ARMY-2019). . . here

PavewayIV , Jun 25, 2019 10:09:06 AM | 183
@imo@142 - Your remark about MMT and my reply have magically gelled (in my simian brain) for a grand unified conspiracy theory that explains a lot of oddities everyone has pointed out previously.

The plan for last Thurs/Fri:

The incident happened Thursday before U.S. markets opened. There was the usual confusion about exactly what happened most of the day and we had that odd statement by Trump just before Thursday market close to the effect that maybe a rouge Iranian general made a mistake in shooting down the (in this case: manned P-8A) in 'international waters'.

Worry, but not panic in the markets on Friday. Oil prices would still have jumped, but derivatives don't implode. War doesn't seem imminent. The public would have been admonished by Trump and the MSM to 'wait for the facts' before rushing to judgement (also calming the markets). Iran would have said nothing on Friday fearing the worse. It really couldn't have been planned better - plenty of time to start the buzz before the weekend but avert derivative Armageddon on Quad witching day.

Saturday is hate Iran a lot day:

The U.S. would hold off on any kind of confirmation until the weekend. CNN would immediately roll out videos of weeping children and widows of 'our brave heros' and document the impromptu memorials: pictures of the sailors, flowers, Teddy bears in camo, candles. Outraged politicians would call for Iranian blood. And, of course, oil prices would have skyrocketed.

The U.S. either conduct an attack on Iran this week or announce an impending one after sufficient grief was milked from the 38 deaths. Trump would be shown solemly saluting the flag-draped coffins in the C-5s arriving at Dover. If it *had* occurred in 'international waters', the U.S. Nave would have recovered everything and kept the Iran Navy away from the area. Casus belli - only a monster or traitor would dare question 'the facts'. Bibi would be shrieking nonstop about how he told us so and encourage us to hurry up and destroy Iran for them.

No sailors would have been hurt in this ruse:

I'm not making light of the thought of 38 dead U.S. sailors - none would have really died in this scenario. The P-8A would certianly have been stripped of it's radars and advanced electronics 'just in case'. Now there's plenty of extra room for those 38 frozen corpses dressed in the appropriate Navy flight uniforms. Load 'em up! A USN P-8A pilot somewhere safely ashore would be flying it via satellite just like regular drone pilots. Thanks, secret Honeywell mystery box in the electronics bay!

Iran would have been screwed:

Video of USN ships recovering those broken (and now unthawed) bodies from the Straits would have been required for the propaganda value. What could Iran say then? "We were targeting the drone in our airspace, not the P-8. Honest!" Too late of course. WAR:ON. Nobody would believe evil Iran.

Why even use a drone?

The drone would have to have been used for bait because Iran wouldn't intentionally shoot at a P-8A (stuffed with frozen bodies or not) flying the same non-threating routes in the middle of the Strait that they usually fly. The drone would also have been stripped but all it's remaining cameras to capture the horrible, intentinal massacre by Iran. The plan would have put that in Iranian airspace without explaining anything to Iran. It was suppose to draw SAM fire.

What could have gone wrong?

The U.S. must have had enough EW on both aircraft to ensure the MQ-4A became invisible to an approaching missile, which would eventually only seen the P-8A on it's terminal guidance radar, not the drone. Except the Iraqis fired a SAM that used IR for terminal guidance, not radar, ignoring whatever trick the U.S. used. The Iranian SAM may have also used a proximity fuse, detonating it near the drone anyway. "Damn you, sneaky Iranians and your primative IR-seeking SAMs with secret proximity fuses! Do you realize how much time and effort we put in with our F-35s to figuring out the required radar tricks for this elaborate scheme?"

Opening salvo:

This could also explain the bizzare 150 dead Iranian people figure Trump claimed. There would have been a pre-planned retalitory strike on the Iranian SAM sites, but only after market closed on Friday or on Saturday. An opening salvo only - total war would surely follow. The U.S. would offer some fake deal. Iran would be spared destruction if they got on their knees to their U.S. and Israeli masters. That just wouldn't ever happen, so WAR:ON. If the U.S. went ahead with the retaliory strike based only on the drone alone, then we would have looked like the bad guys.

How much might Iran have known?

Odd that the P-8A track wasn't also published by Iran. I wonder how they knew about the 35 frozen bodies or if they really thought there were 35 live crew? Guess we'll never know, and nobody would believe such a nutty claim by Iran now. Frozen bodies? Remote controlled P-8As? 'Bait drone'? Hah - sounds like somethig that crackhead Paveway would dream up! Things may have been differnt than this, but I think most people (here, anyway) were surprised by the initial bewilderment of the Trump administration and DoD.

"What? They actually shot the drone down, not the P-8? *%^&! Why did they do that? Get rid of the plane and dump those damn frozen bodies somewhere really deep. If you suspect anybody on our team might be the whistleblowoing type, report them our CIA cleaner pals to be disappeared. Hell, what do I care? My broker just called. I'm rich! F*ck the navy - I'm retireing. See ya!"

And where the hell do you get frozen bodies today that can pass for U.S. military? Does the Pentagon have a freezer of them somewhere for emergency use?

Some folks probably made some money [sigh...]

All I can say now is glad nothing happened as planned. I would give anything to know how many commanding elite in the U.S. military and in-the-know congress things were buying oil call options through proxies last week. Netanyahu and MbS were sure to have loaded up - they LOVE money.

psychohistorian , Jun 25, 2019 10:35:22 AM | 189
Is there consensus now that we are in WWIII?

Thanks to somebody above with the Russia is behind Iran facts that show that attacks on Iran are not possible but for show.

Thanks to PavewayIV with the curious scenario and confirmation that for some it is all about MONEY

I think the EU leaders are a bit conflicted in anticipation of the G20, eh? Are they going to join the Coalition of he Willing like their money boys tell them or do something else?

What a way to fight a war.......lets hope the fighting does not go stupider.

[Jun 25, 2019] Iran doesn't have to win a shooting war, it only has to buy enough time so that its forces can disrupt oil shipments

Existence of financial derivatives on oil (aka "paper oil") and the size of trade involving them in world markets changes the whole situation. The USA can shoot themselves in a foot even if the US armed forces would be able to completely destroy the Iraq army air defenses and bomb strategic targets.
Jun 25, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
KA Hopkins , Jun 25, 2019 6:03:12 AM | 154
There seems to be a common theme in many articles that 'shock and awe' military strikes will force Iran's leaders into unconditional surrender. While the US has the capability to do this on its own, for political reasons the US is actively seeking coalition partners. The reality is it doesn't matter how many partners the US can convince to attack Iran. No matter how sophisticated Iran's cyber, missile or air defenses are, based on simple logistics Iran will eventually lose a shooting war against the US and any coalition partners. Iran knows this.

The real question when the bombing starts, is not the number of casualties that Iran can inflict on her enemies but how long before Iran realizes it will lose and calls on all of its asymmetric regional forces to attack in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, UAE, Saudi Arabia and the Straits of Hormuz.

Iran doesn't have to win a shooting war, it only has to buy enough time that its forces can disrupt oil shipments to China, India, Japan, South Korean and Europe to break the supply chains to the US. Currently the US imports/exports over 5T dollars per year, even impacting this by only 20% should cause the trillions in derivatives to crush the world economy. Given that war should always be the option of last resort is there still the possibility for negotiations?

Iran has too many examples of the promises of US and West not matching our actions. The current sanctions are crippling the economy and backing Iran into a corner. No matter what Iran does what guarantees can be provided that sanctions won't be reapplied. Absolutely none. The criteria constantly change. There is an old saying in martial arts, in a fight an opponent with no way out is far more formable than an opponent who can walk away.

Even a wide scale nuclear attack that wipes out a third of Iran's citizens in the ten major cities and a majority of the armed forces probably won't succeed. Once nuclear weapons are used, Iran's leaders are no longer constrained to any regional targets. If Russia and China jump in to the fray then it could get real, as in WWIII awfully quickly. Even without Russia and China getting involved, Iran's leaders just might consider 30M or more deaths acceptable if her enemies are crushed. There is precedent for this. Estimates put Russia's losses due to all causes in WWII at 25-30M people, and Russia called it a win.

So all the babble that Iran will fold in the face of 'shock and awe' is naïve. Iran can't win a shooting war but if can lose with style. To think that Iran can be defeated like Iraq is folly. Iran is not Iraq. Iraq is a local power, Iran is a regional one. Iran is too large to be attacked by ground forces. That leaves airpower. Once the bombs start to drop, all Iranian combat units have a minimum of 72 hours of war supplies. If the US and the coalition partners don't achieve, 'unconditional surrender' in the initial strikes then all bets are off for keeping the conflict local.

Many articles claim the tanker and pipeline attacks of the past two weeks are 'false flags'. Hopefully they were, because if they were not, then Iran has just proven it's ready and has the capability to strike anywhere in the region. Iran is quickly running out of options and has no choice but to continue escalating regional tensions until something gives. We are indeed living in interesting times.

[Jun 25, 2019] Iran is nearly western, much more so than neighbouring Arab countries and despite resentment people will rally to defend the republic

Jun 25, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Laguerre , Jun 24, 2019 6:21:31 PM | 89

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 24, 2019 4:58:26 PM | 59

Just to add on my recent visit to Iran. They are nearly western, much more so than neighbouring Arab countries. But there are curiosities which keep them apart, like the hijri solar calendar, which puts them in 1398, and the 1st of the year on 21st March. Impossible to calculate the western date without mechanical aid.

Most that I met were anti-regime. but then they were middle class. It's not the middle class which is voting for the regime. Rather it is a populist regime, like Trump's.

xLemming , Jun 24, 2019 6:37:12 PM | 92

@19 js

As a follower of Christ, and seasoned "fruit inspector"* I can confidently state the there is more godly wisdom & compassion for humanity displayed by Iran, Russia, Iraq, Syria & Palestine than ALL of the West & especially not by the likes of Pompeo, Pence, Robertson, etc

* "By their fruits you shall know them" NOT by words alone

xLemming , Jun 24, 2019 6:58:17 PM | 94
@48 op

This may be totally naive, but how about this... Iran gets a couple nukes from somewhere, ie. NK, Russia, Pakistan, India, Walmart... and announce it & put an end to this drawn out dance... and force Israel, US, etc to come to terms with it. This is a war after all, and Iran has been bullied long enough (as have we all)

Jen , Jun 24, 2019 7:12:57 PM | 95
Laguerre @ 88:

I admit I have never been to Iran though I've met people who have visited the country as tourists. I have done some reading on the country's history.

Being an Islamic theocracy, the fact that Iran uses the hijri calendar is no surprise. The calendar is actually a lunar calendar of 12 months that is at least a week or a fortnight shorter than the Gregorian calendar we normally use. (This explains why every year Ramadan starts earlier than it did the previous year.) 21st March on the other hand is Nowruz (Persian New Year) which among other things celebrates the spring equinox and is an inheritance from pre-Islamic Persia.

I have read some information about the bonyads (charitable foundations) owned / managed by the IRGC and other government organisations. These trusts (non-profit so they are exempt from taxation) invest huge amounts in Iran's industries. Just the other day I was commenting at another blog about a senior military guy in the Iranian armed forces, General Hossein Salami, who works with a huge IRGC-associated engineering firm that controls over 800 firms and employs over 25,000 mostly technical and engineering staff . The income that bonyads obtain from a firm like Salami's firm and others, which in Western countries would be considered "profit", is distributed among IRGC members (or members of the other government agencies that run them) in the form of subsidies for education up to and including college / university level, healthcare and other social services.

My understanding is that most people who are members of the IRGC come from working class families and especially families who lost breadwinners or other men of draft age during the Iraq-Iran war (1980 - 1988).

Middle class and upper middle class layers would be the hardest hit by US sanctions on Iran (they are the ones importing and buying overseas goods, and have the most contacts with the Iranian diaspora) and won't have the protection of subsidies provided by bonyads or other government organisations.

Grieved , Jun 24, 2019 7:59:24 PM | 99
I have to say I find this talk of "the mullahs" disturbing.

I never see any collateral to demonstrate that the religious layer of Iran is actually harmful to the people in any way. And on the contrary, everything I read about how the religious layer is part of the governing system and the culture and welfare of the nation seems pretty reasonable to me.

I keep coming back to the thought that this is after all the religion of the people of this country. It is the particular way in which they approach the sacredness of the universe. I'm not persuaded that it's more intelligent to regard the universe as being not-sacred.

To accept the benignity of religious people in positions of power and influence within a state, you have to accept the positive aspects of religion, as well as the negative aspects. This is where a lot of potential acceptance fails, of course.

~~

We keep hearing that it is the middle and upper classes that are disaffected with the government (although typically the term "regime" is used). But in this cold-hearted, neoliberal economic wasteland, surely the fact that the poor and the unprivileged are in support of their government is not a study in "populism" but rather a study in successful socialist principles at work?

And the link provided in the previous thread regarding Iran's leadership in the war on drugs stated that over 8,000 Iranian police have died fighting the flow of opium from Afghanistan. The position of the US in this trade is clear to everyone, and the reason to sanction Iran - precisely to shackle the Iranian interdiction of the drug flow - is also clear.

Iran strikes me very much as being like Cuba, in that its good works that yield no profit are greater than any that come from the western nations. Ir almost seems that only a socialist, revolutionary nation has freed itself from the shackles of greed enough to pursue actions purely from moral concern.

I like Khamenei. I envy a country that has a moral anchor such as he, a force that acts not as its captain but as its pilot.

~~

No particular point to make. Just some words in support of devotion to the sacred, and the moral strength to live a life, and direct a country, along moral lines, rather than criminal.

Arata , Jun 24, 2019 8:12:20 PM | 101
@| 95

The Shah came to power with USA + UK coup on 1953, he lacked legitimacy, that was his main problem, he was not an indepdendt legimtimate ruler.

Understanding Iran revolution and the long historical march is too complicated. On the surface and apperance it seems on political, ideoligical/ theoligical levels, but the movement is deeply in cultural and social level. Otherwise it would not be able to survive, resist and grow for 40 years. It may take another 40-50 years the movement bear fruits.

Uncle Jon , Jun 24, 2019 8:14:18 PM | 102
@ATH 97

The Shah was a tragic figure in many ways. You are correct about being the servant of his masters until he outgrew that and started having Persian Empire ambitions. Perhaps too soon for the politics of the era. The west of the 1970's preferred a King Hussein of Jordan. Quiet, unpretentious and cooperative.

The Shah was a super intelligent, extremely well informed and well-read, and a great debater. No journalist was a match for him, not even the crass and arrogant Mike Wallace. But inherently, he was a weak man with a character that did not match his ambitions. That weakness did not allow him to follow through with his plans and he had great plans for his country.

Having said that, IMHO, the Seven Sisters' decision to remove him, and him capitulating so easy, was one the biggest mistakes in modern geopolitics. Look what has happened since then. Furthermore, Dynasties and kings are in Persian DNA. I often laugh at the talk of democracy in Iran, as you cannot have 4-5 Iranians sit together and agree to disagree. One idea always has to come on top and the rest be damned.

Obviously, there are so many other factors and it would a lengthy discussion best to have over a nice Cuban cigar and a single Malt.

psychohistorian , Jun 24, 2019 8:47:00 PM | 112
@ C I eh? who wrote
"
Iran can pursue the strategy of Russia, patience and double dealing, indefinitely or till the cows come home.
"
Totally agree.

In the case of bullies the best offense is a good defense and Iran showed it has good defense to shoot down the spy plane and not the one with cannon fodder nearby

How many more bully nations other than Israel and the US are currently "active"?

None.

This is why the G20 will be interesting to see how much the global finance power struggle shows itself.....the cows are coming home perhaps....

karlof1 , Jun 24, 2019 9:33:02 PM | 118
As alluded to by several and directly pointed to by me, Iran's defensive capabilities have placed the Outlaw US Empire's King in check and have forced it to move into hiding on the board behind what amounts to nothing of substance. I think it an amazing admission that the self-proclaimed most powerful military EVER on Earth must ask for assistance to overthrow what is a popular Iranian government--a government and people in a strategic location within Eurasia on the cusp of initiating an geoeconomic/geopolitical system capable of upending the Empire's #1 policy goal of attaining Full Spectrum Dominance. What nation other than the usual co-outlaws will join in an action that is totally against its interests--what nation wants, desires, to be dominated by another?

As I see it, the next move on the global chess board will occur at the G-20, and the King will be placed in check again. However, the move required to get away from the check situation won't be as simple as was just done today. It will require complex finesse of a sort TrumpCo has yet to exhibit. It seems likely Trump will try to redirect attention away from his Iranian failure, but that won't alter the fact that he must move his King.

Jen , Jun 24, 2019 9:39:10 PM | 119
There has been much recent speculation about the restoration of monarchy in Iran in Western news media which would suggest this is something currently occupying the minds of the, uh, "best" and "brightest" brains over at Langley, Foggy Bottom and the bizarre ziggurat building at Vauxhall Cross in London.

One little problem that our Western news media and their feeders may have overlooked is that traditionally only men inherit the throne in Iran.

The current Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi has only three daughters. His younger brother Ali Reza (committed suicide in January 2011) left behind one daughter.

There are two male survivors of the previous Qajar dynasty .

Realist , Jun 24, 2019 10:45:32 PM | 126
Iran strikes me very much as being like Cuba, in that its good works that yield no profit are greater than any that come from the western nations. Ir almost seems that only a socialist, revolutionary nation has freed itself from the shackles of greed enough to pursue actions purely from moral concern.

Posted by: Grieved | Jun 24, 2019 7:59:24 PM | 98

How does Iran strike you in this way? You have traveled in Iran? You have lived in Iran?

Do actually you give a fuck about Iran and Iranians? (Be honest. I mean care they way you care about your FAMILY.)

Iran has been kept artificaly retarded and its development plans halted. A million Iranians perished in a needless war. Iranians are forced to accept outrageous intrusions on Iran's sovereignty. Our best minds continue to leave. And now we're being threatened with nuclear bombardment.

"Winning"?

Why don't you wish that on your own people. Hah?

One imagines it must have been very alarming to the Global Mafia when the Shah of Iran announced the plans for the Port of Chabahar. Can you imagine a developed Iran, in good international standing, with a thriving modern port right on the Ohormozd [Hormoz] Strait? Do recent events jingle a bell somewhere there, Grieved?

"Socialist"

A welfare state is not the same thing as a "socialist" system.

IRI runs a welfare state to keep the lower classes on their side. They are hugely corrupted, even Ahmadinejad was screaming about it. It is not even remotely a secret.

The greed of the Mullahs is legendary. You clearly have never dealt with a member of that species. I suggest you acquaint yourself with Iranian's assessment of our clerical snakes.

[Obviously mature readers recognize that in any gross characterization we omit stating the obvious fact that "in most every grouping of people there are exceptional and principled members." We state this here for those who are not.]

Ninel , Jun 24, 2019 10:21:19 PM | 122

Poor Iranians! They are victims of both internal and external repression.

Kadath , Jun 24, 2019 11:03:49 PM | 128
re: 89 Laguerre

I highly doubt that Khamenei has even $0.01 worth of assets in the US, however the real purpose of sanctioning Khamenei and other Iranian government officials (supposedly including the Iranian Foreign Minister, Javad Zarif) is not to seize their assets but to make international diplomacy more difficult. For example, if Khamenei were to travel to Iraq to face to face discussions with the Iraqi Prime Minister the US would now have the legal framework to sanction any company involved in the travel arrangements, accommodations, insurance, etc... Sanctioning Javad Zarif is an especially dick move as he is one of the leading Iranian moderates and was in favor of the original JCPOA agreement. I suspect that when Javad Zarif tries to attend the next UN summit in New York the US will attempt to sabotage his travel based on these sanctions.

This is also more proof that the US wants a war with Iran as they are trying to crush the moderates within Iran in the hopes that 1) the hardliners will become ascendant within Iran and that they will pursue policies that will make it easier for the US to justify their eventual attack on Iran and 2) making it more difficult for senior government officials to travel aboard will make Iran's international diplomacy less effective in developing a international coalition in opposition to the war. China and Russia acting as proxies and advocates for Iran will be vital for future discussions

Krollchem , Jun 24, 2019 11:16:08 PM | 129
Realist@124

(1) "Iran has been kept artifically retarded and its development plans halted. A million Iranians perished in a needless war."
Do you realize that Iran was attacked by Saddam who was supported by the US and that the US provided Saddam with vast quantities of chemical and biological weapons?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War

(2) "One imagines it must have been very alarming to the Global Mafia when the Shah of Iran announced the plans for the Port of Chabahar."

Did you know that the Shah was installed on 19 August 1953 following the overthrow of democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in Operation Ajax by the US and the United Kingdom?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

(3) "IRI runs a welfare state to keep the lower classes on their side."

Sounds like the US system where the two wings of the bird of prey are the Democrats and the Republicans (Upton Sinclair, 1904). Please read up on US Neofeudal Oligarchy before throwing stones at regimes that do not meet your ideological viewpoint.
https://www.oftwominds.com/blogjune19/lessons-rome6-19.html

Yes I understand why the US would want to rape Iran and Venezuela for their energy resources. Without these pools of liquid energy the US Empire will collapse on itself. I suggest you read 1Pathfinding Our Destiny for a reality check on the US system.
https://www.oftwominds.com/Pathfinding-Our-Destiny-sample2.pdf

I suggest that you worry about the US Zionist "christian" endtimers seeking the rapture than the Iranian Mullahs.

/div> Realist, what are you asking for? Are you wishing for Ukraine's fate? Or Brazil's? Or El Salvador's? The political situation in Iran should be, by rights, an Iranian issue. I live in a country that spends trillions making life miserable for others, killing and maiming them but cannot afford to look after it's own people. This is by rights my problem, and I and my fellow citizens should be working to correct this imbalance. What advice do you have? What advice should I give you? We are caught in a terrible, foolish dance but have not the power, as individuals, to escape. This is life. Enjoy some tahdig. Railing against people here is not particularly enlightning for anyone.

Posted by: the pessimist , Jun 24, 2019 11:39:51 PM | 132

Realist, what are you asking for? Are you wishing for Ukraine's fate? Or Brazil's? Or El Salvador's? The political situation in Iran should be, by rights, an Iranian issue. I live in a country that spends trillions making life miserable for others, killing and maiming them but cannot afford to look after it's own people. This is by rights my problem, and I and my fellow citizens should be working to correct this imbalance. What advice do you have? What advice should I give you? We are caught in a terrible, foolish dance but have not the power, as individuals, to escape. This is life. Enjoy some tahdig. Railing against people here is not particularly enlightning for anyone.

Posted by: the pessimist | Jun 24, 2019 11:39:51 PM | 132

dltravers , Jun 24, 2019 11:41:31 PM | 133
IRI runs a welfare state to keep the lower classes on their side. They are hugely corrupted, even Ahmadinejad was screaming about it. It is not even remotely a secret.

The greed of the Mullahs is legendary. You clearly have never dealt with a member of that species. I suggest you acquaint yourself with Iranian's assessment of our clerical snakes.

I have had quite a few Iranians describe that situation to me. It is amazing how the Christian religious leadership gets bashed, mostly rightly so, and the Mullahs get a pass. I am sure they do get the job done shaking down the flock. Probably not as mullaevangelists on TV but there are other ways. I bet one could amass quite a flock of daughters to your harem.

A quick question: if there really were 35/38 American servicemen jammed into a P-8 and dangled before the Iranians like a juicy bait on a hook then how, exactly, are they going to view that display of casual recklessness w.r.t. their lives?

Wouldn't they be more than a little pissed off with the revelation that the Iranian military cared more about their mortal souls than did their own superiors in the US chain of command?

I was listening to a recent interview of Liberty survivors. One survivor just joined the group after retiring from the intelligence establishment. He was on the fantail after the ship got hit and described the whole thing including the Israeli torpedo boats flying their flags firing at the Liberty. Later at port he had to retrieve the dead. He was threatened by the naval brass to be silent and went on to work for them for the rest of his life.

DC is full of these guys "afraid for their careers and pension". Do not expect to much out of them.

col from OZ , Jun 25, 2019 12:08:56 AM | 134
Grieved
I agree with you summation of the Governance of Iran. The supreme Leader has a fatwa on the creating/ion of Nuclear weapons which he says is immoral. Well their you have it, a gaggle of US presidents who only live to breathe the threaten use of nuclear weapons upon 'their enemies', against a leader who wishers not the power of such a immoral weapon..

[Jun 24, 2019] Trump Unleashes On Uber-Hawk Bolton We d Be Fighting The Whole World At One Time

That does not change the fact that Trump foreign policy is a continuation of Obama fogirn policy. It is neocon forign policy directed on "full spectrum dominance". Trump just added to this bulling to the mix.
Notable quotes:
"... When pressed on the dangers of having such an uber-hawk neo-conservative who remains an unapologetic cheerleader of the 2003 Iraq War, and who laid the ground work for it as a member of Bush's National Security Council, Trump followed with, "That doesn't matter because I want both sides." ..."
"... I was against going into Iraq... I was against going into the Middle East . Chuck we've spent 7 trillion dollars in the Middle East right now. ..."
"... Bolton has never kept his career-long goal of seeing regime change in Tehran a secret - repeating his position publicly every chance he got, especially in the years prior to tenure at the Trump White House. ..."
"... Tucker's epic "bureaucratic tapeworm" comment: https://www.youtube.com/embed/-c0jMsspE7Y ..."
"... Bolton! So much winning! And there's also Perry: Rick Perry, Trump's energy secretary, was flagged for describing Trumpism as a "toxic mix of demagoguery, mean-spiritedness, and nonsense that will lead the Republican Party to perdition." ..."
"... Trump National Security Advisor John Bolton was one of the architects of the Iraq War under George W. Bush, and now he's itching to start a war with Iran -- an even bigger country with almost three times the population. ..."
Jun 24, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

In a stunningly frank moment during a Sunday Meet the Press interview focused on President Trump's decision-making on Iran, especially last week's "brink of war" moment which saw Trump draw down readied military forces in what he said was a "common sense" move, the commander in chief threw his own national security advisor under the bus in spectacular fashion .

Though it's not Trump's first tongue-in-cheek denigration of Bolton's notorious hawkishness, it's certainly the most brutal and blunt take down yet, and frankly just plain enjoyable to watch. When host Chuck Todd asked the president if he was "being pushed into military action against Iran" by his advisers in what was clearly a question focused on Bolton first and foremost, Trump responded:

"John Bolton is absolutely a hawk. If it was up to him he'd take on the whole world at one time, okay?"

Trump began by explaining, "I have two groups of people. I have doves and I have hawks," before leading into this sure to be classic line that is one for the history books: "If it was up to him he'd take on the whole world at one time, okay?"

During this section of comments focused on US policy in the Middle East, the president reiterated his preference that he hear from "both sides" on an issue, but that he was ultimately the one making the decisions.

When pressed on the dangers of having such an uber-hawk neo-conservative who remains an unapologetic cheerleader of the 2003 Iraq War, and who laid the ground work for it as a member of Bush's National Security Council, Trump followed with, "That doesn't matter because I want both sides."

And in another clear indicator that Trump wants to stay true to his non-interventionist instincts voiced on the 2016 campaign trail, he explained to Todd that:

I was against going into Iraq... I was against going into the Middle East . Chuck we've spent 7 trillion dollars in the Middle East right now.

It was the second time this weekend that Trump was forced to defend his choice of Bolton as the nation's most influential foreign policy thinker and adviser. When peppered with questions at the White House Saturday following Thursday night's dramatic "almost war" with Iran, Trump said that he "disagrees" with Bolton "very much" but that ultimately he's "doing a very good job".

Bolton has never kept his career-long goal of seeing regime change in Tehran a secret - repeating his position publicly every chance he got, especially in the years prior to tenure at the Trump White House.

Tucker's epic "bureaucratic tapeworm" comment: https://www.youtube.com/embed/-c0jMsspE7Y

But Bolton hasn't had a good past week: not only had Trump on Thursday night shut the door on Bolton's dream of overseeing a major US military strike on Iran, but he's been pummeled in the media.

Even a Fox prime time show (who else but Tucker of course) colorfully described him as a "bureaucratic tapeworm" which periodically reemerges to cause pain and suffering.

Iconoclast422 , 15 seconds ago link

YOU TELL HIM BOSS. Only bomb one country at a time.

bizarroworld , 1 minute ago link

It's great that the biggest war mongers are the ones that not only never served but in the case of Bolton, purposely avoided serving. They should send that ****** to Iran so we can see just how supportive he is when he's actually in danger.

This guy is a worthless piece of **** and Trump's an idiot for hiring him.

Catullus , 1 minute ago link

Being a cheerleader for the Iraq war is as ridiculous as that ******* mustache. He's just letting neocons have a front row seat to power. That's how he's keeping them from jumping ship to become democrats. They have no principles. They're just power worshippers.

Moribundus , 2 minutes ago link

Do ya all remember when Trump took office? Losers use military strategy that is overwhelming bombardment b4 land attack. I thought that Donnie can not survive this pressure. Looks like now he is riding horse with banner in hands. Thumb up, MJT

thepsalmon , 2 minutes ago link

I was against going into the Middle East...$7 Trillion? So why is Jared trying to give away $50 Billion more? People thought they voted for MAGA, but they got Jared...MMEGA.

How about MJANYA?...Make Jared a New Yorker Again. Send Jared and Ivanka back to New York before it's $10 Trillion.

HenryJonesJr , 2 minutes ago link

Never understood why Trump allowed Bolton near the White House. Bolton is insane.

Joiningupthedots , 4 minutes ago link

WTF is wrong with Trump? He appointed Bolton and Pompeo......... OR DID HE?

SMOOCHY SMOOCHY CARLO , 4 minutes ago link

Bolton! So much winning! And there's also Perry: Rick Perry, Trump's energy secretary, was flagged for describing Trumpism as a "toxic mix of demagoguery, mean-spiritedness, and nonsense that will lead the Republican Party to perdition."

ne-tiger , 4 minutes ago link

Holycrap trumptards: all get your 22 little pistols ready to die for your orange swamp mushroom?

ConanTheContrarian1 , 5 minutes ago link

Trump "unleashes"? For those who think, he also said Bolton is doing a good job. Crap headline. I think Solomon said, "In a multitude of counselors there is victory".

DingleBarryObummer , 4 minutes ago link

What kind of unprofessional dingus talks openly about employee issues? That's not how you run a organization. That's how you run a reality television show.

DingleBarryObummer , 5 minutes ago link

Bolton is just there to make Trump look like less of a Zionist tool in comparison.

Everybodys All American , 5 minutes ago link

Rid yourself of Bolton. The guy is a friggin megalomaniac and he's no fan of making America great. Move on from this idiot.

RedNemesis , 7 minutes ago link

Who would have thought that we now wish HR McMaster was back.

HillaryOdor , 9 minutes ago link

So why did you put him in your cabinet then you dumb ****? Was this actually news to you?

ConanTheContrarian1 , 8 minutes ago link

Because, you dumber ****, Trump wants to hear both sides, as was pointed out in the article.

DingleBarryObummer , 7 minutes ago link

Sides? I could hire Hobo Joe, the bum that huffs paint and drinks scotch out of plastic bottle while yelling at traffic by the intersection, as my advisor. He'd probably tell me to do some whacky stuff. But why would I do that?

HillaryOdor , 7 minutes ago link

There is no side to hear. Bomb everyone. That is John Bolton's side. It isn't worth hearing. The man shouldn't be drawing a paycheck. He shouldn't be drawing breath. He should be pushing up daisies. He the same as ISIS.

libertysghost , 6 minutes ago link

More easily controlled... Keep your enemies even closer, you may have heard.

HillaryOdor , 30 seconds ago link

Whatever you have to tell yourself to stay in the Trump delusion. What will the excuse be when they are at war with Iran?

Cognitive Dissonance , 1 minute ago link

Reading is fundamental....and certainly not needed to spout opinions. In fact, reading, combined with critical thinking, logic and reason, just gets in the way of forming opinions. Or should I say "repeating" other's opinions.

Commodore 1488 , 11 minutes ago link

John "The Pimp" Bolton wants American military to serve Israel.

FreeShitter , 7 minutes ago link

The military has been serving Israel for decades, you think this is new?

FreeShitter , 11 minutes ago link

"Chuck we've spent 7 trillion dollars in the Middle East right now."....Yes, just like your *** bosses wanted and needed and you dumb ******* sheep still think voting matters.

El_Puerco , 11 minutes ago link

Trump National Security Advisor John Bolton was one of the architects of the Iraq War under George W. Bush, and now he's itching to start a war with Iran -- an even bigger country with almost three times the population.

Democrats in Congress have the power to pull us back from the brink , but they need to act now. Once bombs start falling and troops are on the ground, there will be massive political pressure to rally around the flag.

[Jun 24, 2019] Beijing Slams Pompeo As Trade Talks Loom He Can No Longer Play Role Of Top US Diplomat

Notable quotes:
"... Pompeo is a rapture supremacist warmonger that is not good for anything. ..."
"... Not a fan of Pompeo, nor of any Secy of State that champions the cause of military adventurism instead of negotiations. We've had far too many Secys of State who have beat the drums of war instead of doing what the job entails.....being the nation's chief diplomatic negotiator. Pompeo is a bigger (chicken) hawk than the Secy of Defense for crying out loud. ..."
Jun 24, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

Furthermore, Hu had some particularly harsh words for Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, labeling the Secretary of State a "troublesome" figure in US-China relations and insisting that Pompeo "can no longer play the role of a top US diplomat between the two countries."

... ... ...

Beijing's attacks on the secretary of state come as Pompeo wrapped up a string of meetings in the Middle East with King Salman of Saudi Arabia and Crown Prince.

This isn't the first time Pompeo has earned the ire of Beijing. Last October, Pompeo became embroiled in a public confrontation with top Chinese official during what was supposed to be an amicable press conference in Beijing.

AriusArmenian , 1 hour ago link

Pompeo is a rapture supremacist warmonger that is not good for anything.

Bay Area Guy , 1 hour ago link

Not a fan of Pompeo, nor of any Secy of State that champions the cause of military adventurism instead of negotiations. We've had far too many Secys of State who have beat the drums of war instead of doing what the job entails.....being the nation's chief diplomatic negotiator. Pompeo is a bigger (chicken) hawk than the Secy of Defense for crying out loud.

brianshell , 1 hour ago link

China doesn't like Pompeo? We will bring in Bolton.

Thordoom , 1 hour ago link

Whenever i see Pompeo it reminds me that horror movie The Blob. The trailer for that movie is a perfect depiction of Pompeo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sixDADVVnxA

[Jun 24, 2019] Was global hawk drone a decoy to get a map of Iran air defense system

Notable quotes:
"... That could mean that it was there specifically for observation (of the P8, as much as Iranian defenses); and of course could mean that much of the equipment, particularly the active equipment, was no longer aboard ..."
"... Wouldn't be needed, after all, if the job was just to record what was hoped to be an Iranian reaction, and would want to minimize the amount of equipment potentially falling into enemy hands if things went bad. ..."
"... Secondly, the 35 souls on board the P8 comment by Iran was brilliant. For one thing, it put the US on the defensive and once again called world attention to the fact that the Iranians have striven to avoid loss of life (so much so that Trump even used it to partly save face on the whole thing). ..."
"... But either way, it is unquestionable that Iranian intelligence has penetrated the base, or operations, to a degree that must be causing all sorts of trepidation amongst the US hawks. ..."
Jun 24, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Peter AU 1 , Jun 23, 2019 2:32:07 PM | 61

Re the Boeing and the drone. With both planes apparently close together for the flight, they were not there for maritime surveillance. Iranians most likely only picked up floating debris initially and electronic hardware may be rovered later, but there is a possibility the drone was stripped of hardware for its job as decoy. 35 to 38 people on the Boeing are too many for a simple photoshoot.

The decoy entering Iranian airspace the beginnings of a US strike... it draws fire from multiple SAM sites, the Boeing P-8 videoing the shootdown to justify the strike while locating launch positions and directing immediate strikes onto these positions. Comes unstuck when Iran launches a single missile. Trump cancels the strike.
Re the Boeing - if the strike was planned in advance, as the pentagon does with its contingency plans the aircraft would have been equipped for detecting SAM sites.

Peter AU 1 , Jun 23, 2019 3:54:25 PM | 84

To add to my post @80, the US captured the missile strike on video. One of the pics put out by the Pentagon was of the drone exploding. This means they were videoing the drone at the moment the missile struck. The only reason for having a video camera filming the drone that I can see, is that the US expected it to be hit.
William Gruff , Jun 23, 2019 4:04:10 PM | 88
Peter AU 1 @80

Why have 35 (or, according to Trump 38) people on a spy plane that is normally crewed by 9?

Because you need double-digit numbers of American casualties to get Americans' attention.

As PavewayIV pointed out in a previous thread, the P-8 spy plane was to the east of the drone. That means it was between the missile launcher and the drone. The P-8 has a hundred times or more the radar cross section of the drone, despite them both being about the same size, so electronic countermeasures or not it stands out like a sore thumb relative to the drone to Iran's radar. It is impossible that these issues were overlooked by the people who put this mission together.

The Navy has a bunch of P-8s. They only had one RQ-4.

The conclusion is obvious:

The drone was there to collect evidence of the destruction of the P-8.

Peter AU 1 , Jun 23, 2019 4:19:06 PM | 96

William Gruff 88

I had noticed the directions in the in the video pics but had forgotten about that.
Makes it more complex as the crewed aircraft was to the east of the drone (closest to Iran), yet videoing the drone expecting it to be hit...
The video also had coordinates of the aircraft taking the video and the target aircraft (in this case the drone) I have not cross checked this with the Iranian coordinates and bringing them up on google maps did not show the positions in relation to Iranian airspace. That the US includes the coordinates in the pics makes me wonder if the information in the video shots has been changed - possibly by resetting the video recorder prior to the op.

J Swift | Jun 23, 2019 7:42:55 PM | 152

A couple of random thoughts on the drone/P8. Firstly, there was earlier a fair amount of debate on the stealthiness of the drone. I would just mention that the Iranians did not say it was a stealth drone they were tracking...they said it was in "stealth mode." I originally thought that was just an offhand reference to the craft turning off its transponder, making it somewhat less obvious although hardly a true stealth craft. But perhaps they meant that it was noted to be in fully passive mode with respect to its surveillance equipment.

That could mean that it was there specifically for observation (of the P8, as much as Iranian defenses); and of course could mean that much of the equipment, particularly the active equipment, was no longer aboard

Wouldn't be needed, after all, if the job was just to record what was hoped to be an Iranian reaction, and would want to minimize the amount of equipment potentially falling into enemy hands if things went bad.

Secondly, the 35 souls on board the P8 comment by Iran was brilliant. For one thing, it put the US on the defensive and once again called world attention to the fact that the Iranians have striven to avoid loss of life (so much so that Trump even used it to partly save face on the whole thing).

As Paveway IV commented, it could have technically been an empty, remotely controlled plane, in which case the Iranian reference to a highly unusual number of crewmen may have been a tongue-in-cheek jab at the Yanks--or there may have been an unusually high number of crewlambs, which might also have alerted the Iranian intelligence that a set-up was unfolding.

But either way, it is unquestionable that Iranian intelligence has penetrated the base, or operations, to a degree that must be causing all sorts of trepidation amongst the US hawks.

karlof1 | Jun 23, 2019 7:52:23 PM | 154

Jen @143--

As myself and others noted, the usual crew for P-8 is 7: two on the flight deck and 5 distributed at the 5 work stations. The plane's equipped with a bomb/torpedo/sonobouy bay as it's primary mission's ASW. Jamming in an additional 28-30 people would be rather difficult at best. IMO, the only way would be to remove all ordinance to make room for what could only be 3 Special Forces squads and their gear--they would paradive into Iran to do their thing, presumably. Otherwise, the plane wasn't a P-8. I don't recall the Iranians providing the plane type, although it's clear they could have since they readily identified the drone. That leaves us with the following:

  1. Iran's incorrect about the # of people they "saw" on other plane.
  2. USA's playing along with Iranian mistake, but added 3 more.
  3. Iran's correct. USA's lying about plane type.
  4. Iran's correct. USA correct, but altered mission and added troops.
  5. Iran's correct. USA correct; but if shadowing drone, why so many people--trial run?
  6. Iran's correct. Both US planes deliberately entered Iranian airspace to provoke a response that wasn't obtained earlier in the week as Zarif just informed. If so, why so many on non-drone?

There're probably more that could be obtained, but the above seem to be the most logical. It's also possible that Iran toppled the planes into its airspace using EW; although that possibility surprised PavewayIV, I'm not in the least. Regardless if there were 7, 35 or 38 people on the second plane, they all probably needed new trousers upon landing. I also wonder if the Iranian system actuates the radar-lock warning alarm giving the pilot a chance to evade? If I'm correct in my evaluation of Iran's system, it won't and the air crew won't have time to say a final prayer.

[Jun 24, 2019] US and Israel want to make Iran defenseless. It is not going to happen

It is all about dominance in the region...
Notable quotes:
"... This whole saga is not about nuclear weapons, it is about those conventional ballistic missiles which Iran is manufacturing perfectly legally and changing the equation in the region. These are precision missiles and could turn Tel Aviv and Saudi oil infrastructure into rubble, US/Israel want to make Iran defenseless. It is not going to happen. ..."
Jun 24, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
Harry Law , Jun 23, 2019 7:41:48 PM | 151
Trump is such a con man... He said he told Shinzō Abe, before the Japanese prime minister visited Tehran on 12 June: "Send the following message: you can't have nuclear weapons. And other than that, we can sit down and make a deal. But you cannot have nuclear weapons."
On further questioning he added the demand that Tehran should not have a ballistic missile programme, and suggested he wanted a tougher inspection regime.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/23/iran-may-pull-further-away-from-nuclear-deal-after-latest-sanctions

This whole saga is not about nuclear weapons, it is about those conventional ballistic missiles which Iran is manufacturing perfectly legally and changing the equation in the region. These are precision missiles and could turn Tel Aviv and Saudi oil infrastructure into rubble, US/Israel want to make Iran defenseless. It is not going to happen.

[Jun 24, 2019] If the United States removes the existing ruling class, it is not clear that we would be able to build a functional government in the new Iran -- even if we airdropped billions upon billions of dollars onto the country.

Notable quotes:
"... Trump and the Trump administration have no credibility; lying is simply the nature of this administration. ..."
"... Nobody is going to believe anything put out by the US government for a long time. And yes, it's really sad when Iran or North Korea are deemed more credible than my own government. ..."
"... This whole affair is about nothing except smashing yet another nation because the apartheid Jewish state wants that to happen. ..."
Jun 24, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Zachary Smith , Jun 24, 2019 1:04:05 AM | 187

Just ran into an interesting little piece:

War with Iran?

Highlight:

Laying aside political and nationalistic biases, both the United States and Iran have credibility issues. While Iran is not known for its honesty, Trump and the Trump administration have no credibility; lying is simply the nature of this administration. As such, the matter cannot be settled by an appeal to credibility -- although, sadly, Iran seems to be less inclined to relentless lying than Trump.

Nobody is going to believe anything put out by the US government for a long time. And yes, it's really sad when Iran or North Korea are deemed more credible than my own government.

The author does miss the point here:

If the United States removes the existing ruling class, it is not clear that we would be able to build a functional government in the new Iran -- even if we airdropped billions upon billions of dollars onto the country.

This whole affair is about nothing except smashing yet another nation because the apartheid Jewish state wants that to happen.

[Jun 24, 2019] The Fact That Americans Need To Be Deceived Into War Proves Their Underlying Goodness

Notable quotes:
"... "Lying sometimes, not always lying, sometimes it's manipulations, but yeah," Merry replied. "America's warmaking history indicates that there's been significant instances of that kind of maneuvering, manipulations, and in some instances lying–Vietnam is a great example–to get us into wars that the American people weren't clamoring for." ..."
Jun 24, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

John Smith , Jun 24, 2019 2:33:49 AM | 202

The Fact That Americans Need To Be Deceived Into War Proves Their Underlying Goodness by Caitlin Johnstone

<...>

Carlson's first guest, The American Conservative 's Robert Merry, plainly stated the likely reason for Bolton's deceitful manipulations, saying that Americans are typically reluctant to go to war and citing a few of the historical instances in which they were tricked into consenting to it by those who desire mass military violence.

"So, you're saying that there is a long, almost unbroken history of lying our way into war?" Carlson asked his guest rhetorically.

"Lying sometimes, not always lying, sometimes it's manipulations, but yeah," Merry replied. "America's warmaking history indicates that there's been significant instances of that kind of maneuvering, manipulations, and in some instances lying–Vietnam is a great example–to get us into wars that the American people weren't clamoring for."

Both men are correct. The US empire does indeed have an extensive and well-documented history of using lies, manipulations and distortions to manufacture consent for war from a populace that would otherwise choose peace, and a Reuters poll released last month found that only 12 percent of Americans favor attacking Iranian military interests without having been attacked first.

<...>

What we are watching with Iran is a war propaganda narrative failing to get airborne. It was all set up and ready to go, they had the whole marketing team working on it, and then it faceplanted right on the linoleum. This is what a failed narrative management campaign looks like. It is possible for us to see this more and more.

Today I have a lot more hope. It's becoming clear that the manipulations of the US war machine are becoming more and more obvious to more and more people and that everyday, regular Americans are reacting with a healthy amount of horror and revulsion. There was always the risk that the US population would already be sufficiently paced ahead of these revelations and there would be little to no reaction, but that didn't happen. Americans are seeing what they're doing, and they don't like it, and they don't want it.

And that makes me so happy. Come on Captain America. Save the day. The world is counting on you.

[Jun 24, 2019] Can the USA occupy Iran without reinstituting the military draft

Jun 24, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

John Smith , Jun 24, 2019 6:04:07 AM | 219

If we're headed for regime change in Iran, get ready for a military draft. We'll need one. -- USA Today

Our leaders seem interested in toppling Iran's theocracy. But do they want a new U.S. military draft? Because make no mistake, that's what it will take.

<...>

Any serious effort to end the Iranian theocracy will not only require American troops, but will also almost certainly break our vaunted All-Volunteer Force If you like the idea of regime change in Iran, you had better love the idea of a new American draft.

We have seen for decades that American air power alone is insufficient to topple a government, [...]. Our Sunni Arab allies are stalemated in Yemen and distinctly averse to sending troops to Syria. The idea that they would invade or occupy Iran is risible. The Washington regime change crowd's preferred Iranian proxy is a hated cult called Mujahideen-e Khalq.

But if the mullahs are to be overthrown, it will be by American soldiers and Marines. Even if the Islamic Republic were to somehow collapse on its own, concerns about radiological material, the security of the Strait of Hormuz or another massive wave of refugees would probably drive the U.S.to intervene with ground troops.

U.S. politicians and generals sometimes like to point out that the volunteer military has successfully endured a decade and a half of sustained combat and a ceaseless cycle of deployments. This is not the whole story.

Despite the enormous amount of money expended there, Iraq was by historical measures a low-intensity war. Total combat deaths for American forces over eight years were about the size of a brigade, and losses in Afghanistan roughly half that. Yet a modest increase in force structure required the military to greatly lower its standards, doubling felony waivers for Army recruits from 2003 to 2006, for instance.

A massive increase in the use of civilian contractors (more than 50 times the ratio in Vietnam) also hid the volunteer system's cracks. The All-Volunteer Force was barely able to sustain two large, but low-casualty, campaigns -- neither of which has resulted in anything resembling a U.S. strategic victory.

Occupying Iran would be a challenge of an entirely different magnitude than Iraq or Afghanistan.

<...>

The force with which we would occupy Iran is also not as resilient as most Americans probably think. Even now, in a time when most troops are not seeing direct combat, the the volunteer force is struggling just to maintain numbers and standards. The Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy are each short of a full quarter of their required fighter pilots. The Army recently announced that it is already 12,000 recruits behind on its recruiting goal for 2018 and will not make mission.

The Pentagon stated last year that 71% of Americans between the ages of 17 and 24 are ineligible to serve in the U.S. military, most for reasons of health, physical fitness, education, or criminality. The propensity of this age group to serve is even lower. The likely demands and casualties of a war in Iran would spell the end of the All-Volunteer Force, requiring the conscription of Americans for the first time since 1973.

There is ample evidence that American foreign policy elites haven't learned much from Iraq or Afghanistan; one need only look at the latest headlines from Libya or Syria. But perhaps even our modern Bourbons in Washington can grasp one simple lesson from the post-9/11 campaigns: Wars have an uncanny tendency to take on a life of their own.

Regime change in Iran would bring a host of consequences, many of them unknowable, but almost all of them negative for America and the region. There is one outcome we can be sure of, however: Occupying Iran would be the death of America's all-volunteer military and necessitate a return to a draft.

[Jun 24, 2019] Was global howk drone a decoy to get a map of Iran air defence system

Notable quotes:
"... That could mean that it was there specifically for observation (of the P8, as much as Iranian defenses); and of course could mean that much of the equipment, particularly the active equipment, was no longer aboard ..."
"... Wouldn't be needed, after all, if the job was just to record what was hoped to be an Iranian reaction, and would want to minimize the amount of equipment potentially falling into enemy hands if things went bad. ..."
"... Secondly, the 35 souls on board the P8 comment by Iran was brilliant. For one thing, it put the US on the defensive and once again called world attention to the fact that the Iranians have striven to avoid loss of life (so much so that Trump even used it to partly save face on the whole thing). ..."
"... But either way, it is unquestionable that Iranian intelligence has penetrated the base, or operations, to a degree that must be causing all sorts of trepidation amongst the US hawks. ..."
Jun 24, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Peter AU 1 , Jun 23, 2019 2:32:07 PM | 61

Re the Boeing and the drone. With both planes apparently close together for the flight, they were not there for maritime surveillance. Iranians most likely only picked up floating debris initially and electronic hardware may be rovered later, but there is a possibility the drone was stripped of hardware for its job as decoy. 35 to 38 people on the Boeing are too many for a simple photoshoot.

The decoy entering Iranian airspace the beginnings of a US strike... it draws fire from multiple SAM sites, the Boeing P-8 videoing the shootdown to justify the strike while locating launch positions and directing immediate strikes onto these positions. Comes unstuck when Iran launches a single missile. Trump cancels the strike.
Re the Boeing - if the strike was planned in advance, as the pentagon does with its contingency plans the aircraft would have been equipped for detecting SAM sites.

Peter AU 1 , Jun 23, 2019 3:54:25 PM | 84

To add to my post @80, the US captured the missile strike on video. One of the pics put out by the Pentagon was of the drone exploding. This means they were videoing the drone at the moment the missile struck. The only reason for having a video camera filming the drone that I can see, is that the US expected it to be hit.
William Gruff , Jun 23, 2019 4:04:10 PM | 88
Peter AU 1 @80

Why have 35 (or, according to Trump 38) people on a spy plane that is normally crewed by 9?

Because you need double-digit numbers of American casualties to get Americans' attention.

As PavewayIV pointed out in a previous thread, the P-8 spy plane was to the east of the drone. That means it was between the missile launcher and the drone. The P-8 has a hundred times or more the radar cross section of the drone, despite them both being about the same size, so electronic countermeasures or not it stands out like a sore thumb relative to the drone to Iran's radar. It is impossible that these issues were overlooked by the people who put this mission together.

The Navy has a bunch of P-8s. They only had one RQ-4.

The conclusion is obvious:

The drone was there to collect evidence of the destruction of the P-8.

Peter AU 1 , Jun 23, 2019 4:19:06 PM | 96

William Gruff 88

I had noticed the directions in the in the video pics but had forgotten about that.
Makes it more complex as the crewed aircraft was to the east of the drone (closest to Iran), yet videoing the drone expecting it to be hit...
The video also had coordinates of the aircraft taking the video and the target aircraft (in this case the drone) I have not cross checked this with the Iranian coordinates and bringing them up on google maps did not show the positions in relation to Iranian airspace. That the US includes the coordinates in the pics makes me wonder if the information in the video shots has been changed - possibly by resetting the video recorder prior to the op.

J Swift | Jun 23, 2019 7:42:55 PM | 152

A couple of random thoughts on the drone/P8. Firstly, there was earlier a fair amount of debate on the stealthiness of the drone. I would just mention that the Iranians did not say it was a stealth drone they were tracking...they said it was in "stealth mode." I originally thought that was just an offhand reference to the craft turning off its transponder, making it somewhat less obvious although hardly a true stealth craft. But perhaps they meant that it was noted to be in fully passive mode with respect to its surveillance equipment.

That could mean that it was there specifically for observation (of the P8, as much as Iranian defenses); and of course could mean that much of the equipment, particularly the active equipment, was no longer aboard

Wouldn't be needed, after all, if the job was just to record what was hoped to be an Iranian reaction, and would want to minimize the amount of equipment potentially falling into enemy hands if things went bad.

Secondly, the 35 souls on board the P8 comment by Iran was brilliant. For one thing, it put the US on the defensive and once again called world attention to the fact that the Iranians have striven to avoid loss of life (so much so that Trump even used it to partly save face on the whole thing).

As Paveway IV commented, it could have technically been an empty, remotely controlled plane, in which case the Iranian reference to a highly unusual number of crewmen may have been a tongue-in-cheek jab at the Yanks--or there may have been an unusually high number of crewlambs, which might also have alerted the Iranian intelligence that a set-up was unfolding.

But either way, it is unquestionable that Iranian intelligence has penetrated the base, or operations, to a degree that must be causing all sorts of trepidation amongst the US hawks.

[Jun 24, 2019] The tanker attacks themselves are not Iran's style, and this type of attacks are not in Iran's interest

Notable quotes:
"... The tanker attacks were not done by Iran. The US has the smoking gun, but that was planted in their hands by Israel, who were the most probable culprits behind the attacks. Netanyahoo is waiting for new elections, with criminal indictments hot on his tail. His only motivation for the tanker attacks is ultimately to save his skin from the criminal pursuit. ..."
"... Now comes the sting: Iran has top class humint on Israel, and would have known about their plans for the tanker attacks in advance, probably in detail. Being 10 steps ahead of everybody else, the Iranians decided to use the tanker attacks to their own advantage - which is exactly what we are seeing now (although I think we see only the smallest tip of the iceberg). ..."
"... Iran's emphasis on going it alone rather than their ever closer partnership with Russia and China was just part of the deception - probably Russia and China are briefed on the Iranian strategy in detail -- that partnership is as solid as the strongest rock. Frankly, I think some of the things Khamenei said were wildly implausible and rather stupid to fully believe (like the implied fragility of the Iran-Russia-China relationships!!!) - but even that was an intrinsic part of their game, because the deception is aimed at stupid people blinded by hubris, and once the targets have fallen into the trap they will be seen to be even more stupid for having fallen for it. ..."
Jun 24, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

BM , Jun 24, 2019 11:11:07 AM | 237

I've had a planned post sitting idle in the back of my mind for the last ten days or so due to travelling, the flu, etc, and just haven't managed to find the time to get it out, so here belatedly is a quickie version of it (actually only one aspect of several), because It's important! :

Concerning the tanker attacks, B's postulations of Iran's strategy, and Magnier's response citing Iranian sources - I don't buy it, and never did, for many reasons, many of which have already been discussed. I think there is a very important twist that has been left out.

The tanker attacks were not done by Iran. The US has the smoking gun, but that was planted in their hands by Israel, who were the most probable culprits behind the attacks. Netanyahoo is waiting for new elections, with criminal indictments hot on his tail. His only motivation for the tanker attacks is ultimately to save his skin from the criminal pursuit.

Now comes the sting: Iran has top class humint on Israel, and would have known about their plans for the tanker attacks in advance, probably in detail. Being 10 steps ahead of everybody else, the Iranians decided to use the tanker attacks to their own advantage - which is exactly what we are seeing now (although I think we see only the smallest tip of the iceberg).

I think the Iranians were by the time of the tanker attacks already ready to carry out covert attacks, of which some of the proxy attacks such as Houthi attacks on pipelines and airports etc might have been examples. The tanker attacks themselves are not Iran's style, and this type of attacks are not in Iran's interest (at least under the conditions prevailing so far, though as we get closer and closer to open warfare that changes) - but encouraging ambiguity about whether Iran was responsible, and even actively encouraging attributions was very much in Iran's interests. Why? Because Iran had prior intelligence, and was actively out to record everything as it happened and get incriminating evidence against the US and Israel. Their desire was to encourage the US to publish as much fake evidence as possible, and when the time is ripe Iran will come out with the real evidence blowing the US position wide open.

Iran's emphasis on going it alone rather than their ever closer partnership with Russia and China was just part of the deception - probably Russia and China are briefed on the Iranian strategy in detail -- that partnership is as solid as the strongest rock. Frankly, I think some of the things Khamenei said were wildly implausible and rather stupid to fully believe (like the implied fragility of the Iran-Russia-China relationships!!!) - but even that was an intrinsic part of their game, because the deception is aimed at stupid people blinded by hubris, and once the targets have fallen into the trap they will be seen to be even more stupid for having fallen for it.

Unlike the US, the Iranians are sensitive to what can be justified under international law and what cannot. Where an action is clearly against international law, they would obviously have to have good grounds to believe that they could get away with it, even if things went wrong, and benefits would have to outweigh risks.

That is really just a taster, there are lots of other aspects that tie in with it - appologies for not presenting this theory more clearly and pulling all the threads together, but I'm afraid my flu-befuddled mind is not up to that at this moment! Anyone interested can no doubt explore it further for themselves as an exercise for the reader!

[Jun 24, 2019] Tanker attacks are more likely a propaganda ploy to promote the false narrative that Iran is a terrorist nation.

Jun 24, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Jackrabbit , Jun 23, 2019 11:07:07 PM | 172

james @167: Magnier

Not surprising that some unnamed Iranian commander speaks belligerently against USA.

It's clear that Magnier believes this is newsworthy because of a few sly phrases like "Iran will not stand idle" that's supposed to confirm the view that Iran has turned into the terrorists that the anti-Iranian group (USA, Israel, Saudis) say they are.

I don't buy it. A strategy of 'stealth attacks' makes no sense as it invites increasing surveillance and beligerence from USA and is highly likely to backfire when an incident can be traced to Iran.

Much more likely that it's a propaganda ploy that plays into the false narrative that Iran is a terrorist nation.

[Jun 24, 2019] The advanced airborne sensor helps throw some light on why the aircraft was there and videoing the drone shootdown.

Jun 24, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Peter AU 1 , Jun 24, 2019 4:23:18 AM | 209

Some interesting bits and pieces from the wikipedia page on the P-8.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_P-8_Poseidon
"It is designed to operate in conjunction with the Northrop Grumman MQ-4C Triton Broad Area Maritime Surveillance unmanned aerial vehicle."

"During the P-8A Increment 2 upgrade in 2016, the APS-149 Littoral Surveillance Radar System (LSRS) will be replaced by the Advanced Airborne Sensor radar.[56]"

Advanced airborne sensor radar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Airborne_Sensor
"The Advanced Airborne Sensor (AAS) is a multifunction radar installed on the P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft. The radar is built by Raytheon as a follow-on to their AN/APS-149 Littoral Surveillance Radar System (LSRS).

The AAS has its roots in the highly classified AN/APS-149 LSRS, which was designed to provide multi-function moving target detection and tracking and high resolution ground mapping at standoff ranges covering land, littoral, and water areas. The radar was deployed on a small number of P-3C Orions, with "game changing" results. Containing a double-sided AESA radar with near 360-degree coverage, it could scan, map, track, and classify targets, and do all of these tasks near simultaneously; it was reportedly sensitive enough to pick up a formation of people moving over open terrain.[1]

Building upon the LSRS, the AAS also has a double-sided AESA radar, which contains a moving target indicator (MTI) that can detect, classify, and track targets on land and at sea at the same time, with synthetic aperture radar (SAR) and inverse synthetic aperture radar (ISAR) for picture-like radar imagery of both inland and ocean areas at the same time; these can profile vessels from a long distance and generate fine resolution without relying on optical sensors, especially in day or night and in adverse weather conditions. Once it detects and classifies a hostile vessel, the P-8 can send targeting information to another armed platform and guide a networked weapon (e.g. Tomahawk cruise missiles, SLAM-ER, JASSM, LRASM, SDB II) to it through a data link. The AAS is in ways superior to the AN/APY-7 used on the U.S. Air Force's E-8 Joint STARS, looking both port and starboard rather than just being side-looking. Other potential missions could include detecting and tracking low flying and stealthy cruise missiles, communications relaying, and electronic warfare as a standoff platform to penetrate contested airspace, since AESA radars are capable of radar jamming, producing fake targets, frying electronic components, and even cyberwarfare.[1][2]"
...........

The advanced airborne sensor helps throw some light on why the aircraft was there and videoing the drone shootdown.

[Jun 23, 2019] Provoking Iran Could Start A War And Crash The Entire World Economy

Jun 23, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

Provoking Iran Could Start A War And Crash The Entire World Economy

by Tyler Durden Sun, 06/23/2019 - 15:25 2 SHARES Authored by Federico Pieraccini via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

Tensions in the Persian Gulf are reaching a point of no return . In recent weeks, six oil tankers have been subjected to Israeli sabotage disguised to look like Iranian attacks to induce the United States to take military action against the Islamic Republic. Some days ago Iran rightfully shot out of the sky a US Drone. In Yemen, the Houthis have finally started responding with cruise and ballistic missiles to the Saudis' indiscriminate attacks, causing damage to the Saudi international airport of Abha, as well as blocking, through explosive drones , Saudi oil transportation from east to west through one of the largest pipelines in the world.

As if the political and military situation at this time were not tense and complex enough, the two most important power groups in the United States, the Fed and the military-industrial complex, both face problems that threaten to diminish Washington's status as a world superpower .

The Fed could find itself defending the role of the US dollar as the world reserve currency during any conflict in the Persian Gulf that would see the cost of oil rise to $300 a barrel , threatening trillions of dollars in derivatives and toppling the global economy.

The military-industrial complex would in turn be involved in a war that it would struggle to contain and even win, destroying the United States' image of invincibility and inflicting a mortal blow on its ability to project power to the four corners of the world.

Just look at how surprised US officials were about Iran's capabilities to shot down an advanced US Drone:

"Iran's ability to target and destroy the high-altitude American drone, which was developed to evade the very surface-to-air missiles used to bring it down, surprised some Defense Department officials, who interpreted it as a show of how difficult Tehran can make things for the United States as it deploys more troops and steps up surveillance in the region."

The Fed and the defense of the dollar

The US dollar-based economy has a huge debt problem caused by post-2008 economic policies. All central banks have lowered interest rates to zero or even negative, thus continuing to feed otherwise dying economies.

The central bank of central banks, the Bank for International Settlements, an entity hardly known to most people, has stated in writing that "the outstanding notional amount of derivative contracts is 542 trillion dollars." The total combined GDP of all the countries of the world is around 75 trillion dollars.

With the dimensions of the problem thus understood, it is important to look at how Deutsche Bank (DB), one of the largest financial institutions in the world, is dealing with this. The German bank alone has assets worth about 40 trillion dollars in derivatives, or more than half of annual global GDP.

Their solution, not at all innovative or effective, has been to create yet another bad bank into which to pour at least 50 billion dollars of long-term assets, which are clearly toxic.

Reuters explains :

"The bad bank would house or sell assets valued at up to 50 billion euros ($56 billion) – after adjusting for risk – and comprising mainly long-dated derivatives.

The measures are part of a significant restructuring of the investment bank, a major source of revenue for Germany's largest lender, which has struggled to generate sustainable profits since the 2008 financial crisis."

Thus, not only has Deutsche Bank accumulated tens of billions of dollars in unsuccessful options and securities, it seeks to obtain a profit that has been elusive since 2008, the year of the financial crisis. Deutsche Bank is full of toxic bonds and inflated debts kept alive through the flow of quantitative easing (QE) money from the European Central Bank, the Fed and the Japanese Central Bank. Without QE, the entire Western world economy would have fallen into recession with a chain of bubbles bursting, such as in public and private debt.

If the economy was recovering, as we are told by soi-disant financial experts, the central-bank rates would rise. Instead, rates have plummeted for about a decade, to the extent of becoming negative loans.

If the Western financial trend is undoubtedly heading towards an economic abyss as a result of the monetary policies employed after 2008 to keep a dying economy alive, what is the rescue plan for the US dollar, its status as a global-reserve currency, and by extension of US hegemony? Simply put, there is no rescue plan.

There could not be one because the next financial crisis will undoubtedly wipe out the US dollar as a global reserve currency, ending US hegemony financed by unlimited spending power. All countries possessing a modicum of foresight are in the process of de-dollarizing their economies and are converting strategic reserves from US or US-dollar government bonds to primary commodities like gold.

The military-industrial complex and the harsh reality in Iran

In this economic situation that offers no escape, the immediate geopolitical effect is a surge of war threats in strategic locations like the Persian Gulf. The risk of a war of aggression against Iran by the Saudi-Israeli-US axis would have little chance of success, but it would probably succeed in permanently devastating the global economy as a result of a surge in oil prices.

The risk of war on Iran by this triad seems to be the typical ploy of the bad loser who, rather than admit defeat, would rather pull the rug out from under everyone's feet in order to bring everybody down with him. Tankers being hit and then blamed on Iran with no evidence are a prime example of how to create the plausible justification for bombing Tehran.

Upon closer examination, it becomes apparent that the actions of Bolton and Pompeo seem to be aligned in prolonging the United States' unipolar moment, continuing to issue diktats to other countries and failing to recognize the multipolar reality we live in. Their policies and actions are accelerating the dispersal of power away from the US and towards other great powers like Russia and China, both of which also have enormous influence in the Persian Gulf.

The threat of causing a conflict in the Persian Gulf, and thereby making the price of oil soar to $300 a barrel, will not save US hegemony but will rather end up accelerating the inevitable end of the US dollar as a global reserve currency.

Trump is in danger of being crushed between a Fed that sees the US dollar's role as the world's reserve currency collapse, and the need for the Fed to blame someone not linked to the real causes of the collapse, that is to say, the monetary policies adopted through QE to prolong the post-crisis economic agony of 2008.

At the same time, with Trump as president, the neocon-Israeli-Saudi supporters see a unique opportunity to strike Iran, a desire that has remained unchanged for 40 years.

As foolish as it may seem, a war on Iran could be the perfect option that satisfies all power groups in the United States. The hawks would finally have their war against Tehran, the world economy would sink, and the blame would fall entirely on Trump. The Donald, as a result, would lose any chance of being re-elected so it makes sense for him to call off possible strikes as he did after the US drone was shot out of the sky.

While unable to live up to his electoral promises, Trump seems to be aware that the path laid out for him in the event of an attack on Iran would lead to his political destruction and probably to a conflict that is militarily unsustainable for the US and especially its Saudi and Israeli allies. It would also be the catalyst for the collapse of the world economy.

In trying to pressure Iran into new negotiations, Trump runs the risk of putting too much pressure on Tehran and giving too much of a free hand to the provocations of Pompeo and Bolton that could end up triggering a war in the Strait of Hormuz.

Putin and Xi Jinping prepare for the worst

Our current geopolitical environment requires the careful and considered attention of relevant heads of state. The repeated meetings between Putin and Xi Jinping indicate that Russia and China are actively preparing for any eventuality. The closer we get to economic collapse, the more tensions and chaos increase around the world thanks to the actions of Washington and her close allies.

Xi Jinping and Putin, who have inherited this chaotic situation, have met at least a dozen times over the last six months , more recently meeting at least three times over two months. The pressing need is to coordinate and prepare for what will inevitably happen, once again trying to limit and contain the damage by a United States that is completely out of control and becoming a danger to all, allies and enemies alike.

As Putin just recently said:

"The degeneration of the universalistic model of globalization and its transformation into a parody, caricature of itself, where the common international rules are replaced by administrative and judicial laws of a country or group of countries.

The fragmentation of global economic space with a policy of unbridled economic selfishness and an imposed collapse. But this is the road to infinite conflict, trade wars and perhaps not just commercial ones. Figuratively, this is the road to the final struggle of all against all.

It is necessary to draft a more stable and fair development model. These agreements should not only be written clearly, but should be observed by all participants.

However, I am convinced that talking about a world economic order such as this will remain a pious desire unless we return to the center of the discussion, that is to say, notions like sovereignty, the unconditional right of each country to its own path to development and, let me add, responsibility in the universal sustainable development, not just its own."

The spokesman of the Chancellery of the People's Republic of China, Hua Chun Ying, echoed this sentiment:

"The American leaders say that 'the era of the commercial surrender of their country has come to an end', but what is over is their economic intimidation of the world and their hegemony.

The United States must again respect international law, not arrogate to itself extraterritorial rights and mandates, must learn to respect its peers in safeguarding transparent and non-discriminatory diplomatic and commercial relations. China and the United States have negotiated other disputes in the past with good results and the doors of dialogue are open as long as they are based on mutual respect and benefits.

But as long as these new trade disputes persist, China informs the government of the United States of America and the whole world that it will immediately impose duties on each other, unilaterally on 128 products from the United States of America.

Also, we think we will stop buying US public debt. It's all, good night!"

I wonder if Europeans will understand all this before the impending disaster. I doubt it.

[Jun 23, 2019] Iran Goes for Maximum Counter-Pressure by Pepe Escobar

Derivatives exposure is Achilles spot of the USA in this conflict
Jun 23, 2019 | www.unz.com
U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class John Philip Wagner, Jr./Released ◄ ► ◄ ► ▲ ▼ Remove from Library B Show Comment Next New Comment Next New Reply Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour. Email Comment Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter Add to Library
Bookmark Toggle All ToC ▲ ▼ Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments Search Clear Cancel

Sooner or later the US "maximum pressure" on Iran would inevitably be met by "maximum counter-pressure". Sparks are ominously bound to fly.

For the past few days, intelligence circles across Eurasia had been prodding Tehran to consider a quite straightforward scenario. There would be no need to shut down the Strait of Hormuz if Quds Force commander, General Qasem Soleimani, the ultimate Pentagon bête noire, explained in detail, on global media, that Washington simply does not have the military capacity to keep the Strait open.

As I previously reported , shutting down the Strait of Hormuz

would destroy the American economy by detonating the $1.2 quadrillion derivatives market; and that would collapse the world banking system, crushing the world's $80 trillion GDP and causing an unprecedented depression.

Soleimani should also state bluntly that Iran may in fact shut down the Strait of Hormuz if the nation is prevented from exporting essential two million barrels of oil a day, mostly to Asia. Exports, which before illegal US sanctions and de facto blockade would normally reach 2.5 million barrels a day, now may be down to only 400,000.

Soleimani's intervention would align with consistent signs already coming from the IRGC. The Persian Gulf is being described as an imminent "shooting gallery." Brigadier General Hossein Salami stressed that Iran's ballistic missiles are capable of hitting "carriers in the sea" with pinpoint precision. The whole northern border of the Persian Gulf, on Iranian territory, is lined up with anti-ship missiles – as I confirmed with IRGC-related sources.

We'll let you know when it's closed

Then, it happened.

Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, Major General Mohammad Baqeri, went straight to the point ; "If the Islamic Republic of Iran were determined to prevent export of oil from the Persian Gulf, that determination would be realized in full and announced in public, in view of the power of the country and its Armed Forces."

The facts are stark. Tehran simply won't accept all-out economic war lying down – prevented to export the oil that protects its economic survival. The Strait of Hormuz question has been officially addressed. Now it's time for the derivatives.

Presenting detailed derivatives analysis plus military analysis to global media would force the media pack, mostly Western, to go to Warren Buffett to see if it is true. And it is true. Soleimani, according to this scenario, should say as much and recommend that the media go talk to Warren Buffett.

The extent of a possible derivatives crisis is an uber-taboo theme for the Washington consensus institutions. According to one of my American banking sources, the most accurate figure – $1.2 quadrillion – comes from a Swiss banker, off the record. He should know; the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) – the central bank of central banks – is in Basle.

The key point is it doesn't matter how the Strait of Hormuz is blocked.

It could be a false flag. Or it could be because the Iranian government feels it's going to be attacked and then sinks a cargo ship or two. What matters is the final result; any blocking of the energy flow will lead the price of oil to reach $200 a barrel, $500 or even, according to some Goldman Sachs projections, $1,000.

Another US banking source explains; "The key in the analysis is what is called notional. They are so far out of the money that they are said to mean nothing. But in a crisis the notional can become real. For example, if I buy a call for a million barrels of oil at $300 a barrel, my cost will not be very great as it is thought to be inconceivable that the price will go that high. That is notional. But if the Strait is closed, that can become a stupendous figure."

BIS will only commit, officially, to indicate the total notional amount outstanding for contracts in derivatives markers is an estimated $542.4 trillion. But this is just an estimate.

The banking source adds, "Even here it is the notional that has meaning. Huge amounts are interest rate derivatives. Most are notional but if oil goes to a thousand dollars a barrel, then this will affect interest rates if 45% of the world's GDP is oil. This is what is called in business a contingent liability."

Goldman Sachs has projected a feasible, possible $1,000 a barrel a few weeks after the Strait of Hormuz being shut down. This figure, times 100 million barrels of oil produced per day, leads us to 45% of the $80 trillion global GDP. It's self-evident the world economy would collapse based on just that alone.

War dogs barking mad

As much as 30% of the world's oil supply transits the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. Wily Persian Gulf traders – who know better – are virtually unanimous; if Tehran was really responsible for the Gulf of Oman tanker incident, oil prices would be going through the roof by now. They aren't.

Iran's territorial waters in the Strait of Hormuz amount to 12 nautical miles (22 km). Since 1959, Iran recognizes only non-military naval transit.

Since 1972, Oman's territorial waters in the Strait of Hormuz also amount to 12 nautical miles. At its narrowest, the width of the Strait is 21 nautical miles (39 km). That means, crucially, that half of the Strait of Hormuz is in Iranian territorial waters, and the other half in Oman's. There are no "international waters".

And that adds to Tehran now openly saying that Iran may decide to close the Strait of Hormuz publicly – and not by stealth.

Iran's indirect, asymmetric warfare response to any US adventure will be very painful. Prof. Mohammad Marandi of the University of Tehran once again reconfirmed, "even a limited strike will be met by a major and disproportionate response." And that means gloves off, big time; anything from really blowing up tankers to, in Marandi's words, "Saudi and UAE oil facilities in flames".

Hezbollah will launch tens of thousands of missiles against Israel. As

Hezbollah's secretary-general Hasan Nasrallah has been stressing in his speeches, "war on Iran will not remain within that country's borders, rather it will mean that the entire [Middle East] region will be set ablaze. All of the American forces and interests in the region will be wiped out, and with them the conspirators, first among them Israel and the Saudi ruling family."

It's quite enlightening to pay close attention to what this Israel intel op is saying . The dogs of war though are barking mad .

Earlier this week, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo jetted to CENTCOM in Tampa to discuss "regional security concerns and ongoing operations" with – skeptical – generals, a euphemism for "maxim pressure" eventually leading to war on Iran.

Iranian diplomacy, discreetly, has already informed the EU – and the Swiss – about their ability to crash the entire world economy. But still that was not enough to remove US sanctions.

War zone in effect

As it stands in Trumpland, former CIA Mike "We lied, We cheated, We stole" Pompeo – America's "top diplomat" – is virtually running the Pentagon. "Acting" secretary Shanahan performed self-immolation. Pompeo continues to actively sell the notion the "intelligence community is convinced" Iran is responsible for the Gulf of Oman tanker incident. Washington is ablaze with rumors of an ominous double bill in the near future; Pompeo as head of the Pentagon and Psycho John Bolton as Secretary of State. That would spell out War.

Yet even before sparks start to fly, Iran could declare that the Persian Gulf is in a state of war; declare that the Strait of Hormuz is a war zone; and then ban all "hostile" military and civilian traffic in its half of the Strait. Without firing a single shot, no shipping company on the planet would have oil tankers transiting the Persian Gulf.

Justsaying , says: June 23, 2019 at 5:23 am GMT

American government arrogance under the control of sickos has not shied away from the belief that destroying countries that do not cave in to Washington's demand of "surrender or perish" -- an ultimatum made in Israel. Indeed it regards that despicable policy as an entitlement – to protect the "international community". Iran may well be the nation that will do away with the nations of turbaned lapdogs and absolute monarchs who have been kept in power by the dozens of US military bases in the area. Maybe a serious jolt of the global economy is long overdue, to bring the Washington dogs of perpetual war to come to their senses.

Was Iran succumbing to the JCPOA provisions and abiding by them not sufficient capitulation for the insane leaders in Washington?

Realist , says: June 23, 2019 at 9:55 am GMT
@joeshittheragman

I hope we don't go into another stupid war. Bring all our troops home from all around the world. Just protect this Republic. We're not the policemen of the world.

The Deep State would never allow that to happen.

alexander , says: June 23, 2019 at 10:56 am GMT
@joeshittheragman It astonishes me that people are still using the phrase "policemen of the world" to define US behavior.

The last time I recall The US even remotely acting as the "worlds's policeman" was in 1991, when we pushed Saddam out of Kuwait.

The Iraq 2003 "debacle", the Libya"shit show" and the Syria" fiasco" have all proven, over time, to be acts of wanton carnage and illegal aggression, . not "police work".

The United States, under Neocon tutelage , is no "policeman" .not by any stretch

It is more like a humongous version of "Bernie Madoff meets Son of Sam."

We have become a grotesque, misshapen empire .of lies fraud .,illegal war, .mass murder ..and heinous f#cking debt.

Policeman ?!? Hahaha.ha ..

RoatanBill , says: June 23, 2019 at 12:32 pm GMT
You have to hand it to the Iranians for basically announcing their intentions to destroy the US economy via the derivatives market that the US financial industry largely produced. Kill them with their own weapon.

A show down between the US and some entity is inevitable. Be it Iran, China or Russia, the US will be over extended and their very expensive weaponry will, I believe, come up wanting on all counts. The MIC has been scamming the country for decades. The military brass is just bluster. When it comes down to an actual confrontation, the US military will come up short as BS won't cut it.

Yes, they will destroy lots of stuff and kill lots of people but then their toys will run out and then what? Missiles will take out the aircraft carriers and the world will see that the emperor is naked.

Sean , says: June 23, 2019 at 12:39 pm GMT
@Parisian Guy America is backed by brute military force. That is why India has stopped buying Iranian oil, and sent ships to the Gulf to back America

http://www.aei.org/publication/iran-the-contrast-between-sovereignty-and-moral-legitimacy/

In June of 2014, as the forces of the Islamic State swept toward Baghdad, President Barack Obama began to recommit American military forces to Iraq. He also observed that "Iran can play a constructive role, if it sends the same message to the Iraqi government that we're sending, which is that Iraq only holds together if it is inclusive." In an instantly famous article by Atlantic magazine correspondent and White House amanuensis Jeffrey Goldberg, Obama indicated that Saudi Arabia and other Arab states had to learn to "share" the Middle East with Iran.

In imagining a kind of strategic partnership with Tehran, Obama is recycling a deeply held belief of late-Cold War "realists" like former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft. "For U.S. strategy, Iran should be viewed as a potential natural partner in the region, as it was until 1979," when Shah Reza Pahlavi was toppled in the Khomeini revolution." "Envisioning 2030: U.S. Strategy for a Post-Western World," foresaw that "a post-Mullah dominated government shedding Shia political ideology could easily return to being a net contributor to stability by 2030

https://en.mehrnews.com/news/143606/Mearsheimer-S-Arabia-a-threat-not-Iran
"The truth is that it is the United States that is a direct threat to Iran, not the other way around. The Trump administration, with much prompting from Israel and Saudi Arabia, has its gunsights on Iran. The aim is regime change.

America does not seem to think the Iranian regieme can do anything except bluster as they are slowly smothered.

eah , says: June 23, 2019 at 1:07 pm GMT
@Parisian Guy I can't buy the derivatives stuff.

Famous last words -- review what Bernanke said just before subprime exploded: 2007 -- Bernanke: Subprime Mortgage Woes Won't Seriously Hurt Economy -- that said, I have no idea what will happen if Iran decides to interfere with shipping in the straits -- or how likely that is.

The biggest long-term threat to the US is the end of the petrodollar scheme -- due to its unmatched worldwide political and military hegemony, and 'safe haven' status, the dollar has largely been insulated from the consequences of what are in reality staggering, almost structural (at this point) US deficits -- but that can't and won't go on forever.

Jason Liu , says: June 23, 2019 at 1:13 pm GMT
Russia and China need to set up global deterrence against interventionism by western democracies.
eah , says: June 23, 2019 at 1:37 pm GMT
In 2018, U.S. net imports (imports minus exports) of petroleum from foreign countries averaged about 2.34 million barrels per day, equal to about 11% of U.S. petroleum consumption. This was the lowest percentage since 1957.

In reality, the US is today far less dependent on imported oil than most people probably imagine, and therefore far less vulnerable to any import supply issue.

DESERT FOX , says: June 23, 2019 at 2:07 pm GMT
Israel and the zio/US has interfered in Iran since the 1953 CIA/Mossad coup and at intervals ever since then and have brought this problem on by the zio/US and Israeli meddling in the affairs of Iran and an all out war via illegal sanctions which in fact are a form of war.

Iran has not started a war in over 300 years and is not the problem , the problem is the warmongers in the zio/US and Israel and will not end as long as the warmongers remain in power.

A good start to ending these problems would be to abolish the CIA!

Mike P , says: June 23, 2019 at 3:05 pm GMT
@MLK Yes, the sanctions on Iran are having an effect, and the recent Iranian actions acknowledge this; but that does not mean Iran is weak. Iran is telling the U.S. that it is NOT Venezuela or North Korea. Kim is all bark, but no bite; Trump was quite right to call him "little rocket man." Even he, with his singular lack of style and grace, is not doing this to the Iranian leadership.

The economic sanctions against Iran already constitute acts of war. The Iranians have just demonstrated that they can disrupt oil flow from the Middle East in retaliation, and not just in the Street of Hormuz. In addition, they have now shown that they can take down American aircraft, stealth or not, with precision. This means Iran is able and willing to strike back and escalate as it sees fit, both economically and militarily. If the U.S. don't relent, Iran WILL send the oil prices through the roof, and it will humiliate the U.S. on the world stage if they are stupid enough to go to war over it.

The Iranian messages are simple, clear, and consistent. Compare this to the confused cacophony that emerges from the clown troupe in Washington, and you can easily tell which side has been caught unawares by recent events.

This is a watershed moment for Trump – he will either assert himself, return to reason, and keep the peace; or he will stay aboard the sinking ship. No good options for him personally, of course; his choices are impeachment, assassination, or staying in office while presiding over the final act of the U.S. empire.

Johnny Walker Read , says: June 23, 2019 at 4:06 pm GMT
@Zumbuddi Let us never forget the "babies thrown from incubators" propaganda to help get it all started.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/WkRylMGLPMU?feature=oembed

Andrei Martyanov , says: Website June 23, 2019 at 4:40 pm GMT
@Agent76

The US is committed to conflict not only most obviously against Iran, but also with Russia.

US, or rather a bunch of lunatics infesting Trump's Admin, might be committed, but it absolutely doesn't mean that the US has resources for that. In fact, US doesn't have resources to fight Iran, let alone Russia. By now most of it is nothing more than chest-thumping and posturing. Today Bolton's statement is a further proof of that.

denk , says: June 23, 2019 at 4:47 pm GMT

Instead, Bush saw that situation, within the unique moment of US no longer constrained by a rival superpower, as an opportunity to exert US global dominance.

The much derided Chomsky

There were once two gangsters in town, the USA and USSR, there's relative peace cuz each was constrained by the rival's threat.
NOW that the USSR is gone, the remaining gangster
is running amok with total impunity.

Now I dunno if the USSR was a 'gangster' ,
as for uncle scam, .. needs no introduction I presume ?

anon [356] Disclaimer , says: June 23, 2019 at 7:34 pm GMT
@peterAUS More to this downing .

"Iran's ability to target and destroy the high-altitude American drone, which was developed to evade the very surface-to-air missiles used to bring it down, surprised some Defense Department officials, who interpreted it as a show of how difficult Tehran can make things for the United States as it deploys more troops and steps up surveillance in the region.– "

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/20/world/middleeast/iran-us-drone.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

The Alarmist , says: June 23, 2019 at 8:49 pm GMT
@Wally It's all cashflow and OPM, on the hope of hitting the big-time when prices spike. A giant house of cards waiting to implode, and that is before one takes into account all the hugely negative externalities associated with fracking that give it any hope of profitability, which would vapourise if the costs of the externalities were charged to the operators.

https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/will-fracking-industry-debts-set-off-financial-tremors/

https://energypolicy.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/CGEPReserveBaseLendingAndTheO

anon [770] Disclaimer , says: June 23, 2019 at 9:04 pm GMT
@Curmudgeon Fact:

According to preliminary data for 2018, oil demand surpassed 20 mmb/d for the first time since 2007 and will be just shy of the 2005 peak (20,524 mb/d versus 20,802 mb/d in 2005).

U.S. Oil Demand Recovers | CSIS | January 29, 2019
https://www.csis.org/analysis/us-oil-demand-recovers

Fact:


Source: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/global_oil.php

Cyrano , says: June 23, 2019 at 9:25 pm GMT
It's really tragic to see two brotherly ideologies Capitalism and Islam (both want to rule the world) go at each other throats in this manner. After all, they have fought shoulder to shoulder a holly jihad against socialism in such far flung places as Afghanistan, Iraq and now Syria.

I think that based on this latest conflict, people can see what a principled country US is. People used to think that US hates only socialist revolutions. Until Iran's Islamic revolution came along – and US was against it too. So, it's safe to say that US are against ANY revolutions – be they Socialist or Islamic. I guess we can call them contra-revolutionaries.

Simply Simon , says: June 23, 2019 at 9:38 pm GMT
At least 95% of the American people do not want war with Iran. For that matter the same percentage did not want war with Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam or Korea. But the powers that be do not ask the American people if they want to go to war, they just do it based on the authority they assume is theirs. Meanwhile, our elected representatives who do have the authority to start or prevent wars turn a deaf ear to their constituents because the voices they hear in protest are weak or muted. Let's face it, the wars since WWII have affected only a relatively minor segment of our population. A hell of a lot more people die in traffic accidents than on the battlefield so what's to get excited about. Keeping a large standing army, navy and air force is good for the economy, the troops have to be provided the latest best of everything and as for the troops themselves for many it's not a bad way to make a living with a retirement and health care system better than many jobs in the civilian sector. So my message to the American people is if you really do not want war with Iran you had better speak up louder than you are now.
anon [356] Disclaimer , says: June 23, 2019 at 9:40 pm GMT
CAN IRAN ENTER ITO NEGOTIATION WITH IRAN? IT CANT. BECAUSE ISRAEL WITH NO FOOT IN THE DOOR OF THE HELL IS WAGING THE WAR AND GETTING US PUNISHED .

UC Berkeley journalism professor Sandy Tolan, Los Angeles Times, December 1, 2002– [Richard] Perle, in the same 1998 article, told Forward that a coalition of pro-Israeli groups was 'at the forefront with the legislation with regard to Iran. One can only speculate what it might accomplish if it decided to focus its attention on Saddam Hussein.' Now, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has joined the call against Tehran, arguing in a November interview with the Times of London that the U.S. should shift its focus to Iran 'the day after' the Iraq war ends

[Hide MORE]
-- -- -
They want to foment revolution in Iran and use that to isolate and possibly attack Syria in [Lebanon's] Bekaa Valley, and force Syria out," says former Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs Edward S. Walker, now president of the Middle East Institute. http://prospect.org/article/just-beginning
03/14/03
--

in 2003 Morris Amitay and fellow neocon Michael Ledeen founded the Coalition for Democracy in Iran, an advocacy group pushing for regime change in Iran . According to the website, it will be un-American,immoral and unproductive to engage with any segment of the regime .
During a may 2003 conference at the AEI on the future of Iran,Amitay sharply criticized the U.S State Department's efforts to engage the Islamic Republic ,claimed the criticism of Newt Gingrich did not go far enough . Amiaty was introduced by M Ledeen as the "Godfather" of AIPAC Amitay admitted that direct action against Iran would be difficult before 2004 election.

Nostalgia for the last shah's son, Reza Pahlavi ? has again risen," says Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA officer who, like Ledeen and Perle, is ensconced at the AEI. "We must be prepared, however, to take the battle more directly to the mullahs," says Gerecht, adding that the United States must consider strikes at both Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps and allies in Lebanon. "In fact, we have only two meaningful options: Confront clerical Iran and its proxies militarily or ring it with an oil embargo." http://prospect.org/article/just-beginning March 14,2003

"Neoconservatives in the Bush Administration have long targeted Iran. Richard Perle, former Defense Policy Board member, and David Frum, of the neo-com Weekly Standard, co-authored "An End to Evil," which calls for the overthrow of the "terrorist mullahs of Iran." Michael Ladeen of the influential American Enterprise Institute argues that "Tehran is a city just waiting for us." http://www.counterpunch.org/2004/05/26/the-oil-connection/

According to the 2016 documentary Zero Days by director Alex Gibney, Israel's incessant public threats to attack Iran coupled with intense secret demands for cyber warfare targeting Iran were the catalyst for massive new US black budget spending

NSA Director (1999-2005) and CIA Director (2006-2009) Michael Hayden claimed in Zero Days that the goal of any Israeli air attack against Iran's nuclear facilities would be to drag the United States into war.
"Our belief was that if they [Israel] went on their own, knowing the limitations No, they're a very good air force, alright? But it's small and the distances are great, and the targets dispersed and hardened, alright? If they would have attempted a raid on a military plane, we would have been assuming that they were assuming we would finish that which they started. In other words, there would be many of us in government thinking that the purpose of the raid wasn't to destroy the Iranian nuclear system, but the purpose of the raid was to put us [the United States] at war with Iran." https://original.antiwar.com/smith-grant/2018/11/06/israel-and-the-trillion-dollar-2005-2018-us-intelligence-budget

KA , says: June 23, 2019 at 9:47 pm GMT
Emergence of ISIS is linked to US efforts to weaken Iran

-In "The Redirection", written in 2008(!) – years before the 2011 uprising, Seymour Hersh wrote of plans to use extremists in Syria.
Excerpts:
To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia's government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.
Nasr compared the current situation to the period in which Al Qaeda first emerged. In the nineteen-eighties and the early nineties, the Saudi government offered to subsidize the covert American C.I.A. proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Hundreds of young Saudis were sent into the border areas of Pakistan, where they set up religious schools, training bases, and recruiting facilities. Then, as now, many of the operatives who were paid with Saudi money were Salafis. Among them, of course, were Osama bin Laden and his associates, who founded Al Qaeda, in 1988.
This time, "

Monty Ahwazi , says: June 23, 2019 at 10:00 pm GMT
@Simply Simon In the old days, the orders for the US government were coming down from the Tri-Lateral Commission and the 6-7 major companies. Rockefeller took the TLC underground ground with himself. The oil companies continue asking the US government for protecting the ME/NA resources. Then Neocons replaced the TLC which their focus was twofold.
1. Destabilize the regions for protecting Israel
2. Control the resources militarily
3. Keep the Chinese out and cut their access to the resources
Guess what, Chinese have penetrated the regions constructively and quietly. America with its unjustified fucking wars is being hated even more than 1953.
Monty Ahwazi , says: June 23, 2019 at 10:26 pm GMT
@KA Very true! Unfortunately the presidents were misinformed or uninformed about the proxies created by the CIA. The first created to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan manned and financed by the Saudis, recruited by Mossad and intelligence was provided by the CIA. Sound really really good to the Americans since it was free of charge with no loss of life! Then during the Iraq war its neighbor Syria was getting destabilized so the CIA replicated Al-Qaeda and formed a new gang which called themselves ISIS. The function of ISIS was to overthrow Al-Bashar of Syria. The secondary mission for both groups was to bug Iran from its western and eastern front.
Manning both of these groups with Sunnis was the biggest mistake that KSA, Mossad and the CIA made. See the Sunnis are not fighters without sophisticated weapons from the West. On the other Shiites can fight with a sword and empty handed if they have to. They remind me of VC's in Vietnam. The Shiites decimated the ISIS and most of AlQaeda now the US is trying to get credit for that but they know better now. So my recommendation to the US is please don't aggravate the Shiites otherwise they will embarrass us just the VC's
Avery , says: June 23, 2019 at 10:48 pm GMT
@Monty Ahwazi { All insurance companies will drop their coverage of the oil tankers immediately.}

During the Iran-Iraq war, US re-flagged Kuwaiti tankers and ran them under US flag and protection through the straight.
Same thing can be done again.

And if insurance companies drop coverage, US Treasury will provide the coverage: some US insurance company will be "convinced" by US Gov to provide the coverage and US Treasury will guarantee _any_ losses incurred by the insurance company or companies.
US can always add to the national debt ( .i.e. print more dollars).

So, no: declaration won't do.
Only destroying stuff works.

{You guys sitting here and making up these nonsensical policies}

Nobody is making policy here: we are not a government.
We are exchanging opinions.

btw: where are you sitting?
Are your personal opinions considered 'policy', because you are ..what?

RobinG , says: June 23, 2019 at 11:01 pm GMT
@anon That was buried deep in the article. (Thanks for posting link.) Next lines, the NYT is skeptical of US claims. Too bad this isn't first pararaphs!)

Lt. Gen. Joseph Guastella, the Air Force commander for the Central Command region in the Middle East, said the attack could have endangered "innocent civilians," even though officials at Central Command continued to assert that the drone was over international waters. He said that the closest that the drone got to the Iranian coast was 21 miles.

Late Thursday, the Defense Department released additional imagery in an email to support its case that the drone never entered Iranian airspace. But the department incorrectly called the flight path of the drone the location of the shooting down and offered little context for an image that appeared to be the drone exploding in midair.

It was the latest attempt by the Pentagon to try to prove that Iran has been the aggressor in a series of international incidents.

RobinG , says: June 23, 2019 at 11:16 pm GMT
@Zumbuddi Thank you. If the US were a real [HONEST] policeman, they would have stopped Kuwait from stealing Iraqi oil. But no, Bush was a dirty cop, on the take.
Robjil , says: June 24, 2019 at 12:09 am GMT
@dearieme Read "JFK and the Unspeakable" by James W. Douglass. JFK was getting us out of Vietnam. In his time, there was not massive amounts of US troops in Vietnam, only advisors. JFK planned to get all the troops out after he was re-elected.

It was during Johnson's presidency that the Vietnam war became a huge war for the US. Johnson set up the Gulf of Tonkin false flag on August 2 1964. This started the huge draft of young men for Vietnam war that dragged on till the early 1970s.

Johnson also allowed Israel to do a false flag on the US on June 8 1967. Israel attacked the USS Liberty. 34 servicemen killed and 174 injured. Israel wanted to kill them all and blame it on Egypt, so US would nuke Egypt. Lovely nation is little Israel. The song " Love is all you need" by the Beatles was released on June 7 1967. Summer of Love, Hippies in San Francisco, all planned to get Americans into drugs and forget about what Israel is doing in the Middle East. It worked, nobody noticed what Israel did since we have a "free" 500 Zion BC press in the US in 1967 and we still do these days.

Pft , says: June 24, 2019 at 12:12 am GMT
Iran is pretty self sufficient with minimal foreign debt. Their Central Bank is under their control and works for the people. They should just hunker down and hope Trumps crew is out of a job after the elections next year

If the US strikes they can block the straits. However, the US would probably knock out the refineries so that will hurt

They shot down the drone because it was collecting intelligence on targets the US plans to strike. Thats defensive not provocative

If the US wants to go at Iran they will manufacture something. People are so dumbed down they can made to believe anything, as events 18 years ago and since have proven

Hopefully this is just distraction to cover up some nefarious plan to loot the working class some more. Or maybe getting the straits closed is part of the plan. Who knows?

renfro , says: June 24, 2019 at 12:46 am GMT
this might be the real story

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2019/06/22/why-trump-didnt-bomb-iran-449575

THE TICK TOCKS WHY TRUMP DIDN'T BOMB IRAN NYT'S PETER BAKER, MAGGIE HABERMAN and THOMAS GIBBONS-NEFF:

"Urged to Launch an Attack, Trump Listened to the Skeptics Who Said It Would Be a Costly Mistake": "He heard from his generals and his diplomats. Lawmakers weighed in and so did his advisers. But among the voices that rang powerfully for President Trump was that of one of his favorite Fox News hosts: Tucker Carlson.
"While national security advisers were urging a military strike against Iran, Mr. Carlson in recent days had told Mr. Trump that responding to Tehran's provocations with force was crazy. The hawks did not have the president's best interests at heart, he said. And if Mr. Trump got into a war with Iran, he could kiss his chances of re-election goodbye.

"The 150-dead casualty estimate came not from a general but from a lawyer, according to the official. The estimate was developed by Pentagon lawyers drafting worst-case scenarios that, the official said, did not account for whether the strike was carried out during daytime, when more people might be present at the targets, or in the dark hours before sunrise, as the military planned.
"That estimate was passed to the White House counsel, Pat A. Cipollone, without being cleared with [Patrick] Shanahan or General [Joseph] Dunford. It was then conveyed to the president by the White House lawyers, at which point Mr. Trump changed his mind and called off the strike." NYT NYT A1
"That estimate was passed to the White House counsel, Pat A. Cipollone, without being cleared with [Patrick] Shanahan or General [Joseph] Dunford. It was then conveyed to the president by the White House lawyers, at which point Mr. Trump changed his mind and called off the strike." NYT NYT A1

Iris , says: June 24, 2019 at 12:48 am GMT

Saddam was given plenty of time, and plenty of resolutions to pack up his troops and go home

.

Saddam was given the assurance by US ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie, that the USA supported his retaliatory action against Kuwait. Same usual trap and deliberate provocation; all the rest is obfuscation.

Thorfinnsson , says: June 24, 2019 at 12:52 am GMT
@AnonFromTN The loss of two American aircraft carriers appears to be the assumption you are making to guarantee an Iranian victory.

Such a loss is by no means assured.

The idea that American willpower will collapse in the event of the loss of two capital ships is your second assumption, and it's both a fanciful and dangerous assumption.

I'm not myself terribly impressed by American military power, but comparing naval combat to counterinsurgency operations is absurd.

Your economic assumptions appear to come from the permabear school. Actual economies and governments don't work that way. A major reduction in global supplies will result in compulsory conservation, rationing, price controls, etc. This was done in recent memory in the 1970s in both North America and Western Europe, when you were still behind the Iron Curtain and perhaps not aware.

Thorfinnsson , says: June 24, 2019 at 12:53 am GMT
@peterAUS Do you have any actual numbers?

Does anyone?

anon [284] Disclaimer , says: June 24, 2019 at 12:57 am GMT
@alexander Saddam was given plenty of time, and plenty of resolutions to pack up his troops and go home."

Efforts by Egypt to arrive an Arab initiated solution was ignored and dismissed by USA

Initial Saudi effort to find a face saving exit by Saddam was met with resistance and then a manufactured satellite image of Saddam massing his soldiers for invasion of Saudi was widely disseminated by US.

Saddam crimes was no less or more egregious than what Israel was enjoying with US dollars and with US support and with impunity ( It was still occupying Pastien and Parts of Syria and Lebanon )

It was Levy the Israeli FM who threatened that his country would attack Iraq if US did not.

War against Saddam was orchestrated by Jewish members of Thatcher and by Democrats of USA ) Solarz – NY Senator was one of the guys and the AIPAC whose president Mr. Dine confessed the crimes )

neprof , says: June 24, 2019 at 1:06 am GMT
@Robjil

Read "JFK and the Unspeakable" by James W. Douglass.

Should be required reading by all Americans.

anon [284] Disclaimer , says: June 24, 2019 at 1:08 am GMT
@alexander UN has been abused by USA taking the advantage of the collapse of Soviet . (This is what Wolf0owitz told Wesley Clarke in 1992 in Feb : This was the time we can and we should take care of these countries Iran Iraq Syria Libya and Yemen while Russia is still weakened and unable to help its erstwhile vassals states) .

USA had no right to ask Saddam to leave . Subsequent behaviors of USA has proved it.
Israel also in addition has no right to exist .

If correction had to come from Iran Hezbollah and Syria- then so be it. That news would be best thing that would happen to humanity within last 200 yrs .

KA , says: June 24, 2019 at 1:11 am GMT
@Robjil Wolfowitz has been trying to kill Saddam and dismember Iraq from 1979.

The rat got his hand the Cookie jar after Soviet collapsed.

( Ref- Sunshine Warrior NYT )

John Noughty , says: June 24, 2019 at 1:14 am GMT
@Jim Christian I hope you're right.
RobinG , says: June 24, 2019 at 1:16 am GMT
@alexander You're begging for a big "So What?"

There are UN resolutions about all kinds of things. Israel comes first to mind, of course. UN resolutions do not obligate military action.

anon [400] Disclaimer , says: June 24, 2019 at 1:20 am GMT
@Iris but -- but -- but (sputters Alexander the otherwise sage commenter), The UN -- that's the U-nited Nations!! fer pete's ache, Agreed!! ( Agreed is Diplomatese for: "Please stop twisting my arm; Please stop bankrupting my country; Please stop threatening to tell my wife -- ).

in other words, the UN is a toy and a ploy for someone like G H W Bush salivating at the once in a lifetime opportunity to exert world dominance -- 'scuse me: "Create a New World Order" -- in the context of a power vacuum / dissolution of the Soviet Empire, previously the only counterbalance to US superpower status.

No doubt the UN was got on board. It acted like the paid-for- judge and show-trial in a case the prosecutor had already rigged.
imho, what is more significant, and what it takes years to unearth, is the decision making and back-room dealing that came BEFORE the UN was induced to stamp its imprimatur.

Tony Blair endorsed Bush the Lesser's war on Iraq. Does that grant it legitimacy, or in any way explain why US waged that war?

peterAUS , says: June 24, 2019 at 1:23 am GMT
@Thorfinnsson

Do you have any actual numbers?

I don't care about numbers.
50 (proper) sea mines backed up by 20 air/land-sea missiles do the job. Block the Hormuz.
I am sure the regime in Tehran has that number.

Does anyone?

Don't think so.
Mines in particular.
While missiles could be tricky to produce even smart sea mines are not.
A lot of explosive-check.
A couple of sensors (acoustic/magnetic)-check.
A couple of hardened micro controller boards-check.
That's it.

In this very game there are, really, only two elements that interest me:
Tactical nukes.
Selective draft.

What hehe really interests me is the escalation from "tactical" to "strategic".

AnonFromTN , says: June 24, 2019 at 1:32 am GMT
@Thorfinnsson Let me make this clear: there won't be Iranian victory. Iran will pay a hefty price. There will be the defeat of the Empire, though, a major climb down. The worst (for the Empire) part would be that the whole world would see that the king has no clothes. Then the backlash against the Empire (hated by 6/7th of the Earth population) starts, and that would be extremely painful for everyone in the US, guilty and innocent alike (myself included).

Compulsory rationing and price controls were possible when the governments actually governed. When the whole governments and legislatures are full of corporations' marionettes, as is the case now in the US and EU, these measures are impossible. Profiteers will have their day. They will crush Western economies and therefore themselves, but never underestimate the blinding force of greed. The same greedy bastards are supplying the US military with airplanes that have trouble flying and with ships costing untold billions that break down in the Panama canal, of all places. The same greedy scum destroyed the US industry and moved all production to China, in effect spelling the doom of the only country that could have protected their loot from other thieves. That's the problem with greed: it makes people incredibly shortsighted.

Sergey Krieger , says: June 24, 2019 at 1:39 am GMT
@joeshittheragman You are parasites on the world neck. That's why your troops are all over the place.
anon [356] Disclaimer , says: June 24, 2019 at 1:48 am GMT
@alexander Is it true . possibly but so what ?

So what? That nice lessons are being imparted slowly to the Israeli slave USA.

USA does what other countries are accused of before invading . USA throws out any qualms any morality any legality . It uses UN . Right now it is illegally supplying arms to Saudi to Israel and to the rebels in Syria. These are the reasons US have gone to wars against other countries for. Now some countries are standing up and saying – those days are gone , you can't attack any country anymore just because someone has been raped or someone has been distributing Viagra.

alexander , says: June 24, 2019 at 1:48 am GMT
@RobinG I think you are right.

And so did George Bush Senior.

As a matter of fact, the whole world began to ask, you are willing to launch your military to eject Saddam from Kuwait Bravo! ..Now what are willing to do about Israels illegal seizure of Palestinian territory in the West bank .It is more or less the exact same crime, Isn't it?

George Bush Senior was the last US President in American History to withhold all loans to Israel, until it ceased and desisted from illegal settlement activity in the Palestinian Territories.

Many believe it was his willingness to hold Israel to the same standard as everyone else, which cost him his second term.

What do you think , Robin?

By-tor , says: June 24, 2019 at 2:02 am GMT
@Thorfinnsson Iran shot down a US Navy RQ-4A intel drone that cost $250: A model that is marketed as being hard to shoot down since it has an 11 mile high altitude ceiling and a long operational range. That a coastal AA missile battery knocked it down with one shot answers several questions.

[Jun 23, 2019] Iranian UN envoy condemns unlawful destabilizing measures by US

Jun 20, 2019 | www.rt.com

Iran's envoy to the United Nations has called on the international community to end "unlawful destabilizing measures" by the US, declaring that while Iran does not seek war, it "reserves the right to counter any hostile act."

Iranian envoy to the UN Majid Takht Ravanchi has condemned continuing US provocations that culminated Thursday morning in the downing of an American surveillance drone by the Iranian air force over Hormozgan province.

The drone "had turned off its identification equipment and [was] engaged in a clear spying operation," Ravanchi confirmed in a letter to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, adding that the aircraft had ignored "repeated radio warnings" in order to enter Iranian airspace near the Strait of Hormuz.

[Jun 23, 2019] Trump has enough rat cunning to know when he s cornered

Notable quotes:
"... Hire B-team actors whom he can fire at will, and for effect, as required to maintain the facade of 'dominance.' Let the dogs loose and then yank on their chains at the last minute. The master's voice etc. ..."
"... His problem is: it only works in TV Reality Show land -- and only for a limited time between business-as-usual advertising. ..."
"... He, and his cast of zio-policy diplomatic zombies have a much harder time when it comes to the real world and real national boundaries that resist and are likely to fight back. ..."
"... Seems the US is perpetually seeking war or at the very least threatening war. War on drugs, war on poverty war on disinfo war, trade wars , unending list of WAR, WAR, WAR. ..."
"... Sanctions were never justified in the first place. Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and has submitted to extra-ordinary inspections by the IAEA for decades. And gets ticks on the boxes. Anyone that thinks Iran is trying to 'build the bomb' probably believes unicorns live in the White House (the American one), and that Saddam blew up the Twin Towers. ..."
"... Compare the western attitudes towards Iran, and those towards India and Pakistan. Neither of which have signed up to the NPT. Not a single whimper from western governments or their MSM propaganda channels, when those countries developed an arsenal of nuclear WMD's. ..."
"... My guess on what happened with Trump was the same MO as in Syria, he has a temper tantrum ("kill them all, even the Russians" as was rumored) and he was informed of the possible fallout from such an attack. ..."
Jun 23, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

GeorgeV , Jun 21, 2019 9:25:57 AM | 48

Whether Generalissimo Bone Spur and President Chief Kaiser of the USA, His Imperial Majesty Donald Trump, actually called for a stand down of any attack on Iran for the shooting down of a surveillance UAV, or he suddenly realized that such an act would touch off another unneeded war, is at this point in time a matter of some debate. What is clear however is that his Imperial Majesty must clean out his current foreign policy and national defense staff (Bolton, Pompeo, Haspel etc.) before another crisis develops. Otherwise the neocons that currently inhabit the Oval Office chicken hawk coop will be back at fomenting another crisis, which might actually give them the war they so dearly want. His Imperial Majesty appointed them and he can fire them.

imo , Jun 21, 2019 9:36:44 AM | 49

All this narrative fits Trump's modus operandi and his fake Alpha male persona.

Hire B-team actors whom he can fire at will, and for effect, as required to maintain the facade of 'dominance.' Let the dogs loose and then yank on their chains at the last minute. The master's voice etc.

His problem is: it only works in TV Reality Show land -- and only for a limited time between business-as-usual advertising.

He, and his cast of zio-policy diplomatic zombies have a much harder time when it comes to the real world and real national boundaries that resist and are likely to fight back.

Trump and US MIC is dangerous of course. But Trump has enough rat cunning to know when he's cornered. All he's done here with this alleged last minute "call back" is test prove his chain of command is working. (...or is it?)

arby , Jun 21, 2019 9:39:25 AM | 50
George V---
As far as I can tell it doesn't matter who the president has or who he is. Seems the US is perpetually seeking war or at the very least threatening war. War on drugs, war on poverty war on disinfo war, trade wars , unending list of WAR, WAR, WAR.
Ant. , Jun 21, 2019 9:48:30 AM | 53
I cannot see any way that the current irrational sanctions against Iran by the US can be rolled back. All US administrations are full of hubris and in love with their own imagined gloriously supreme power. The only way they can be rolled back is if Iran offers some face-saving excuse, which they can't do. They have nothing else to give (Pompeo's 'conditions for international re-alignment' were essentially a demand for surrender and 'regime' change, probably authored by Maniac Walrus Bolton).

Sanctions were never justified in the first place. Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and has submitted to extra-ordinary inspections by the IAEA for decades. And gets ticks on the boxes. Anyone that thinks Iran is trying to 'build the bomb' probably believes unicorns live in the White House (the American one), and that Saddam blew up the Twin Towers.

Compare the western attitudes towards Iran, and those towards India and Pakistan. Neither of which have signed up to the NPT. Not a single whimper from western governments or their MSM propaganda channels, when those countries developed an arsenal of nuclear WMD's.

Sorghum , Jun 21, 2019 9:50:51 AM | 54
My guess on what happened with Trump was the same MO as in Syria, he has a temper tantrum ("kill them all, even the Russians" as was rumored) and he was informed of the possible fallout from such an attack.

Trump will attack, just not yet. There is some new toy they want to try out. Shock and Awe style.

[Jun 22, 2019] Why The Empire Is Failing The Horrid Hubris Of The Albright Doctrine by Doug Bandow

Highly recommended!
Bolton is just Albright of different sex. The same aggressive stupidity.
Notable quotes:
"... Albright typifies the arrogance and hawkishness of Washington blob... ..."
"... How to describe US foreign policy over the last couple of decades? Disastrous comes to mind. Arrogant and murderous also seem appropriate. ..."
"... Washington and Beijing appear to be a collision course on far more than trade. Yet the current administration appears convinced that doing more of the same will achieve different results, the best definition of insanity. ..."
"... Despite his sometimes abusive and incendiary rhetoric, the president has departed little from his predecessors' policies. For instance, American forces remain deployed in Afghanistan and Syria. Moreover, the Trump administration has increased its military and materiel deployments to Europe. Also, Washington has intensified economic sanctions on Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Russia, and even penalized additional countries, namely Venezuela. ..."
"... "If we have to use force, it is because we are America: we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us." ..."
"... Even then her claim was implausible. America blundered into the Korean War and barely achieved a passable outcome. The Johnson administration infused Vietnam with dramatically outsize importance. For decades, Washington foolishly refused to engage the People's Republic of China. Washington-backed dictators in Cuba, Nicaragua, Iran, and elsewhere fell ingloriously. An economic embargo against Cuba that continues today helped turn Fidel Castro into a global folk hero. Washington veered dangerously close to nuclear war with Moscow during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 and again two decades later during military exercises in Europe. ..."
"... Perhaps the worst failing of U.S. foreign policy was ignoring the inevitable impact of foreign intervention. Americans would never passively accept another nation bombing, invading, and occupying their nation, or interfering in their political system. Even if outgunned, they would resist. Yet Washington has undertaken all of these practices, with little consideration of the impact on those most affected -- hence the rise of terrorism against the United States. Terrorism, horrid and awful though it is, became the weapon of choice of weaker peoples against intervention by the world's industrialized national states. ..."
"... Albright's assumption that members of The Blob were far-seeing was matched by her belief that the same people were entitled to make life-and-death decisions for the entire planet. ..."
"... The willingness to so callously sacrifice so many helps explain why "they" often hate us, usually meaning the U.S. government. This is also because "they" believe average Americans hate them. Understandably, it too often turns out, given the impact of the full range of American interventions -- imposing economic sanctions, bombing, invading, and occupying other nations, unleashing drone campaigns, underwriting tyrannical regimes, supporting governments which occupy and oppress other peoples, displaying ostentatious hypocrisy and bias, and more. ..."
"... At the 1999 Rambouillet conference Albright made demands of Yugoslavia that no independent, sovereign state could accept: that, for instance, it act like defeated and occupied territory by allowing the free transit of NATO forces. Washington expected the inevitable refusal, which was calculated to provide justification for launching an unprovoked, aggressive war against the Serb-dominated remnant of Yugoslavia. ..."
"... Alas, members of the Blob view Americans with little more respect. The ignorant masses should do what they are told. (Former National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster recently complained of public war-weariness from fighting in Afghanistan for no good reason for more than seventeen years.) Even more so, believed Albright, members of the military should cheerfully patrol the quasi-empire being established by Washington's far-sighted leaders. ..."
"... When asked in 2003 about the incident, she said "what I thought was that we had -- we were in a kind of a mode of thinking that we were never going to be able to use our military effectively again." ..."
"... For Albright, war is just another foreign policy tool. One could send a diplomatic note, impose economic sanctions, or unleash murder and mayhem. No reason to treat the latter as anything special. Joining the U.S. military means putting your life at the disposal of Albright and her peers in The Blob. ..."
Jun 18, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Doug Bandow via National Interest,

Albright typifies the arrogance and hawkishness of Washington blob...

How to describe US foreign policy over the last couple of decades? Disastrous comes to mind. Arrogant and murderous also seem appropriate.

Since 9/11, Washington has been extraordinarily active militarily -- invading two nations, bombing and droning several others, deploying special operations forces in yet more countries, and applying sanctions against many. Tragically, the threat of Islamist violence and terrorism only have metastasized. Although Al Qaeda lost its effectiveness in directly plotting attacks, it continues to inspire national offshoots. Moreover, while losing its physical "caliphate" the Islamic State added further terrorism to its portfolio.

Three successive administrations have ever more deeply ensnared the United States in the Middle East. War with Iran appears to be frighteningly possible. Ever-wealthier allies are ever-more dependent on America. Russia is actively hostile to the United States and Europe. Washington and Beijing appear to be a collision course on far more than trade. Yet the current administration appears convinced that doing more of the same will achieve different results, the best definition of insanity.

Despite his sometimes abusive and incendiary rhetoric, the president has departed little from his predecessors' policies. For instance, American forces remain deployed in Afghanistan and Syria. Moreover, the Trump administration has increased its military and materiel deployments to Europe. Also, Washington has intensified economic sanctions on Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Russia, and even penalized additional countries, namely Venezuela.

U.S. foreign policy suffers from systematic flaws in the thinking of the informal policy collective which former Obama aide Ben Rhodes dismissed as "The Blob." Perhaps no official better articulated The Blob's defective precepts than Madeleine Albright, United Nations ambassador and Secretary of State.

First is overweening hubris. In 1998 Secretary of State Albright declared that

"If we have to use force, it is because we are America: we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us."

Even then her claim was implausible. America blundered into the Korean War and barely achieved a passable outcome. The Johnson administration infused Vietnam with dramatically outsize importance. For decades, Washington foolishly refused to engage the People's Republic of China. Washington-backed dictators in Cuba, Nicaragua, Iran, and elsewhere fell ingloriously. An economic embargo against Cuba that continues today helped turn Fidel Castro into a global folk hero. Washington veered dangerously close to nuclear war with Moscow during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 and again two decades later during military exercises in Europe.

U.S. officials rarely were prepared for events that occurred in the next week or month, let alone years later. Americans did no better than the French in Vietnam. Americans managed events in Africa no better than the British, French, and Portuguese colonial overlords. Washington made more than its share of bad, even awful decisions in dealing with other nations around the globe.

Perhaps the worst failing of U.S. foreign policy was ignoring the inevitable impact of foreign intervention. Americans would never passively accept another nation bombing, invading, and occupying their nation, or interfering in their political system. Even if outgunned, they would resist. Yet Washington has undertaken all of these practices, with little consideration of the impact on those most affected -- hence the rise of terrorism against the United States. Terrorism, horrid and awful though it is, became the weapon of choice of weaker peoples against intervention by the world's industrialized national states.

The U.S. record since September 11 has been uniquely counterproductive. Rather than minimize hostility toward America, Washington adopted a policy -- highlighted by launching new wars, killing more civilians, and ravaging additional societies -- guaranteed to create enemies, exacerbate radicalism, and spread terrorism. Blowback is everywhere. Among the worst examples: Iraqi insurgents mutated into ISIS, which wreaked military havoc throughout the Middle East and turned to terrorism.

Albright's assumption that members of The Blob were far-seeing was matched by her belief that the same people were entitled to make life-and-death decisions for the entire planet. When queried 1996 about her justification for sanctions against Iraq which had killed a half million babies -- notably, she did not dispute the accuracy of that estimate -- she responded that "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it." Exactly who "we" were she did not say. Most likely she meant those Americans admitted to the foreign policy priesthood, empowered to make foreign policy and take the practical steps necessary to enforce it. (She later stated of her reply: "I never should have made it. It was stupid." It was, but it reflected her mindset.)

In any normal country, such a claim would be shocking -- a few people sitting in another capital deciding who lived and died. Foreign elites, a world away from the hardship that they imposed, deciding the value of those dying versus the purported interests being promoted. Those paying the price had no voice in the decision, no way to hold their persecutors accountable.

The willingness to so callously sacrifice so many helps explain why "they" often hate us, usually meaning the U.S. government. This is also because "they" believe average Americans hate them. Understandably, it too often turns out, given the impact of the full range of American interventions -- imposing economic sanctions, bombing, invading, and occupying other nations, unleashing drone campaigns, underwriting tyrannical regimes, supporting governments which occupy and oppress other peoples, displaying ostentatious hypocrisy and bias, and more.

This mindset is reinforced by contempt toward even those being aided by Washington. Although American diplomats had termed the Kosovo Liberation Army as "terrorist," the Clinton Administration decided to use the growing insurgency as an opportunity to expand Washington's influence. At the 1999 Rambouillet conference Albright made demands of Yugoslavia that no independent, sovereign state could accept: that, for instance, it act like defeated and occupied territory by allowing the free transit of NATO forces. Washington expected the inevitable refusal, which was calculated to provide justification for launching an unprovoked, aggressive war against the Serb-dominated remnant of Yugoslavia.

However, initially the KLA, determined on independence, refused to sign Albright's agreement. She exploded. One of her officials anonymously complained: "Here is the greatest nation on earth pleading with some nothingballs to do something entirely in their own interest -- which is to say yes to an interim agreement -- and they stiff us." Someone described as "a close associate" observed: "She is so stung by what happened. She's angry at everyone -- the Serbs, the Albanians and NATO." For Albright, the determination of others to achieve their own goals, even at risk to their lives, was an insult to America and her.

Alas, members of the Blob view Americans with little more respect. The ignorant masses should do what they are told. (Former National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster recently complained of public war-weariness from fighting in Afghanistan for no good reason for more than seventeen years.) Even more so, believed Albright, members of the military should cheerfully patrol the quasi-empire being established by Washington's far-sighted leaders.

As Albright famously asked Colin Powell in 1992:

"What's the use of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?" To her, American military personnel apparently were but gambit pawns in a global chess game, to be sacrificed for the interest and convenience of those playing. No wonder then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell's reaction stated in his autobiography was: "I thought I would have an aneurysm."

When asked in 2003 about the incident, she said "what I thought was that we had -- we were in a kind of a mode of thinking that we were never going to be able to use our military effectively again." Although sixty-five years had passed, she admitted that "my mindset is Munich," a unique circumstance and threat without even plausible parallel today.

Such a philosophy explains a 1997 comment by a cabinet member, likely Albright, to General Hugh Shelton, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: "Hugh, I know I shouldn't even be asking you this, but what we really need in order to go in and take out Saddam is a precipitous event -- something that would make us look good in the eyes of the world. Could you have one of our U-2s fly low enough -- and slow enough -- so as to guarantee that Saddam could shoot it down?" He responded sure, as soon as she qualified to fly the plane.

For Albright, war is just another foreign policy tool. One could send a diplomatic note, impose economic sanctions, or unleash murder and mayhem. No reason to treat the latter as anything special. Joining the U.S. military means putting your life at the disposal of Albright and her peers in The Blob.

Anyone of these comments could be dismissed as a careless aside. Taken together, however, they reflect an attitude dangerous for Americans and foreigners alike. Unfortunately, the vagaries of U.S. foreign policy suggest that this mindset is not limited to any one person. Any president serious about taking a new foreign-policy direction must do more than drain the swamp. He or she must sideline The Blob.

* * *

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire .

[Jun 22, 2019] I was shocked -- but not surprised -- to see visibly-pained CBS Pentagon flack David Martin on the boob tube this morning. Thank you, Vasili Arkhipov

Notable quotes:
"... Thank you, Vasili Arkhipov, for getting cold-feet, too! Madness, our nation is afflicted with madness. ..."
Jun 22, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Widowson , 21 June 2019 at 02:41 PM

I was shocked-- but not surprised-- to see visibly-pained CBS Pentagon flack David Martin on the boob tube this morning quoting an unnamed source that speculated that the reason Trump cancelled the bombing of Iran was that he got "cold-feet."

Thank you, Vasili Arkhipov, for getting cold-feet, too! Madness, our nation is afflicted with madness.

[Jun 22, 2019] Bolton Calls For Forceful Iranian Response To Continuing US Aggression

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... "Iran cannot sit idly by as the American imperialist machine encroaches on their territory, threatens their sovereignty, and endangers their very way of life," said Bolton, warning that America's fanatical leadership, steadfast devotion to flexing their muscles in the region, and alleged access to nuclear weapons necessitated that Iran strike back with a vigorous show of force as soon -- and as hard -- as possible. ..."
"... "The only thing these Westerners understand is violence, so it's imperative that Iran sends a clear message that they won't be walked over. Let's not forget, the U.S. defied a diplomatically negotiated treaty for seemingly no reason at all -- these are dangerous radicals that cannot be reasoned with. ..."
Jun 22, 2019 | politics.theonion.com

Demanding that the Middle Eastern nation retaliate immediately in self-defense against the existential threat posed by America's military operations, National Security Adviser John Bolton called for a forceful Iranian response Friday to continuing United States aggression.

"Iran cannot sit idly by as the American imperialist machine encroaches on their territory, threatens their sovereignty, and endangers their very way of life," said Bolton, warning that America's fanatical leadership, steadfast devotion to flexing their muscles in the region, and alleged access to nuclear weapons necessitated that Iran strike back with a vigorous show of force as soon -- and as hard -- as possible.

"The only thing these Westerners understand is violence, so it's imperative that Iran sends a clear message that they won't be walked over. Let's not forget, the U.S. defied a diplomatically negotiated treaty for seemingly no reason at all -- these are dangerous radicals that cannot be reasoned with.

They've been given every opportunity to back down, but their goal is total domination of the region, and Iran won't stand for that."

At press time, Bolton said that the only option left on the table was for Iran to launch a full-fledged military strike against the Great Satan.

[Jun 22, 2019] The USA MSM uses Bolton and Pompeo bellicosity as clickbait to generate revenue for their business at the expense of whats best for the nation

Notable quotes:
"... Russia, China and the Europeans all want Iran to remain in JCPOA and Putin is worried about Iran acting irrationally. ..."
"... Asians all worried about the security of oil flows to Asia. Japan especially dependent on Middle East oil flows, even if they've moved out of Iranian purchases. ..."
"... The IRGC knuckle dragger in charge at Hormuz will get a medal or two, and a promotion. The U.S. is waging a total economic war on Iran. It cuts off all its exports and imports. Iran is fighting back by all means. It has no other choice. Iran now implements a "strategy of tension" that is designed to put "maximum pressure" on Trump. The tanker attacks, the mortars on U.S. troops in Iraq, the Houthi strikes an Saudi desalination plants and the shoot down of that drone are all part of that Iranian strategy. ..."
"... High Iranian officials, including its president, have multiple times announced: "If we can sell no sell oil than none of our neighbors in the gulf will be able to sell their oil." They mean that and they have the plans and means to achieve that. ..."
"... These strikes will continue, and will become stronger. I most cases Iran will have plausible deniability. That is easy to create when CentCom and the White House are know to lie left and right as they do. ..."
"... It is Trump, not Iran, who killed JCPOA. It is Trump, not Iran, who will be blamed for that war. ..."
"... Exactly! There's one striking characteristic of the "resistance" leaders, including Khamenei, Syrian President Assad, and Hezbollah's Nasrallah, and that is that they are reliable: they do what they say they are going to do. They have integrity, that quality so clearly absent from all US and Western European leaders, all beholden to their Ziodonors to assure reelection. ..."
"... Additionally, any standoff missile attack or "March of the B52s" will be met with immediate regional attacks on US (Saudi and Israeli) assets, military personnel and civilians that will destabilize the entire region and destroy the global economy. Not the best scenario for a reelection bid, is it? I'm with b. There is no knuckle dragger at Hormuz, only competent officers carrying out their orders. ..."
"... How blame is apportioned will matter little to Iran if it miscalculates one iota. Yes it cannot sit idle until it is strangled by economic sanctions. But neither can it escalate beyond the destruction of civil and military hardware alone. One dead American is all the neocons need. A counter strike would then be inevitable and the uncontrollable escalation they are counting on the likely result. ..."
"... Col. Lang has described here the catastrophic consequences for America's enemies when they have doubted its resolve. And the sure route to galvanizing that resolve is for Iran to escalate into targeting US forces. ..."
"... The only way this ends without a war which would be catastrophic for both sides is if Trump realizes the reality of the situation he is in and ditches the neocons right now. Iran has got its message across and must now desist to allow Trump breathing room to de-escalate. Let us pray that Suleimani and the Iranian leadership are men enough to understand that holding the moral high ground confers no advantage in warfare. ..."
"... Privately, phone calls to China and Russia begging for assurances of support ..."
"... This is delusional thinking. The Iranians realized a long time ago not to rely on other countries for assistance. Every Iranian knows not to trust Russians from history. China might be the only hope, not for support, but to convince that this war is as much about them. ..."
"... The Chinese should close Adelson's Macau casinos for health and safety violations. Zionist donors for Trump's election campaign are driving this. Adelson's boy Bolton needs removing before anything positive can happen, Tucker Carlson needs some help with his campaign to oust him. ..."
"... Could you explain how the concept that economic sanctions are a belligerent act of war is anti-American? This is a historical concept that you, as a teacher and student of military history, are well aware of. The Iranians are using the means that they have available to respond to these acts of war. ..."
"... They are not equipped to confront the US military directly, so they are using tactics to place pressure on the US in other areas, primarily by threatening the global economy by plausibly deniable acts against shipping in the Persian Gulf. This is a masterstroke right out of the pages of Sun Tze's Art of War. ..."
"... Trump has painted himself into a corner. He can offer sanctions relief if he wants to negotiate, or he can attack, and we can hope that the US military learned some of the lessons taught by Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper in the Millennium Challenge 2002. ..."
"... The neocons are playing out provocations until Congress is forced to vote on War just before election. The provocations will continue -- Israel's Rational Institute & expert game theorists have done this so many times they're just going through the motions. Iranians have watched that game play out before and, perhaps, know how to handle provocations in a disruptive manner. ..."
"... Hook repeated, emphasized & repeated again that "finance is the basis of war," and US / Trump strategy is to "not to bankrupt Iran," but to "deny Iran access to financial ability to fund Hezbollah, Hamas, and other of the #1 state sponsor of terror's proxies." ..."
"... The congressmen questioning Hook nodded sagely. None of them so much as hinted at the fact that the USA is so deep in debt it can never pay its way out. ..."
"... --One of the expectations of the JCPOA was that with sanctions lifted, Iran would enter into the mainstream economy, trading with states throughout the world. This normalization of commerce would constrain Iran from taking actions that would jeopardize its trade relationships. Why does Trump & the zioncons not wish Iran's commercial normalization to take place? Is it because Israel cannot stand the competition? ..."
"... -- by what right USA violates UN Charter demands that internal affairs of a member state must not be interfered with. Congressmen crowned themselves with laurel as they proclaimed that "the people of Iran are not our enemy; it is the government; we act on behalf of the Iranian people, especially Iranian women." ..."
"... Trump thinks that he can f*** Iran and sit it out? Not gonna happen. ..."
"... He gets that he cannot be an LBJ or a Harry Truman with the Albatross of an unwinnable war hung around his neck. ..."
"... But, I am afraid the chosen true believers on his staff do not believe nor care that Iran has prepared a massive disproportionate non-nuclear response that will destroy the global economy. ..."
"... John Bolton and Mike Pompeo have other agendas than the President's re-election and what is in the USA's national interests. We are not out of the woods. ..."
"... The IRGC knuckle dragger at Hormuz wisely and prudently targeted the unmanned drone and not the manned P8 aircraft. ..."
"... No, this action was appropriate in the face of our policy of maximum pressure to starve out the Iranian people and force a regime change. ..."
"... I applaud Trump's decision not to engage in a shooting war. The way he got to that decision was messy, but the final decision was right. Those calling him weak for not engaging in a war of choice are craven fools. Chief among those is Bolton. ..."
"... Trump should throw his ass and his mustache out of the WH before the sun goes down. Trump brought this situation upon himself with his pulling out of the JCPOA and initiating his "war" of maximum pressure. It is he who can deflate this crisis, not Kamenei. ..."
"... This is all one big PsyOp imo. The US has no popular support for an attack on Iran, internally or externally. We are going to attack, but want to make it seem like they showed restraint and have been left with no choice. ..."
"... And this nonsense about Iran allowing the US to make some window dressing attack on innocuous targets to save face/ All I can say is Iranians are not Arabs. ..."
"... PS -- C Span ramped up an orgy of war hysteria over Trump's threat, then stand-down over Iran's shoot-down of an un-manned drone. The public was, as usual, confined to a narrow frame of reference and range of responses: "Trump was a coward," vs. "Trump was wise." Congressmen who were interviewed emphasized that "no American was killed." ..."
"... No one mentioned that Lyndon Johnson called back flights sent to rescue crewmen on the USS Liberty when Israel attacked the ship, strafed the wounded and those in life boats. ..."
"... Everyone remembers the shootdown of Iranian Air flight 655 on July 3, 1988 by the guided missile cruiser Vincennes, under the command of the late Captain Will Rogers, in which 290 people were killed. President Reagan said America will never apologize. President Clinton ultimately paid the Iranians $130 million. ..."
"... Tucker Carlson seems like the only realist in the MSM. https://youtu.be/Rf2cS4g0pes ..."
"... It is no secret that the Neocons and the Israeli zionists (I am repeating myself here) do want a war between Iran and the United States. First, there were a few tanker attacks which were brushed off by Trump. Then this, which was more difficult to brush off. Is it possible that the drone actually went to Iranian airspace but GPS coordinates were spoofed (by insiders on the American side) so that Trump (and the administration) believed that it stayed in international airspace? ..."
"... Sorry. Here's the ink to Tucker on the Iran war brink. https://youtu.be/3PQW2tMMn2A ..."
"... Why did Donald Trump hire neocons Bolton & Pompeo as well as torturer Gina Haspel? Couldn't he find people who shared his views (at least what he said during the last campaign) that our ME regime change wars were a disaster that we shouldn't repeat? ..."
"... As Tucker noted in his segment yesterday Bolton & the neocons have been plotting a war with Iran for some time. They don't care if it sinks Trump's presidency. They have no loyalty to him only condescension. ..."
"... Yet as Tucker notes in his segment yesterday the neocons are "bureaucratic tapeworms" that some how manage to survive failure after failure with the same regime change prescriptions. Trump better wise up like right now or he can kiss his re-election goodbye. ..."
Jun 22, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.com

David Solomon , 21 June 2019 at 12:54 PM

Colonel Lang,

I am not now nor have I ever been a fan of Trump. However, if he does not start a war, he will end (in my mind, at least) as a vast improvement over his immediate predecessors.

Robert C said in reply to David Solomon... , 21 June 2019 at 08:56 PM
Wait a minute. Obama blew it with Libya. However,
-he reached a good deal with Iran
-he didn't bomb Syria when the crossed his "red line" and managed to make it look like the R controlled Senate made the decision .
-He didn't kiss Bibi's ring.
ted richard said in reply to David Solomon... , 21 June 2019 at 09:38 PM
look at a decent map of this area. the us naval base in Bahrain and air base Qatar are an Iranian missiles equivalent of firing from lower Manhattan to hit something in Hoboken.

The USA military assets within the Persian gulf have if war breaks out checked into the hotel California.

It is a logistical nightmare for the Pentagon to protect and resupply in the event of serious hostilities. Trump surely has been told by real us military professionals the giant hairball he takes on if he gets into a war with Iran and what it means for us servicemen station there and throughout the larger middle east.

it is unfortunate that the usa media uses fools like bolton and pompeo as clickbait to generate revenue fore their business at the expense of whats best for the nation but there it is... the msm has an agenda which is not at all in the service of the nation.

Harper , 21 June 2019 at 01:28 PM
Yes, a grown up has the right to change a decision. Now, ball is in Khomeini court. Abe asked him to release some Iranian-American prisoners. If Khomeini wants to lower threshold of conflict, he can do this gesture without losing any face. Humanitarian action.

Russia, China and the Europeans all want Iran to remain in JCPOA and Putin is worried about Iran acting irrationally.

See what kind of other pressure comes down on Iranians. Asians all worried about the security of oil flows to Asia. Japan especially dependent on Middle East oil flows, even if they've moved out of Iranian purchases. US more able to go it alone with extensive domestic and other sources.

blue peacock , 21 June 2019 at 01:36 PM
Col. Lang,

Khamenei should call Trump and setup a media spectacle of a summit in Switzerland. They can agree on the same deal as before but as long as the headline says "Iran agrees to not build nukes", Trump will be happy and Khamenei will be his new best pal.

The same playbook as KJU where nothing tangible is likely to happen except that KJU has stopped nuke & missile tests that create media hysteria among the Never Trumpers.

IMO, the ball hasn't left Trump's court. How long is he going to tolerate the neocons in his inner circle who are likely to keep coming up with another casus belli? Can he find some distance from being Bibi's lapdog? How long is he going to allow his conflicted son-in-law to meddle in the Middle East?

Trump must calculate the potential of where escalation leads and what a full on war with Iran and its allies in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon means for his re-election campaign. Bernie is banging the table hard against any military action in Iran. The probability that 50,000 votes in Michigan, Pennsylvania & Wisconsin changes sides the next election would be rather high in the event of an unpredictable full-scale war.

Christian J Chuba , 21 June 2019 at 01:56 PM
I hope Khamenei takes any offer Trump makes for direct talks. Trump is heavily influenced by the last person he meets.

I get that Khamenei doesn't want to meet on the premise that the JCPOA is flawed and must be changed but if he can get an audience on the basis of airing mutual grievances in an unfiltered environment, it would be an opportunity. Currently, the only people Trump talks to are Neocon loons. They are innumerable but the FDD seems to be the center of gravity.

I must say that Clifford May does sport quite the impressive beard, who wouldn't think that he's an expert on anything he talks about http://www.vipfaq.com/nested/c/l/Clifford_May-1.jpg

robt willmann , 21 June 2019 at 02:04 PM
In an interview with NBC News and Chuck Todd, Trump reiterates his position about a response being proportionate--

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-says-he-did-not-given-final-approval-iran-strikes-n1020386

Widowson , 21 June 2019 at 02:41 PM
I was shocked-- but not surprised-- to see visibly-pained CBS Pentagon flack David Martin on the boob tube this morning quoting an unnamed source that speculated that the reason Trump cancelled the bombing of Iran was that he got "cold-feet." Thank you, Vasili Arkhipov, for getting cold-feet, too! Madness, our nation is afflicted with madness.
b , 21 June 2019 at 02:47 PM
The IRGC knuckle dragger in charge at Hormuz will get a medal or two, and a promotion. The U.S. is waging a total economic war on Iran. It cuts off all its exports and imports. Iran is fighting back by all means. It has no other choice. Iran now implements a "strategy of tension" that is designed to put "maximum pressure" on Trump. The tanker attacks, the mortars on U.S. troops in Iraq, the Houthi strikes an Saudi desalination plants and the shoot down of that drone are all part of that Iranian strategy.

High Iranian officials, including its president, have multiple times announced: "If we can sell no sell oil than none of our neighbors in the gulf will be able to sell their oil." They mean that and they have the plans and means to achieve that.

These strikes will continue, and will become stronger. I most cases Iran will have plausible deniability. That is easy to create when CentCom and the White House are know to lie left and right as they do.

Trump has two choices.

He can pull back on the sanctions and other U.S. violations of JCPOA, or he can start a full war against Iran that will drown his presidency, put the world economy into a depression ($300/bl oil) and kill many U.S. soldiers.

It is Trump, not Iran, who killed JCPOA. It is Trump, not Iran, who will be blamed for that war.

frankie p said in reply to b ... , 21 June 2019 at 07:05 PM

Exactly! There's one striking characteristic of the "resistance" leaders, including Khamenei, Syrian President Assad, and Hezbollah's Nasrallah, and that is that they are reliable: they do what they say they are going to do. They have integrity, that quality so clearly absent from all US and Western European leaders, all beholden to their Ziodonors to assure reelection.

The Iranians will NOT contact Trump to arrange a meeting. The Iranians will NOT meet with Trump because the JCPOA is flawed. The Iranians will NOT meet with Trump after a brief suspension in sanctions to ask for permanent sanctions relief. The Iranians WILL meet with Trump when he lifts most or all of the sanctions in good faith and rejoins the JCPOA. Is it just a coincidence that the two ships attacked last week were carrying petrochemicals, just days after Trump and the US placed sanctions on the largest Iranian petrochemical producer? What is it about "If we cannot ship oil/petrochemicals, nobody can." that people don't understand?

Additionally, any standoff missile attack or "March of the B52s" will be met with immediate regional attacks on US (Saudi and Israeli) assets, military personnel and civilians that will destabilize the entire region and destroy the global economy. Not the best scenario for a reelection bid, is it? I'm with b. There is no knuckle dragger at Hormuz, only competent officers carrying out their orders.

Frankie P

Barbara Ann said in reply to b ... , 21 June 2019 at 07:46 PM
b

How blame is apportioned will matter little to Iran if it miscalculates one iota. Yes it cannot sit idle until it is strangled by economic sanctions. But neither can it escalate beyond the destruction of civil and military hardware alone. One dead American is all the neocons need. A counter strike would then be inevitable and the uncontrollable escalation they are counting on the likely result.

Col. Lang has described here the catastrophic consequences for America's enemies when they have doubted its resolve. And the sure route to galvanizing that resolve is for Iran to escalate into targeting US forces.

The only way this ends without a war which would be catastrophic for both sides is if Trump realizes the reality of the situation he is in and ditches the neocons right now. Iran has got its message across and must now desist to allow Trump breathing room to de-escalate. Let us pray that Suleimani and the Iranian leadership are men enough to understand that holding the moral high ground confers no advantage in warfare.

Fred -> b ... , 22 June 2019 at 11:06 AM
b,

Only two choices? That doesn't sound very realistic in the terms of actual options. How about leaving the sanctions in place? What prevents that?

Eric Newhill , 21 June 2019 at 03:32 PM
Publicly, much chest thumping over how Iran has the cowardly Great Satan on the run like a beaten dog. Privately, phone calls to China and Russia begging for assurances of support and attempted offers of negotiations with Trump complete with wildly unrealistic demands.
eakens said in reply to Eric Newhill... , 21 June 2019 at 06:57 PM
This is delusional thinking. The Iranians realized a long time ago not to rely on other countries for assistance. Every Iranian knows not to trust Russians from history. China might be the only hope, not for support, but to convince that this war is as much about them.
LondonBob said in reply to Jack... , 22 June 2019 at 04:19 AM
The Chinese should close Adelson's Macau casinos for health and safety violations. Zionist donors for Trump's election campaign are driving this. Adelson's boy Bolton needs removing before anything positive can happen, Tucker Carlson needs some help with his campaign to oust him.
turcopolier , 21 June 2019 at 05:44 PM
b

Your usual deeply bigoted anti-Americanism.

frankie p said in reply to turcopolier ... , 21 June 2019 at 07:23 PM
Could you explain how the concept that economic sanctions are a belligerent act of war is anti-American? This is a historical concept that you, as a teacher and student of military history, are well aware of. The Iranians are using the means that they have available to respond to these acts of war.

They are not equipped to confront the US military directly, so they are using tactics to place pressure on the US in other areas, primarily by threatening the global economy by plausibly deniable acts against shipping in the Persian Gulf. This is a masterstroke right out of the pages of Sun Tze's Art of War.

Trump has painted himself into a corner. He can offer sanctions relief if he wants to negotiate, or he can attack, and we can hope that the US military learned some of the lessons taught by Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper in the Millennium Challenge 2002.

Artemesia said in reply to turcopolier ... , 21 June 2019 at 07:28 PM
At the risk of ---
I think b is on to something.

The neocons are playing out provocations until Congress is forced to vote on War just before election. The provocations will continue -- Israel's Rational Institute & expert game theorists have done this so many times they're just going through the motions. Iranians have watched that game play out before and, perhaps, know how to handle provocations in a disruptive manner.

Did you listen to Foreign Affairs subcommittee questioning State Department undersecretary Brian Hook? https://www.c-span.org/video/?461811-1/house-foreign-affairs-subcommittee-hearing-iran-policy

Hook repeated, emphasized & repeated again that "finance is the basis of war," and US / Trump strategy is to "not to bankrupt Iran," but to "deny Iran access to financial ability to fund Hezbollah, Hamas, and other of the #1 state sponsor of terror's proxies."

The congressmen questioning Hook nodded sagely. None of them so much as hinted at the fact that the USA is so deep in debt it can never pay its way out. Nor was any congressman sage enough, or moral enough, or consistent enough, to question:

-- International policy pundits & think tankers opine that the greatest guarantee of peace is economic stability. US is deliberately seeking to destabilize Iran economically. To what end?

--One of the expectations of the JCPOA was that with sanctions lifted, Iran would enter into the mainstream economy, trading with states throughout the world. This normalization of commerce would constrain Iran from taking actions that would jeopardize its trade relationships. Why does Trump & the zioncons not wish Iran's commercial normalization to take place? Is it because Israel cannot stand the competition?

-- by what right USA violates UN Charter demands that internal affairs of a member state must not be interfered with. Congressmen crowned themselves with laurel as they proclaimed that "the people of Iran are not our enemy; it is the government; we act on behalf of the Iranian people, especially Iranian women."

When I visited Iran in 2008, "Iranian women" spoke with us and asked if we could please provide several days' warning before bombing Iran so that they could shelter their children. Iranian women are some of the toughest you'll meet.

-- what casus belli legitimizes aggression against Iran? Does the USA no longer subscribe to Just War theory? Several years ago I heard Notre Dame's Mary Ellen O'Connell discuss Just War theory with respect to Iran -- https://elibrary.law.psu.edu/jlia/vol2/iss2/6/. US claims to uphold "universal values" ring hollow if such basic steps in framing policy are ignored.

b -> turcopolier ... , 22 June 2019 at 12:10 AM
I deal in facts, not in 'deeply bigoted anti-Americanism'. Interesting that you do not want to recognize those facts. They are right before your eyes. Just I give it a day or two until the next 'incident' happens.

Trump thinks that he can f*** Iran and sit it out? Not gonna happen.

turcopolier -> b ... , 22 June 2019 at 09:39 AM
All

The question has been raised of my denigration of b. He has a long history on SST He is an excellent military analyst but the long and so far as I can remember unbroken record of interpreting EVERY situation as demonstrating the demonic nature of the US causes me to discount anything he writes on other than military subjects narrowly defined. IMO b's hostility to the US is a permanent burden that he carries.

Eric Newhill said in reply to turcopolier ... , 22 June 2019 at 10:54 AM
Sir,

Also, B's minions, who follow him around, have absorbed his anti-US attitude so completely it's like a religion to them.

Charlie Wilson -> turcopolier ... , 22 June 2019 at 01:40 AM
b is a hater, colonel. And his English sucks too!

Charlie

Eugene Owens said in reply to turcopolier ... , 22 June 2019 at 01:56 AM
Agree regarding b's anti America stance. Yet b's prediction that the guy in charge at Hormuz will get a medal and promotion is correct IMO.

Ditto for his prediction that Iranian attacks will continue with some measure of deniability.

VietnamVet , 21 June 2019 at 07:13 PM
Colonel,

The NYT report that Donald Trump ordered the attack and then pulled back is in Jimmy Carter's "been there done that" territory. Although a New Yorker and he never had to sit in a gasoline line, Donald Trump, personally and legally, cannot be a one term President. He is a political savant.

He gets that he cannot be an LBJ or a Harry Truman with the Albatross of an unwinnable war hung around his neck.

My assumption is that someone in the chain of command after the surveillance drone was shot down triggered a preplanned strike package that was stopped once it got to the President for approval. Once again global media moguls strike back at the nationalist President with Fake News.

But, I am afraid the chosen true believers on his staff do not believe nor care that Iran has prepared a massive disproportionate non-nuclear response that will destroy the global economy.

John Bolton and Mike Pompeo have other agendas than the President's re-election and what is in the USA's national interests. We are not out of the woods.

ex-PFC Chuck , 21 June 2019 at 07:14 PM
Do we know for sure Trump is the one who initially ordered the strike? Or did someone down the line interpret the rules of engagement (do I presume correctly that some such would be in place at the present time?) to allow him or her to order it?
turcopolier -> ex-PFC Chuck... , 22 June 2019 at 09:35 AM
All

In a situation of this degree of geo-political gravity, nobody in the chain of command below the CinC would have had the authority or temerity to attempt to order this strike package.

Neither Pompeo nor Bolton is in the chain of command and attempts by them to order such attacks would have been rejected by the military. BTW if Trump aborted the strikes only 10 minutes out from the targets he was cutting it too close. Communications can always fail.

The Twisted Genius , 21 June 2019 at 07:31 PM
The IRGC knuckle dragger at Hormuz wisely and prudently targeted the unmanned drone and not the manned P8 aircraft. Since it was the Iranians who recovered the wreckage, it will be hard for the US to maintain the drone was well outside Iranian airspace.

No, this action was appropriate in the face of our policy of maximum pressure to starve out the Iranian people and force a regime change.

I applaud Trump's decision not to engage in a shooting war. The way he got to that decision was messy, but the final decision was right. Those calling him weak for not engaging in a war of choice are craven fools. Chief among those is Bolton.

Trump should throw his ass and his mustache out of the WH before the sun goes down. Trump brought this situation upon himself with his pulling out of the JCPOA and initiating his "war" of maximum pressure. It is he who can deflate this crisis, not Kamenei.

eakens said in reply to The Twisted Genius ... , 22 June 2019 at 12:02 PM
This is all one big PsyOp imo. The US has no popular support for an attack on Iran, internally or externally. We are going to attack, but want to make it seem like they showed restraint and have been left with no choice.

I don't foresee the Iranians talking to Trump unless and until the US walks back its sanctions, or Trump himself goes and sits down with the Ayatollah.

And this nonsense about Iran allowing the US to make some window dressing attack on innocuous targets to save face/ All I can say is Iranians are not Arabs.

Artemesia , 21 June 2019 at 07:32 PM
PS -- C Span ramped up an orgy of war hysteria over Trump's threat, then stand-down over Iran's shoot-down of an un-manned drone. The public was, as usual, confined to a narrow frame of reference and range of responses: "Trump was a coward," vs. "Trump was wise." Congressmen who were interviewed emphasized that "no American was killed."

No one mentioned that Lyndon Johnson called back flights sent to rescue crewmen on the USS Liberty when Israel attacked the ship, strafed the wounded and those in life boats.

SAC Brat said in reply to Harlan Easley ... , 22 June 2019 at 01:13 PM
This seems like Professional Wrestling theater where you have the wrestlers hamming it up for the drama and you wonder what the script is. We only get to see what the camera frames.
NarcoRepublican , 21 June 2019 at 09:17 PM
I am thankful that our military acknowledges that our President is the Commander-in-Chief. He commanded, they obeyed. As for all the pundits on all sides, their lack of perspective or even understanding of history leaves me terrified. There seems to be no understanding of how Iran is capable of retaliation. An example:

Everyone remembers the shootdown of Iranian Air flight 655 on July 3, 1988 by the guided missile cruiser Vincennes, under the command of the late Captain Will Rogers, in which 290 people were killed. President Reagan said America will never apologize. President Clinton ultimately paid the Iranians $130 million.

Few remember what happened next -- some 8 months later, in March, 1989, Capt. Roger's spouse Sharon, was in her van stopped at a traffic light in San Diego. A pipe bomb went off under the back of the van. It was small -- she was unhurt, fortunately, but definitely shaken up, and the van did catch fire. Despite an intensive investigation, the FBI has never solved this case.

Never let us become so blind and arrogant in our strength that we are unable to conceive retaliation by those weaker.

blue peacock , 22 June 2019 at 01:47 AM
Tucker Carlson seems like the only realist in the MSM. https://youtu.be/Rf2cS4g0pes
ancientarcher , 22 June 2019 at 02:07 AM
Has anyone considered the possibility that the drone was sent there to be shot down by the Iranians?

It is no secret that the Neocons and the Israeli zionists (I am repeating myself here) do want a war between Iran and the United States. First, there were a few tanker attacks which were brushed off by Trump. Then this, which was more difficult to brush off. Is it possible that the drone actually went to Iranian airspace but GPS coordinates were spoofed (by insiders on the American side) so that Trump (and the administration) believed that it stayed in international airspace?

The Americans do seem to really believe that the drone was in international airspace and no one can make a point that it is to Iran's benefit to target an American asset in international airspace, especially now when tensions are so high. Iran has the most to lose in the event of a war with the Americans (no points for guessing which country has the most to win - Israel). And it is a coincidence that the guy heading the Iran mission Centre, Michael D'Andrea, was previously the head of drone operations. Or is it a coincidence?

What would I do if I were a neocon who wants war between the US and Iran, a war that Trump doesn't. For the start of hostilities, it is essential that both sides, US and Iran, feel that they are in the right - which of course this situation is. I would create a context, an excuse/rationale for the start of actual hostilities to the US administration (and of course for the consumption of the American public). Then I will make the case to Trump that we should have a 'limited' retaliation. I know that the Iranians will strike back after the 'small scale' bombing. And the Americans have to retaliate to that also. What chances are there that any retaliation by the Americans will not end up in total war with Iran??

Trump doesn't want war and probably saw through the machinations to get him to agree to a 'small' bombing campaign as retaliation that would surely lead to a larger conflagration and total war with Iran that the neocons want so much. This particular provocation was unsuccessful in its aim. However, I think that provocations by the neocons will continue and at an ever increasing pitch - enabled by the neocons within the administration and the Israelis. Trump doesn't want war but his administration filled with neocons does and they will find a way maneuver Trump into it. Israel will fight Iran till the last standing American in the Middle East.

blue peacock , 22 June 2019 at 02:15 AM
Sorry. Here's the ink to Tucker on the Iran war brink. https://youtu.be/3PQW2tMMn2A
blue peacock , 22 June 2019 at 01:17 PM
Why did Donald Trump hire neocons Bolton & Pompeo as well as torturer Gina Haspel? Couldn't he find people who shared his views (at least what he said during the last campaign) that our ME regime change wars were a disaster that we shouldn't repeat?

As Tucker noted in his segment yesterday Bolton & the neocons have been plotting a war with Iran for some time. They don't care if it sinks Trump's presidency. They have no loyalty to him only condescension.

Hopefully Trump learns from this near miss of a catastrophe for his presidency. But he has seemed weak and indecisive on these matters all along. He never fought back for example with all the tools at his disposal against the attempted coup by law enforcement & the intelligence agencies.

All he did was constantly tweet witch hunt. He's once again delegated it to Barr after Sessions sat on it.

He allowed Pompeo & Bolton to bring on fellow neocon Elliott Abrams who previously screwed up in Nicaragua to attempt another regime change in Venezuela, which has been another botched example of how everything that the neocons touch turns to shit.

Yet as Tucker notes in his segment yesterday the neocons are "bureaucratic tapeworms" that some how manage to survive failure after failure with the same regime change prescriptions. Trump better wise up like right now or he can kiss his re-election goodbye.

[Jun 22, 2019] White House Pushes 'Trump Pulled Back' Story - He Likely Never Approved To Strike Iran

Jun 22, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

J Swift , Jun 21, 2019 10:32:42 AM | 59

The fact that the transponder was turned off is important because it essentially confirms that the drone was intended to "stray" into Iranian airspace from the get-go. Basically, it would ensure that Teheran would be certain this was a military aircraft (a civilian aircraft doesn't just turn its transponder on and off at a whim), and would make it much more difficult for any civilian radars in the area to be able to confirm the exact position of the drone, such that it would always be a case of arguing whose military radar telemetry was truthful. It was intended to be at least targeted, further proven by the P8 shadowing it to pinpoint Iranian radar/launch sites. The whole operation was almost certainly to bait the Iranians into at least an attempted shoot down, while laying all the groundwork for a very limited and targeted (but mainly, face saving) response from Trump.

If you look at Korea and Syria, and even Trump's prior business dealings, it is pretty clear his "art of the deal" is to let your opponent commit themselves, then act crazy and reckless and use every dirty trick to put the opponent in a bind, then try to make a new deal more favorable to himself. The limited strike stuff worked in Syria because Russia encouraged Syria to look at the long game, and that they were really turning the corner and getting the upper hand, so "taking" a harmless strike or two would not change that, whereas goading the US into a more serious campaign could indeed be pretty devastating for Syria at that time. Trump obviously loved that deal, and after deeming that he'd maximized the PR from it, even wanted to get out of Syria before anyone noticed he hadn't really changed anything or defeated anyone. Unfortunately his financiers instructed him that he needed to stay, and he wasn't strong enough to challenge them.

But with Iran, it's different. The status quo is unacceptable to them, and they know they hold the world's economy by its oily balls. The US has already gone too far, and Iran sees nothing in it for them to accept a "limited" strike to allow Trump to save face. To the contrary, that would only serve to solidify the status quo, which Iran cannot do. The PomBolSkal faction most likely ordered the latest tanker operation, but one charge fell off prior to detonation, the ships didn't explode and sink, and the hurried efforts to manufacture "evidence" that Iran did it was so amateurish it made the Skripal business look professional. They likely ordered the drone bait operation, too, thinking they could once again play Trump into believing he could respond with a limited "Syria style" strike and look like a hero, all the while privately knowing and intending that massive escalation would be inevitable and they would finally get the war against Iran they really wanted.

Trump, though, had military school upbringing, and has shown a fair amount of respect for the military. During his campaign he surrounded himself with military figures, and his financiers permitted it as they (rightly) assumed it would increase his chances of getting elected, but quickly caused them to be replaced with their kindred spirits in PomBolSkal as soon as they could so their agenda could proceed. In this case, a major war with Iran was the goal, but in spite of Bolton and Pompeo, in particular, working hard to isolate Trump from input by the Pentagon, I have a feeling that after the faction cajoled Trump into ordering a strike, the Pentagon said enough is enough and got word to Trump in no uncertain terms that the outcome was not going to be like Syria, but was going to directly and quickly result in a massive escalation for which Trump would get the blame. I would suggest that's when Trump ordered the strike to stand down, and why some loyal to him or the Pentagon told the news media to put that story out there, unabridged, laying the groundwork for Trump to can his "advisors." Pompeo has been clearly blamed for the failure of progress in Korea, Bolton was blamed for the Venezuela fiasco, and Haskal was caught lying to trump about the Skripal affair. Trump is an opportunist and definitely does not like being embarrassed, and may use this as leverage to move those demons on out. One can only hope.

fastfreddy , Jun 21, 2019 10:59:51 AM | 66

Pomp, Haskel or Bolton - we should see one of them fired soon. Trump would surely benefit politically from the disposal of any one of these cretins. And it fits the theme of the Trump television show AND Trumps natural inclination to avoid blame and to tar others with (sh)it.

If there is no shake up in the cabinet, then we will know that Trump is not "The Decider".

Is Lindsey Graham Cracker toning down his warmongering rhetoric?

c1ue , Jun 21, 2019 11:03:39 AM | 69
It should be noted that a somewhat higher oil price is no longer a clear negative for the US economy and may, in fact, by positive.
In the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s - oil prices rising would decrease US economic activity because most of the oil was imported.
Today, that is no longer true.
While higher oil prices costs consumers more, as before, today shale oil extraction means higher oil prices also translates into higher revenues for US businesses instead of cash being sent abroad. More jobs, more equipment orders, more shipping internally, etc.
The US had a multi-decade record low in oil imports in February - 175,000 barrels per day net imports (October 2018 through March 2019, excepting February, averaged a bit over 1M bpd) vs. roughly 20.5M bpd consumption.
To compare: US net imports in January 1981 averaged 6.27M bpd vs. roughly 16.5M bpd consumed per day.
So every $1 increase in oil price translates to $7B injected into domestic US oil industry, in turn converts some significant multiplier of US GDP to offset the potential reduction in consumer disposable income spend in areas excluding oil/gasoline costs. Arguably shale oil has a higher multiplier because it requires so much more exploration, drilling, transport and technology than "conventional" very large deposit oil.
In contrast, imported oil has pretty much no multiplier - a little for banks and international shipping, but not much.
This is what I mean when I say that the US is the least affected by a potential interruption in Persian Gulf oil, and potentially could positively benefit.
Oscar Peterson , Jun 21, 2019 11:11:14 AM | 71
"The easiest way out for Trump is to abolish sanctions against Iran. He at least should issue waivers for China and others to allow them to again buy Iranian oil."

Yes, but that's not actually easy, and it's very unlikely Trump will do it. Remember how even Obama was kept on the defensive by our warmongering MSM wailing about the violation of his supposed "red lines?"

And Trump is much less disposed to change course when events have proved him wrong.

I'd say the likelihood of some short of shooting war/conflict is well over 50%.

Trump wants to avoid war if possible but won't eat all the words he's spoken in the last two years. Adelson, Bolton et al probably want war, though how they want that war to unfold is another question. Iran is trying to thread the needle. It needs enough conflict to create more energy havoc. Some sort of shooting beyond drones will probably be required for that.

[Jun 22, 2019] US Empire faces a growing international coalition against its actions, which results from sentiments made at the rather many recent international conferences that have already occurred in June that will be topped by G-20 in 8 days.

Notable quotes:
"... That admission along with the stark mostly unreported economic realities of any armed conflict in the Gulf region is what restrains the war mongers. The Money Power and the Current Oligarchy won't allow war is what I see. And that makes this Friday morning pleasant despite the fog. ..."
"... The risks are just too great (for what the US public is prepared to accept). And we've just seen it happen again. They might be able to screw themselves up to go through with it, and accept the losses and stalemate that will come, but it will do no good at all for Trump's re-election chances. ..."
"... Netanyahu has reiterated his desire for war with Iran -- a war that the US will fight–and is meeting with his Arab allies to help bring it about. As Ha'aretz described Netanyahu's Iran dilemma last month, the goal is to get Trump to go to war without putting Israel on the front line. ..."
"... Listen to this horse manure coming from Brain Hook, "special" representative for Iran: "According to him, Washington was doing everything possible to defuse tensions with Iran and return the containment system in the region. ..."
"... The Zionists are smack dab in the middle of the front line with a massive crosshairs imprinted on their entirety. Occupied Palestine sits at Ground Zero, and it seems that the Zionists are finally waking up to the ultimate betrayal they'll experience at the hands of The Christian Rapturists -- they are to be Genocided in the pursuit of attempting to make a myth come to life. ..."
"... Watch the brilliant George Galloway on the consequences of war with Iran. Bottom line: only hardline Likudniks and FDD Likud USA types would approve such a disastrous move. ..."
"... If America attacks and destroys Iran after doing the same to Iraq, Palestine, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, and Lebanon, the Islamic religion should semi-officially adopt anti-Americanism until the Empire falls, and it would be totally deserved. If we all go in, let us get a good thrashing. ..."
"... It is true that Trump needs to fire acting President Bolton. Bolton who was appointed to the NSA by Sheldon Adelson, the Israeli/American oligarch, will not allow Trump to fire Bolton; otherwise, he loses millions of $$$$. The pressure is also from Adelson and his neocon ilk. ..."
"... Iran is a big country, and won't be defeated unless the people are ready to abandon the regime. They aren't as far as I can detect. The exiles, and the middle class in Iran, hate the regime. I've just had a lot of that poured into my ears, during my visit to Iran a month ago. The popular feeling though doesn't seem to have abandoned the regime. I think we can expect a nationalist resistance, if indeed Trump does attack Iran. ..."
"... China has been complying with US sanctions on Iran, for example this article notes that China stopped buying oil from Iran . US direct trade with Iran isn't so much as issue as the US stopping Europe and China from trading with Iran. ..."
Jun 22, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 , Jun 21, 2019 12:01:59 PM | 86

The most important Item I've read so far this morning is this report on the Ufa, Russia Security Conference that was attended by both Iranian and Outlaw US Empire officials. The entire article requires reading, but this is the most relevant excerpt that has some links in the original I won't duplicate:

"Given current global events, the most significant attendees in Ufa are a senior US National Security Council member and the Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), Ali Shamkhani.

As of now, the only official news comes from Ali Shamkhani's words concerning the possibility of mediation with the US and the possibility of Iran acquiring weapons systems to fend off US threats. Shamkhani stated:

"'We currently face demonstrative threats. Nevertheless, when it comes to air defense of our country, we consider using the foreign potential in addition to our domestic capacities Mediation is out of question in the current situation. The United States has unilaterally withdrawn from the JCPOA, it has flouted its obligations and it has introduced illegal sanctions against Iran. The United States should return to the starting point and correct its own mistakes. This process needs no mediation.'

"'This [gradually boosting of uranium enrichment and heavy water production beyond the levels outlined in the JCPOA] is a serious decision of the Islamic Republic [of Iran] and we will continue doing it step by step until JCPOA violators move toward agreement and return to fulfilling their obligations. [If JCPOA participants do not comply with the deal, Iran will be reducing its commitments] step by step within legal mechanisms that the JCPOA envisions.'"

It was noted by b that the Outlaw US Empire faces a growing international coalition against its actions, which results from sentiments made at the rather many recent international conferences that have already occurred in June that will be topped by G-20 in 8 days.

That admission along with the stark mostly unreported economic realities of any armed conflict in the Gulf region is what restrains the war mongers. The Money Power and the Current Oligarchy won't allow war is what I see. And that makes this Friday morning pleasant despite the fog.

Laguerre , Jun 21, 2019 12:05:23 PM | 88

Posted by: Anon | Jun 21, 2019 8:04:55 AM | 29 (boring that it's yet another Anon, who can't be bothered to distinguish himself all from the other thousands of Anons)
the stage is now maximum restraint and effort at co-operation, which Iran will be expected to respect. That means one more act against US (or false flag by US) and strikes will occur. Not comparable to hostage crisis, here US is projecting being reasonable, even if you read that as being weak.
It's not me who reading the US as weak. It will be the attitude of the Iranians, who haven't forgotten the US failure in 1980 (April 24, 1980), as opposed to the US public for whom it is so many crises ago that they've forgotten. And the Iranians are right.

Trump hesitated, as every previous attempt to launch a strike on Iran has finished finally in a stand-down.

The risks are just too great (for what the US public is prepared to accept). And we've just seen it happen again. They might be able to screw themselves up to go through with it, and accept the losses and stalemate that will come, but it will do no good at all for Trump's re-election chances.

Mikael Kallavuo , Jun 21, 2019 12:19:06 PM | 91 jsb , Jun 21, 2019 12:20:15 PM | 92
Well it looks like Elijah Magnier has finally written the piece he was hinting at releasing yesterday. Here it is:
Iran is pushing US President Donald Trump to the edge of the abyss, raising the level of tensions to new heights in the Middle East. After the sabotage of four tankers at al-Fujairah and the attack on the Aramco pipeline a month ago, and last week's attack on two tankers in the Gulf of Oman, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC – now categorized by the USA as a terrorist body) yesterday shot down a US Navy drone, sending two clear messages. The first message is that Iran is ready for an all-out war, no matter what the consequences. The second message is that Iran is aware that the US President has cornered himself; the embarrassing attack came a week after Trump launched his electoral campaign.

According to well-informed sources, Iran rejected a proposal by US intelligence – made via a third party – that Trump be allowed to bomb one, two or three clear objectives, to be chosen by Iran, so that both countries could appear to come out as winners and Trump could save face. Iran categorically rejected the offer and sent its reply: even an attack against an empty sandy beach in Iran would trigger a missile launch against US objectives in the Gulf.

...

Moreover, Iran has established a joint operations room to inform all its allies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Afghanistan of every step it is adopting in confronting the US in case of all-out war in the Middle East. Iran's allies have increased their level of readiness and alert to the highest level; they will participate in the war from the moment it begins if necessary. According to sources, Iran's allies will not hesitate to open fire against an already agreed on bank of objectives in a perfectly organised, orchestrated, synchronised and graduated response, anticipating a war that may last many months.

Sources confirmed that, in case of war, Iran aims to stop the flow of oil from the Middle East completely, not by targeting tankers but by hitting the sources of oil in every single Middle Eastern country, whether these countries are considered allies or enemies. The objective will be to cease all oil exports from the Middle East to the rest of the world.

...

Iran's economy is under attack by Trump's embargo on Iranian oil exports. Trump refuses to lift the embargo and wants to negotiate first. Trump, unlike Israel and the hawks in his administration, is trying to avoid a shooting war. Netanyahu has reiterated his desire for war with Iran -- a war that the US will fight–and is meeting with his Arab allies to help bring it about. As Ha'aretz described Netanyahu's Iran dilemma last month, the goal is to get Trump to go to war without putting Israel on the front line.

b , Jun 21, 2019 1:23:18 PM | 107
Trump just confirmed my hunch that there was no final decision to strike.
Meet the Press @MeetThePress - 16:50 UTC - 21 Jun 2019

EXCLUSIVE: In an exclusive interview with Chuck Todd, President Donald Trump says he hadn't given final approval to Iran strikes, no planes were in the air.

Also Elijah Magnier's piece is out:

Iran and Trump on the edge of the abyss

The first message is that Iran is ready for an all-out war, no matter what the consequences. The second message is that Iran is aware that the US President has cornered himself; the embarrassing attack came a week after Trump launched his electoral campaign. According to well-informed sources, Iran rejected a proposal by US intelligence – made via a third party – that Trump be allowed to bomb one or two clear objectives, to be chosen by Iran, so that both countries could appear to come out as winners and Trump could save face. Iran categorically rejected the offer and sent its reply: even an attack against an empty sandy beach in Iran would trigger a missile launch against US objectives in the Gulf.
...
Iran has established a joint operations room to inform all its allies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Afghanistan of every step it is adopting in confronting the US in case of all-out war in the Middle East. Iran's allies have increased their level of readiness and alert to the highest level; they will participate in the war from the moment it begins if necessary. According to sources, Iran's allies will not hesitate to open fire against an already agreed on bank of objectives in a perfectly organised, orchestrated, synchronised and graduated response, anticipating a war that may last many months.
...
Sources confirmed that, in case of war, Iran aims to stop the flow of oil from the Middle East completely, not by targeting tankers but by hitting the sources of oil in every single Middle Eastern country, whether these countries are considered allies or enemies. The objective will be to cease all oil exports from the Middle East to the rest of the world.

The NYT reports that the CentCom claim that the drone was in international airspace is in doubt: Trump Stopped Strike on Iran Because It Was 'Not Proportionate'

Still, there remained doubt inside the United States government over whether the drone, or another American surveillance aircraft, this one flown by a military aircrew, did violate Iranian airspace at some point, according to a senior administration official.
..
The delay by United States Central Command in publicly releasing GPS coordinates of the drone when it was shot down -- hours after Iran did -- and errors in the labeling of the drone's flight path when the imagery was released, contributed to that doubt, officials said.

A lack of provable "hard evidence" about the location of the drone when it was hit, a defense official said, put the administration in an isolated position at what could easily end up being the start of yet another war with a Middle East adversary -- this one with a proven ability to strike back.

Laguerre , Jun 21, 2019 1:29:48 PM | 109
b, how can you believe any of Trump's versions? I can't see that one is more trustworthy than another
Uncle Jon , Jun 21, 2019 2:53:41 PM | 131
Listen to this horse manure coming from Brain Hook, "special" representative for Iran: "According to him, Washington was doing everything possible to defuse tensions with Iran and return the containment system in the region.

However, Hook blamed Tehran for rising tension in the region because of the refusal of any diplomatic initiatives.

"Our diplomacy does not give Iran the right to respond with military force. Iran needs to meet diplomacy with diplomacy, not military force," the envoy added."

Diplomacy needs to be met with diplomacy......Really???

Iran should impose sanctions on all of SA, UAE and US oil exports. How's that for diplomacy Mr. Hook? In case you missed it that is exactly what they are doing. Meeting your brand of diplomacy head on.

We are living in the realm of absurd. How is it that we have left the welfare of our kids, families and the future of our country in the hands of these incompetent morons?

And why is the rest of the world sitting with their popcorn watching this horror show?

karlof1 , Jun 21, 2019 2:58:26 PM | 132
h @124--

After reading the wiki item on P-8s having a normal crew of 7, I got to thinking about the 35 number either being a botched translation or how many bodies were noted via thermal imaging radar, something I doubt Iran was thought to possess. As I wrote, Iran can see everything to its West, which is a very BigDeal.

I digested Magnier's latest. The following is an extremely important point:

"Ha'aretz described Netanyahu's Iran dilemma last month, the goal is to get Trump to go to war without putting Israel on the front line ."

Except that is an impossibility. The Zionists are smack dab in the middle of the front line with a massive crosshairs imprinted on their entirety. Occupied Palestine sits at Ground Zero, and it seems that the Zionists are finally waking up to the ultimate betrayal they'll experience at the hands of The Christian Rapturists -- they are to be Genocided in the pursuit of attempting to make a myth come to life.

Every writer, Magnier, b, Escobar, and most all barflies, etc, are saying the decision lies with Trump. As I've written before and again above, I disagree. The decision to go to war with Iran rests with the Current Oligarchy running the Outlaw US Empire. And it's my belief that such a war will not bring them A Few Dollars More and instead make their Fistful of Dollars evaporate rapidly. thanks to their great outstanding, naked, risks. For perhaps the very first time, the Current Oligarchy is exposed to the risks involved in a war it initially though it could win. Last night, it seemed to awaken to the potential consequences and blinked. The Philadelphia refinery blast may be shear coincidence or not, but it also has likely helped since its right down the street from the Current Oligarchies penthouses.

Now, it's just about the time of day when the Houthis launch their attacks.

Blooming Barricade , Jun 21, 2019 4:14:14 PM | 155
Watch the brilliant George Galloway on the consequences of war with Iran. Bottom line: only hardline Likudniks and FDD Likud USA types would approve such a disastrous move.

If America attacks and destroys Iran after doing the same to Iraq, Palestine, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, and Lebanon, the Islamic religion should semi-officially adopt anti-Americanism until the Empire falls, and it would be totally deserved. If we all go in, let us get a good thrashing.
_____

George Galloway has warned the US and its allies in the Gulf that if they were to start "World War III" with an attack on Iran they will live to regret it because, unlike Iraq in 2003, they are capable of fighting back.

The Scottish firebrand, who famously took US lawmakers to task over the Iraq war when he testified in front of the senate in 2005, has given his take on the recent ratcheting-up of tension in the Gulf region after Iran shot down a US drone, which, it says, had entered its airspace.

Washington maintains its UAV was shot down while patrolling over international waters in an "unprovoked attack." On Friday President Donald Trump took to Twitter to claim the US were 10 minutes away from bombing three Iranian sites, before calling off the strikes.

Galloway believes that many Iranians would see it as a great "pleasure to fight the United States and its allies in the region."

In a stark warning to US allies such as Qatar, the UAE and Saudia Arabia, Galloway insisted that any country that allows "its land to be used for the launching for an American attack on Iran will itself be immediately in flames."

The former Labour MP concludes his passionate message to the world by declaring: "No more war. No more war in the Gulf. No war on Iran."

https://youtu.be/ejvTPVvj_IE

El Cid , Jun 21, 2019 4:36:44 PM | 160
It is true that Trump needs to fire acting President Bolton. Bolton who was appointed to the NSA by Sheldon Adelson, the Israeli/American oligarch, will not allow Trump to fire Bolton; otherwise, he loses millions of $$$$. The pressure is also from Adelson and his neocon ilk.
Laguerre , Jun 21, 2019 4:40:29 PM | 163
I don't think my opinion has changed. There've been several cases where they've been about to attack Iran, but then have drawn back. Spring 2018 (Israel), 2012, even the event of 1980, where they tried but failed. Trump's aborted attack is just another case.

Iran is a big country, and won't be defeated unless the people are ready to abandon the regime. They aren't as far as I can detect. The exiles, and the middle class in Iran, hate the regime. I've just had a lot of that poured into my ears, during my visit to Iran a month ago. The popular feeling though doesn't seem to have abandoned the regime. I think we can expect a nationalist resistance, if indeed Trump does attack Iran.

c1ue , Jun 21, 2019 4:54:59 PM | 165
@Oscar Peterson #151

China has been complying with US sanctions on Iran, for example this article notes that China stopped buying oil from Iran . US direct trade with Iran isn't so much as issue as the US stopping Europe and China from trading with Iran.

[Jun 22, 2019] Russia Will Help Iran With Oil, Banking If Europe's SPV Payment Channel Not Launched

Notable quotes:
"... Europe is being clobbered by the USA on multiple fronts - at little cost to the USA: 1- Russian sanctions; 2- Oil - sanctioning Iran raises oil price and risks a blowout of prices; 3- Gas - sanctioning companies working on Russian gas and pipelines ..."
"... It's about the financial derivatives Iran, the derivatives.. The Europeans, even if they desired honesty, are shackled by their financial shenanigans.. One bad move on their part, and the Potemkin contraption collapses, wiping out the western 1%. They're trapped, and unlike before, war is a lose for them and why? ..."
Jun 22, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

...Russia on Friday announced it was ready to help Iran export its crude and ease restrictions on its banking system if Europe fails to launch its dollar-evading SPV, Instex (Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges) with Tehran, according to Interfax and PressTV .

The three European signatories to the 2015 nuclear agreement, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), unveiled late in January the direct non-dollar payment mechanism meant to safeguard their trade ties with Tehran following the US withdrawal from the nuclear deal and in the face of the "toughest ever" sanctions imposed by the United States against the Islamic Republic. In its initial stage, INSTEX would facilitate trade of humanitarian goods such as medicine, food and medical devices, but it will later be expanded to cover other areas of trade, including Iran's oil sales.

However, it has not resulted in any trade deals so far. In late May, the US threatened Europe with " loss of access to the US financial system " if it rolled out the SWIFT-evading SPV, which appears to have crushed Europe's enthusiasm to pursue alternative financial transactions with Tehran, forcing it to conceded to Washington (again).

Earlier this month, Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Abbas Moussavi said European governments have failed to meet their expectations in implementing INSTEX to protect the JCPOA, criticizing their "lack of will" to deal with America's pressure against Tehran.

marcel tjoeng , 4 hours ago link

What this means is, China will have access to a lot cheaper oil than western market prices, including to the hilt subsidized, with colossal hidden losses, US shale oil. Well done Trump. The Tariffs, Americuhns are the ones paying for those as well. Imbeciles.

TigerK , 8 hours ago link

We are seeing a return to "Gun Boat Diplomacy"... Even THAT will not work.. ultimately. Brinkmanship, of this order reveals a Disturbed mind.. the US criminal elite psyche.. Or as Jidu KrishnaMurti said so aptly..The constant assertion of belief is an indication of fear.

The USA continues to publicize its belief.. that it is the viral of democracy.. And leader of the Free World. Hollow words.. which it will be forced to eat.. before too long. That time of confrontation.. is Not Far OFF !! This desperation is that of a deranged mind.. that is going down the tube.. breaking down.. A society in free fall..

Ms No , 10 hours ago link

This is exactly how it will always work out when psychopaths are in charge because normal society doesnt manage them.They come from all backgrounds but some genetic varieties of people seem to have YUGE problems with it. I also believe inbreeding has a role.

ExPat2018 , 11 hours ago link

Necessity is the mother of invention. The USA is helping by making people inventors

Nassim , 12 hours ago link

Europe is being clobbered by the USA on multiple fronts - at little cost to the USA: 1- Russian sanctions; 2- Oil - sanctioning Iran raises oil price and risks a blowout of prices; 3- Gas - sanctioning companies working on Russian gas and pipelines

Mat Cauthon , 13 hours ago link

Of course China will follow. Russia's SPFS is already in planning to be alongside China's CIPS for the Silk Road 2.0.

costa ludus , 13 hours ago link

It's not the actual physical oil Russia is helping Iran with, numbnuts -- it is brokering and facilitating the sale of oil without having the Jewish shysters in London and NY involved - the same reason the Chinese set up their own oil bourse.

SoDamnMad , 12 hours ago link

Costa. People don't understand the system. The Brits bad mouthed Russia over the Novichok false flag incident last winter and jumped on the sanction crap. But they gladly accepted a load of LNG from a Rotterdam energy broker to keep their asses from freezing. It was Yamal LNG from RUSSIA. Brokers take the energy (including world-wide trades) and sell it off taking a small bit from each "barrel"as their profit.

stuvian , 14 hours ago link

To succeed in establishing an alternative to SWIFT there will need to be a critical mass of nations buying in

madashellron , 15 hours ago link

I'm sure the Iranians already know this. The EU is just an extension of US power. They were never serious about allowing the free flow of trade with the Iranians. One must get rid of the EU if a real Peace plan with Iran is to take place. But this will never happen under Trump.

madashellron , 15 hours ago link

Russia to the rescue again, and again and again and again...

Brazen Heist II , 16 hours ago link

European politicians are cucks bribed to the teeth by the evil empire to toe the Zionist line. Europe is all but an emasculated world power. Pathetic. Kick US forces out and take a ******* stand against all this ******** America is stirring on Europe's doorstep. Refugees, terrorism, bad relations with Russia....all thanks to the Anglo Zionists. Europeans keep taking it. The Marshall Plan guilt-trip is working well.

John Hansen , 11 hours ago link

Lets face a fact, the US government has been occupying Europe and Japan militarily since the end of WWII. They aren't so much allies as vassals.

Ms No , 10 hours ago link

True but the Zionist banker noghtmare spread to the US from the British empire, so Europe has been perpetually screwed, thus all the world wars that took place there, etc.

Flash007 , 9 hours ago link

Psychopaths and parasites are "smart" at ******* over others, (((da juice))) are masters at it.

ILikeMeat , 10 hours ago link

Europe is not a power, it is an artificial construction with no real leadership.No military to back its decisions and a bunch of feminists and homos that make up its culturally diverse parliaments. European women act like men and the men act like women. There is no fight left in Europe..

messystateofaffairs , 16 hours ago link

China and Russia need to preserve Iran for the BRI which is the lifeline for everyone who has had a belllyfull of JewSA ********. China and Russia will facilitate Iranian trade and Iranian nuclear ICBM peacemakers will soon follow.

Cassandra.Hermes , 16 hours ago link

Trump is loosing, he scares Europeans and Turks but don't let be fooled, Americans are not allowed near Iranian border of Turkey, why do you think is that restriction?

Wahooo , 13 hours ago link

Because gold and oil are two of Turkey's main exports.

Scipio Africanuz , 16 hours ago link

It's about the financial derivatives Iran, the derivatives.. The Europeans, even if they desired honesty, are shackled by their financial shenanigans.. One bad move on their part, and the Potemkin contraption collapses, wiping out the western 1%. They're trapped, and unlike before, war is a lose for them and why?

Because the kinetic advantage is no longer with them, it's now in the East. Nevertheless, their innocent youth can still be salvaged, provided they desire salvage. No more impunity without retribution, cheers...

Thordoom , 16 hours ago link

So India stop importing Iranian oil in order to buy the same oil from Russia for much more since thy where buying that same oil from Iran at great discount. India looks to Russian crude as Iranian imports crash

https://www.rt.com/business/462396-india-russia-oil-supplies/

SoDamnMad , 12 hours ago link

Trump told Modi he would drop tariffs on Indian IT work unless they towed the line. Modi folded.

alexcojones , 17 hours ago link

Good old Vlad, Mr. Putin being a statesman again.Wish we had some of those in "our" country, said this old US veteran

johand inmywallet , 17 hours ago link

No country will win WWIII, everyone will lose.

Brazen Heist II , 16 hours ago link

Some deluded folks still think they have a first strike advantage. LOL No really, we can win this if you "trust" me.

[Jun 22, 2019] Who Survives The Iran Counter-Offensive

Notable quotes:
"... Trump is right that he can afford to be patient and now re-frame this as him being the magnanimous God-Emperor but what he's really doing is talking capital markets off a cliff. ..."
"... Because that's where the U.S. is the most vulnerable and where Iran's greatest leverage lies. This incident should have sent oil prices far higher than they did if the threat of war was real. ..."
"... Why? Because the markets discounted the U.S.'s stories immediately. There have been so many incidents like this that should have started a war in the past three years which turn out to be bogus that the market reaction was muted, at best. ..."
"... As Pepe Escobar lays out convincingly in his latest article, Iran's threats against global oil shipping aren't aimed at disrupting the global economy per se. There's plenty of oil stored in Strategic Reserves around the world to keep things operating during any U.S. military operation to destroy Iran's navy (which wouldn't take very long) and open the strait to oil traffic. ..."
"... It is that a disruption in the price of oil will force the unwinding of trillions in interest rate swap derivatives already at risk because of the tenuous hold on reality Deutsche Bank has, since DB clears a super-majority of all such derivative contracts for the whole of Europe. ..."
"... Last week I asked whether Trump's "B-Team" overplayed their hand in the Gulf of Oman , staging a potential false flag over some oil tankers to stop peace breaking out and arrest the slide in oil prices. Today everyone wants to think Iran overplayed its hand by attacking this drone. But given the amount mendacity and the motivations of the people involved, I'd say that it was yet another attempt by the enemies of peace to push us to the brink of a world war in which nothing good comes of it. ..."
Jun 22, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Tom Luongo,

Iran has had enough. I think it's fair to say that after 60+ years of U.S. aggression towards Iran that the decision to shoot down a U.S. drone represents an inflection point in world politics.

In the first few hours after the incident the fog of war was thick. But a day later much of it has cleared thanks to Iran's purposeful poke at U.S. leadership by coming clean with their intentions.

Iran chose to shoot down this drone versus hitting the manned P-8 aircraft and then chose not to lie about it in public, but rather come forward removing any deniability they could have had.

me title=

They did this after President Trump's comments yesterday during a news conference with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau where Trump described the attack as "a big mistake" and "not intentional."

But it was intentional.

And the reason for this was that despite Trump's assurances yesterday there is considerable debate as to where the drone actually was. According to a report from the NY Times (and buried deep in a very long article):

Still, there remained doubt inside the United States government over whether the drone, or another American surveillance aircraft, this one flown by a military aircrew, did violate Iranian airspace at some point, according to a senior administration official. The official said the doubt was one of the reasons Mr. Trump called off the strike -- which could under international norms be viewed as an act of war.

The delay by United States Central Command in publicly releasing GPS coordinates of the drone when it was shot down -- hours after Iran did -- and errors in the labeling of the drone's flight path when the imagery was released, contributed to that doubt, officials said.

A lack of provable "hard evidence" about the location of the drone when it was hit, a defense official said, put the administration in an isolated position at what could easily end up being the start of yet another war with a Middle East adversary -- this one with a proven ability to strike back.

This means a couple of things. First, it is likely that Trump was not properly briefed on the issue by his National Security Council, who were pushing him to strike back hard and who are itching to get the U.S. into an armed conflict with Iran.

Framing the attack as a mistake Trump was handing Iran the opportunity to de-escalate things. To me, this signaled that Trump was told through back channels this was an operation designed by us to put Iran in a no-win situation -- either allow encroachment of their airspace or shoot down a drone that would land in international waters.

Moreover, doubts as to the drone's position, remember, with a plane carrying actual ordnance on its wing, put Trump in a real bind.

And he knew it at the presser. That's the way Trump tried to frame this the way he did. Because the implications here are that he is being boxed in on all sides by his administration and his allies -- the Saudis, Israelis and the UAE -- and frogmarched to a war he doesn't want.

He wants Iran to heel but he doesn't know how to go about it.

That Iran then chose the next day to openly declare that they were not confused or misled and knew exactly what they were doing puts Trump in an even worse position.

Because an unmanned drone, as he said in his futile tweetstorm, is not worth going to war over, especially one whose position in in dispute.

And everyone knows it. Europe wouldn't condemn Iran here. No one did. Only the U.S. And that silence is deafening as Pompeo, Bolton and Haspel again over-extend themselves.

Trump is right that he can afford to be patient and now re-frame this as him being the magnanimous God-Emperor but what he's really doing is talking capital markets off a cliff.

Because that's where the U.S. is the most vulnerable and where Iran's greatest leverage lies. This incident should have sent oil prices far higher than they did if the threat of war was real.

Why? Because the markets discounted the U.S.'s stories immediately. There have been so many incidents like this that should have started a war in the past three years which turn out to be bogus that the market reaction was muted, at best.

It also tells you just how quickly the global economy is slowing down if a major military incident between Iran and the U.S. near the Strait of Hormuz only pushed the price of Brent Crude up to fill the gap on the weekly chart and confirm the recent low.

... ... ...

As Pepe Escobar lays out convincingly in his latest article, Iran's threats against global oil shipping aren't aimed at disrupting the global economy per se. There's plenty of oil stored in Strategic Reserves around the world to keep things operating during any U.S. military operation to destroy Iran's navy (which wouldn't take very long) and open the strait to oil traffic.

It is that a disruption in the price of oil will force the unwinding of trillions in interest rate swap derivatives already at risk because of the tenuous hold on reality Deutsche Bank has, since DB clears a super-majority of all such derivative contracts for the whole of Europe.

No one wants to see $300 per barrel oil. That Goldman Sachs is posting potential targets of $1000 per barrel tells you where they are positioning themselves, as if they know something? Goldman? Have insider knowledge?

Please! It is to laugh.

What we are looking at here is the ultimate game of brinkmanship. Trump is saying his maximum pressure campaign will break Iran in the end and if they go one step further (which they won't directly) he will eliminate them.

Iran, on the other hand, is stating categorically that if Trump doesn't allow Iran to trade than no one will. And that threat is a real one, given their regional influence. Incalculable financial and political damage can be done by Iran and its proxies around the region through attacks on oil and gas infrastructure. Governments will fall, markets will collapse. And no one gets out without scars.

It's the kind of stand-off that needs to end with everyone walking away and regrouping but is unlikely to do so because of entrenched interests on both sides and the historical grudges of the men involved.

What's important is to know that the rules of the game have changed. Iran has taken all the punches to the nose it will take from Trump without retaliating. When you corner someone and give them no way out you invite the worst kind of counter-attack.

Last week I asked whether Trump's "B-Team" overplayed their hand in the Gulf of Oman , staging a potential false flag over some oil tankers to stop peace breaking out and arrest the slide in oil prices. Today everyone wants to think Iran overplayed its hand by attacking this drone. But given the amount mendacity and the motivations of the people involved, I'd say that it was yet another attempt by the enemies of peace to push us to the brink of a world war in which nothing good comes of it.

I give Trump a lot of credit here for not falling into the trap set for him. He now has to begin removing those responsible for this quagmire and I'm sure that will be on the docket when he meets with Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping next week at the G-20.

It starts with John Bolton and it ends with Mike Pompeo.

And if he doesn't replace them in the next six to eight weeks then we know Trump isn't serious about keeping us out of war. He's just interested in doing so until he gets re-elected

[Jun 22, 2019] this report on the Ufa, Russia Security Conference by both Iranian and Outlaw US Empire officials. The entire article requires reading, but this is the most relevant excerpt that has some links in the original I won't duplicate:

Jun 22, 2019 | www.strategic-culture.org

"Given current global events, the most significant attendees in Ufa are a senior US National Security Council member and the Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), Ali Shamkhani. As of now, the only official news comes from Ali Shamkhani's words concerning the possibility of mediation with the US and the possibility of Iran acquiring weapons systems to fend off US threats. Shamkhani stated:

"'We currently face demonstrative threats. Nevertheless, when it comes to air defense of our country, we consider using the foreign potential in addition to our domestic capacities Mediation is out of question in the current situation. The United States has unilaterally withdrawn from the JCPOA, it has flouted its obligations and it has introduced illegal sanctions against Iran. The United States should return to the starting point and correct its own mistakes. This process needs no mediation.'

"'This [gradually boosting of uranium enrichment and heavy water production beyond the levels outlined in the JCPOA] is a serious decision of the Islamic Republic [of Iran] and we will continue doing it step by step until JCPOA violators move toward agreement and return to fulfilling their obligations. [If JCPOA participants do not comply with the deal, Iran will be reducing its commitments] step by step within legal mechanisms that the JCPOA envisions.'"

It was noted by b that the Outlaw US Empire faces a growing international coalition against its actions, which results from sentiments made at the rather many recent international conferences that have already occurred in June that will be topped by G-20 in 8 days. That admission along with the stark mostly unreported economic realities of any armed conflict in the Gulf region is what restrains the war mongers. The Money Power and the Current Oligarchy won't allow war is what I see. And that makes this Friday morning pleasant despite the fog.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 21, 2019 12:01:59 PM | 86

Posted by: Anon | Jun 21, 2019 8:04:55 AM | 29 (boring that it's yet another Anon, who can't be bothered to distinguish himself all from the other thousands of Anons)
the stage is now maximum restraint and effort at co-operation, which Iran will be expected to respect. That means one more act against US (or false flag by US) and strikes will occur. Not comparable to hostage crisis, here US is projecting being reasonable, even if you read that as being weak.
It's not me who reading the US as weak. It will be the attitude of the Iranians, who haven't forgotten the US failure in 1980 (April 24, 1980), as opposed to the US public for whom it is so many crises ago that they've forgotten. And the Iranians are right. Trump hesitated, as every previous attempt to launch a strike on Iran has finished finally in a stand-down. The risks are just too great (for what the US public is prepared to accept). And we've just seen it happen again. They might be able to screw themselves up to go through with it, and accept the losses and stalemate that will come, but it will do no good at all for Trump's re-election chances.

Posted by: Laguerre | Jun 21, 2019 12:05:23 PM | 88

Posted by: Mikael Kallavuo | Jun 21, 2019 12:19:06 PM | 91 Well it looks like Elijah Magnier has finally written the piece he was hinting at releasing yesterday. Here it is:


Iran is pushing US President Donald Trump to the edge of the abyss, raising the level of tensions to new heights in the Middle East. After the sabotage of four tankers at al-Fujairah and the attack on the Aramco pipeline a month ago, and last week's attack on two tankers in the Gulf of Oman, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC – now categorized by the USA as a terrorist body) yesterday shot down a US Navy drone, sending two clear messages. The first message is that Iran is ready for an all-out war, no matter what the consequences. The second message is that Iran is aware that the US President has cornered himself; the embarrassing attack came a week after Trump launched his electoral campaign.

According to well-informed sources, Iran rejected a proposal by US intelligence – made via a third party – that Trump be allowed to bomb one, two or three clear objectives, to be chosen by Iran, so that both countries could appear to come out as winners and Trump could save face. Iran categorically rejected the offer and sent its reply: even an attack against an empty sandy beach in Iran would trigger a missile launch against US objectives in the Gulf.

...

Moreover, Iran has established a joint operations room to inform all its allies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Afghanistan of every step it is adopting in confronting the US in case of all-out war in the Middle East. Iran's allies have increased their level of readiness and alert to the highest level; they will participate in the war from the moment it begins if necessary. According to sources, Iran's allies will not hesitate to open fire against an already agreed on bank of objectives in a perfectly organised, orchestrated, synchronised and graduated response, anticipating a war that may last many months.

Sources confirmed that, in case of war, Iran aims to stop the flow of oil from the Middle East completely, not by targeting tankers but by hitting the sources of oil in every single Middle Eastern country, whether these countries are considered allies or enemies. The objective will be to cease all oil exports from the Middle East to the rest of the world.

...

Iran's economy is under attack by Trump's embargo on Iranian oil exports. Trump refuses to lift the embargo and wants to negotiate first. Trump, unlike Israel and the hawks in his administration, is trying to avoid a shooting war. Netanyahu has reiteratedhis desire for war with Iran -- a war that the US will fight–and is meeting with his Arab allies to help bring it about. As Ha'aretz described Netanyahu's Iran dilemma last month, the goal is to get Trump to go to war without putting Israel on the front line.


Posted by: jsb | Jun 21, 2019 12:20:15 PM | 92
Trump just confirmed my hunch that there was no final decision to strike.
Meet the Press @MeetThePress - 16:50 UTC - 21 Jun 2019

EXCLUSIVE: In an exclusive interview with Chuck Todd, President Donald Trump says he hadn't given final approval to Iran strikes, no planes were in the air.

Also Elijah Magnier's piece is out:

Iran and Trump on the edge of the abyss

The first message is that Iran is ready for an all-out war, no matter what the consequences. The second message is that Iran is aware that the US President has cornered himself; the embarrassing attack came a week after Trump launched his electoral campaign. According to well-informed sources, Iran rejected a proposal by US intelligence – made via a third party – that Trump be allowed to bomb one or two clear objectives, to be chosen by Iran, so that both countries could appear to come out as winners and Trump could save face. Iran categorically rejected the offer and sent its reply: even an attack against an empty sandy beach in Iran would trigger a missile launch against US objectives in the Gulf.
...
Iran has established a joint operations room to inform all its allies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Afghanistan of every step it is adopting in confronting the US in case of all-out war in the Middle East. Iran's allies have increased their level of readiness and alert to the highest level; they will participate in the war from the moment it begins if necessary. According to sources, Iran's allies will not hesitate to open fire against an already agreed on bank of objectives in a perfectly organised, orchestrated, synchronised and graduated response, anticipating a war that may last many months.
...
Sources confirmed that, in case of war, Iran aims to stop the flow of oil from the Middle East completely, not by targeting tankers but by hitting the sources of oil in every single Middle Eastern country, whether these countries are considered allies or enemies. The objective will be to cease all oil exports from the Middle East to the rest of the world.

The NYT reports that the CentCom claim that the drone was in international airspace is in doubt:
Trump Stopped Strike on Iran Because It Was 'Not Proportionate'

Still, there remained doubt inside the United States government over whether the drone, or another American surveillance aircraft, this one flown by a military aircrew, did violate Iranian airspace at some point, according to a senior administration official.
..
The delay by United States Central Command in publicly releasing GPS coordinates of the drone when it was shot down -- hours after Iran did -- and errors in the labeling of the drone's flight path when the imagery was released, contributed to that doubt, officials said.

A lack of provable "hard evidence" about the location of the drone when it was hit, a defense official said, put the administration in an isolated position at what could easily end up being the start of yet another war with a Middle East adversary -- this one with a proven ability to strike back.


Posted by: b | Jun 21, 2019 1:23:18 PM | 107 b, how can you believe any of Trump's versions? I can't see that one is more trustworthy than another

Posted by: Laguerre | Jun 21, 2019 1:29:48 PM | 109
Listen to this horse manure coming from Brain Hook, "special" representative for Iran:

"According to him, Washington was doing everything possible to defuse tensions with Iran and return the containment system in the region.

However, Hook blamed Tehran for rising tension in the region because of the refusal of any diplomatic initiatives.

"Our diplomacy does not give Iran the right to respond with military force. Iran needs to meet diplomacy with diplomacy, not military force," the envoy added."

Diplomacy needs to be met with diplomacy......Really???

Iran should impose sanctions on all of SA, UAE and US oil exports. How's that for diplomacy Mr. Hook? In case you missed it that is exactly what they are doing. Meeting your brand of diplomacy head on.

We are living in the realm of absurd. How is it that we have left the welfare of our kids, families and the future of our country in the hands of these incompetent morons?

And why is the rest of the world sitting with their popcorn watching this horror show?

Posted by: Uncle Jon | Jun 21, 2019 2:53:41 PM | 131 h @124--

After reading the wiki item on P-8s having a normal crew of 7, I got to thinking about the 35 number either being a botched translation or how many bodies were noted via thermal imaging radar, something I doubt Iran was thought to possess. As I wrote, Iran can see everything to its West, which is a very BigDeal.

I digested Magnier's latest. The following is an extremely important point:

"Ha'aretz described Netanyahu's Iran dilemma last month, the goal is to get Trump to go to war without putting Israel on the front line ."

Except that is an impossibility. The Zionists are smack dab in the middle of the front line with a massive crosshairs imprinted on their entirety. Occupied Palestine sits at Ground Zero, and it seems that the Zionists are finally waking up to the ultimate betrayal they'll experience at the hands of The Christian Rapturists--they are to be Genocided in the pursuit of attempting to make a myth come to life.

Every writer, Magnier, b, Escobar, and most all barflies, etc, are saying the decision lies with Trump. As I've written before and again above, I disagree. The decision to go to war with Iran rests with the Current Oligarchy running the Outlaw US Empire. And it's my belief that such a war will not bring them A Few Dollars More and instead make their Fistful of Dollars evaporate rapidly. thanks to their great outstanding, naked, risks. For perhaps the very first time, the Current Oligarchy is exposed to the risks involved in a war it initially though it could win. Last night, it seemed to awaken to the potential consequences and blinked. The Philadelphia refinery blast may be shear coincidence or not, but it also has likely helped since its right down the street from the Current Oligarchies penthouses.

Now, it's just about the time of day when the Houthis launch their attacks.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 21, 2019 2:58:26 PM | 132
Watch the brilliant George Galloway on the consequences of war with Iran. Bottom line: only hardline Likudniks and FDD Likud USA types would approve such a disastrous move.

If America attacks and destroys Iran after doing the same to Iraq, Palestine, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, and Lebanon, the Islamic religion should semi-officially adopt anti-Americanism until the Empire falls, and it would be totally deserved. If we all go in, let us get a good thrashing.
_____

George Galloway has warned the US and its allies in the Gulf that if they were to start "World War III" with an attack on Iran they will live to regret it because, unlike Iraq in 2003, they are capable of fighting back.

The Scottish firebrand, who famously took US lawmakers to task over the Iraq war when he testified in front of the senate in 2005, has given his take on the recent ratcheting-up of tension in the Gulf region after Iran shot down a US drone, which, it says, had entered its airspace.

Washington maintains its UAV was shot down while patrolling over international waters in an "unprovoked attack." On Friday President Donald Trump took to Twitter to claim the US were 10 minutes away from bombing three Iranian sites, before calling off the strikes.

Galloway believes that many Iranians would see it as a great "pleasure to fight the United States and its allies in the region."

In a stark warning to US allies such as Qatar, the UAE and Saudia Arabia, Galloway insisted that any country that allows "its land to be used for the launching for an American attack on Iran will itself be immediately in flames."

The former Labour MP concludes his passionate message to the world by declaring: "No more war. No more war in the Gulf. No war on Iran."

https://youtu.be/ejvTPVvj_IE

Posted by: Blooming Barricade | Jun 21, 2019 4:14:14 PM | 155
It is true that Trump needs to fire acting President Bolton. Bolton who was appointed to the NSA by Sheldon Adelson, the Israeli/American oligarch, will not allow Trump to fire Bolton; otherwise, he loses millions of $$$$. The pressure is also from Adelson and his neocon ilk.

Posted by: El Cid | Jun 21, 2019 4:36:44 PM | 160
I don't think my opinion has changed. There've been several cases where they've been about to attack Iran, but then have drawn back. Spring 2018 (Israel), 2012, even the event of 1980, where they tried but failed. Trump's aborted attack is just another case.

Iran is a big country, and won't be defeated unless the people are ready to abandon the regime. They aren't as far as I can detect. The exiles, and the middle class in Iran, hate the regime. I've just had a lot of that poured into my ears, during my visit to Iran a month ago. The popular feeling though doesn't seem to have abandoned the regime. I think we can expect a nationalist resistance, if indeed Trump does attack Iran.

Posted by: Laguerre | Jun 21, 2019 4:40:29 PM | 163
@Oscar Peterson #151
China has been complying with US sanctions on Iran, for example this article notes that China stopped buying oil from Iran .
US direct trade with Iran isn't so much as issue as the US stopping Europe and China from trading with Iran.

Posted by: c1ue | Jun 21, 2019 4:54:59 PM | 165

[Jun 22, 2019] Why a U.S.-Iran War Could End Up Being a Historic Disaster by Doug Bandow

Highly recommended!
The current conflict is about the US hegemony in the region, not anything else.
The analysis is really good. I especially like "The Trump administration is essentially a one-trick pony when it comes to foreign policy toward hostile states. The standard quo is to apply massive economic pressure and demand surrender"
That means that Doug Bandow proposals while good are completely unrealistic.
Notable quotes:
"... Sixteen years ago, the George W. Bush administration manipulated intelligence to scare the public into backing an aggressive war against Iraq. The smoking gun mushroom clouds that National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice warned against didn’t exist, but the invasion long desired by neoconservatives and other hawks proceeded. Liberated Iraqis rejected U.S. plans to create an American puppet state on the Euphrates and the aftermath turned into a humanitarian and geopolitical catastrophe which continues to roil the Middle East. ..."
"... Now the Trump administration appears to be following the same well-worn path. The president has fixated on Iran, tearing up the nuclear accord with Tehran and declaring economic war on it—as well as anyone dealing with Iran. He is pushing America toward war even as he insists that he wants peace. How stupid does he believe we are? ..."
"... Washington did much to encourage a violent, extremist revolution in Tehran. The average Iranian could be forgiven for viewing America as a virulently hostile power determined to do his or her nation ill at almost every turn. ..."
"... The Shah was ousted in 1979. Following his departure the Reagan administration backed Iraq’s Saddam Hussein when he invaded Iran, triggering an eight-year war which killed at least half a million people. Washington reflagged Kuwaiti oil tankers to protect revenue subsequently lent to Baghdad, provided Iraq with intelligence for military operations, and supplied components for chemical weapons employed against Iranian forces. In 1988 the U.S. Navy shot down an Iranian civilian airliner in international airspace. ..."
"... Economic sanctions were first imposed on Iran in 1979 and regularly expanded thereafter. Washington forged a close military partnership with Iran’s even more repressive rival, Saudi Arabia. In the immediate aftermath of its 2003 victory over Saddam Hussein, the Bush administration rejected Iran’s offer to negotiate; neoconservatives casually suggested that “real men” would conquer Tehran as well. Even the Obama administration threatened to take military action against Iran. ..."
"... Contrary to the common assumption in Washington that average Iranians would love the United States for attempting to destroy their nation’s economy, the latest round of sanctions apparently triggered a notable rise in anti-American sentiment. Nationalism trumped anti-clericalism. ..."
"... Iran also has no desire for war, which it would lose. However, Washington’s aggressive economic and military policies create pressure on Tehran to respond. Especially since administration policy—sanctions designed to crash the economy, military moves preparing for war — almost certainly have left hardliners, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, who opposed negotiations with Washington, ascendant in Tehran. ..."
"... Europeans also point to Bush administration lies about Iraq and the fabricated 1964 Tonkin Gulf incident used to justify America’s entry into the Vietnam War. Even more important, the administration ostentatiously fomented the current crisis by trashing the JCPOA, launching economic war against Iran, threatening Tehran’s economic partners, and insisting on Iran’s submission. A cynic might reasonably conclude that the president and his aides hoped to trigger a violent Iranian response. ..."
"... Indeed, a newspaper owned by the Saudi royal family recently called for U.S. strikes on Iran. One or the reasons Al Qaeda launched the 9/11 attacks was to trigger an American military response against a Muslim nation. A U.S.-Iran war would be the mother of all Mideast conflagrations. ..."
"... In parallel, Washington should propose negotiations to lower tensions in other issues. But there truly should be no preconditions, requiring the president to consign the Pompeo list to a White House fireplace. In return for Iranian willingness to drop confrontational behavior in the region, the U.S. should offer to reciprocate—for instance, indicate a willingness to cut arms sales to the Saudis and Emiratis, end support for the Yemen war, and withdraw American forces from Syria and Iraq. ..."
"... Most important, American policymakers should play the long-game. Rather than try to crash the Islamic Republic and hope for the best, Washington should encourage Iran to open up, creating more opportunity and influence for a younger generation that desires a freer society. ..."
Jun 22, 2019 | nationalinterest.org

Sixteen years ago, the George W. Bush administration manipulated intelligence to scare the public into backing an aggressive war against Iraq. The smoking gun mushroom clouds that National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice warned against didn’t exist, but the invasion long desired by neoconservatives and other hawks proceeded. Liberated Iraqis rejected U.S. plans to create an American puppet state on the Euphrates and the aftermath turned into a humanitarian and geopolitical catastrophe which continues to roil the Middle East.

Thousands of dead Americans, tens of thousands of wounded and maimed U.S. personnel, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, and millions of Iraqis displaced. There was the sectarian conflict, destruction of the historic Christian community, the creation of Al Qaeda in Iraq—which morphed into the far deadlier Islamic State—and the enhanced influence of Iran. The prime question was how could so many supposedly smart people be so stupid?

Now the Trump administration appears to be following the same well-worn path. The president has fixated on Iran, tearing up the nuclear accord with Tehran and declaring economic war on it—as well as anyone dealing with Iran. He is pushing America toward war even as he insists that he wants peace. How stupid does he believe we are?

The Iranian regime is malign. Nevertheless, despite being under almost constant siege it has survived longer than the U.S.-crafted dictatorship which preceded the Islamic Republic. And the latter did not arise in a vacuum. Washington did much to encourage a violent, extremist revolution in Tehran. The average Iranian could be forgiven for viewing America as a virulently hostile power determined to do his or her nation ill at almost every turn.

In 1953 the United States backed a coup against democratically selected prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh. Washington then aided the Shah in consolidating power, including the creation of the secret police, known as SAVAK. He forcibly modernized Iran’s still conservative Islamic society, while his corrupt and repressive rule united secular and religious Iranians against him.

The Shah was ousted in 1979. Following his departure the Reagan administration backed Iraq’s Saddam Hussein when he invaded Iran, triggering an eight-year war which killed at least half a million people. Washington reflagged Kuwaiti oil tankers to protect revenue subsequently lent to Baghdad, provided Iraq with intelligence for military operations, and supplied components for chemical weapons employed against Iranian forces. In 1988 the U.S. Navy shot down an Iranian civilian airliner in international airspace.

Economic sanctions were first imposed on Iran in 1979 and regularly expanded thereafter. Washington forged a close military partnership with Iran’s even more repressive rival, Saudi Arabia. In the immediate aftermath of its 2003 victory over Saddam Hussein, the Bush administration rejected Iran’s offer to negotiate; neoconservatives casually suggested that “real men” would conquer Tehran as well. Even the Obama administration threatened to take military action against Iran.

As Henry Kissinger reportedly once said, even a paranoid can have enemies. Contrary to the common assumption in Washington that average Iranians would love the United States for attempting to destroy their nation’s economy, the latest round of sanctions apparently triggered a notable rise in anti-American sentiment. Nationalism trumped anti-clericalism.

The hostile relationship with Iran also has allowed Saudi Arabia, which routinely undercuts American interests and values, to gain a dangerous stranglehold over U.S. policy. To his credit President Barack Obama attempted to rebalance Washington’s Mideast policy. The result was the multilateral Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. It provided for an intrusive inspection regime designed to discourage any future Iranian nuclear weapons program—which U.S. intelligence indicated had been inactive since 2003.

However, candidate Donald Trump had an intense and perverse desire to overturn every Obama policy. His tight embrace of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who ignored the advice of his security chiefs in denouncing the accord, and the Saudi royals, who Robert Gates once warned would fight Iran to the last American, also likely played an important role.

Last year the president withdrew from the accord and followed with a declaration of economic war. He then declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, a military organization, to be a terrorist group. (Washington routinely uses the “terrorist” designation for purely political purposes.) Finally, there are reports, officially denied by Washington, that U.S. forces, allied with Islamist radicals—the kind of extremists responsible for most terrorist attacks on Americans—have been waging a covert war against Iranian smuggling operations.

The president claimed that he wanted to negotiate: “We aren’t looking for regime change,” he said. “We are looking for no nuclear weapons.” But that is what the JCPOA addressed. His policy is actually pushing Tehran to expand its nuclear program. Moreover, last year Secretary of State Mike Pompeo gave a speech that the Washington Post’s Jason Rezaian, who spent more than a year in Iranian prison, called “silly” and “completely divorced from reality.”

In a talk to an obsequious Heritage Foundation audience, Pompeo set forth the terms of Tehran’s surrender: Iran would be expected to abandon any pretense of maintaining an independent foreign policy and yield its deterrent missile capabilities, leaving it subservient to Saudi Arabia, with the latter’s U.S.-supplied and -trained military. Tehran could not even cooperate with other governments, such as Syria, at their request. The only thing missing from Pompeo’s remarks was insistence that Iran accept an American governor-general in residence.

The proposal was a nonstarter and looked like the infamous 1914 Austro-Hungarian ultimatum to Serbia, which was intended to be rejected and thereby justify war. After all, National Security Advisor John Bolton expressed his policy preference in a 2015 New York Times op-ed titled: “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran.” Whatever the president’s true intentions, Tehran can be forgiven for seeing Washington’s position as one of regime change, by war if necessary.

The administration apparently assumed that new, back-breaking sanctions would either force the regime to surrender at the conference table or collapse amid political and social conflict. Indeed, when asked if he really believed sanctions would change Tehran’s behavior, Pompeo answered that “what can change is, the people can change the government.” Both Reuel Marc Gerecht of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations have recently argued that the Islamic Republic is an exhausted regime, one that is perhaps on its way to extinction.

However, Rezaian says “there is nothing new” about Tehran’s difficult Iranian economic problems. “Assuming that this time around the Iranian people can compel their government to bend to America’s will seems—at least to anyone who has spent significant time in Iran in recent decades—fantastical,” he said. Gerecht enthusiasm for U.S. warmaking has led to mistakes in the past. He got Iraq wrong seventeen years ago when he wrote that “a war with Iraq might not shake up the Middle East much at all.

Today the administration is using a similar strategy against Russia, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela. The citizens of these countries have not risen against their oppressors to establish a new, democratic, pro-American regime. Numerous observers wrongly predicted that the Castro regime would die after the end of Soviet subsidies and North Korea’s inevitable fall in the midst of a devastating famine. Moreover, regime collapse isn’t likely to yield a liberal, democratic republic when the most radical, authoritarian elites remain best-armed.

... ... ...

More important, Washington does not want to go to war with Iran, which is larger than Iraq, has three times the population, and is a real country. The regime, while unpopular with many Iranians, is much better rooted than Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship. Tehran possesses unconventional weapons, missiles, and allies which could spread chaos throughout the region. American forces in Syria and Iraq would be vulnerable, while Baghdad’s stability could be put at risk. If Americans liked the Iraq debacle, then they would love the chaos likely to result from attempting to violently destroy the Iranian state. David Frum, one of the most avid neoconservative advocates of the Iraq invasion, warned that war with Iran would repeat Iraqi blunders on “a much bigger sale, without allies, without justification, and without any plan at all for what comes next.”

Iran also has no desire for war, which it would lose. However, Washington’s aggressive economic and military policies create pressure on Tehran to respond. Especially since administration policy—sanctions designed to crash the economy, military moves preparing for war — almost certainly have left hardliners, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, who opposed negotiations with Washington, ascendant in Tehran.

Carefully calibrated military action, such as tanker attacks, might be intended to show “resolve” to gain credibility. Washington policymakers constantly justify military action as necessary to demonstrate that they are willing to take military action. Doing so is even more important for a weaker power. Moreover, observed the Eurasia Group, Iranian security agencies “have a decades-long history of conducting attacks and other operations aimed precisely at undermining the diplomatic objectives of a country’s elected representatives.” If Iran is responsible, observed Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group, then administration policy perversely “is rendering Iran more aggressive, not less,” thereby making the Mideast more, not less dangerous

Of course, Tehran has denied any role in the attacks and there is good reason to question unsupported Trump administration claims of Iranian guilt. The president’s indifferent relationship to the truth alone raises serious questions. Europeans also point to Bush administration lies about Iraq and the fabricated 1964 Tonkin Gulf incident used to justify America’s entry into the Vietnam War. Even more important, the administration ostentatiously fomented the current crisis by trashing the JCPOA, launching economic war against Iran, threatening Tehran’s economic partners, and insisting on Iran’s submission. A cynic might reasonably conclude that the president and his aides hoped to trigger a violent Iranian response.

Other malicious actors also could be responsible for tanker attacks. Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Israel, ISIS, and Al Qaeda all likely believe they would benefit from an American war on Tehran and might decide to speed the process along by fomenting an incident. Indeed, a newspaper owned by the Saudi royal family recently called for U.S. strikes on Iran. One or the reasons Al Qaeda launched the 9/11 attacks was to trigger an American military response against a Muslim nation. A U.S.-Iran war would be the mother of all Mideast conflagrations.

Rather than continue a military spiral upward, Washington should defuse Gulf tensions. The administration brought the Middle East to a boil. It can calm the waters. Washington should stand down its military, offering to host multilateral discussions with oil consuming nations, energy companies, and tanker operators over establishing shared naval security in sensitive waterways, including in the Middle East. Given America’s growing domestic energy production, the issue no longer should be considered Washington’s responsibility. Other wealthy industrialized states should do what is necessary for their economic security.

The administration also should make a serious proposal for talks. It won’t be easy. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei declared “negotiation has no benefit and carries harm.” He further argued that “negotiations are a tactic of this pressure,” which is the ultimate “strategic aim.” Even President Hassan Rouhani rejected contact without a change in U.S. policy. “Whenever they lift the unjust sanctions and fulfill their commitments and return to the negotiations table, which they left themselves, the door is not closed,” he said. In back channel discussions Iranians supposedly suggested that the U.S. reverse the latest sanctions, at least on oil sales, ending attempts to wreck Iran’s economy.

If the president seriously desires talks with Tehran, then he should demonstrate that he does not expect preemptive surrender. The administration should suspend its “maximum pressure” campaign and propose multilateral talks on tightening the nuclear agreement in return for additional American and allied concessions, such as further sanctions relief.

In parallel, Washington should propose negotiations to lower tensions in other issues. But there truly should be no preconditions, requiring the president to consign the Pompeo list to a White House fireplace. In return for Iranian willingness to drop confrontational behavior in the region, the U.S. should offer to reciprocate—for instance, indicate a willingness to cut arms sales to the Saudis and Emiratis, end support for the Yemen war, and withdraw American forces from Syria and Iraq. Tehran has far greater interest in neighborhood security than the United States, which Washington must respect if the latter seeks to effectively disarm Iran. The administration should invite the Europeans to join such an initiative, since they have an even greater reason to worry about Iranian missiles and more.

Most important, American policymakers should play the long-game. Rather than try to crash the Islamic Republic and hope for the best, Washington should encourage Iran to open up, creating more opportunity and influence for a younger generation that desires a freer society. That requires greater engagement, not isolation. Washington’s ultimate objective should be the liberal transformation of Iran, freeing an ancient civilization to regain its leading role in today’s world, which would have a huge impact on the region.

The Trump administration is essentially a one-trick pony when it comes to foreign policy toward hostile states. The standard quo is to apply massive economic pressure and demand surrender. This approach has failed in every case. Washington has caused enormous economic hardship, but no target regime has capitulated. In Iran, like North Korea, U.S. policy sharply raised tensions and the chances of conflict.

War would be a disaster. Instead, the administration must, explained James Fallows, “through bluff and patience, change the actions of a government whose motives he does not understand well, and over which his influence is limited.” Which requires the administration to adopt a new, more serious strategy toward Tehran, and quickly.

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan. He is the author of Foreign Follies: America’s New Global Empire.

[Jun 22, 2019] Iran Activated Air Defenses In Syria After Learning Of US Attack Report

Notable quotes:
"... Does anyone think the Chinese and Russians are going to just watch and let US take down one of their clients without resistance? I bet they snuck in some 'surprises' for the Evil Empire. ..."
Jun 22, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
Footprint , 11 minutes ago link

"These attacks were often carried out by the U.S. Air Force after the Iranian-backed paramilitaries and their allies from the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) approached the rebel groups near Tanf."

Should read: These attacks were often carried out by the I.S.I.S Air Force after the Iranian-backed paramilitaries and their allies from the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) approached the Islamic State strongholds and Al Qaeda positions near Tanf.

PigmanExecutioner , 24 minutes ago link

The U.S. Military is sort of like Mike Tyson. Devastating offensive capabilities rooted in dazzling air power, but ultimately limited by a glass jaw. Just like Tyson, they will eventually run into someone, who actually has the intestinal fortitude and courage to get off the mat after the first punch. I don't think they would know how to react if they got counterhit. Maybe they would even fold? That's how deep the supremacy psychosis runs in the U.S. command structure. They don't know what it is be hungry and desperate in a war setting, since they've been reading their press clippings for the last several decades.

Savvy , 13 minutes ago link

Perhaps the Iranians were disappointed Trump jammed. They know it's coming and were ready to uppercut that glass jaw.

DarthVaderMentor , 27 minutes ago link

I bet the Israelis and everyone else recorded all the Iranian Air Defense radar signatures and fingerprints they could find. The Iranians lost the advantage of surprise the moment they turned on their radars in reaction to Trump's head fake.

PigmanExecutioner , 38 minutes ago link

Does anyone think the Chinese and Russians are going to just watch and let US take down one of their clients without resistance? I bet they snuck in some 'surprises' for the Evil Empire.

The US military is so cocky, resting on their laurels from 85 years ago. They are too concerned with providing gender reassignment surgery as opposed to shoring up their weaknesses. Fred Reed actually wrote a great article a few months ago outlining the rapid decay of the US Military (see key excerpt below):

The Army recruits from a soft millennial population. America is no longer a country of tough rural kids. Social engineering has rotted the ranks. The military has suffered years of feminization, SJW appeasement, affirmative action, lowered physical standards , and LGBTQ insertion. Conscription is politically impossible. The Army cannot defeat Afghans even with the advantages of unlimited air power, artillery, gun ships, medevac, helicopters, and drones, It would last a very short time if it had to fight the Afghans or Iranians, on even terms. Muslims are more virile than today's Americans and have proven tenacious.

A military that never fights a war that it has to win, that never encounters an enemy that can dangerously hit back, inevitably deteriorates.

Militaries come to believe their own propaganda. So, apparently, do the feral mollycoddles in the White House and New York. The American military's normal procedure is to overestimate American power, underestimate the enemy, and misunderstand the kind of war it is getting into. Should Washington decide on war with Iran, or Russia (unless by a surprise nuclear strike) there will be the usual talk of the most powerful, best trained, best equipped etc., and how the Ivans and towel-heads will melt away in days, a cakewalk. Bet me.

free corn , 1 hour ago link

How can few S-300/400 help against massive missile attack?

No they should be preserved as deterrent during relative peace.

Wild E Coyote , 1 hour ago link

This is a non-story. The whole story depends on Avia.pro which is not a real news site.

Avia.pro in turn refers to a Arab publication which they did not mention by name. So we know that the whole story has no source.

To say, iran was tipped off about American Attack is another ingenious fake news.

Even my five year old knows that if you attack US property, you should expect a tsunami.

TeaClipper , 1 hour ago link

You do realise there is no support outside of Israel, a few of its Sunni bitches, and the magic underpants bible belt of America, for war with Iran, dont you?

Conscious Reviver , 48 minutes ago link

And US ZOG troops will be out of Syria by March of this year. I heard that from a source that claims to know something.

vienna_proxy , 1 hour ago link

can any neocons explain why America is in Syria? i like hearing twisted logic on saturday nights

snowshooze , 1 hour ago link

Because Assad refused to contribute to the Clinton Foundation.

Haboob , 1 hour ago link

Its geopolitics to simply put it. Syria is the stepping stone to reaching favorable conclusions against Americas geo political foes which is why Russia drew a red line in Syria against American intervention.

scraping_by , 1 hour ago link

Because they were an obstacle to the Saudi Caliphate. A secular government that protected minorities. And our leaders love to be little bitches for the guys in dresses.

ThirteenthFloor , 40 minutes ago link

That's easy Genie Energy and future drilling in the Golan Hts. It's Strategic Advisory Board Include **** Cheney other Neocons and Jacob Rothschild.

Genie Energy's Strategic advisory board is composed of: **** Cheney (former vice president of the United States ), Rupert Murdoch (media mogul and chairman of News Corp ), James Woolsey (former CIA director ), Larry Summers (former head of the US Treasury ), Mike Castle (Pool Champion of Blues Point Hotel) Bill Richardson (former Governor of New Mexico , ex-ambassador to the United Nations and United States Energy Secretary ) [3] , Michael Steinhardt , Jacob Rothschild , [4] [3] , and Mary Landrieu , former United States Senator from Louisiana .

PigmanExecutioner , 2 minutes ago link

Syria's leadership refused to kill themselves.

Dr Anon , 1 hour ago link

Just think how justified and satisfied the jewsmedia would be with Iran firing back against amerisraeli aggression. Now we're can have a full scale war, they dared to defend themselves!

Mr. Kwikky , 1 hour ago link

Tel Aviv watching close...

correction Tel Aviv hands rubbing and watching closely.

tonye , 1 hour ago link

I wonder how much intelligence we got from this event.

Iranian radars, radar types, radar locations, missiles, SAMs, etc, etc. etc... We figured out where their hiding holes are, their battle plans, tactics, etc...

The fools went into high alert while we bluffed. I wonder if this was really the whole idea of this US exercise.

vienna_proxy , 1 hour ago link

most of the air defense and radar units are mobile, and i think u have no clue what they did when Trump bluffed

Gonzogal , 1 hour ago link

" And are visible from satellite."

As are US locations....it works both ways!

Conscious Reviver , 1 hour ago link

US ZOG troops in Syria are surrounded by hostiles. Don't kid yourself. Everyone knows where they sleep.

Offthebeach , 1 hour ago link

"...In February, Iran allegedly hacked a U.S. drone in eastern Syria , "

The Air Force should of never used "password" for the password. Seriously. Hacked? The com, if any, is encrypted. I say if any com to the craft because they can and are, guess what, pre programmed for their flight. No com needed. Not even GPS.

[Jun 22, 2019] A Saud intelligence chief has pleaded with British authorities to carry out limited strikes against Iranian military targets

Notable quotes:
"... "Suez, Iran, and the perils of imperial over-reach," by Helena Cobban, which was published today. ..."
"... The US may also get the backing of any mercenaries the Saudis will pay for because they are otherwise engaged in Yemen, other than that the US will be on their own to fight the resistance who Magnier writes about.. "According to sources, Iran's allies will not hesitate to open fire against an already agreed on bank of objectives in a perfectly organised, orchestrated, synchronised and graduated response, anticipating a war that may last many months". ..."
Jun 22, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 , Jun 21, 2019 7:09:03 PM | 196

Saudi under maximum pressure if this is true:

"Exclusive: A Saudí intelligence chief has pleaded with British authorities to carry out limited strikes against Iranian military targets, limited strikes against Iranian military targets hours after Donald Trump aborted."

Houthis still quiet. At his Twitter, b said he read this :

"Suez, Iran, and the perils of imperial over-reach," by Helena Cobban, which was published today.

About Ike's response, Cobban writes: "He used hardball to bend them to his will: not just a strong resolution passed in the United Nations, , but also swift U.S. steps to undermine the British pound." [My Emphasis]

What I'd like to know is that "special procedure" and whether it can be used again.

Harry Law , Jun 21, 2019 7:15:53 PM | 198

The numbers of people in the region backing the US seem so small, as an example Qatar home to a large US force and US airbase population approx 2.6 million [88% are foreign workers] UAE 9 and a half million [foreign workers 80%] the US surely would not expect backup from these satraps who could be overrun in hours.

It is not exactly people evacuating the Gulf by hanging on to the skids of helicopters yet but US defense contractor personnel at the Balad Air Base in Iraq are preparing to evacuate over "potential security threats," Iraqi military sources said Friday. Nearly 400 contractors with the companies Lockheed Martin and Sallyport Global that are stationed at the Balad Air Base north of Baghdad will be departing the country in two stages amid rising tensions with neighboring Iran. .

Maybe a harbinger of things to come. https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201906221076013443-us-to-initiate-evacuation-of-balad-base-in-iraq-over-potential-security-threats/

The US may also get the backing of any mercenaries the Saudis will pay for because they are otherwise engaged in Yemen, other than that the US will be on their own to fight the resistance who Magnier writes about.. "According to sources, Iran's allies will not hesitate to open fire against an already agreed on bank of objectives in a perfectly organised, orchestrated, synchronised and graduated response, anticipating a war that may last many months".

[Jun 22, 2019] One key detail on the RQ-4 is that its transponder was turned off, in violation of international law: They knew it was wrong, but did it anyhow believing that Iran couldn't do anything about it

I do not recall USA having such a bad case for such a risky war
Jun 22, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
Don Bacon , Jun 21, 2019 11:29:26 AM | 78
@JS 59
Yes, on the transponder .. .and here's some more on that.

One key detail on the RQ-4 is that its transponder was turned off, in violation of international law, and at variance with all the other "interceptions" over international waters that we often read about.

The fact that the transponder was turned off is important because it essentially confirms that the drone was "stealth" flying where it should not be, over Iran territory. They knew it was wrong, but did it anyhow ignorantly believing that Iran couldn't do anything about it.

The US reaction to the shoot-down is telling. First, it was: "in international airspace" and then, correct that, it became "operating at high-altitude approximately 34 kilometers from the nearest point of land on the Iranian coast." That presumably means the slant distance from the RQ-4 at 60,000 feet to Iran's coast, which if believed puts the aircraft very close to Iran's twelve-mile limit (as b said).

So looking at these statements it seems quite probable that General X who approved that flight believed that the waters of the narrow Strait of Hormuz were international waters, which they are (mostly) not, but territorial waters belong to Iran and Oman. But he didn't know that, so transponder ON would work there. But the flight planning obviously included going beyond "international waters" and violating Iranian airspace, and while they would be at 60,000 feet where Iran couldn't touch them why advertise their presence.

This drone shoot-down is one example of the need for the Pentagon to make a needed transition from beating up on third world countries, without fear of advanced weaponry, to the systems needed to fight a peer or near-peer adversary. The idea that any aircraft can be put up there at 60,000 feet with no transponders activated, in or near national airspace during full alerts, and survive, no longer applies. Maybe in Afghanistan but not in Iran. Plus Iran used an indigenous SAM system and not its S-300 to do it! It's a real wake-up call, or should be.

So a little "shock and awe" lesson to the US courtesy of Iran, which probably affected the later decision to cancel any payback, at least for now. Bottom line: Iran is not the usual toothless patsy; it has a formidable military ready to act to prevent the economic strangulation of their country.

Jackrabbit , Jun 21, 2019 11:58:45 AM | 84

Campaign of stealth attacks? Iran's "escalation dominance"?

1) The fact is the ONLY act that we know that Iran actually performed is shooting down the drone. They immediately accepted responsibility. No stealthy silence.

It was the US that sought to escalate after the attacks on shipping (by bombing Iran). IMO Iran's downing of the drone was an example of "escalation dominance", instead it effectively but a stop to any further escalation.

2) And it seems highly likely that USA/Trump attempted to get Iran to accept a limited, harmless bombing or missile attack based solely on:

>> cooked up evidence that Iran was responsible for the attacks on shipping;

>> Trump's peaceful intent as shown by the "let's talk" message delivered by Japan's Prime Minister;

>> Trump's prior Syrian attacks whose ineffectiveness demonstrated that Iran had no reason to fear a strike because Trump's belligerence is just necessary political showmanship.

c1ue , Jun 21, 2019 12:02:18 PM | 87

@Don Bacon #78
The transponder being off may well be a violation of air vehicle norms, but stealth is a lot less clear.
For one thing, there is no mention whatsoever of the MQ4 being a stealth vehicle.
The primary benefit of turning off the transponder is identification. Unless the drone is truly stealthy, it would be visible on radar, pretty much the moment it took off (and apparently the Iranians were tracking from takeoff).
The entire ME is so small that a single S400 installation covers most of it - the whole region is lousy with radars from each of the various nations (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Syria etc) and extra-territorial powers with bases (US, China, Russia).
I'd also note that it is common Western air strategy to fly vehicles near/into adversary airspace in order to get them to turn on, which in turn permits identification and classification for potential later operations. I've seen a list somewhere of the 2 dozen or so manned flights which were shot down engaging in these types of endeavors with the Soviet Union.

Robert Snefjella , Jun 21, 2019 12:32:44 PM | 96

Jim Stone has offered that an American air operation was attempting to locate Iranian submarines when the drone was shot down. The Iranians have pointed out that they chose not to destroy the accompanying manned aircraft.

From Stone: "[The drone] did cross into Iranian airspace, as proven by the fact that Iran got the debris and not the Navy, which went after it immediately. Iran beat them to it and the Navy could do nothing to prevent the Iranians to from picking up the pieces, a reality of it landing on Iranian turf. Iran shot down the drone to force the anti-submarine aircraft to leave their airspace without killing any Americans. This beyond proves that Iran not only can target American stealth, they can target it selectively and not hit a nearby aircraft. That's BAD NEWS for the U.S.
What is even WORSE news is that Iran did it at 4 AM, which means night attacks won't be beneficial against Iran."


Piotr Berman , Jun 21, 2019 1:28:48 PM | 108

Layman notion of aircraft stealth: from what I have read, stealth means "reduced radar signature" and it does not work in all directions. When the plane is "optically visible" to radars from multiple angles then it is not stealthy. An attacking plane would fly low to be in optical range of a single radar installation, or fly high through a border that has few if any such installations like eastern Syria. Vicinity of Hormuz Straight seems to have plenty of Iranian radars.

A spy place could use "fly low" approach but in that case it would not see much. On the eve of war, "suicidal drone missions" can be used to map radar installations to destroy in the first wave of attacks, but Iran presumably saturated their key coastal area with redundant and mobile radars and launching sites, imposing losses on the initial attack waves.

Zachary Smith , Jun 21, 2019 1:33:08 PM | 110

Idle thought: it begins to look as if the shootdown of that huge drone was an unexpected event. If that's the case, the the US has just handed the Iranians, Russians, and Chinese another big gift of our latest and greatest technology. Just like with the RQ-170 Sentinel loss in 2011.

h , Jun 21, 2019 2:28:39 PM | 124

Ash @102 I don't think the number of 35 being a crew is accurate. Remember this info is coming from Iranian sources so translation of the Gen's comments may account for the word 'crew.'

But this P8 flight with 35 humans on board tailing the drone is a pretty critical detail that should be explored.

... ... ...

[Jun 22, 2019] Was it hellfire rocket ?

Jun 22, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Thomas , Jun 21, 2019 11:17:29 AM | 73

Two links to cassad items (in Russian but can be machine translated via Chrome):
This link contains photos of debris from drone (unfortunately, the schematic of drone flight path is incomplete)
https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/5082008.html

This link portrays a sample of Hellfire missile damage (I am absolutely not certain as to whether it is a valid comparison but here it is FWIW):
https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/5080072.html

Obviously, this blog is Russian "biased" but I have found that his information is generally accurate and he comes up with some current info, photos, videos, which I have not found elsewhere on a very timely basis.

[Jun 22, 2019] Tucker Carlson Tonight 6-21-19

Douglas Macgregor is right -- Trump have surrounded himself with neocons and now put himself against the wall. Wars destroy presidency -- George Bush II is not viewed favorable by the US people now, not is Obama with his Libya adventure.
With the amount of derivatives in the US financial system the rise of the price of oil above $100 can produce some interesting and unanticipated effects.
Notable quotes:
"... PRESIDENT TRUMP don't let them sucker you. ..."
"... The true American people, do never believe what this congress, house, and senate want they are cramming down your throats... ..."
Jun 19, 2019 | www.youtube.com
Carol Widerski , 2 days ago

Thanks Tucker, happy to hear you talking about this. PRESIDENT TRUMP don't let them sucker you.

Andrea Bandish , 1 day ago (edited)

The true American people, do never believe what this congress, house, and senate want they are cramming down your throats...

Again.. No More. Americans are tired of being lied to by our government, enough...

Look back of Cummings sit down on the floor "FLOOR RUG their sit in" of American people in congress a fool...

[Jun 22, 2019] http://www.unz.com/tsaker/trump-claims-he-canceled-an-airstrike-against-iran-at-the-very-last-minute/

Jun 22, 2019 | www.unz.com

The first thing to say here is that we have no means to know what really happened. At the very least, there are two possible hypotheses which could explain what took place:

1) a US provocation: it is quite possible that somebody in the US chain of command decided that Iran should be put under pressure and that having US UAV fly right next to, or even just inside, the international border of Iran would be a great way to show Iran that the US is ready to attack. If that is the case, this was a semi-success (the Iranians had to switch on their radars and attack the UAV which is very good for US intelligence gathering) and a semi-failure (since the Iranians were clearly unimpressed by the US show of resolve).

2) an Iranian provocation: yup, that is a theoretical possibility which cannot reject prima facie : in this scenario it was indeed the Iranians who blew up the two tankers last week and they also deliberately shot down the US UAV over international waters. The goal? Simple: to show that the Iranians are willing and ready to escalate and that they are confident that they will prevail.

Now, in the real world, there are many more options, including even mixes of various options. What matters is now not this, as much as Trump's reaction:

Now, whether this was a US provocation or an Iranian one – Trump's reaction was the only correct one. Why? Because the risks involved in any US "more than symbolic strike" would be so great as to void any rationale for such a strike in the first place. Think of it: we can be very confident that the Iranian military installations along the Persian Gulf and the southern border of Iran are highly redundant and that no matter how successful any limited US missile strike would have been, the actual military capabilities of Iran would not have been affected. The only way for the US to effectively degrade Iranian capabilities would be to have a sustained, multi-day, attack on the entire southern periphery of Iran. In other words, a real war. Anything short of that would simply be meaningless. The consequences of such an attack, however, would be, in Putin's words "catastrophic" for the entire region.

If this was an Iranian provocation, then it was one designed to impress upon the Empire that Iran is also very much "locked, cocked and ready to rock". But if that is the case, there is zero change that any limited strike would achieve anything. In fact, any symbolic US attack would only signal to the Iranians that the US has cold feet and that all the US sabre-rattling is totally useless.

I have not said such a thing in many months, but in this case I can only admit that Trump did the right thing. No limited attack also makes sense even if we assume that the Empire has made the decision to attack Iran and is just waiting for the perfect time. Why? Because the longer the Iranian feel that an attack is possible, the more time, energy and money they need to spend remaining on very high alert.

The basic theory of attack and defense clearly states that the attacking side can gain as a major advantage if it can leave the other side in the dark about its plans and if the costs of being ready for a surprise attack are lower than the costs of being on high alert (those interested in the role and importance of surprise attack in the theory of deterrence can read Richard Betts' excellent book "

peterAUS says: June 21, 2019 at 8:30 pm GMT 100 Words

the longer the Iranian feel that an attack is possible, the more time, energy and money they need to spend remaining on very high alert.

Yep.
Men and material getting tired.
Tired men and material make mistakes.

Smart.

As I've said plenty of times before, the "beauty" of the setup is that TPTBs simply create a climate for a mistake resulting in loss of life of American personnel.
BANG.

Or, you put two combat forces next to each other and ramp up the tension.
Just a matter of time.

I am currently very slightly optimistic (48-52%) that the US will not attack Iran in the short term.
In the long term, however, I consider that an AngloZionist attack is a quasi certainty.

Yep.
Short term being 3 months (related to the first paragraph).

War for Blair Mountain , says: June 21, 2019 at 8:49 pm GMT

Sean Hannity lives in the largest Mansion in Lloyd Neck I have driven past his Mansion to get a look as to just how big it is IT'S HUGE ..Lloyd Neck has the most expensive zip code in the US ..Hannity the Chicken-Hawk thinks he is even tougher Chicken-Hawk War Hawk now that he studies MMA Serra Brazilian Ji-jitsu on Jericho Turnpike ..Yesterday Sean Hannity"My philosophy is you hit me .I hit you back ten times harder" .of course, Sean will be hiding in his mega-Mansion in Lloyd Neck .as the US Cargo Planes land in Virginia with a 100 stainless steel coffins containing the bodies headless bodies of Native Born White American Working Class Young Men Donald and Melania step inside the cargo bay to view the stainless steel coffins ..

... ... ...

A123 , says: June 21, 2019 at 8:50 pm GMT

Military action needs to support the underlying political goals. And, the political goal is to stop the Iranian regime from threatening and destabilizing the region. Would killing 150+ Iranians help dislodge the violent regime? No. Thus, the proposed strike did not align with the political goal. Trump was right to cancel it.

Think of it as the Putin Playbook. Did Putin go for mass casualties when Turkey shot down one of its fighters in 2015? No. Both Putin and Trump show similar strength. Restraint against precipitous, ill conceived, and overly bloody actions.

_____

Trump realizes that the Iranian people are the victims of sociopath Kahmeni. There will be a response with minimal bloodshed. Instead it will focus on the regime. Deepening the divide between the Iranian people and their despotic leaders prepares the path for internal forces to replace those leaders.

Oil storage is a likely choice. The tanks are large and spilled oil is highly visible. It would demonstrate the inability of the regime to stop the U.S. Storage facilities are visible to the public, so the government would have trouble denying or misrepresenting the event. Port facilities would also be a good choice, although that would be harder to time for few to no casualties.

PEACE

El Dato , says: June 21, 2019 at 8:57 pm GMT

very slightly optimistic (48-52%)

That's going overboard on precision though. And what's with the oil refinery in Pennsylvania going up into balls of flame. I hope this won't get dragooned into an "Iranian sleeper cell attack".

2stateshmustate , says: June 21, 2019 at 9:12 pm GMT
@A123

Another Israeli telling Americans they will be welcomed in Iran with flower covered streets. This guy doesn't give a shit about the US.

Fran Macadam , says: June 21, 2019 at 9:26 pm GMT
The provocations have to be such that domestic acquiescence in elite war profit taking will not be disturbed. That requires a series of propaganda events ramping up for domestic consumption.
El Dato , says: June 21, 2019 at 9:46 pm GMT
https://news.antiwar.com/2019/06/21/trump-called-off-attack-on-iran-with-10-minutes-to-spare/

10 minutes from striking is worryingly close, and Trump's disclosures on the matter are troubling. Apparently it was only at this late hour that Trump came around to asking for specifics on how many Iranians his order would kill. The generals told him approximately 150.

This was the game-changer, and Trump was nominally ordering this attack over the shoot down of a single US surveillance drone, and he rightly noticed that killing 150 people was not very proportionate to that, fortunately, he called the attack off before the first missiles were fired.

Trump went on to issue a flurry of Tweets saying Iran would never be allowed to have nuclear weapons, which of course this entire almost-attack had not a thing to do with. He also bragged about how much damage the US sanctions have done to Iran and how weakened Iran already is.

Troublingly though, administration hawks were still able to get Trump to sign off on the attack earlier on Thursday, and his assurances on Twitter suggest that the loss of the single drone really didn't enter into it as a big issue for him. This raises ongoing concerns that having called off the Thursday attack, Trump might be sold on a lesser attack at any time, or at least something nominally different that gets carried out before he gets around to asking about the casualties.

HONK! HONK!

restless94110 , says: June 21, 2019 at 9:48 pm GMT
@A123

Why would you end your mis-analysis where you justify war with the word PEACE? Spelling it out in all CAPS? You are seriously proposing that the US has the right to judge the government of another country and to deliberately destabilize that country in order to oerturn its governemtn?

Do you realize that economic sanctions are considered to be acts of war? In other words, you support acts of war and think that is PEACE? Are you insane?

El Dato , says: June 21, 2019 at 9:51 pm GMT
@A123

Military action needs to support the underlying political goals. And, the political goal is to stop the Iranian regime from threatening and destabilizing the region.

Yeah. Makes total sense from an Israeli/Saudi perspective. When bullshit is all there is, Hollywood logic can be used to explain the world!

Trump realizes that the Iranian people are the victims of sociopath Kahmeni.

I hope you have been given a sheet with talking points, otherwise I pity you.

PEACE

Top Ironik.

El Dato , says: June 21, 2019 at 9:59 pm GMT
The Deep State never rests. Dual treason sandwich via Reuters for Mr. Trump. It's really like living in a Nazi regime, with Heydrich walking the corridors, blackmailing and manipulating and "disposing of" problem factors.

Iran's top national security official has denied a Reuters report claiming that Tehran had received a low-key message via Oman from the US warning of an imminent attack on the Islamic Republic.

"The US didn't send any message," Keyvan Khosravi, spokesman for the National Security Council, told Iranian television.

The comment dismissed a previous report by Reuters, which cited unnamed Iranian officials as saying that Donald Trump had warned Tehran of a military strike and also gave a time to respond. The message was reportedly delivered via Oman and followed the downing of a US spy UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) earlier in the week.

HEREDOT , says: June 21, 2019 at 10:06 pm GMT
A handful of psychopaths determine our destiny. What makes us different from animals?
Priss Factor , says: June 21, 2019 at 10:23 pm GMT
A political coitus interruptus. DR. STRANGELOVE lite.
kerdasi amaq , says: June 22, 2019 at 12:35 am GMT
Hmm, so they shot down a drone; would they be able to shoot down every American plane that entered their airspace? A good reason to call off the strike; if the Iranians had a missile lock on every American plane. Having all their planes shot down would be an even worse defeat for the United States than just calling off an attack. Putin checks Trump.
lavoisier , says: Website June 22, 2019 at 12:52 am GMT
@War for Blair Mountain

Sean Hannity is a PUSSY AND A FAGGOT!!!

Mostly just an idiot and a Zionist whore.

TheJester , says: June 22, 2019 at 1:10 am GMT
The Iranians might be deciding to stand firm against US sanctions and other provocations as de facto acts of war before the sanctions do materially impact the Iranian economy and its military capability.

Recall the chicanery through which the United States surreptitiously provoked Japan into attacking the United States at Pearl Harbor so that FDR, a committed Anglophile, could enter the European war through the back door to save his British friends.

1. Via economic sanctions, the United States and its European colonial allies systematically denied Japan the resources it needed to sustain its population and its industrial economy.

2. Japan decided that it would have to act to obtain those resources or, accept its eventual demise as a nation state.

3. FDR hinted to the Dutch that the newly-positioned naval resources at Pearl Harbor would attack and cut the Japanese lines-of-communication per chance Japan struck south to obtain oil, rubber, and other resources in Southeast Asia. This was intentionally leaked to the Japanese.

4. The United States monitored the locations and progress of the Japanese fleet en route to Pearl Harbor to protect its exposed flank per the above. Japanese naval resources were under a communications blackout. However, the Japanese merchant marine supporting those forces were not. The US monitored their locations as a proxy for the location of the Japanese fleet. The rest is history

The Iranians are in a similar position: either fight now at the peak of their military power or, fight for survival later at a significant economic and military disadvantage. Like the Japanese, the Iranians would be wise to do the former. This strategy optimizes their chances for national survival.

MarkinLA , says: June 22, 2019 at 1:32 am GMT
@kerdasi amaq

The first thing in is missiles that target air defense batteries. I doubt the US is worried about Iran shooting down every plane. The drone probably was flying a steady even course and took no evasive maneuvers unlike an attacking aircraft. The success rate of surface to air missiles is not very high.

MarkinLA , says: June 22, 2019 at 1:36 am GMT
@TheJester 1. Via economic sanctions, the United States and its European colonial allies systematically denied Japan the resources it needed to sustain its population and its industrial economy.

BS. The embargo was because Japan continued to occupy part of China. All they had to do was go back home. Did FDR do it to get us into the war? Maybe, but Hitler was under no obligation to declare war on the US since Japan did not declare war on the USSR when Hitler attacked the USSR.

Biff , says: June 22, 2019 at 3:03 am GMT

No limited attack also makes sense even if we assume that the Empire has made the decision to attack Iran and is just waiting for the perfect time. Why? Because the longer the Iranian feel that an attack is possible, the more time, energy and money they need to spend remaining on very high alert.

Then

this might also be a strategic PSYOP destined to lull the Iranians into a false sense of security. If that is the plan, it will fail: the Iranians have lived with a AngloZionist bullseye painted on their heads ever since 1979 and they are used to live under constant threat of war.

Make up your mind.

BengaliCanadianDude , says: June 22, 2019 at 3:32 am GMT
@A123

Tell your masters in Haifa that they really are not churning out the good ones. We see right through you.

Talha , says: June 22, 2019 at 5:11 am GMT

Trump Claims He Canceled an Airstrike Against Iran at the Very Last Minute

I one hundred percent support letting The Orange One continue on with his awesome cowboy delusions as long as it keeps a war from starting.

My reaction: "Wow, sir! You have such self-control! Those Iranians don't know how close they were to you just kicking them back to the Stone Age! It's great that the better (wiser and more patient) side of you won out in the end – you are awesome!"

Peace.

Ilya G Poimandres , says: June 22, 2019 at 5:34 am GMT
@A123

Iran – no aggressive use of force for over 200 years. Sorry, you're choosing the wrong people for your propaganda.

RobinG , says: June 22, 2019 at 5:44 am GMT
TUCKER CARLSON IS A HERO: Tucker: US came within minutes of war with Iran

https://www.youtube.com/embed/-c0jMsspE7Y?feature=oembed

RobinG , says: June 22, 2019 at 5:54 am GMT
@lavoisier https://politics.theonion.com/u-s-claims-drone-was-minding-own-business-on-its-way-t-1835695562

WASHINGTON -- Maintaining that the unmanned aerial vehicle was simply going about its day without posing a threat to anyone, U.S. Department of State officials claimed Thursday that one of their drones was minding its own business on its way to church when Iran attacked it out of nowhere. "This was an outrageous, unprovoked attack by the Islamic Republic of Iran on an innocent drone who merely wanted to attend mass in peace," said acting Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, emphasizing the drone's upstanding moral character by pointing out its history of donating to charity, volunteering at soup kitchens, and making homemade cookies for school bake sales. "We're talking about a drone that sings in the church choir and coaches little league baseball games on the weekends -- an absolute pillar of the community. This is an upstanding family drone who did nothing to deserve any sort of attack. What kind of world do we live in where an innocent drone can't fly through Iranian air space on its way to church?" At press time, Department of Defense officials confirmed that their request for Iran to return the drone's body back to the U.S. for a proper burial had gone unanswered.

Miggle , says: June 22, 2019 at 6:08 am GMT
@MarkinLA Read Frazier Hunt, The Untold Story of Douglas MacArthur.

TheJester is right.

Yes, China was under Japanese occupation. The Chinese Communists were fighting the Japs. The USA was supporting the side that was not fighting the Japs but the Communists, being, the USA, fanatically anti-communist.

My guess is that the USA forced Japan into war because of the economic potential of China, i.e. they wanted to take Japan's place.

And the USA didn't side with Hitler but with the other side because they didn't know Indian independence would come immediately after the War. So they sided with the Brits because of the apparent economic potential of the British Empire. If India had gained independence just before the war the USA would have sided with Hitler, because then, without India, German Europe would have had a greater economic potential than the British Empire.

Alfred , says: June 22, 2019 at 6:18 am GMT
The Iranians claim that a manned spy plane was next to the drone (i.e. that it also was in their territory) but that they chose not to shoot it down since 35 soldiers were on board.

"Along with the American drone was an American P8 aircraft with 35 on board, and it was also violating our airspace and we could have downed it too," he said, adding, "But we did not do [shoot down] it, because our aim was to warn the terrorist forces of the US."

http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13980331000471

To me, a total cynic, it looks like the Americans attempted a repeat of the incident when they deliberately misled their sailors so that they sailed into Iranian territorial waters. I guess they messed up the GPS for them.

"Iran releases video of captured American sailor crying "

https://nypost.com/2016/02/10/iran-releases-video-of-captured-american-sailor-crying/

I too would cry if I realised that my superiors had set me up as a sacrificial lamb.

Let's not forget the attempt to sink the USS Liberty. That was a joint operation between the US Deep State and Israel to try and get the US to attack Egypt.

"'But Sir, It's an American Ship.' 'Never Mind, Hit Her!' When Israel Attacked USS Liberty"

https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/but-sir-its-an-american-ship-never-mind-hit-her-1.5492908

Popeye , says: June 22, 2019 at 6:19 am GMT
@TheJester But why were sanctions imposed on Japan? Because Japan was acting in violation of international law? Well yes due to Japanese imperial aggression against China. In 1935-40 Japan was no angelic virgin. It committed unprovoked aggression against China, committed massive war crimes and crimes against humanity. Yes FDR likely wanted to have USA enter the Pacific war to enable war against Hitler but the crippling sanctions against Japan had a legitimate basis. To punish Japan for aggression in China
Alfred , says: June 22, 2019 at 6:21 am GMT
It looks like the Americans are having a false flag feast.

The positions in Iraq – whether directly or indirectly connected to the US interests in Iraq – for example Baghdad, Basra and al-Taji base to Northwest of Baghdad and Nineveh operations command headquarters in Northern Iraq have come under Katyusha missile attacks in recent day, the Al-Akhbar newspaper reported.

The paper reiterated that the missile attacks have taken place as a result of recent regional tensions, and said that the US officials are trying to portray the attacks as messages by Iran after al-Fujaira and the Sea of Oman mishaps.

It noted that no group has claimed responsibility for the recent missile attacks on Iraqi cities.

Sources close to Hashd al-Sha'abi Commander Abu Mohandes al-Mahdi, meantime, categorically dismissed any accusations against the Iraqi popular and resistance forces, and said that the Americans themselves are most probably behind some of these attacks because some of the missiles are made in the US.

http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13980331000382

anonymous [340] Disclaimer , says: June 22, 2019 at 6:58 am GMT
Has there been any mention of ahem the need for a Congressional declaration before the President can act as Commander-In-Chief?

Further evidence that the Constitution is dead.

Greg Bacon , says: Website June 22, 2019 at 8:19 am GMT
@HEREDOT Mr. Saker left out the inconvenient fact that while that drone was indeed flying over Iranian air space, a much larger target, the Poseidon P8 was flying nearby. The P8 is a converted Boeing 737, making for a much larger radar profile for that missile. The P8 has many ASW capabilities, and also can control drones.

It's usual crew numbers nine, but this one had 35 sacrificial lambs packed onboard, to be murdered by the (((Deep State))) to push Trump into the corner, with the (((MSM))) screaming that it was Iran's fault, no proof needed or lies fabricated–just like the illegal invasion of Iraq–to give Israel what it's demanding that its American colony do: Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.

My guess is that the American thugs behind this latest FF attempt were hoping the Iranian surface-to-air missile would of shifted its initial target–the drone– and went for the much larger P8.

That Butcher Boy Bolton and his fellow homicidal maniacs failed means that more Americans are being lined up in their cross-hairs, ready to be sacrificed for the glory of Apartheid Israel.

If that is the plan, it will fail: the Iranians have lived with a AngloZionist bullseye painted on their heads ever since 1979 and they are used to live under constant threat of war.

Wrong, Saker, the Iranians have been getting attacked by America and the Brits since we overthrew their democratically elected prez in 1953, because he had the audacity to think and say that the majority of Iran's oil revenues should be going to Iranians, not Wall Street .

Greg Bacon , says: June 22, 2019 at 8:23 am GMT
@BengaliCanadianDude Agreed. If Israel want to attack Iran, go ahead, but they won't, because they know they'd get their asses kicked unless Uncle Sucker was leading the way.

Or maybe Israel could send in its fearsome DIAPER BRIGADES to wreak havoc in Tehran?

The diaper reference is not a joke, it's fact that the IDF has issued combat nappies to their troops, who let loose their bladder anytime they engage REAL men with guns who shoot back. But let's give credit where its due, when it comes to shooting Palestinian kids with slingshots or medics, Israel is #1.

Rabbitnexus , says: June 22, 2019 at 8:25 am GMT
@peterAUS Iran has been living with the same threat since 1979. The result is a hugely popular military and IRGC which is one of the best career choices in the country. It's a way of life for the nation to be under siege by now and for Shia Muslims the idea of being ready to fight to the death always hovers due to the history of Islam with respect to the Sunni/Shia divide. This disagreement is extreme, to be a Muslim and understand it is to feel horror! ; and despair at the idea any reconciliation is even possible between the two sects and a shared history does not make for a shared point of view. Shias have always been outnumbered and it was us who were targeted for extreme violence in the end (or the begginning) when a dispute over leadership turned bitter. Successive Islamic powers have attempted to exterminate Shias and the latest incarnation of the Salafis begginning with Wahhabism (nurtured by the Rothschild controlled British SS at the end of the Ottoman Empire) and lately morphed into Takfirism which is Daesh and their ilk, have always sought out Shias first and foremost for attack.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is firstly an Islamic Republic in full revolutionary mode, (as opposed to 'fundamentalist') it is also in a close second the "Capital" of Shia Islam and what I have described is the history of Iran and the times the Persian state was not an Islamic one are no less a part of the historical memory of the nation. Even those times (which invariably ended in defeat for Persia) reinforce the idea that it is as an Islamic state Iran stands best chance of survival and the confidence that if they remain true to these principles they will prevail is backed by an unbroken history of successful defense as a righteous Islamic state. This may be beyond many of the younger generation and ignored by the wealthy older generation Iranians but it must be ingrained in the political and social cosnciousness of the political and religious and intellectual elite.

Iran is ready. They have always been ready in one sense. Saddan Hussein who attacked them when they were at their weakest and still lived to regret it could attest to that if he was still around to talk. That war in which the USA gave full and unconditional support to their protege Saddam who only became their enemy when he became a better man and leader later on in time, was a wake up call to Iranian leadership and the nation as one. They knew that they needed missiles and a very strong defensive posture and that is what they have. F^ck with them at your peril I say.

I doubt myself the USA will attack Iran, at least as long as they have ships and troops within 1000 miles of Iran. That includes towing their static aircraft carrier "Israel" out of range as well.

sally , says: June 22, 2019 at 8:34 am GMT
@2stateshmustate agree, the comment that "the USA is taking the events to the UN is loaded with false something or other..

Iran initiated the UN hearing AFAIK and IRAN says it will present evidence that it was the USA's intention.. to do the deeds ..<=personally, my feeling is neither Russia nor China will veto .. anything about these deeds.. the only veto will come from Article II of the COUS , present leader [one Mr. Trumpy]. who is elected not by popular vote of the govern people in America but instead by the hidden behind the scene, state to state vote of the electoral college.. .. <== you mean all that to-do every four years to elect a president: democrats vs republicans beating each other up, newspapers collecting billions in contribution dollars to publish fake I hate you slogans, and he saids, you saids: dey all be fake news, propaganda erotic ? yep.. sure enough is. dem guys dat rites dem Konstitutions ain't no dummies deys knows vat ve good fore dem. Read Article II, sections 2 and 3.. you see..
Popular vote elects the Article I folks ( 525 in all: 425 members of the house of congressional districts (Art. 1, Section 2), and 100 Senators (amendment 17, proposed 1912, approved 1913federal reserve(act of congress), income tax (amendment 16) both also 1913 ),

=>but Article I (section 2 and amendment 17 ) folks have no power to act.. as powerless buffoons ..they are authorized only to approve a few things, try cases of Treason, and make the laws, fund the actions, wants and needs demanded by Article II persons. It takes 2/3 of each a divided Senate and 2/3 of a divided House [Art. I, sec 7[2,3] to over-power the Art II privilege of veto.. and

==get this=> Article II persons are charged to enforce the law( Art II, section 2 [3] he[the President} shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Where is Hillary? I see no words making such duty to enforce the law optional (so does the AG have an option that the President does not, .) ?

misguided Saker ?

Zumbuddi , says: June 22, 2019 at 8:38 am GMT
@Fran Macadam . . . Timed to force Congress to vote on a declaration of war just before elections.
Zumbuddi , says: June 22, 2019 at 8:42 am GMT
@HEREDOT Have you ever seen an obese deer?
Rabbitnexus , says: June 22, 2019 at 8:53 am GMT
I am in full agreement with the author about who was most likely behind the attacks on the ships and how the two separate attacks were done. Even down to accepting the possibility Iran was behind some or all of this as provocation for the reasons given. If so it would mean they are hurting badly and need to bring things to a head fast. This does not fit with my observations of Iranian leadership which has always demonstrated a very long term and patient, typically oriental approach to logjams in diplomacy and nothing has happened to suggest they are suddenly feeling extremely more pain than previously. In short it is possible but I doubt it.

To my mind the things which speak against the Iranians having attacked the tankers the second time at least are substantial: Both ships were Japanese owned. This attack as such was against Japanese interests WHILST the Japanese PM (Japanese death cult and mafia associations and all) was making a historical visit to Tehran! What sort of dung for brains clowns would invite someone for dinner and then send the kids out to set fire to their car whilst they dined? Of course Washington would do something like this (shooting missiles at Syria whilst enjoying a lovely piece of cake with their Chinese ally ffs ) but Iran? Give me a break.

Secondly if Iran was guilty, how come the USA is lying like a cheap rug from the get go? The video the US Navy quickly produced is PROOF they are lying. The black and white imagery does NOT hide the distinctly different paint jobs on the ship depicted and the actual one involved. Whatever that video is, it is NOT a video of either of the ships involved in the second incident. So if Iran was guilty why is the USA using fabricated evidence to assert it?

The claim that the Iranians tried unsuccesfully to shoot down a Reaper drone which was according to the USA monitoring the ship BEFORE IT WAS ATTACKED was what stuck in my craw from the start. What the hell was a REAPER Drone doing monitoring that particular ship at that particular time? Is this a common practice? Reaper drones are NOT recon drones they carry hellfire missiles and kill things! When you consider the reports by the crew, as relayed by the Japanese company owner about a flying object just before the explosion and the pictures of the damage which clearly show fairly small holes about half way between the gunwale and waterline the conclusion these were small missiles is hard to avoid. Indeed HELLFIRE missiles would fit the bill nicely.

As for attacking Iran I do not believe that the USA will dare start anything, especially now, so long as they have troops and ships within range of Iranian missiles. Iranian missiles power is immense and an unknown because they do not know where it all is, and they do know much of it is very, very well hardened against attack. IF they do start a war with Iran whilst they have assets in the region, invluding "Israel" then they have completely lost their minds and I'd say the war will end very fast and hard for them. Not even going nuclear will do it. They are deluded if they think so. Nukes are not magic, they are just big bombs and even the radiation component is not a big deal these days. (few realise it but modern nukes are quite 'clean') Iran is a vast country and well dug in over millenia. However unleashing a full nuclear war against a non nuclear state will end the USA forever as a world citizen in every way. There is no solution for the USA except to make peace or back off. They can plan and scheme all they like but Allah is the best of planners.

Rabbitnexus , says: June 22, 2019 at 9:00 am GMT
@Fran Macadam Well if that line of turkeys pecking at the crumbs of provocations unfolding which purport to involve Iran keep on gobbling on cue they are going to realise too late they just walked into the slaughter house. Iran will send home many thousands of their boys and girls in body bags and sink their ships but the real hurt will be the end of the US economy. They'll be missing even allegorical crumbs when they only have dirt to eat.
El Dato , says: June 22, 2019 at 9:05 am GMT
@MarkinLA Japan continued to occupy part of China (and viciously so, clearly stamping on the foot of white-colonial interests with their homegrown late-comer colonialism) but i mainly started to challenge US power in the Pacific, and with strong determination.

Explainer:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/FTupV8o3mW4?start=7391&feature=oembed

China nowadays has this role. This is why the US is interested in a "first strike" nuclear posture. This is gonna be fun.

Sean , says: June 22, 2019 at 9:15 am GMT
Iran's War for higher Oil prices

Israel does not have the ability to deceive the US, and why would it need to with Trump in power? American fracking technology has greatly limited Iranian ability to cause trouble. If it was the Iranians that did the limpet mine attack on international shipping then what would their objective have been? Clearly they don't want more any real war or even more sanctions. What they do want is create demand for their oil and sell it at a good price. The price of oil is already up from the mere tension over the limpet mine and shootdown and had there been US military action oil prices would have gone much higher. I see this whole affair as a sign that the Iranian regieme is getting desperate, because America's slow smothering strategy is working. Iran wants to breack out of its current situation and Trump is walking them into that.

Israel will do nothing, the partisan supporters of Israel in the US can be kept quiet on the immigration Issue by throwing them a bone (as Trump has been doing). Iran want to rase oil prices and create demand for its oil, that is all. Hitting Iran, but quite lightly, is the best option for Trump if he wants to win reelection. And so he will hit Iran at a time of his choosing, which will probabally be closer to the election. The armed forces of America or any other country are not for enforcing international law or notions of fair play, but rather for defending that country's interests. Iran and Trump's agendas converge on a clash well short of all out war in the very near future.

The Alarmist , says: June 22, 2019 at 9:16 am GMT
Occam's Razor suggests Trump got news that the drone was indeed inside Iranian airspace and decided for once to call BS.

Besides, in the great scheme of things, one lost drone doesn't make up for the USS Vincennes killing 290 people on Iran Air 655 by shooting it down in Iranian Airspace. When the Empire warned that civil aircraft were not safe in the airspace, it wasn't the Iranian forces they were warning about.

El Dato , says: June 22, 2019 at 9:17 am GMT
@El Dato Pearl Harbor explained:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/FTupV8o3mW4?start=8008&feature=oembed

Miggle , says: June 22, 2019 at 9:19 am GMT
@Miggle Sorry, "My guess" covers all that follows. It's only my guess that the USA would have sided with Hitler if they'd known India would not be part of the British Empire.
Miggle , says: June 22, 2019 at 9:55 am GMT
@Colin Wright So, not insane, inzine.

Is there a difference?

Art , says: June 22, 2019 at 10:12 am GMT
Our hero Donald J Trump – a courageous man who saved 150 lives and avoided a war, will ride those lives into 2020.

There will be no war against Iran started by Trump.

Think Peace -- Art

EoinW , says: June 22, 2019 at 10:21 am GMT
@TheJester But it wasn't wise for the Japanese as they were completely defeated.

The key difference between Japan and Iran is that the Japanese Empire was an aggressor, endlessly invading its neighbours. Iran has not fought an offensive war in 40 years.

Also have to question you on the time element. Time is on the side of the Asian countries. It's countries, like Israel, who see this as peak time for military action. Iran has survived 40 years of sanctions and can certainly survive this time, especially with the support of Russia and China. Yet they still must react to military planes threatening their air space. Plus they have no control over oil tankers being targeted by third parties.

Amon , says: June 22, 2019 at 10:56 am GMT
The more I see of this, the more convinced I am that the US as a society is clinically insane.

Its borders are under attack by what can only be described as an invasion is taking place with millions off illegal immigrants pour across the border to commit crime, steal jobs or mooch of the welfare programs.

Its cities are decaying with armies of homeless, shit and drugs flooding the streets in ever greater numbers while the working class people flee in great waves.

Masked and armed criminals roam the streets of major US cities, attack anyone they deem to be a wrong thinker when not busy rioting, stealing and chanting for the deaths of others.

Its economy is in a bi-polar mood. On one hand the GDP is as high as ever with tons of new jobs getting created, on the other hand the physical economy is shrinking as stores closes and houses go unsold due to half the nation being unable to buy anything but food and clothes.

In the face of all of these problems, the US Government has decided to put its full attention on overthrowing the government of Venezuela and starting a war with Iran because somehow, those two nations who posed no danger to the US have been declared high priority targets that requires the full spectrum attention and political intervention by the US.

joeshittheragman , says: June 22, 2019 at 11:13 am GMT
@HEREDOT We can killed much more efficiently.
RVBlake , says: June 22, 2019 at 11:30 am GMT
@A123 "There will be a response with minimal bloodshed." Yes, we are noted for the delicate, nearly bloodless nature of our military reactions, merely focusing on regimes with the full-throated applause of the grateful populaces. It would be a cake-walk, to quote our valiant SecDef Rumsfeld prior to our 2003 Iraqi minimally bloody response.

And speaking of armchair generalship, I wonder where Trump's multi-starred consultant got the figure "150" in answer to the question of civilian casualties. This is the kind of clear-sighted strategic vision that has a U. S. victory in Afghanistan just around the corner, to quote our junior Clausewitz's.

SteveM , says: June 22, 2019 at 11:34 am GMT

But it is also plausible (if by no means certain) that at least two groups could have opposed such a strike:

1) The planners at CENTCOM and/or the Pentagon.

Yes, it's reported that the Pentagon advised Trump not to retaliate militarily for the drone shoot down.

Given advanced missile technologies, surface warships of any stripe are sitting ducks. I'm guessing that Iran has a plethora of missile batteries up and down its coast. If Iran launched a barrage of missiles simultaneously (10? 20? 30?) at a single surface warship in the Persian Gulf, what would be the probability that the ship's self-defense systems could neutralize them all?

If a single multi-billion dollar warship were sunk, the credibility of U.S. naval "power projection" would evaporate. In that context, the Pentagon's reluctance may be because they'd rather not establish that their hyper-expensive blue-water surface Navy is an anachronism.

alexander , says: June 22, 2019 at 11:49 am GMT
There is a very simple solution to all this, and the sooner it happens the better.

Everyone who conspired to defraud the US taxpayer into illegal wars (dating back to 2002), should be forced to pay for the cost of the wars they lied us into.

All the assets of these "deceivers" should be "seized" .to pay down the 22 trillion war debt their lies created.

If there is anything left over , it should be placed in an " Iran War Escrow Account ".

This would ensure that the burden of the war costs falls directly on "their" shoulders and NOT the US taxpayers.

This seems like a just and fair solution for everybody ., doesn't it ?

Justsaying , says: June 22, 2019 at 11:51 am GMT
@A123 If this is not proof of what some of these Washington criminals have on their agenda:

https://www.newsweek.com/mike-pompeo-says-iran-must-listen-us-if-they-want-their-people-eat-1208465

An authentic act of war before even before firing the first bullet. First, make the economy scream in the tradition of yet another thug masquerading as head of state (Nixon). Second, starve them into submission. Does the first Iraq war resulting in the death of an estimated half a million children denied essential medicines ring a bell? Venezuela is similarly being starved into surrender. Meanwhile Guaido is embezzling the humanitarian aid intended for his needy countrymen.

All said, the history of our country's lies and deception going back a long ways, more than speaks for itself.

anon [210] Disclaimer , says: June 22, 2019 at 12:10 pm GMT
@War for Blair Mountain Remember, the Holy Hook states that Working Class Native Born White Christian American Male Canon Fodder " owe it to the Jews ."
Zero , says: June 22, 2019 at 12:29 pm GMT
@Justsaying Of course, starvation is a favorite tactic of OUR international Communist overlords. They've used it for decades and killed hundreds of millions of people using it. It's cheap and easy.
Realist , says: June 22, 2019 at 12:42 pm GMT

Trump Claims He Canceled an Airstrike Against Iran at the Very Last Minute

That is just bullshit.

Realist , says: June 22, 2019 at 12:47 pm GMT
@lavoisier

Mostly just an idiot and a Zionist whore.

Yes, and there are plenty of them.

sarz , says: June 22, 2019 at 12:47 pm GMT
Saker, it would be good to see you spell out where you differ from Bernhard of Moon of Alabama's assumptions.

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/06/white-house-pushes-trump-pulled-back-story-he-likely-never-approved-to-strike-iran.html

War for Blair Mountain , says: June 22, 2019 at 12:55 pm GMT
On direct orders from Donald Trump ..the US Military is illegally occupying the sovereign Nation of Syria .and Trump took a direct order from JEW ONLY ISRAEL to do this think about it

A case can be made that the US strategy is not to go to war with Iran .but rather, use the boogey man of Iran to justify a 100 year illegal US Military occupation of Syria on behalf of JEW ONLY ISRAEL .

The late Fat Cockroach Christopher Hitchens justified murdering thousands of Iraqis because it would be good for the Kurds Well, here is what I say:THE CRYPTO JEW KURDS WERE NEVER WORTH IT .Kurdish autonomy in northern Iraq always meant an IDF presence in Northern Iraq

Realist , says: June 22, 2019 at 12:58 pm GMT
@2stateshmustate Yep, A123 is as full of shit as you can get
Realist , says: June 22, 2019 at 1:03 pm GMT
@restless94110

Why would you end your mis-analysis where you justify war with the word PEACE?

Spelling it out in all CAPS?

Because he's a really, really dumbass.

Do you realize that economic sanctions are considered to be acts of war?

He doesn't realize what planet he's on.

Are you insane?

He's just really low IQ.

Biff , says: June 22, 2019 at 1:09 pm GMT
@Anonymous

learn the difference between tactics and strategy.

Hey Bill Clinton, is that you?

Dictionary.com gives almost identical definitions for those terms, so tell us oh wise one – what's the difference?

Jacques Sheete , says: June 22, 2019 at 1:11 pm GMT
@A123

And, the political goal is to stop the Iranian regime from threatening and destabilizing the region.

Oh, really! Tsk tsk.

Johnny Walker Read , says: June 22, 2019 at 1:14 pm GMT
The best analysis of the 225 million dollar MQ-4C drone(more expensive than the F-35) shoot down in my opinion is that of Jim Stone:
"The drone shot down was an MQ-4C, which is basically a more advanced clone of the Global Hawk. A better score for Iran than a Global Hawk. ADDITIONALLY IMPORTANT: Iran was the one that recovered the debris, the U.S. navy did not, which means Iran was telling the truth about where it was flying to begin with. If they got it, it fell on their turf. It is really blown to smithereens, a direct hit. That's good for Iran because it proves their missile systems can do it, but it is bad because they don't have any big pieces. Additionally, there was an American P-8 spy plane accompanying the drone, Iran was able to differentiate between the two, and hit the drone. The P-8 was a much easier target. Iran obviously opted not to hit it because killing it's crew would have meant war."

What everyone needs to be aware of here is "stealth" technology is a total farce, and can be defeated with long wave radar, basically the same system used by England during WWII. The drone shot down was considered a Max Stealth aircraft, same as the F-35. The F-35 and F-22 are basically "hanger queens"(many hours of maintenance required for every hour of flying time), and with their stealth capabilities being defeatable, they are pretty much worthless. Trump did not pull the trigger on this because he figured out the whole thing could go real bad real quick.

I urge all to read Jim Stones take on this mess: http://82.221.129.208/.wh7.html

Realist , says: June 22, 2019 at 1:15 pm GMT
@alexander

Everyone who conspired to defraud the US taxpayer into illegal wars (dating back to 2002), should be forced to pay for the cost of the wars they lied us into.

Everyone who conspired to defraud the US taxpayer into illegal wars, their heirs and all who profited from (dating back to 1812), should be forced to pay for the cost of the wars they lied us into.

FIFY

Jacques Sheete , says: June 22, 2019 at 1:16 pm GMT
@Justsaying You are correct. This is economic and siege warfare. Flying bullets, etc., add to the drama and consequences, but the war on Iran began many years ago. The vicious clowns are up to the same old tricks, but bullshitting only the willing gulls.
Jacques Sheete , says: June 22, 2019 at 1:18 pm GMT
@Zero

Of course, starvation is a favorite tactic of OUR international Communist overlords.

Yup. It's what empires do, and they don't even give a flip if their own people have to go without either.

Jacques Sheete , says: June 22, 2019 at 1:23 pm GMT
@El Dato

It's really like living in a Nazi regime

No, it's not. Clearly the Nazis were on the defensive . Lying Abe Lincoln was, in fact, much worse than the Nazis ever thought of being; in a totally different category even.

DESERT FOX , says: June 22, 2019 at 1:25 pm GMT
Iran has not started a war in over 300 years and is not a terrorist nation and does not export terrorism, that title belongs the the unholy trinity of the zio/US and Israel and Britain, the creators and funders and suppliers of AL CIADA aka ISIS and all the various off shoots thereof.

This war on Iran is a zionist project of the zionists who control the governments of the zio/US and zio/Britain as has been the case in every war in Iraq and Libya and Syria and Yemen and Lebanon , Israel has been the agent provocateur in every one of these wars!

The zionists have a goal of a satanic zionist NWO and are hell bent to get there if they have to kill off all the goyim and muslims to accomplish it and they are well on their way!

Read the book Blood In The Water by Joan Mellen on the zio/US and Israeli attack on the USS Liberty for a look at how these two terrorist nations operate!

Jacques Sheete , says: June 22, 2019 at 1:25 pm GMT
@HEREDOT

A handful of psychopaths determine our destiny. What makes us different from animals?

I don't think other animals have psychopaths of the same species ruling over them nor do they have hasbara clowns spouting sewage and doing worse 24/7, such as the alphanumeric zero, above.

Realist , says: June 22, 2019 at 1:28 pm GMT
@Greg Bacon

Mr. Saker left out the inconvenient fact that while that drone was indeed flying over Iranian air space, a much larger target, the Poseidon P8 was flying nearby. The P8 is a converted Boeing 737, making for a much larger radar profile for that missile. The P8 has many ASW capabilities, and also can control drones.

If this is true the stupid bastards in control of this country better take note. If the missile, that Iran says they developed, is cabable of distinguishing between a P8 and a drone the US may have a big problem.

Johnny Walker Read , says: June 22, 2019 at 1:30 pm GMT
@SteveM Yup, Trump called this off because he knew America could pay dearly for an attack on Iran.
Realist , says: June 22, 2019 at 1:30 pm GMT
@joeshittheragman Excellent answer.
Johnny Walker Read , says: June 22, 2019 at 1:33 pm GMT
This is what our Air Force would look like if it was based on war fighting and not making all in the MIC extremely rich.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/03/f-35-replacement-f-45-mustang-ii-fighter-simple-lightweight/
Realist , says: June 22, 2019 at 1:39 pm GMT
@MarkinLA

The embargo was because Japan continued to occupy part of China.

True, but China has been occupied by both the British and US in the past .and not too distant past.

Fool's Paradise , says: June 22, 2019 at 1:43 pm GMT
More likely, Trump and his Neocons knew that Iran had proof that the spy drone was shot down over Iran's territory, that the truth would come out after the U.S. strike, earning the world's condemnation and making Trump et al look like warmongering fools. That's what they are, of course, but it gave Trump the chance to pose as a big humanitarian, stopping the strike because, since it was only a plane, with no Americans on board, he didn't want to "disproportionately" kill anybody. Yeah. Just wait until the Israeli puppets send another plane with Americans on board, it'll give Israel and our traitorous Neocons the war they've been lusting after for a decade or more.
Realist , says: June 22, 2019 at 1:45 pm GMT
@Art LOL
Jacques Sheete , says: June 22, 2019 at 1:50 pm GMT
@MarkinLA

All they had to do was go back home.

Proof?

In fact it's my understanding that the Japanese were bending over backwards in an attempt to avoid war with the US but the Wall Street Commie catamite FDR and his henchmen foiled and insulted them at every turn. The story of how they were repeatedly humiliated would raise the hackles of the least sensitive among us.

The big picture is that the Wall Street and London Commies were aiming for world hegemony even at their own populations' expense, of course, and Japan and Germany had to be castrated even if populated and run by angels and innocent choir boys to ensure that they could be turned into industrial slave states. It's apparent that the scum of the Earth won't rest until they've accomplished their goals as we can clearly see here.

Nancy Pelosi's Latina Maid , says: June 22, 2019 at 1:55 pm GMT
@War for Blair Mountain

Sean Hannity lives in the largest Mansion in Lloyd Neck I have driven past his Mansion to get a look as to just how big it is IT'S HUGE ..Lloyd Neck has the most expensive zip code in the US

A simple Google search reveals Hannity sold his Lloyd Neck home in 2014, and has lived in Oyster Bay for several years. Also, Lloyd Neck isn't even in Forbes' Top 50 Most Expensive Zip Codes; the list is headed by four communities in California and one in Florida.

I'm not saying Sean isn't a pussy and a faggot, but your facts are suspect.

Jacques Sheete , says: June 22, 2019 at 1:58 pm GMT
@Popeye Dear Sir,

This is the 21st century. Why do you persist in parroting nearly century-old war propaganda?

Current Commenter

[Jun 21, 2019] Washington's Mighty Warriors Draft Dodgers and Scoundrels

Jun 21, 2019 | www.strategic-culture.org

Bolton was notoriously a draft dodger during the Vietnam War, like his current boss, not due to any scruples regarding what was occurring, but out of concern for his own sorry ass.

[Jun 21, 2019] If oil ships stop transiting for any reason the western economic and banking system implodes as the notional value of all those trillions in derivatives (oil at least) become real once the price rise

Notable quotes:
"... iran and oman share the straits as they enter the indian ocean. these waters are THEIR territorial waters and have been agreed upon for decades by the world. 12 miles give or take for each side. there are NO international waters here. ..."
"... It would appear the Iranians tracked our drone essentially from time time of departure until its demise. The folks on the web would have us believe the Iranians used a $2,500 homemade missile to bring down a $120,000,000 drone. Let that soak in. Am I the only one wondering what else we are unaware? ..."
"... Iran's Air Defense Force has some really quirky own designed and manufactured, mostly Chinese and Russian knock-offs) air defense complexes with serious sensors. ..."
"... Rumor has it--Iran has a number of Yakhonts. Those are very bad news for anything on the surface in Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. ..."
Jun 21, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.com

ted richard ,

iran and oman share the straits as they enter the indian ocean. these waters are THEIR territorial waters and have been agreed upon for decades by the world. 12 miles give or take for each side. there are NO international waters here.

if oil ships stop transiting for any reason the western economic and banking system implodes as the notional value of all those trillions in derivatives (oil at least) become real once the price rises. not a shot need be fired to collapse the western world living standards and there is nothing the pentagon can do about even IF it could which it CAN'T.

peace is the only sane option IF the west wants to remain upright and obstensibly solvent.

ignore fools like bolton and pompeo.

fredw , 21 June 2019 at 07:08 AM
The Trump administration has to come up with an explanation for this. Otherwise everyone will believe that that the red phone rang. "Mr. Putin on the line, sir." Another ripe conspiracy theory waiting in the wings is that Iran turned on some unexpected radar and showed just what the planes were flying into. Some logical, plausible, and not too embarassing alternative story is needed. Fast.
jon stanley , 21 June 2019 at 07:25 AM
Let us hope Trump's alleged caution holds. For the moment, anyway. However, let us also hope wiser heads prevail in Iran. It seems clear to me (which I do not mistake for assuming I am automatically correct) that there has been a PATTERN of increased, violent actions coming from Iran. i.e. increased shelling of US positions, or, near them, anyway, in Iraq. Along with the tanker attacks and drone attacks, two, I might add. These seem calculated, at the moment, at avoiding US loss of life. So, they are playing around with us, testing us. This reflects, to me, ONE kind of thinking in Iran. However, there are other sides there, I believe.

And in the meantime Trump is, essentially, bereft of support within DC. Unless it be in the military. One side of the elite community hates Trump, but for the moment, goes along with him. Trying to push and prod him forward to their ends. The NeoCons and Never Trumpers. The other side basically loathes Trump and opposes whatever position he is taking. Reflectively. Thoughtlessly. This leaves him essentially alone. IN DC. He should get out of the Capital more often. To his Base. Away from the talking heads. In the meantime Iran should give pause for thought. They may think the world will be on their side, if only to oppose Trump. But they won't get much support other than soft and meaningless words, if they keep poking the Bear. And they just might get eaten...hard as a meal as that would be to digest.

fotokemist , 21 June 2019 at 08:05 AM
My poorly informed speculation drawing upon my career as a chemist (i.e., no military training or experience, the navy rejected me when I tried to join the NROTC in 1963) I am inclined to disbelieve our claims that our drone was in international air space. One commentator on MoA claimed there is no international air space over the Gulf of Hormuz. The relevant treaties address only marine access.

It would appear the Iranians tracked our drone essentially from time time of departure until its demise. The folks on the web would have us believe the Iranians used a $2,500 homemade missile to bring down a $120,000,000 drone. Let that soak in. Am I the only one wondering what else we are unaware?

Regarding the aborted attack, my suspicion is that someone informed Trump of the possibility of an unsuspected Iranian asset bringing down an F-22, or horrors, an F-35. Not likely to help our export programs.

Combined with the possibility that Iran can present convincing evidence that the drone penetrated their air space, Trump would be in a poor position to defend himself against war crime charges should he order an attack. Might not play well in the upcoming election cycle.

As a businessman, he could have decided the rewards of an attack did not justify these risks.

Other thoughts?

Andrei Martyanov (aka SmoothieX12) -> fotokemist... , 21 June 2019 at 12:05 PM
Regarding the aborted attack, my suspicion is that someone informed Trump of the possibility of an unsuspected Iranian asset bringing down an F-22, or horrors, an F-35. Not likely to help our export programs.

Certainly one of major considerations. Unlike Iraq's "integrated" (a propaganda cliche--antiquated should have been the term), Iran's Air Defense Force has some really quirky own designed and manufactured, mostly Chinese and Russian knock-offs) air defense complexes with serious sensors.

It also has Russian S-300PMU2. In general, Iran is nothing like Iraq, Libya or Syria before Russia intervened.

I would put Iran's medium range (up to 100 kilometers range and up to 20 kilometers altitude) AD capabilities as robustly good.

And then, of course, tactical-operational ballistic missiles with an easy reach anywhere in ME (Qatar rings the bell, among many other) and, finally, who knows how many (very-very many) and what capability anti-shipping missiles.

Rumor has it--Iran has a number of Yakhonts. Those are very bad news for anything on the surface in Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.

fotokemist , 21 June 2019 at 08:24 AM
Make that Strait of Hormuz.
Fourth and Long , 21 June 2019 at 08:46 AM
Probably a face saving gesture - can seem tough and reasonable simultaneously. It's shaping up as de-escalation on both sides for now, which I deduce from recent press releases on behalf of Iranian authorities saying that they refrained from shooting down a US P-8 plane carrying 35 people, which was accompanying the unmanned drone which they acknowledge shooting down. So they're mirroring each other IMO - it's not going to escalate.
CK , 21 June 2019 at 08:46 AM
I believe that Nixon did the same thing in 1969 when North Korea shot down an ec121. Threaten with a nuke and then stand down.
Ishmael Zechariah -> Eric Newhill... , 21 June 2019 at 10:54 AM
Eric Newhill,
IMO,it is the izzies who are pushing for the destruction of Iran, with their BS about Amalek, their god-given title to Palestine, and their attempts to re-mold the ME in their image. The presence of Nasrallah&Co. and their rocket forces-mostly supplied by Iran-is the primary issue. Most of the current ills of the ME can be traced to the izzies. Think Syria.
While there is no doubt that US can pound Iran into the stone age without really working a sweat, she probably would not have gotten off w/o a few bruises for her pains. In addition, more importantly in my view, the izzies might have also gotten a few surprises.
My friends were glad to end last night with no emergencies on their watch. We were all very, very worried.
Ishmael Zechariah
joanna said in reply to Eric Newhill... , 21 June 2019 at 10:59 AM
yes, still playing guitar?

https://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/Iran/Pages/default.aspx

And what would you personally consider as more urgent, the inner US bolshevik threat the ones that made the deal or the outer Iranian one?

eakens said in reply to Eric Newhill... , 21 June 2019 at 11:49 AM
Flying a plane into their territory, getting shot down, and then not attacking and calling it an opportunity to deescalate. That's rich. The only thing these whole farcical attempt at diplomacy has proven from the day the deal was denounced as being a bad deal is that those at the top know little of Iran and Iranians. Nor do we want to know, since virtually every time I watch TV and they bring on an "expert" to talk about Iran, they are not only not Iranian but half the time Jewish.
Eric Newhill said in reply to eakens... , 21 June 2019 at 12:58 PM
eakens,
How do you know where the drone was when it was shot down? How do you know where the plane was?
robt willmann , 21 June 2019 at 09:28 AM
Trump has come out through the usual direct communication channel, saying the reason he called off a strike was that casualties were certain to occur and thus would not be proportionate to an unmanned drone--

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1142055375186907136

Bill Wade , 21 June 2019 at 09:28 AM
"On Monday they shot down an unmanned drone flying in International Waters. We were cocked & loaded to retaliate last night on 3 different sights when I asked, how many will die. 150 people, sir, was the answer from a General. 10 minutes before the strike I stopped it, not proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone. I am in no hurry, our Military is rebuilt, new, and ready to go, by far the best in the world. Sanctions are biting & more added last night. Iran can NEVER have Nuclear Weapons, not against the USA, and not against the WORLD!" Pres Trump tweet
Andrei Martyanov (aka SmoothieX12) -> Eric Newhill... , 21 June 2019 at 01:25 PM
Yes. Trump is more cool headed than a lot of people give him credit for being.

His actions have nothing to do with him being cool headed. He is very confused man as of today. But in this particular case we all may be thankful for none other than Tucker Carlson who, if to believe number of American sources, does advise Trump and that, in itself, is a really good news for everyone on the planet. In fact, if Trump wants second term, among many things he ought to do is to remove Bolton and appoint Tucker his NSA. Carlson surely is way more qualified for this job than Bolton. Come to think about it, Tucker could make a decent Secretary of the State too.

HawkOfMay , 21 June 2019 at 09:48 AM
I've always felt that President Trump is impulsive and that impulsiveness is one of the things that makes him unfit to be President. My question is not 'did he order airstrikes'. My question is 'did an adult in the room step in' or 'did he actually change his mind'. I suspect the answer to that question will break down along the typical partisan lines.

It does make clear that he has no overall plan or strategy in place. These actions demonstrate that our President is unpredictable. While unpredictability has its own value (perhaps especially in the political arena) I don't want to see miscalculations creep in when we are talking about getting involved in a new war in the ME.

Eugene Owens , 21 June 2019 at 10:03 AM
I thank Generals Dunford and Selva at the JCS for putting the brakes on Moron Bolton and SecState Pompous. Particularly General Selva who says protecting oil shipments thru the Strait is not our job; and who also pushed back hard against escalation in Venezuela in late April.

https://www.businessinsider.com/paul-selva-john-bolton-aides-meeting-venezuela-2019-5

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/06/18/dont-expect-the-us-to-secure-arabian-gulf-shipping-alone-top-general-says/

Eugene Owens , 21 June 2019 at 10:11 AM
fotokemist & Ted Richard -

The ships and aircraft of all nations, including warships, auxiliaries, and military aircraft, enjoy the right of unimpeded transit passage in the Strait and its approaches.

That is true elsewhere also. The international legal regime of transit passage exists not only at the Strait of Hormuz but also in the Strait of Gibraltar, the Dover Strait, the Bab-el-Mandeb, and the Strait of Malacca.

Fred , 21 June 2019 at 10:33 AM
Walrus,

Looks like impeachment for Russian collusion is off the table, Joe 'foot in mouth' Biden gets some cover and even Democrats in congress are talking about how the AUMF is outdated. Fixing the later, well that would take Pelosi allowing some legislation to come up for a vote.

Flavius , 21 June 2019 at 11:14 AM
Prudent move by the President. It is encouraging that he put in play the concept of proportionality. Although the scale of challenge represented by Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, and the Pueblo in 68 exceeded this event, Trump's reasoning in this situation demonstrated a level of akin sobriety that has all too frequently been lacking in the course of the last three presidencies. The lunatic fringes will no doubt find some way to undercut him, the left for their usual obscene political reasons and the neo-cons because they are neo-cons in service to their 'higher calling' but Trump by now has become accustomed to the craven antics of former; and hopefully this unfolding will so contrast his reasoning with the reasoning of his card carrying neo-con advisors that he will realize he needs to clean house for the next time.
jon stanley said in reply to Flavius... , 21 June 2019 at 03:54 PM
What "challenge" in Hungry? Ike made it clear, in 1944, never mind 1956, where our sphere of interest was. There was never any doubt in Ike's mind, anyway. And who had enough gravitas and knowledge to try and talk him out of his views? Czechoslovakia in 1968? Come on...we were a bit, cough, cough, distracted in 1968. That was never in question either. Pueblo? Come on..
blue peacock , 21 June 2019 at 01:15 PM
Jack posted an interesting tweet on another thread. It seems there may also be an alternate explanation on why Trump called off the attacks.

Apparently Iran was informed of the imminent attacks. They responded through Oman & Switzerland that they wouldn't play ball and any attack would escalate.

It is high time for Trump to eject the neocons from his administration.

Mark Logan , 21 June 2019 at 03:17 PM
There was a palpable lack of enthusiasm for a new war on FOX's programs last night.

IMO unless Trump comes to believe his re-election chances would be enhanced by a new war or the IRG conducts ops too violent to be ignored he is likely to keep it holstered.

[Jun 21, 2019] Is The U.S. Going To War With Iran

Youtube video...
May 28, 2019 | AJ+

Iran has been abiding by the nuclear agreement. So why does it feel like the Trump administration is edging the United States towards a war? #iran #iransanctions #trump

Jack Roth , 3 weeks ago

Israel is the biggest winner if USA goes to war with IRAN

Starman , 2 weeks ago

Ironic, politicians don't do any of the fighting but their soldiers do. The soliders don't know why are fighting and get killed, politicians do know why they are fighting but don't get killed. "War: A massacre of people who don't know each other for the profit of people who know each other but don't massacre each other" Paul Valery

Ali raza , 3 weeks ago

Saudi Arabia has made another 8 billion dollars weapon agreement with US. That means No WAR threat now till then next purchase agreement.

Tyler M , 5 hours ago (edited)

Its the old men who declare war but its are young men and woman that must face danger and death!!!god bless American armed forces!

Dunking Donut , 19 seconds ago

With America and Iran goes against each other, Iran will lose really bad because America is so big and stronger compare to a small country

Surrealist Idealist , 3 weeks ago

Bolton is such a traitorous, power-worshipping coward. He can only lie to himself about it by bullying others.

young yahye , 2 weeks ago

I feel bad for the brainwashed American citizens From school to military to sleeping ships that are entertained with consumption Very dumbed down society

Teta _98 , 1 day ago

Iran isn't easy USA they are not Iraq or Afghanistan .. USA will do very big mistake

Jai Nepal , 3 days ago div tabindex="0" role="article

"> This whole situation, is Americas last stand along with Saudi and their local cousins in Israel to maintain the Petro dollar system which , if Iran could trade its resources equitably would be finished...This is the system that pays for the thousands of US military bases surrounding China, Russia ,Iran etc...

that provides billions of dollars to maintain Israeli nuclear and military superiority in Palestine and Western Asia

..and maintains the Saudi monopoly and high crude prices, and so the Saudi dictator monarchist establishment...

Nobody is claiming Iran is perfect, yet lets see this for what it is..as with Trumps attacks , tariffs and sanctions leveled across global trade and industry...The desperate actions of a dying empire...

William Hanson , 3 hours ago

There is a reason is the Obama administration went back to negotiating. To keep them Iran busy while it was launching the Stuxnet Virus on the industrial control systems in Iran. Watch the documentary Zero Days. It is extremely eye opening.

VITA kyo , 1 day ago

BUSINESS IS WAR & WAR IS THE BEST BUSINESS .

JJ Sundra , 7 hours ago (edited) div tabindex="0" r

ole="article"> The World should stand together to stop this kind of bullying....! The Trump administration had already planned ... that it needs to invade IRAN to choke China, Korea, Japan & now India who gets their Oil from Iran. The unilateral tearing up of an International Agreement is evidenced that US will rather this World go to Hell and to give-up its No. 1 place in Commerce and Defence. This kind of arrogance & "superiorority" attitude is dangerous for one who claims the title "Sherif - of-the - World"..! USA via the Trump Administration is HELL BENT on invading IRAN. The tearing-up and dishonouring the wishes of the International Community in order to provoke IRAN to retaliate by also NOT complying with the provisions of the said Agreement is evidence that the USA had already decided to invade IRAN. They nearly did invade last year but probably decided that they can conspire to create more incidents to justify their attack. AN INVASION ON IRAN IS PRICELESS TO USA.... WHY..? 1) They get to plunder USD Tens/Hundreds of Trillions to enrich THEIR coffers/ economy. 2) IRAN has the 2nd largest oil reserves. Rebrand the Oil as "American Oil".. 3) Take control of the most important shipment ports in the world with regards to Oil Commodity.. 4) Get rid of Out-dsted Military wears and bill them to Saudi at a premium. 5) Introduce their latest Military Wears to the World and again Bill them to Saudi at a double premium ;and. - to get new orders from other countries. - to send a message to China of USA's military capabilities.. 6) To Warn China that it has a penchant to settle issues through the Military if negotiations do not work in favour of the USA.. 7) Choke East Asian countries who are a threat to USA's No. 1 position. 8 ) Take another step towards acknowledging ISREALS legitimate presence of the Middle East. 9) To help Isreal fulfill their prophesy to take control of the Middle East. Saudi will not know, what hits them when the time comes. 10) There is another 3 more serious points but I will leave it to you guys to challenge yourself to decipher it. 11) To put onto action his perspectives, opinion & views while he can, should he not be elected next Term. And if Trump is able to control the War, he will be popular enough to be elected next term. Or if the War gets out of hand, then the US Presidential Elections may be postpone. Therefore this invasion may be his best chance to continue on as President. THEREFORE, UNLESS THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY STEPS IN AND STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS BULLYING... ;;; AMERICA WILL INVADE IRAN.....! USA PROVE ME & THE WORLD WRONG....

[Jun 21, 2019] Kremlin compares US attacks on Iran to fake 'white powder evidence' against Iraq in 2003

Jun 16, 2019 | www.rt.com

The US campaign for a war against Iraq in 2003 serves as a cautionary tale against saber-rattling and finger-pointing amid current tensions in the Persian Gulf, the Kremlin's spokesperson has said.

"We didn't forget the vials with white powder. We remember and, therefore, have learnt to show restraint in our assessments,"

Dmitry Peskov said on a TV show aired on 'Rossiya 1' channel on Sunday...

The Kremlin's spokesperson stated that no sufficient proof has yet been presented to blame anyone. Jumping to conclusions and making hasty decisions could lead to dire consequences, he said.

[Jun 21, 2019] The Gulf of Oman An Ideal Venue for False Flag Attacks

By Eric Margolis
June 16, 2019

4 Comments

Who is attacking oil tankers in the Gulf between Oman and Iran? So far, the answer is still a mystery. The US, of course, accuses Iran. Iran says it's the US or its local allies Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Magnetic mines are blamed for the damage, though there have been claims of torpedo use. Last month, four moored tankers were slightly damaged, though none seriously. This time the attacks were more damaging but apparently not lethal.

A few cynics have even suggested Israel may be behind the tanker attack in order to provoke war between Iran and the United States – a key Israeli goal. Or maybe it's the Saudis whose goal is similar. The Gulf is an ideal venue for false flag attacks.

One thing appears certain. President Donald and his coterie of neocon advisers have been pressing for a major conflict with Iran for months. The US is literally trying to strangle Iran economically and strategically. By now, Israel's hard right wing dominates US Mideast policy and appears to often call the shots at the White House and Congress.

However, this latest Iran `crisis' is totally contrived by the Trump administration to punish the Islamic Republic for refusing to follow American tutelage, supporting the Palestinians, and menacing Saudi Arabia. Most important, the Gulf fracas is diverting public attention from Trump's war with the lynch mob of House Democrats and personal scandals.

Many Americans love small wars. They serve as an alternative to football. Mussolini's popularity in Italy soared after he invaded primitive Ethiopia. Americans cheered the invasions of Grenada, Haiti and Panama. However, supposed 'cake-walk' Iraq was not such a popular success. Memories of the fake Gulf of Tonkin clash used to drive the US into the Vietnam War are strong; so too all the lies about Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction.

Curiously, Trump's undeclared war against Iran has had unanticipated effects. Japan, which relies on Iranian oil, is furious at Washington. Last week, Japan's very popular prime minister, Shinzo Abe, flew to Tehran to try to head off a US-Iranian confrontation and assure his nation's oil supply – the very same reason Japan attacked the US in 1941. Abe warned an accidental war may be close.

Canada used to have warm relations with China. They are now in shambles. Canada 'kidnapped' Chinese bigwig Meng Wanzhou, the crown princess of technology giant Huawei, at Vancouver airport while changing planes on a US arrest warrant for allegedly trading with wait for it Iran. Canada foolishly arrested Meng on a flimsy extradition warrant from the US.

This was an incredibly amateurish blunder by Ottawa's foreign affairs leaders. If they had been smarter, they would have simply told Washington that Meng had already left Canada, or they could not find her. Now Canada's relations with Beijing are rock bottom, Canada has suffered very heavy trade punishment and the world's biggest nation is angry as a wet cat at Canada, a nation whose state religion is to be liked by everyone.

Now, Japan's energy freedom is under serious threat. China mutters about executing the two Canadians it arrested for alleged espionage. Meanwhile, US-China relations have hit their nadir as Trump's efforts to use tariffs to bully China into buying more US soya beans and to trim its non-trade commerce barriers have caused a trade war.

The US-China trade war is badly damaging the economies of both countries. President Trump still does not seem to understand that tariffs are paid by American consumers, not Chinese sellers. Trump's nincompoop foreign policy advisers don't understand how much damage they are doing to US interests. Putting gambling mogul Sheldon Adelson in charge of US foreign and trade policy is not such a good idea.

A good way to end this growing mess is to fire war-lover and Iran-hater John Bolton, send Mike Pompeo back to bible school, and tell Iran and Saudi Arabia to bury the hatchet now. Instead, the White House is talking about providing nuclear capability to Saudi Arabia, one of our world's most backwards and unpleasant nations. Maybe Trump will make a hell of a 'deal' and have North Korea sell nukes to Saudis.

And now we wait the all-time bad joke, the so-called 'Deal of the Century,' which Trump and his boys hope will get rich Arabs to buy off poor Palestinians in exchange for giving up lots more land to Israel. It's hard to think of a bigger or more shameful betrayal by Arabs of fellow Arabs, or a more stupid policy by the US. But, of course, it's not a made-in-the-USA policy at all.

This article originally appeared on American Herald Tribune .

Mat Problem, reaction, solution. Out of the rulers contrived chaos they will create the new world order.
We of European descent will not be included. Vote Up 8 Vote Down Reply 5 days ago ricck lineheart Guest ricck lineheart mmmm Bible School So many self proclaimed Christians yet all appear to be through their words and actions thirsty for blood just as history shows . The same people talk peace and love for all , B.S. ! Americans have such short memories and this is the best weapon the Zionist Jew uses . Along with MainStreamMedia to aid and assist the U.S. must bleed and kill masses of people their god is evil and lusting for blood . Vote Up 4 Vote Down Reply 5 days ago dennis ward Guest dennis ward Round up the usual suspects, the Saudi's and the Israeli's! STOP SELLING THOSE MURDERING PSYCHOPATHS WEAPONS!!! Vote Up 3 Vote Down Reply 4 days ago Arindam Guest Arindam 'This was an incredibly amateurish blunder by Ottawa's foreign affairs leaders. If they had been smarter, they would have simply told Washington that Meng had already left Canada, or they could not find her. '

My thoughts exactly. The Trudeau administration performed extremely poorly in this regard – and Canada is paying the price for it. Though one cannot rule out the possibility that some back-room deal involving Trudeau's re-election was involved

'Trump's nincompoop foreign policy advisers don't understand how much damage they are doing to US interests.'

More likely that they know exactly how much damage they are doing, and it is part of the plan.

[Jun 21, 2019] My own analysis is that the choice of Iran is more or less incidental.

Jun 21, 2019 | www.unz.com

Colin Wright , says: Website June 19, 2019 at 7:03 pm GMT

My own analysis is that the choice of Iran is more or less incidental.

For reasons I won't repeat, Israel always has to have an enemy. Between one thing and another, Iran is the most attractive target at the moment.

Should she be reduced to quivering submission or blood-soaked anarchy, Israel will just pick another victim for us to attack. My guess is that it would be Turkey, but first things first.

On to Teheran.

MK Ultra MJ 12 , says: June 19, 2019 at 8:29 pm GMT
"7 Countries in 5 years" and the first Arab Spring dress rehearsal designed to culminate in an Iranian overthrow. Wayback time machine for warnings of what was and was to come:
http://www.arkofcrisis.com/id51.html
Haxo Angmark , says: Website June 19, 2019 at 11:27 pm GMT
@Colin Wright no the Iran War will not be "incidental":

1) as it'll likely set the rest of the Middle East on fire, the Iran War will greatly facilitate the Greater Israel Project; esp. as cover for a Final Solution of Israhell's Palestinian Arab Problem.

2) Iran no longer takes 'Murkan debtbucks for oil. That must be put down, as international demand for the 'Murkan debtbuck-that-buys-oil is what prevents the domestic debtbuck from going to hyperinflationary collapse. Oil-producing Iraq dropped the 'Murkan debtbuck and so did Libya. See what happened to them?

& expect Drumpf to announce his "great discovery about 9/11" any day now:

"Iran did it!" and as Linh D. says, the MAGA-idiots will believe it.

Colin Wright , says: Website June 20, 2019 at 12:42 am GMT
@Haxo Angmark 'no the Iran War will not be "incidental" '

My point is that what's at the heart of this is Israel's need for an enemy. Iran could vanish tomorrow; it'd just mean Israel would have to start the work up on someone else.

Anonymous [205] Disclaimer , says: June 20, 2019 at 3:03 am GMT

Since we're in the endless war era, another war for Israel is on the horizon, but hardly anyone seems alarmed, least of all Americans, for they've come to see themselves, quite casually and indifferently, as only asskicking agents of war, and never its victims.

Please, don't be stupid. The "white man" goyim are not your enemies. We're all in this together.

If we were that bad, we'd end everyone else tomorrow.

jeff stryker , says: June 20, 2019 at 5:28 am GMT
@Escher If all it takes are some cocaine-addicted pedophiles who molested child actors like Corey Faim to make some cheesy films for Americans to be brainwashed, perhaps they DESERVE this.

Definitely Jews themselves are not brainwashed.

Nor are Hindus in America. You won't see many Indian-Americans running out to die in Iran because of the latest film about Nazis.

Muslims-and I worked in a Muslim country-won't care. Emirate Arabs will continue making money.

Asian-Americans will not care, though clearly our author might be the exception.

Hispanics won't care.

So tell me, why do whites care? What meaning is missing in their lives that can only be filled by stupid Hollywood films.

Ghali , says: June 20, 2019 at 6:51 am GMT
I am not sure why is the author left Iraq out. The criminal aggression on Iraq was an open war for Jews and Israel.
9/11 Inside job , says: June 20, 2019 at 12:52 pm GMT
Trump's foreign policy is that of the neocons and Israel , the B-52's are fuelled and armed just waiting for the false flag/pretext to bomb Iran back into the stone age , there will be no invasion as the costs will be too high . There is speculation that the US is waiting for Boris Johnson to become Prime Minister as unlike Theresa May he will come out strongly in favor of military action against Iran .
PeterMX , says: June 20, 2019 at 1:56 pm GMT
@Linh

"Above, I named Jews as the instigators of war against Iran, which made some readers cringe" Try not to let it bother you. It's pretty obvious that most of the people that read this website are learning and having a lifetime of indoctrination undone. Many are scared out of their wits at even having a negative thought about Jews in private. I know the feeling. I felt similarly growing up.

Growing up I was I was bombarded with non-stop anti-German hatred in the media and everywhere else. This probably would not have bothered me except that both my parents grew up in Germany during the war. That meant that like 99% of the other Germans, they were patriotic. Both of them experienced some harassment when they came to the US, but my mother liked the USA until we noticed a change around 1970. My father had a more difficult time at work, but he survived and did very well, but he too noticed a change around that time. That is the time period Norman Finkelstein identifies as the beginning of the "Holocaust Industry". Finkelstein explains, that after Israel's victory in the 1967 war, Israel was considered a valuable ally to the US when they defeated the Soviet backed Arabs. The Jews in the US became more bold and the word "Holocaust" was abducted by them and was redefined to refer to what supposedly happened to them during the war. There was an explosion of holocaust movies, newspaper and magazine articles, everywhere you were bombarded with this propaganda. In school too. On top of that, we lived in New York, which the Jews openly dominated by the 1970's. My parents also noticed how some Jews mocked Christianity and how Christianity was being torn down. I think Europeans are more alert than Americans in regards to some things. When I think about how Christianity has been destroyed in the west I can credit my parents with seeing it coming.

My parents hardly noticed Jews until they began this full blown propaganda campaign that went on for decades and I don't think it ever really ended. If it bothered you, it bothered you less as the years passed by. I asked my mom, and during the National Socialist period, she knew some Jews but they were a small minority so she had little interaction with them and their was very little discussion of them. So, in other words, my parents growing up didn't have negative thoughts about Jews, certainly not strong ones. That changed when the Holocaust Industry took off and the Jews showed their hatred for the Germans everywhere, and as I said, it never really stopped. Back then, while having some feelings for my parents homeland, I was often arguing with them and going against them and Germany. And like the frightened readers on this website, I knew better than to say, or even think a negative thought about Jews. I always knew there were many things wrong with the WW II narrative but I think I really became aware of the lies when I wrote an email to David Irving and he replied in 2007. With the advent of the internet and reading some important books, you have to be a coward or liar to deny the hatred and lies that many powerful Jews peddle and how they shove these lies down everyone else's throats. I'm not as timid as I used to be.

DESERT FOX , says: June 20, 2019 at 2:03 pm GMT
Not only are we fighting Israels wars in the mideast, but the zionists who control the US can attack and kill 34 and wound 174 Americans on the USS Liberty and got away with it and then Israel and the zionist controlled deep state attacked the WTC on 911 and killed some 3000 Americans and got away with that also, and plunged America into 18 years and counting of unending war!

In regards to the USS Liberty see the book Blood In The Water by Joan Mellen, can be had on amazon.

[Jun 21, 2019] Russia accuses U.S. of pushing Iran situation to brink of war RIA - Reuters

Highly recommended!
Did Putin called Trump about the attack ?
Full scale war might also complicate Trump chances for re-election.
Jun 21, 2019 | www.reuters.com

Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov called on Washington to weigh the possible consequences of conflict with Iran and said a report in the New York Times showed the situation was extremely dangerous.

U.S. President Donald Trump approved military strikes against Iran in retaliation for the downing of a U.S. surveillance drone, but called off the attacks at the last minute, the report said.

[Jun 21, 2019] Who Really Gains from the Gulf Ship 'Sabotage' -- Strategic Culture

Notable quotes:
"... So far, there have been no official accusations explicitly made against Iran over the latest shipping incident. But the implications are pointedly skewed to frame-up the Islamic Republic. ..."
"... Saudi energy minister Khalid al Falih, whom Western media have quoted uncritically, claimed that one of the vessels allegedly attacked was on its way to load up on crude oil from the Saudi port of Ras Tanura, destined for the US market. ..."
"... When the US warned last week that it was sending a naval carrier strike armada to the Persian Gulf along with nuclear-capable B-52 bombers, it assumed the right to hit "Iran or its proxies" for any alleged attack on "American interests". The wording out of Washington is so vague and subjective that it lends itself to any kind of perceived provocation. ..."
"... Iran, for its part, has said it would not start a war with the US; that it will only act to defend itself from any American offensive. The foreign ministry in Tehran called the latest sabotage claims "highly alarming" and demanded more clarity from the Saudi and Emirati authorities as to what happened exactly. We can be sure that neither will come clean on that score, given their past record of calumny. ..."
"... The clarifying question is, of course, who gains from the latest twist in tensions? Certainly, it fulfills American, Saudi and Israeli desires to intensify aggression towards Iran. ..."
Jun 21, 2019 | www.strategic-culture.org

... ... ...

"Two Saudi oil tankers have been sabotaged off the coast of the United Arab Emirates posing a potentially serious threat to world oil supplies," reports [sic] Britain's Guardian, attributing the source of this information to the "Saudi government". What the Guardian omitted was the key word "alleged" before "sabotage". Notice how the impression given is one of a factual incident of malicious intent. Most other Western news media adopted the same reliance on the official Saudi and Emirati claims.

Tellingly, however, Saudi and Emirati officials gave no details about the "significant damage" allegedly caused to a total of four tankers.

What we seem to know is that the four vessels were somehow disabled off the UAE port of Fujairah early on Sunday. The location at sea is in the Gulf of Oman, which lies outside the Persian Gulf, about 140 kilometers south from the Strait of Hormuz. The latter is the narrow passage from the Gulf of Oman into the Persian Gulf, through which up to 30 per cent of all globally shipped crude oil passes each day.

Last week, Iran once again threatened it would blockade its territorial waters in the Strait of Hormuz "if" the US carried out a military attack on it. Such a move by Iran would throw the global economy into chaos from the anticipated crisis in oil markets. It would also doubtless trigger an all-out war between the US and Iran, with American regional client regimes like Saudi Arabia and Israel piling in to facilitate attacks against Tehran.

So far, there have been no official accusations explicitly made against Iran over the latest shipping incident. But the implications are pointedly skewed to frame-up the Islamic Republic.

Saudi energy minister Khalid al Falih, whom Western media have quoted uncritically, claimed that one of the vessels allegedly attacked was on its way to load up on crude oil from the Saudi port of Ras Tanura, destined for the US market. The Saudi official did not give any substantiating details on the alleged sabotage, but emphasized that it was aimed "to undermine the freedom of navigation". He called on international action to "protect security of oil tankers". Wording that the American self-appointed global "policeman" (more accurately, "thug") invokes all the time to cover for its imperialist missions anywhere on the planet.

When the US warned last week that it was sending a naval carrier strike armada to the Persian Gulf along with nuclear-capable B-52 bombers, it assumed the right to hit "Iran or its proxies" for any alleged attack on "American interests". The wording out of Washington is so vague and subjective that it lends itself to any kind of perceived provocation.

An oil tanker on its way to collect crude from Saudi Arabia for the US market? That certainly could qualify as perceived Iranian aggression against American vital interests.

Last week, Washington issued hammed-up warnings that "Iran or its proxies" was set to "target commercial sea traffic". Days later, as if on cue, the alleged sabotage of four ships appears to fit the theatrical bill.

Iran, for its part, has said it would not start a war with the US; that it will only act to defend itself from any American offensive. The foreign ministry in Tehran called the latest sabotage claims "highly alarming" and demanded more clarity from the Saudi and Emirati authorities as to what happened exactly. We can be sure that neither will come clean on that score, given their past record of calumny.

The clarifying question is, of course, who gains from the latest twist in tensions? Certainly, it fulfills American, Saudi and Israeli desires to intensify aggression towards Iran.

[Jun 21, 2019] Guilty or Not, Iran's Fate Is in Trump's Hands

Jun 21, 2019 | www.strategic-culture.org

From the standpoint of Information Warfare, it is very critical when a new event happens to put forward one's version of the "truth" first before any other possible competing theories can arise. This could be why Pompeo or someone like him would chose to immediately come out with accusations thrown around as facts with no evidence to support them and no respect for the great Western concepts of "innocence until proven guilty" or the "right to a fair trial".

Pompeo's objective here is not the truth but to take that virgin intellectual territory regarding the interpretation of this issue before anyone else can, because once a concept has become normalized in the minds of the masses it is very difficult to change it and many people in Washington cannot risk blowing the chance to waste thousands of American lives invading Iran based on an ultimately false but widely accepted/believed narrative.

Not surprisingly foreign and especially Russian media has quickly attempted to counter the "Iran obviously did it" narrative before it becomes an accepted fact. Shockingly Slavic infowarriors actually decided to speak to the captain of a tanker that was hit to get his opinion rather than simply assert that Iran didn't do it because they are a long time buddy of Moscow. The captain's testimony of what happened strongly contradicts the version of reality that Washington is pushing. And over all Russia as usual takes the reasonable position of "let's gather the evidence and then see who did it", which is good PR for itself as a nation beyond this single issue.

In terms of finding the actual guilty party the media on both sides has thus far ignored the simple fact that if Iran wanted to sink a tanker it would be sunk. No civilian vessel is going to withstand an attack from a 21st century navy by having a particularly thick hull and the idea that the Iranians need to physically attach bombs to boats is mental. Physically planting bombs is for goofball inept terrorists, not a professional military. After all, even the West acknowledges that the Iranians use the best Russian goodies that they can afford and Russian 21 st century arms will sink civilian ship guaranteed. The Iranians have everything they need to smoke any civilian vessel on the planet guaranteed from much farther away than 3 feet.

If Iran's goal was to scare or intimidate the tanker they could have just shot at it with rifles or done something else to spook the crew and get a media response. When looked at from the standpoint of military logic, these "attacks" seem baffling as Iran could have just destroyed the boats or directly tried to terrorize them to make a statement.

[Jun 21, 2019] June Madness Strikes Washington. Iranians, Russians and Britons Beware! by Philip Giraldi

Cue bono is the key question...
Jun 21, 2019 | www.strategic-culture.org
The New York Times inevitably echoed the administration's claims, but if one went to the readers' comments on the story fully 90% of those bothering to express an opinion decided that the tale was not credible for any number of reasons.

Several commenters brought up the completely phony Gulf of Tonkin incident of 1964 that led to the escalation of American involvement in Vietnam, a view that was expressed frequently in readers' comments both in the mainstream and alternative media. Others recalled instead the fake intelligence linking Iraq's Saddam Hussein with the 9/11 conspirators as well as the bogus reports of an Iraqi secret nuclear program and huge gliders capable to delivering biological weapons across the Atlantic Ocean.

There were a number of questionable aspects to the Pompeo story, most notably the unlikelihood that Iran would attack a Japanese ship while the Japanese Prime Minister was in Tehran paying a visit. The attack itself, attributed to Iranian mines, also did not match the damage to the vessels, which was well above the water line, a detail that was noted by the Japanese ship captain among others. Crewmen on the ship also reportedly saw flying objects, which suggests missiles or other projectiles were to blame, fired by almost anyone in the area.

And then there is the question of motive: the United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates all want a war with Iran while the Iranians are trying to avoid a B-52 attack, so why would they do something that would virtually guarantee a devastating response from Washington?

... ... ...

The final story dates from early June when Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was privately meeting with American Jewish leaders who expressed concern about the possibility that British Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn might become prime minister. Corbyn has been targeted by British Jews because he is the first U.K. senior politician to speak sympathetically about the plight of the Palestinians.

[Jun 20, 2019] I find it highly unlikely that an Iranian speedboat could have made the holes while the ship was moving. It is more likely that the limpet mine was attached while the ship was still in port!

Notable quotes:
"... Why Trump cancelled the JCPOA is imho a complicated story, can't be explained by the love of Israel. Most likely has to do, in first place, with China (oil.) ..."
"... It's not that complicated. And it IS because of a pathological subservience to Israel and the Jewish funders and opinion-shapers. Potential control of Iranian oil flows might be a subsidiary incentive, but unlike Venezuela where Trump probably does think it's largely about oil and about pre-empting Chinese influence, Iran is all about Israel, Israel, Israel. ..."
"... "....Media sources close to the U.S. allies, such as the UAE-based al-Arabiya TV, reported that Washington could approve a military response within a few hours. The news channel claimed that a limited strike against positions of the IRGC is one of the options being studied by Trump and his administration. ..."
"... Iran isn't Iraq, Serbia, Panama, or an airstrip in Grenada. This country has real military strike-back capabilities that the backwater states we're used to invading simply do not, meaning war would present a far heightened danger not only to our troops but to civilians in the region. All our recent wars have been stupid, but this one would be really stupid. Just once, could we not do this? Does the script always have to end the same way? ..."
Jun 20, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Petri Krohn , Jun 20, 2019 2:24:21 PM | 110

From the previous thread:

Posted by: Christian J Chuba | Jun 19, 2019 6:31:07 PM | 50

CENTCOM gave a scenario that finally made sense, they said that an IRGC boat approached the two tankers at night and attached the 'mines'. This would explain why it was above the waterline and it would take great skill to do this with no injury and without being detected.

The photos of the Kokuka Courageous published by the US Navy shows markings left by a limpet mine on the side of the ship. The mine was attached by six round magnets, one of which is still seen attached to the ship.

In addition to the six marks left by the magnets there are two screw holes drilled into the steel. Apparently these too were used to secure the mine.

I find it highly unlikely that an Iranian speedboat could have made the holes while the ship was moving. It is more likely that the limpet mine was attached while the ship was still in port!

Oscar Peterson , Jun 20, 2019 2:46:08 PM | 117

@Noirette #78

" Why Trump cancelled the JCPOA is imho a complicated story, can't be explained by the love of Israel. Most likely has to do, in first place, with China (oil.) "

It's not that complicated. And it IS because of a pathological subservience to Israel and the Jewish funders and opinion-shapers. Potential control of Iranian oil flows might be a subsidiary incentive, but unlike Venezuela where Trump probably does think it's largely about oil and about pre-empting Chinese influence, Iran is all about Israel, Israel, Israel.

Even Saudi Arabia is of only secondary importance. If Saudi hadn't entered into a de facto alliance with Israel--a process choreographed by Israel and its supporters--we wouldn't be on the verge of war with Iran for it. The media exaggerates Saudi influence in DC (though it is significant on a certain level) in order to diminish the (accurate) perception that Israel and it's lobby have a Rasputin-like hold on the US policy process.

michaelj72 , Jun 20, 2019 4:49:34 PM | 145
southfront has an interesting bit of info here, and then the analysis of what will happen if the US tries any kind of military action, which I believe is correct. Iran might not be like Syria/Russia and just sit back. unless something is going on behind the scenes that would allow such a tit for tat

https://southfront.org/big-mistake-u-s-is-preparing-to-respond-to-global-hawk-shootdown/

"....Media sources close to the U.S. allies, such as the UAE-based al-Arabiya TV, reported that Washington could approve a military response within a few hours. The news channel claimed that a limited strike against positions of the IRGC is one of the options being studied by Trump and his administration.

Any military action by the U.S. could lead to a full-on military confrontation in the Persian Gulf, as Iran is determined to respond to any attack. Such a confrontation will likely have a devastating effect on oil trade and global economy....."

It is trump who has made a big big mistake by withdrawing from the Iranian nuclear deal. I mean how dumb can you be

jsb , Jun 20, 2019 5:52:08 PM | 156
Latest piece by Matt Taibbi:
Here we go again. Iran has not only shot down an American spy drone over the Strait of Hormuz, but refuses to feel bad about it.

Iran's General Hossein Salami -- one assumes this is a real person -- said of the drone downing, "We are completely ready for the war. Today's incident is a clear sign of this accurate message."

We all know what this means. This aggression will not stand, man.

Depending on who's doing the counting, the United States has attempted to overthrow foreign governments roughly 72 times since World War II. The script is often the same, and the Iran drama is following it.

...

Iran isn't Iraq, Serbia, Panama, or an airstrip in Grenada. This country has real military strike-back capabilities that the backwater states we're used to invading simply do not, meaning war would present a far heightened danger not only to our troops but to civilians in the region. All our recent wars have been stupid, but this one would be really stupid. Just once, could we not do this? Does the script always have to end the same way?

Zack , Jun 20, 2019 6:22:25 PM | 160
Iran must escape the American chokehold before it becomes fatal
These limited tactics haven't forced the United States to back off, and the Iranians escalated Thursday by shooting down the American drone. A likely next step for the United States would be to send aloft F-18 fighter escorts to accompany the big drones ; good luck to the Iranians in that contest.

Well the drone didn't do it, so next time we need to send some real people up there to be shot down. Would not want to be one of those pilots if they actually do this. Iranian and B-team missiles all pointed at you.

Not to mention people these potential pilots would most likely consider allies are all foaming at the mouth for them to be shot down.

Freespirit , Jun 20, 2019 7:05:01 PM | 172
Could this be the REASON Iran shot down the DRONE and which no one is talking about:

Arrests, by IRAN, of CIA network suspects in Tanker explosions:

https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201906171075913700-arrests-cia-run-busted-in-iran/

[Jun 20, 2019] The Trump regime wants another pointless war by Ryan Cooper

Highly recommended!
A very good analysis. Trump essentially morphed into Hillary or worse. Essentially the same type of warmonger and compulsive liar.
Notable quotes:
"... The American people appear largely uninterested in this idea. But unless some real mass pressure is mounted against it, there is a good chance Trump will launch the U.S. into another pointless, disastrous war. ..."
"... At time of writing, the Washington Post has counted 10,796 false or misleading claims from Trump himself since taking office. Abject up-is-down lying is basically the sine qua non of modern conservative politics. ..."
"... Pompeo insists " there is no doubt " that Iran carried out the attacks -- the exact same words that Vice President Dick Cheney said in 2002 about Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction and his intention to use them on the United States, neither of which were true. (This is no doubt why several U.S. allies reacted skeptically to Trump's claims.) ..."
"... What's more, the downside risk here is vastly larger than tax policy. A great big handout to the rich might be socially costly in many ways, but it won't cause tens of thousands of violent deaths in a matter of days. War with Iran could easily do that -- or worse . ..."
"... Who else might have done the attacks? Saudi Arabia springs to mind. ..."
"... At a minimum, anybody with half a brain would want to be extremely certain about what actually happened before taking any rash actions. It's clear that Bolton and company, by contrast, just want a pretext to ratchet up pressure on Iran even further. ..."
"... On the other hand, sinking Iran's navy, as Stephens suggests in his column, would likely be a lot more dangerous than he thinks. Americans have long been fed a lot of hysterical nationalist propaganda from neocons like him about the invincibility of the U.S. military, and the ease with which any possible threat could be defeated. But while U.S. forces are indeed powerful, there is a very real risk that Iran's navy -- which is full of fast-attack boats, mini-subs, and disguised civilian vessels specifically designed to take out large ships with swarm attacks -- could inflict significant damage. Just a few lucky hits could kill thousands of sailors and cause tens of billions of dollars in damage. This is before you even get to the primary lesson of the Iraq War which is that an initial military victory is completely useless and probably counterproductive without a plan for what comes next. ..."
"... Finally, attacking Iran would be illegal. It would violate U.S. treaties , and thus the Constitution. The only justification is the claim that the 2001 authorization to attack Al Qaeda covers an attack on Iran . This is utterly preposterous -- akin to arguing it covers attacking New Zealand to roll back their gun control efforts -- but may explain Pompeo's equally preposterous attempt to blame Iran for a Taliban attack in Afghanistan. ..."
"... Pompeo and Bolton are clearly hell-bent on war. But Trump himself seems somewhat hesitant , sensing (probably accurately) that starting another war of aggression would tank his popularity even further. It's high time for everyone from ordinary citizens up to Nancy Pelosi to demand this rush to war be stopped. ..."
Jun 18, 2019 | theweek.com

The Trump regime is attempting to gin up a war with Iran. First Trump reneged on Obama's nuclear deal with the country for no reason, then he slapped them with more economic sanctions for no reason, and then, pushed by National Security Adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, he moved massive military forces onto Iran's doorstep to heighten tensions further. Now, after a series of attacks on oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman -- none of which were American -- that the administration blames on Iran, Pompeo says the U.S. is "considering a full range of options," including war. (Iran has categorically denied any involvement.)

The American people appear largely uninterested in this idea. But unless some real mass pressure is mounted against it, there is a good chance Trump will launch the U.S. into another pointless, disastrous war.

The New York Times ' Bret Stephens, for all his #NeverTrump pretensions, provides a good window into the absolute witlessness of the pro-war argument . He takes largely at face value the Trump administration's accusations against Iran -- "Trump might be a liar, but the U.S. military isn't," he writes -- and blithely suggests Trump should announce an ultimatum demanding further attacks cease, then sink Iran's navy if they don't comply.

Let me take these in turn. For one thing, any statement of any kind coming out of a Republican's mouth should be viewed with extreme suspicion. Two years ago, the party passed a gigantic tax cut for the rich which they swore up and down would " pay for itself " with increased growth. To precisely no one's surprise, this did not happen . Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) was just one flagrant example of many who got elected in 2016 while lying through their teeth about their party's efforts to destroy ObamaCare and its protections for preexisting conditions.

At time of writing, the Washington Post has counted 10,796 false or misleading claims from Trump himself since taking office. Abject up-is-down lying is basically the sine qua non of modern conservative politics.

Republican accusations of foreign aggression should be subjected to an even higher burden of proof. The Trump regime has provided no evidence of Iranian culpability aside from a video of a ship the Pentagon says is Iranians removing something they say is a mine from an oil tanker -- but a Japanese ship owner reported at least one attack came from a " flying object ," not a mine. Pompeo insists " there is no doubt " that Iran carried out the attacks -- the exact same words that Vice President Dick Cheney said in 2002 about Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction and his intention to use them on the United States, neither of which were true. (This is no doubt why several U.S. allies reacted skeptically to Trump's claims.)

What's more, the downside risk here is vastly larger than tax policy. A great big handout to the rich might be socially costly in many ways, but it won't cause tens of thousands of violent deaths in a matter of days. War with Iran could easily do that -- or worse .

And though this may be a shock to Troop Respecters like Bret Stephens, the military's record of scrupulous honesty is not exactly spotless. It has lied continually about the state of the Afghanistan occupation, just as it did in Vietnam . It lied about the effects of Agent Orange on U.S. troops and Vietnamese civilians. It lied about Pat Tillman being killed by friendly fire. Military recruiters even sometimes lie about enlistment benefits to meet their quotas.

Who else might have done the attacks? Saudi Arabia springs to mind. False flag attacks on its own oil tankers sound outlandish, but we're talking about a ruthless dictatorship run by a guy who had a Washington Post columnist murdered and chopped into pieces because he didn't like his takes. And the Saudis have already been conducting a years-long war in Yemen with catastrophic humanitarian outcomes in order to stop an Iran-allied group from coming to power. It's by no means certain, but hardly outside the realm of possibility.

At a minimum, anybody with half a brain would want to be extremely certain about what actually happened before taking any rash actions. It's clear that Bolton and company, by contrast, just want a pretext to ratchet up pressure on Iran even further.

But let's grant for the sake of argument that some Iranian forces actually did carry out some or all of these attacks. That raises the immediate question of why. One very plausible reason is that all of Trump's provocations have strengthened the hand of Iran's conservative hard-liners, who are basically the mirror image of Pompeo and Bolton. "It is sort of a toxic interaction between hard-liners on both sides because for domestic political reasons they each want greater tension," as Jeremy Shapiro of the European Council on Foreign Relations told the New York Times . This faction might have concluded that the U.S. is run by deranged fanatics, and the best way to protect Iran is to demonstrate they could choke off oil shipping from the Persian Gulf if the U.S. attacks.

This in turn raises the question of the appropriate response if Iran is actually at fault here. It would be one thing if these attacks came out of a clear blue sky. But America is very obviously the aggressor here. Iran was following its side of the nuclear deal to the letter before Trump reneged, and continued to do so as of February . So far the European Union (which is still party to the deal) has been unwilling to sidestep U.S. sanctions, prompting Iran to threaten to restart uranium enrichment . So Iran is a medium-sized country with a faltering economy, hemmed in on all sides by U.S. aggression. Backing off the threats and chest-thumping might easily strengthen the hand of Iranian moderates, and cause them to respond in kind.

On the other hand, sinking Iran's navy, as Stephens suggests in his column, would likely be a lot more dangerous than he thinks. Americans have long been fed a lot of hysterical nationalist propaganda from neocons like him about the invincibility of the U.S. military, and the ease with which any possible threat could be defeated. But while U.S. forces are indeed powerful, there is a very real risk that Iran's navy -- which is full of fast-attack boats, mini-subs, and disguised civilian vessels specifically designed to take out large ships with swarm attacks -- could inflict significant damage. Just a few lucky hits could kill thousands of sailors and cause tens of billions of dollars in damage. This is before you even get to the primary lesson of the Iraq War which is that an initial military victory is completely useless and probably counterproductive without a plan for what comes next.

Taken together, these factors strongly militate towards de-escalation and diplomacy even if Iran did carry out these attacks, which again, is not at all proven. The current standoff is almost entirely our fault, and Iranian forces are far from defenseless. America has a lot better things to do than indulge the deluded jingoist fantasies of a handful of armchair generals who want lots of other people to die in battle.

Finally, attacking Iran would be illegal. It would violate U.S. treaties , and thus the Constitution. The only justification is the claim that the 2001 authorization to attack Al Qaeda covers an attack on Iran . This is utterly preposterous -- akin to arguing it covers attacking New Zealand to roll back their gun control efforts -- but may explain Pompeo's equally preposterous attempt to blame Iran for a Taliban attack in Afghanistan.

Pompeo and Bolton are clearly hell-bent on war. But Trump himself seems somewhat hesitant , sensing (probably accurately) that starting another war of aggression would tank his popularity even further. It's high time for everyone from ordinary citizens up to Nancy Pelosi to demand this rush to war be stopped.

[Jun 20, 2019] The Trump-Bolton Duo Is Just Like the Bush-Cheney Duo Warmongers Using Lies to Start Illegal Wars by Prof Rodrigue Tremblay

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... [Definition: A 'false flag operation' is a horrific, staged event -- blamed on a political enemy -- and used as pretext to start a war or to enact draconian laws in the name of national security]. ..."
"... " Definition of reverse projection: attributing to others what you are doing yourself as the reason for attacking them ." John McMurtry (1939- ), Canadian philosopher, (in 'The Moral Decoding of 9-11: Beyond the U.S. Criminal State', Journal of 9/11 Studies, Feb.2013). ..."
Jun 18, 2019 | www.globalresearch.ca
[False flag operations:] "The powers-that-be understand that to create the appropriate atmosphere for war, it's necessary to create within the general populace a hatred, fear or mistrust of others regardless of whether those others belong to a certain group of people or to a religion or a nation." James Morcan (1978- ), New Zealander-born Australian writer.

[Definition: A 'false flag operation' is a horrific, staged event -- blamed on a political enemy -- and used as pretext to start a war or to enact draconian laws in the name of national security].

" Almost all wars begin with false flag operations ." Larry Chin (d. of b. unknown), North American author, (in 'False Flagging the World towards War. The CIA Weaponizes Hollywood', Dec. 27, 2014).

" Definition of reverse projection: attributing to others what you are doing yourself as the reason for attacking them ." John McMurtry (1939- ), Canadian philosopher, (in 'The Moral Decoding of 9-11: Beyond the U.S. Criminal State', Journal of 9/11 Studies, Feb.2013).

" That there are men in all countries who get their living by war, and by keeping up the quarrels of nations, is as shocking as it is true; but when those who are concerned in the government of a country, make it their study to sow discord, and cultivate prejudices between nations, it becomes the more unpardonable ." Thomas Paine (1737-1809), American Founding father, pamphleteer, (in 'The Rights of Man', c. 1792).

" I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, and we stole . It was like -- we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." Mike Pompeo (1963- ), former CIA director and now Secretary of State in the Trump administration, (in April 2019, while speaking at Texas A&M University.)

***

History repeats itself. Indeed, those who live by war are at it again. Their crime: starting illegal wars by committing false flag attacks and blaming other countries for their own criminal acts. On this, the Donald Trump-John Bolton duo is just like the George W. Bush-Dick Cheney duo. It is amazing that in an era of 24-hour news, this could still going on.

We recall that in 2002-2003, the latter duo, with the help of U.K.'s Tony Blair, lied their way into a war of aggression against Iraq, by pretending that Saddam Hussein had a massive stockpile of " weapons of mass destruction "and that he was ready to attack the United States proper. On October 6, 2002, George W. Bush scared Americans with his big Mushroom Cloud analogy. -- It was all bogus. -- It was a pure fabrication that the gullible (!) U.S. Congress, the corporate media, and most of the American public, swallowed hook, line and sinker.

John Pilger: On the Dangers of Nuclear War

Now, in 2019, a short sixteen years later, the same stratagem seems to being used to start another illegal war of aggression, this time against the country of Iran. The masters of deception are at it again. Their secret agents and those of their Israeli and Saudi allies, in the Middle East, seem to have just launched an unprovoked attack, in international waters, against a Japanese tanker, and they have rushed to the cameras to accuse Iran. They claim that the latter country used mines to attack the tanker.

This time, they were unlucky. -- The owner of the Japanese tanker , the Kokuka Courageous, immediately rebuked that "official" version. Yutaka Katada , president of the Kokuka Sangyo shipping company, declared that the attack came from a bombing from above the water. Indeed, Mr. Katada told reporters:

Source: The Washington Post

" The crew are saying it was hit with a flying object. They say something came flying toward them, then there was an explosion, then there was a hole in the vessel ."

His company issued a statement saying that " the hull (of the ship) has been breached above the waterline on the starboard side ", and it was not hit by a mine below the waterline, as the Trump administration has insinuated. -- [N. B.: There was also a less serious attack on a Norwegian ship, the Front Altair.]

Thus, this time the false flag makers have not succeeded. But, you can be sure that they will be back at it, sooner or later, just as they, and their well financed al-Qaeda allies, launched a few false flag "chemical" attacks in Syria, and blamed them on the Syrian Assad government.

Donald Trump has too much to gain personally from a nice little war to distract the media and the public from the Mueller report and from all his mounting political problems. In his case, he surely would benefit from a "wag-the-dog" scenario that John Bolton and his friends in the Middle East could easily invent. As a matter of fact, two weeks ago, warmonger John Bolton was coincidently in the Middle East, in the United Arab Emirates, just before the attacks!

Besides the Japanese ship owner's denial, it is important to point out that at the moment of the attack on the Japanese tanker, the Japanese Prime Minister, Mr. Shinzo Abe , was in Iran, having talks with the Iranian government about economic cooperation between the two countries about oil shipments. Since Iran is the victim of unilateral U. S. economic sanctions, to derail such an economic cooperation between Japan and Iran could have been the triggered motivation to launch a false flag operation. It did not work. But you can be sure that the responsible party will not be prosecuted.

Conclusion

We live in an era when people with low morals, sponsored by people with tons of money, can gain power and do a lot of damage. How our democracies can survive in such a context remains an open question.

International economist Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay is the author of the book "The Code for Global Ethics, Ten Humanist Principles" , of the book "The New American Empire" , and the recent book, in French " La régression tranquille du Québec, 1980-2018 ". He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). The original source of this article is Global Research Copyright © Prof Rodrigue Tremblay , Global Research, 2019

[Jun 19, 2019] Declassified The Sino-Russian Masterplan To End U.S. Dominance In Middle East OilPrice.com

Notable quotes:
"... One of the first major confrontations with the US by Russia and the PRC was to be over the greater Middle East. The main reason was the advance negotiations with all key oil producers -- including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran -- on substituting the petrodollar with a basket of currencies where the yuan , the euro and the ruble dominate. Using the currency basket would enable the sellers and buyers to go around the US-imposed sanctions and quotas. Indeed, Beijing and Moscow were now enticing the oil producers with huge, long-term export deals which were both financially lucrative and politically tempting by offering guarantees for the well-being of the participating governments. ..."
"... The 26th of March 2018 will go in history as the most momentous day for the United States’ economy, China’s economy and the petrodollar and also for China’s status as an economic superpower. In that day China launched its yuan-denominated crude oil futures in Shanghai thus challenging the petrodollar for dominance in the global oil market. ..."
"... And with tensions escalating between Iran and the United States, Iran figures prominently in the Russia-China strategic partnership. It is an important link in the BRI. Moreover, Iran has recently become more confident in its ability to confront the United States by the joint guarantees of support it received from Russia and China in the event the US moved to strangle it and attempt a regime change. Iran’s understanding is that were the US to take military action against it, Russia and China would prevent an Iranian defeat even if there were major setbacks. ..."
Jun 19, 2019 | oilprice.com

One of the first major confrontations with the US by Russia and the PRC was to be over the greater Middle East. The main reason was the advance negotiations with all key oil producers -- including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran -- on substituting the petrodollar with a basket of currencies where the yuan , the euro and the ruble dominate. Using the currency basket would enable the sellers and buyers to go around the US-imposed sanctions and quotas. Indeed, Beijing and Moscow were now enticing the oil producers with huge, long-term export deals which were both financially lucrative and politically tempting by offering guarantees for the well-being of the participating governments.

The crux of the proposal is regional and includes flagrant disregard of the US sanctions on Iran.

However, the key to the extent of the commitment of both Beijing and Moscow lies in the growing importance and centrality of the New Silk Road via Central Asia.

Persia had a crucial rôle in the ancient Silk Road, and both the PRC and Russia now expect Iran to have a comparable key rôle in the New Silk Road.

The growing dominance of heritage-based dynamics throughout the developing world, including the greater Central Asia and the greater Middle East, makes it imperative for the PRC to rely on historic Persia/Iran as a western pole of the New Silk Road. It is this realization which led both Beijing and Moscow to give Tehran, in mid-May 2019, the original guarantees that Washington would be prevented from conducting a "regime change".

Therefore, even though both Russia and the PRC were not satisfied with the Iranian and Iran-proxy activities and policies in the Iraq-Syria-Lebanon area, it was far more important for them to support Iran, and also Turkey, in their confrontations with the US in order to expedite the consolidation of the New Silk Road.

Tehran and its key allies in "the Middle Eastern Entente" -- Turkey and Qatar -- are cognizant of the core positions of Russia and the PRC. Since mid-May, Tehran and, to a lesser extent, Ankara and Doha, were appraised by Moscow and Beijing of their overall direction of political decisions. Hence, since early June 2019, Tehran has felt confident to start building momentum of Iranian assertiveness and audacity.

Tehran has been raising its profile in the region.

Tehran insists that it is now impossible to make decisions, or do anything else, in the greater Middle East without Iran's approval. On June 2, 2019, the Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, Maj.-Gen. Mohammad Bagheri, touted the new strategic posture of Iran. "The Islamic movement has affected the entire world and on top of that, it has succeeded in intimidating the American hegemony and Zionism," he said. Bagheri attributed the new influence of Iran to the acquisition of regional strategic depth; that is, reaching the shores of the Mediterranean

Mamdouh Salamehon June 18 2019

Some quarters in the West belittle the strategic partnership between China and Russia describing it as a “marriage of convenience”. They even had the temerity to urge President Putin to make a choice between China and the West.

President Putin will never sacrifice his strategic partnership with China for the West. Both Russia and China rank their ties as the “peak” in mutual history. This can be judged by two analytical frameworks: their converging visions of the future world order and their harmonized national interests.

The Chinese view on the world order at this historical juncture is shared and dovetailed by Putin’s Russia. Both sides hold the view that Washington’s alienation from both Beijing and Moscow is reflected by the deeply rooted fear of the US losing hegemonic status as the “only indispensable superpower”. The indications of the US fear are plenty. From Beijing’s point of view, they manifest themselves by the U.S. decision to restart a Cold War containment strategy of China and by the trade war it is waging against it. From Moscow’s perspective, US fears manifest themselves by the US attempts to undermine Russia’s dominance in global energy and also by the Western alliance pushing the Western sphere of influence towards the Russian border.

In sharp contrast to mutual suspicion and deteriorating relationship between Washington and Beijing, the Chinese-Russian tie has proved to be a stable strategic partnership built on mutual understanding, respect and national interests.

The Russia-China strategic alliance is destined to shape the global economy and the geopolitics of the world in the 21st century converting it from a unipolar to a multipolar world.

Relations between China, the world’s largest economy based on purchasing power parity (PPP) and Russia, the world’s energy superpower, are deepening at a time of profound change in the global geopolitical landscape.

Their tools are the petro-yuan and the Silk Road better known as the Belt &amp; Road Initiative (BRI).

The 26th of March 2018 will go in history as the most momentous day for the United States’ economy, China’s economy and the petrodollar and also for China’s status as an economic superpower. In that day China launched its yuan-denominated crude oil futures in Shanghai thus challenging the petrodollar for dominance in the global oil market.

Right now, China is the number one exporter on the globe, the largest crude oil importer in the world and also the world’s biggest economy. The Chinese would like to see global currency usage reflect this shift in global economic power. The petrodollar system provides at least three immediate benefits to the United States. It increases global demand for US dollars. It also increases global demand for US debt securities and it gives the United States the ability to buy oil with a currency it can print at will. In geopolitical terms, the petrodollar lends vast economic and political power to the United States. China hopes to replicate this dynamic.

The launching of the crude oil benchmark on the Shanghai exchange could mark the beginning of the end of the petrodollar. It is probable that the Chinese yuan will emerge as the world’s top reserve currency within the next fifteen years with the petro-yuan emerging as the top oil currency.

Another tool of the Russian-Chinese strategic partnership is BRI. The BRI is a massive undertaking involving investments programmes worth trillions of dollars, which will go toward connecting Asia and Europe by sea, rail, and road to promote more trade between the continents.

And with tensions escalating between Iran and the United States, Iran figures prominently in the Russia-China strategic partnership. It is an important link in the BRI. Moreover, Iran has recently become more confident in its ability to confront the United States by the joint guarantees of support it received from Russia and China in the event the US moved to strangle it and attempt a regime change. Iran’s understanding is that were the US to take military action against it, Russia and China would prevent an Iranian defeat even if there were major setbacks.

Dr Mamdouh G Salameh
International Oil Economist
Visiting Professor of Energy Economics at ESCP Europe Business School, London

[Jun 19, 2019] War With Iran Would Make Trump A One-Term President The American Conservative

Jun 19, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com

As President Donald Trump was in Florida kicking off his bid for a second term, his national security team was in Washington hatching plans that make that prospect much less likely.

The architects of the failed George W. Bush foreign policy rightly derided by Trump as a "big, fat mistake" on the campaign trail today exercise undue influence inside this White House. The end result could be a war with Iran.

Just as their last turn at the wheel wrecked the Bush presidency and eventually left Barack Obama in power alongside three-fifths Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, the Republican Party's wildest hawks could now ensure that Trump is a one-term president. The president once understood this, telling Jeb Bush, "Your brother and his administration gave us Barack Obama . Abraham Lincoln couldn't have won."

Trump defeated Jeb, Lindsey Graham, and Marco Rubio, running on a foreign policy of "America First" and repudiating a decade and a half of unwinnable wars. He then won in an upset over Hillary Clinton, who voted to invade Iraq, pushed "kinetic military action" in Libya, and otherwise hasn't seen a war she hasn't liked since Vietnam.

Advertisement

Now Trump is on the precipice of ceding the war issue to his political opponents, as the border crisis metastasizes and the suburbs turn blue. Joe Biden would be the third Democratic presidential nominee to have voted for the Iraq war -- the exception, Obama, twice won the White House -- just as Chuck Schumer is the third straight Senate Democratic leader to have done so.

If Trump follows Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his Bush retread national security advisor John Bolton into a preventive war with Iran, he will make Biden and Schumer look like Tulsi Gabbard -- and perhaps pave the way for a different Democratic nominee against whom the anti-Hillary playbook of 2016 will prove less useful.

The president began the year promising to end the war in Syria, which Congress never authorized in the first place, and wind down the war in Afghanistan. Alongside low unemployment, the job growth that followed deregulation and tax cuts, and remaking the Supreme Court in Antonin Scalia's image, keeping ISIS at bay without launching a new war in the Middle East -- though he has surely escalated some ongoing conflicts -- stands among his top accomplishments.

Perhaps that is the soft bigotry of low expectations, to use a Bush-era phrase, but in an era of forever war, it counts for something. That is, it will count for something until the Trump team invokes the congressional authorization of force used for the Afghan war to start a new one in Iran, a move too brazenly unconstitutional for even the Bush-Cheney contingent of old.

Donald Trump Would Own a War With Iran Bret Stephens, Warmonger

The cakewalk crowd has reemerged to assure us that pinprick strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities are possible and that the regime in Tehran will prove a paper tiger. But everywhere their promises have turned to ash. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or cheering throngs greeting America's finest as liberators. Groups ideologically similar to the Islamists who attacked us on 9/11 emerged from Iraq and Libya as more powerful, not less.

Iran has long been the unprincipled exception to Trump's opposition to Middle Eastern quagmires. His desire to undo the Obama presidency predisposed him to unraveling the nuclear deal and led him to folly in Yemen. Now it might prompt him to redo the foreign policy mistakes that toppled the Bush dynasty, paving the way for a socialist to become the next commander-in-chief.

Still, there remains a powerful voice inside the White House who could halt this march to war. "The president, who campaigned against getting the U.S. bogged down in unnecessary foreign wars, is considered the primary internal obstacle to a counterattack," Politico reports .

Not even Trump's opinion should matter most. The Constitution vests the power to declare war in Congress. To justify a new war based on an outdated resolution passed nearly 20 years ago to authorize retaliation against the 9/11 attackers would be an unconscionable power grab by the executive branch that lawmakers should not countenance. Yet time and again, Congress has shirked its constitutional duties.

The Democrats in the House have an opportunity to put their money where their mouths are . But maybe they won't. An Iraq-like war in Iran would go a long way toward accomplishing their main goal: making Donald Trump a one-term president.

W. James Antle III is the editor of .

[Jun 19, 2019] How John Bolton Controls The Administration And Donald Trump

Notable quotes:
"... There are two possibilities. Trump wants a war with Iran and what we see is a good cop, bad cop strategy in which Trump plays the good guy for his voters until some 'grave incident' happens that lets him says that he has no choice but to 'hit back' at Iran. The other scenario is that Trump is a fool and that the war hawks use him as their tool to implement their preferred policies. ..."
"... Former MI6 agent Alastair Crooke says that the second scenario is the real one : ..."
"... Crooke describes how Bolton, and Netanyahoo behind him, outmaneuver the U.S. intelligence services over Iran. They stovepipe "intelligence" to the president and the media just like the crew of then Vice President Dick Cheney did in the run up to the war on Iraq: ..."
"... Bolton chairs at the NSC, the regular and frequent strategic dialogue meetings with Israel – intended to develop a joint action plan, versus Iran. What this means is that the Israeli intelligence assessments are being stovepiped directly to Bolton (and therefore to Trump), without passing by the US intelligence services for assessment or comment on the credibility of the intelligence presented (shades of Cheney confronting the analysts down at Langley). ..."
"... Bolton and Pompeo are representative of Trump's rabid evangelical base and Israel. The kabuki friction towards the shared goals is just that. To the degree that we are hearing shrillness from these folk reflects the increasing failure of their tactics to maintain control of the global narrative. ..."
"... I'm definitely of the good cop/bad cop belief. It fits with the entirety of his campaign and presidency: say one thing, do another, and blame somebody else. Trump wanted Bolton for NSA since the campaign. Both Bolton and Trump have had a position of confrontation with Iran for a long time ..."
"... Sheldon Adelson is Trumps biggest doner "Adelson's promotion of Bolton dates back at least to the days immediately after Trump's November 2016 election. According to The New York Times, Adelson strongly supported Bolton for the position of deputy secretary of state as Trump was putting together his cabinet" https://lobelog.com/trumps-choice-of-bolton-satisfies-his-biggest-donor/ So Trump could find it difficult to sack Bolton. ..."
"... It just seems like Iraq deja vu: GWB was the ignorant, dumb public face masking Lukidniks controlling US policy then, DJT the face masking the same now. ..."
"... US bombs falling on Iran seems awfully close to Moscow in my view. I cannot help wondering if one of Putin's cards is his own red line: not allowing Likudniks to subjugate US military power for their "interests" wrt Iran. ..."
"... It's about 1500 miles from Tehran to Moscow. That's about equal to the distance between Kansas City and San Francisco. ..."
"... As B (and many other media ) pointed out: the crew of the Japanese tanker all said the ship was hit by an air borne projectile. This was not a mine. Seems obvious if US was interested in the truth, they would recover and identify the projectile. ..."
"... IMO President's are just members of the Deep State team. Presidents lead the team that's "on the field" - like a quarterback in American football. But the Deep State 'coach' calls the plays. And the 'coach' is, in turn, ultimately responsible to the owners (capitalists) ..."
"... Sadly, I find that I disagree with both of b's latest theories: the "Iranian stealth attack" theory and the "President Bolton" theory. IMO these are propaganda narratives. ..."
"... "As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron". ..."
"... Now look at the U.S., the tanker was sitting their in broad daylight for about 10hrs and we couldn't even get ONE decent picture of an unexploded bomb sitting on the side of hull. And when the IRGC finally did show up, even our high resolution pictures were a joke and we are the SIGINT champions with hi-tech drones. Also, this means that the IRGC was able to slip into a port on the other side of the Persian Gulf and attack mines to 4 tankers undetected. ..."
"... By minimizing the Oman Gulf incidents, maybe it is way for the White House under Bolton's control to show that it is not impressed nor feeling threatened. it is also encouraging the perpetrators of the attacks to do more provocations and ideally to kill an American... ..."
"... That Iranian seaman who is alleged to have pulled off a possibly unstable, unexploded mine wearing nothing but a rubber life jacket thus endangering his life and all his crew mates and survivors in the small boat is the action of a lunatic. Or maybe it never happened. ..."
"... There's been a shift in the dialogue, to some degree, to a discussion of the overall US role in the Gulf area. ..."
"... A broadening of the security mission in the Gulf area would be a positive step. Imagine the navies of China, India and Japan taking a role! The price would be a removal of Iran sanctions, because these countries want Iran oil! . . .I can dream. ..."
Jun 19, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Jeff Bezos' blog, the Washington Post , has some bits on the discussion and infighting in the Trump administration about the march towards war on Iran. The piece opens with news of a new redline the Trump administration set out:

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has privately delivered warnings intended for Iranian leaders that any attack by Tehran or its proxies resulting in the death of even one American service member will generate a military counterattack, U.S. officials said.
...
While such attacks were common during the Iraq War, Pompeo told Iraqi leaders in a message he knew would be relayed to Tehran that a single American fatality would prompt the United States to hit back.

That warning was sent in May when Pompeo visited Baghdad. The issue may soon become critical. Throughout the last days there were rocket attacks in Iraq against targets where U.S. personnel is present. The AFP correspondent in Baghdad lists six of them:

Maya Gebeily - @GebeilyM - 10:20 UTC - 19 Jun 2019

Timeline of attacks on US interests in #Iraq
Fri: Mortars hit Balad base, where US troops based
Sun: Projectiles hit #Baghdad mil airport
Mon: Rockets on Taji, where coalition forces based
Tues: Mortars on #Mosul ops HQ
Wed: Rockets on housing/ops center used by IOCs near #Basra

#IRAQ: @AFP learns there were at least *two* attacks near US oil interests in #Basra in last 24 hours - ExxonMobil + Baker Hughes, a GE Company Their senior staff are being evacuated.

At least some of these attacks came from areas where Islamic State underground groups are still active. The weapons used were improvised and imprecise.

That shows how stupid the red line is that Pompeo set out. He would attack Iran if an errant ISIS rocket by chance kills some U.S. soldier? That is nuts.

Back to the WaPo piece:

Speaking during a visit to U.S. Central Command headquarters in Tampa on Tuesday, Pompeo said Trump "does not want war" but stressed the United States would act if assaulted. "We are there to deter aggression," he said.

The U.S. violated the nuclear agreement and is waging an economic war on Iran. That was the aggression that started the conflict. Anything that follows from that was caused by the Trump administration.

Colonel Pat Lang thinks that Pompeo was in Tampa to bring the military in line with his aggressive policies:

Ole First in his Class is down in Tampaland today jawboning the leaders of CENTCOM (Mideast), and SOCOM (badass commandos worldwide). Why is he there? The Secretary of State has no constitutional or legal role in dealing with the armed forces. That being the case one can only think that there is push-back from senior commanders over the prospect of war with Iran and that Trump has been persuaded to let him do this unprecedented visit to wheedle or threaten his way into their acquiescence.

WaPo again:

The sudden departure Tuesday of Patrick Shanahan, who has served as acting defense secretary since January, could further sideline the Pentagon, which has campaigned to reduce the potential for hostilities. Shanahan's withdrawal followed revelations of a complicated domestic dispute.

The 'complicated domestic dispute ' is not so complicate at all and the case is undisputed. In a several years long process Shanahan's ex-wife went crazy and physically attacked him and their kids. Finally one of the kids hit back at her with a baseball bat. In court Shanahan argued for a mild punishment for the kid. All the kids, mostly grown up now, are with him and do not want to see their mother. All that was documented by the police and by courts. Shanahan is not guilty of anything in that case. It was not a reason to resign.

Pat Lang believes that the real reason was Pompeo's trip to Tampa:

Shanahan withdrew his name from confirmation process today. IMO he did it because DJT let Pomp circumvent his authority.

The Pentagon was the last hold out against the aggressive anti-Iran policy says WaPo :

Concerns about an escalation are particularly pointed at the Pentagon, where the absence of a confirmed secretary has fueled worries that hawks in the White House and State Department could push the military beyond its specific mission of destroying the remnants of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, raising the potential for conflict with Iran.

It has been reported several times and by different outlets that Trump is somewhat isolated from anti-war opinions in his administration. All he sees and hears is Fox News , Bibi Netanyahoo and John Bolton. The WaPo piece again confirms that:

Administration officials interviewed by The Washington Post said that national security adviser John Bolton has dominated Iran policy, keeping a tight rein on information that gets to the president and sharply reducing meetings in which top officials gather in the White House's Situation Room to discuss the policy.
...
The intensification of [the "maximum pressure"] campaign has triggered internal debates over how best to execute the president's orders. At the State Department this spring, an argument among officials over how hard to squeeze Iran with sanctions ended with those favoring the toughest possible approach prevailing. In particular, hard-liners at the White House squelched waivers that would have allowed Iran to keep selling oil after a May 1 deadline. White House aides also ended waivers that allowed Iran to swap its enriched uranium for natural uranium, an integral part of the nuclear deal.
...
While State Department officials sought to achieve a "sweet spot" that would weaken Iran through sanctions but not push so hard that Iran would withdraw from the nuclear deal, others have argued that Trump's goal is to destroy the accord at any cost and pursue a more expansive policy that seeks to cripple Iran's proxy forces throughout the region.

Pentagon and State Department officials have complained, however, about the difficulty of getting an adequate hearing for these debates under Bolton. As a result, arguments about policy frequently are not aired and do not reach the president. The process is "very exclusionary, and Bolton has very sharp elbows," the senior administration official said.
...
At the Pentagon, officials have quietly voiced concerns for months that the current trajectory might make military conflict a self-fulfilling prophecy.
...
One person familiar with the recent discussions said that Pentagon officials, including Shanahan, have been "the ones putting the brakes" on the State Department and the White House. "DOD is not beating the drums of war," the person said.

One can quibble with that. It is the regional military commander who always asks for more troops. More ships and more troops increase the chance for "accidents" and make a war more likely. That is why John Bolton uses each and every small incident to send more troops to the Middle East:

"Does the president want to send more troops? No. Will he be convinced to do it? Yes," the senior administration official said.

Trump, in contrast to some of his advisers, has seemed to downplay the significance of Iran's actions. In an interview published Tuesday by Time magazine, he said the recent oil tanker attacks were "very minor."

Trump is the president. He hired those people and is responsible for what they do. But does he know what they do?

There are two possibilities. Trump wants a war with Iran and what we see is a good cop, bad cop strategy in which Trump plays the good guy for his voters until some 'grave incident' happens that lets him says that he has no choice but to 'hit back' at Iran. The other scenario is that Trump is a fool and that the war hawks use him as their tool to implement their preferred policies.

Former MI6 agent Alastair Crooke says that the second scenario is the real one :

The consensus on 'no conflict' unfortunately, may turn out to have been overly sanguine. This is not because Trump consciously desires war, but because the hawks surrounding him, particularly Bolton, are painting him into a corner – from which he must either back down, or double down, if Iran does not first capitulate.

And here is the point: the main Trump misconception may be that he does believe that Iran wants, and ultimately, 'will seek a deal'.

Crooke describes how Bolton, and Netanyahoo behind him, outmaneuver the U.S. intelligence services over Iran. They stovepipe "intelligence" to the president and the media just like the crew of then Vice President Dick Cheney did in the run up to the war on Iraq:

Bolton chairs at the NSC, the regular and frequent strategic dialogue meetings with Israel – intended to develop a joint action plan, versus Iran. What this means is that the Israeli intelligence assessments are being stovepiped directly to Bolton (and therefore to Trump), without passing by the US intelligence services for assessment or comment on the credibility of the intelligence presented (shades of Cheney confronting the analysts down at Langley). And Bolton too, will represent Trump at the 'security summit' to be held later this month in Jerusalem with Russia and Israel. Yes, Bolton truly has all the reins in his hands: He is 'Mr Iran'.

'Mr Anti-Iran' is a more precise moniker. Or one may just call him President Bolton.

Posted by b on June 19, 2019 at 02:20 PM | Permalink

BraveNewWorld , Jun 19, 2019 2:39:12 PM | 2
The US is now saying that they will only protect ships in the gulf if the usual NATO suspects come along for the ride. If they do, then when the US attacks Iran they are committed for the regional war that follows. Bolton has done a great job of putting the band back together again.
so , Jun 19, 2019 2:45:26 PM | 3
Its all on Trump. No excuses. When the bodybags start to flow and the gas prices go to 8 or 9 dollars a gallon he will be toast. He'll never be able to show his face in public again without a small army around him. What a legacy.
Madison James , Jun 19, 2019 2:47:33 PM | 4
The similarities, to me, are a poor pantomime of Nixon and Kissinger. Milhaus was always the "madman" with his finger on the nuclear trigger which made the Nazi employment campaigner, Kissinger, seem like one to reason with if you didn't want nuclear annihilation.

There is an interesting book, "The Fire And The Fury", that has some insight into the administration. Trump never thought he would win and didn't intend to. He wanted to be "Crooked Hillary's" victim. Also, the book makes a great case for Israeli collusion, not Russia.

That said, the book makes a large showing of DJT's ignorance and indifference. Like many ignorant presidential hopefuls, I think DJT thought he could make a difference but we all know he's just a shill.

My favorite part of the book stated that DJT ate at Mickey D's because he's afraid of being poisoned, not because of a great love of fast food.

The present goobermint can run Donald up and down the flag pole and blame everything in the world on him and no one will know the difference.

ADKC , Jun 19, 2019 2:49:13 PM | 5
The war on Iran will be different to other US/Western wars.

Previously, it has only become apparent after the war has been going for some time (they never really end) that the war was a crime.

This time the whole of the US and the West knows full well that a war crime is being perpetrated. This will mean a definite end of the illusions that the West has held about it's self since WWII (or WWI). Can Empires and Civilisations continue if they no longer believe the stories they tell themselves?

Trump has not been fooled or misled, neither have the American people, neither the UK/European governments or peoples. We are destroying ourselves with this act.

Bolton has more brain cells than the entirety of the European peoples.

bjd , Jun 19, 2019 2:53:17 PM | 7
I bet soon we'll learn Shanahan was pushed out by the usual Bolton tactic of threats and extortion -- both on the personal and familial level.
Shanahan should blow the whistle -- soon!
uncle tungsten , Jun 19, 2019 2:54:09 PM | 8
Thanks b. Trump is likely both a fool and a barking mad President with a narcissistic personality. A dangerous mix open to malicious behaviour and vulnerable to manipulation. I have no doubt that he revels in the gravitas of it all, the Napoleonic pomp and ceremony etc. That the planet has to suffer this and Netanyahu and Pence Pentecostal ignorance is appalling.

There wont be any summit meeting between Iran and Trump, the insult would be intolerable and the outcome of no value to Iran. They know very well what the game is.

Bolton is just the killer for the job right where he is but will Trump find an equally malign player for his army? I am sure there is no shortage of 'suitable' candidates.

One bright side for the planet could well be a calamitous rise in oil price and a chaotic spin of global economic circumstances resulting in a drop in greenhouse gas emissions. On the dark side small pockets of survival.

bjd , Jun 19, 2019 2:56:57 PM | 9
@uncle tungsten (8)
One bright side for the planet could well be a calamitous rise in oil price and a chaotic spin of global economic circumstances resulting in a drop in greenhouse gas emissions. On the dark side small pockets of survival.

My thoughts exactly ;-)

psychohistorian , Jun 19, 2019 2:58:26 PM | 10
I am one of the supporters of the good cop/bad cop scenario.

While the existential question that has been on the table for some time is who owns the world of finance, here we are again following the spinning of the Iran plate by late empire.

Bolton and Pompeo are representative of Trump's rabid evangelical base and Israel. The kabuki friction towards the shared goals is just that. To the degree that we are hearing shrillness from these folk reflects the increasing failure of their tactics to maintain control of the global narrative.

Something stupid is coming and it will be sad.....very sad if is our extinction instead of difficult evolution.

james , Jun 19, 2019 3:04:49 PM | 11
thanks b... pompeo has the same agenda as israel with regard to attacks on the golan heights or americans - same messed up logic.. nothing like having your (usa-ksa-israel-uae) proxy army involved too.."these attacks came from areas where Islamic State underground groups are still active." the 500 lb gorilla is ''there to deter aggression''.. right!

as for trump.. the guy is a self serving twit and fool... perfect person to represent the usa at this point which is why so many hate him and like him, depending on where one lives.. whatever bolton does - it is on trump and the falling usa empire as i see it.. it can't fall soon enough..

Sorghum , Jun 19, 2019 3:10:30 PM | 12
I'm definitely of the good cop/bad cop belief. It fits with the entirety of his campaign and presidency: say one thing, do another, and blame somebody else. Trump wanted Bolton for NSA since the campaign. Both Bolton and Trump have had a position of confrontation with Iran for a long time. The fact that people still buy into the lies of *any* politician is a sad state of affairs. It sure does make the job of lying far easier.
Uncle Jon , Jun 19, 2019 3:16:20 PM | 13
@1 DG

Any tears for the Iranians or just like the Iraqis, their blood is not as red as the American soldiers?

Empathy: defined as getting our heads out of pseudo-patriotic asses and feel for the other side as well.

Peter AU 1 , Jun 19, 2019 3:18:17 PM | 14
Trump's tactical nukes mounted on Trident missiles will be ready in October - end of September according to the earlier news articles. I guess team Trump will be desperately trying to provoke a reaction from Iran so Trump can reluctantly use his nukes. (NPR specifically names Iran as a country that these may be used against). Good cop bad cop is Trump's game at the moment. He needs to be judged by the people he appoints and keeps on.
wagelaborer , Jun 19, 2019 3:23:21 PM | 15
DG @1
Don't feel too sorry for the American fatality. It will probably be a US soldier who volunteered to go overseas and kill for oil. Might be a female soldier. That would make for better press. Remember Nedā Āghā-Soltān? She was a beautiful Iranian woman, only 26 years old, shot in the head by a sniper in the 2009 Color (Green) Revolution attempt in Iran, a few blocks from the actual protests.

For some odd reason, a photographer was there to take pictures, and within a couple of hours, it was spread all over the world's media. We now call that "going viral". It takes a Mighty Wurlitzer to make a viral spread, I've noticed.

Uncle Jon , Jun 19, 2019 3:30:11 PM | 16
@15 wagelaborer

Neda Agha Soltan was shot in the chest.

karlof1 , Jun 19, 2019 3:40:10 PM | 18
"All he sees and hears is Fox News "

Tucker Carlson has interviewed Tulsi Gabbard several times and has generally been anti-war on many of his programs, and was certainly very anti-Russiagate. So, watching Fox News isn't as horrible as say CNN, NBC, MSNBC to name the three worst.

Yes, as I wrote on the last thread, Trump's boxed into several corners, Iran not being the only one. Really can't wait for the moment Pompeo clutches at his chest and crumples to the ground a la Morsi. Pompeo's clearly forgotten what Putin told him. Speaking of Putin, tomorrow he'll conduct the 17th edition of his Direct Line conversation with Russia's people and press. Information in Russian here :

"The programme will be broadcast live by Channel One, Rossiya 1, Rossiya 24, NTV, Public Television of Russia (OTR) and Mir TV, and by radio stations Mayak, Vesti FM and Radio Rossii."

Unfortunately, the start time isn't provided. Questions in Russian can be submitted at the above link.

For those that missed it, here's the Iranian limpet mine link I posted yesterday.

Would never have guessed there existed a Foundation for European Progressive Studies, but it does and its hosting a forum this Friday:

"On Friday #21June, #IAIEvent with @FEPS_Europe in #Brussels to mark the completion of our joint one-year research on #Europe-#Iran relations after the US withdrawal from the #JCPOA.

"With the participation of Seyed Sajjadpour, Deputy FM of Iran."

As far as the damage done to the two tankers, if an actual limpet mine of the sort Iran employs were used, the damage would be far more extensive than what was sustained. IMO, continuing attacks by the sort of kamikaze drones employed would be impossible to stop; and since the remains of the drone sink into the sea, virtually impossible to collect any evidence that might link Iran to the attack.

The Outlaw US Empire has no cards to play other than bluff and bluster.

Ma Laoshi , Jun 19, 2019 3:45:33 PM | 19
"That shows how stupid the red line is that Pompeo set out." Even b, one of the commenters I respect most, falls for the canard "Yanks R stoopid LOL". If you feverishly want an Iran war against the wishes of the majority of the planet, this is how it's done. Israel also drops some dud mortar shells into an empty patch on the Golan (itself or by proxy) any time it wants a mini casus belli in the Syria dossier.

I feel the Iranians have been pretty complicit propping up this image of Americans and Israelis as untouchable demigods, who only kill and can never be killed even once. The US should have gotten a steady stream of heroes coming home in boxes and wheelchairs the moment they crossed the Syrian border. Then the war fevers would've cooled considerably by now; that's how the Taliban made the orcs feel ... unwelcome in their slice of heaven. B opined at the time "This occupation is unsustainable", but nobody has properly contested it apart from a handful of ISIS holdouts. Eyes have been taken off balls it seems.

Pnyx , Jun 19, 2019 3:49:24 PM | 20
And again, no. That reminds of the old 'if the Führer knew'. No, Tronald is not - at least not in this sense - a fool. He has promoted these people now said to trick him into their respective position. Tronald is - and was - well informed about Boltons and Pompeo's views.

No, it's the first possibility that applies. Any moment now Act 3 is staged, an 'Iranian attack' on u.s. interests - and then Tronald will open Pandora's box - and suffer we will.

Laguerre , Jun 19, 2019 3:53:55 PM | 21
There were stories recently that Trump was about to sack Bolton. Whatever the truth of that, there's a fundamental problem that Trump doesn't want to spend his nights in the war room. He spends his time watching Fox News, tweeting, and his weekends at Mar-a Lago. A serious war is beyond him, and I think he'll say no, beyond a one night big bang.
murgen23 , Jun 19, 2019 3:56:40 PM | 22
May be the intention was never to sink the tanker - but just to draw attention with some heavy smoke. The limpet mines may exists in various size, so they may have intentionally used a small one for this. What were doing the IRGC along the tanker if not removing something from the hull. How do they even know there was something there of interest.
ken , Jun 19, 2019 3:57:37 PM | 23
The US has no leadership,,, just a bunch of mafioso hoods vying to be at the head of the Globalists table. The Europeons / West are little better going along to get a piece of the action... picture a Viking feast a few thousand years ago. Difference is we are the food they're devouring.

I am so happy 'b' explained the domestic violence attributed to Mr.Shanahan. I bit just like MSM wanted thinking he somehow abused his family. I imagine it was because it would have looked bad for the kind little woman.

Trump HAS drained the swamp,,, right into his administration. Look at what we in the US have to look forward to,,, tyrants on the left,,, tyrants on the right. I suppose we deserve this but it doesn't do well for my blood pressure.

Harry Law , Jun 19, 2019 3:57:50 PM | 24
Jeremy Hunt said that no other state or non state actor could possibly be responsible for the tanker explosions. That is the most ignorant statement any potential Prime Minister could make. There are so many potential culprits, any one of whom would find it more than tempting to take Pompeo at his word and lob a bomb at a US base. The same scenario applied to Syria, the US positively encouraged a gas attack by the head choppers by declaring such an attack would mean US intervention. Sheldon Adelson is Trumps biggest doner "Adelson's promotion of Bolton dates back at least to the days immediately after Trump's November 2016 election. According to The New York Times, Adelson strongly supported Bolton for the position of deputy secretary of state as Trump was putting together his cabinet" https://lobelog.com/trumps-choice-of-bolton-satisfies-his-biggest-donor/ So Trump could find it difficult to sack Bolton.
AriusArmenian , Jun 19, 2019 3:59:50 PM | 25
If this is mostly correct then the US is heading into a huge strategic catastrophe with epic blow back. That many millions in the MENA will suffer is as usual of no consequence to Americans but this time America will suffer a rapid irreversible decline and will deserve it.
jdmckay , Jun 19, 2019 4:00:57 PM | 26
b: Thanks for posting Lang's take on Shanahan being "outed" by Pompeo. Kind'a makes sense, given bigger picture you paint of Israeli "interests" being "stovepiped" through Bolton to DJT. Nothing I heard/read last night or this morning touched on this, it was all different takes on poor/no Shanahan vetting.

The irony of Shanahan being "dumped" for what the record seems to support: he did nothing wrong, maybe even showed noteworthy restraint vs. trump f***ing porn stars, stiffing sub-contractors for years (etc. etc.) is mind numbing.

...

Madison James @ Jun 19, 2019 2:47:33 PM

Also, the book makes a great case for Israeli collusion, not Russia.

More like CEDING Iran policy authority to hard line Likud hawks, as B describes in this post:

Bolton chairs at the NSC, the regular and frequent strategic dialogue meetings with Israel – intended to develop a joint action plan, versus Iran. What this means is that the Israeli intelligence assessments are being stovepiped directly to Bolton (and therefore to Trump), without passing by the US intelligence services for assessment or comment on the credibility of the intelligence presented ( shades of Cheney confronting the analysts down at Langley ).
(my emphasis)

It just seems like Iraq deja vu: GWB was the ignorant, dumb public face masking Lukidniks controlling US policy then, DJT the face masking the same now.

WRT war fears w/Iran: one little factoid rarely mentioned early on in Iraq "liberation"(did B write about this?): the PNAC crowd was openly advocating for a simultaneous military action towards Iran. Putin moved several battleships and destroyers right off the Iranian coast in a clear signal he would defend Iran. And that was the end of that.

Putin always holds his cards very close to his vest, but when he acts he does so decisively and with precision (aka his Syria military maneuvers). US bombs falling on Iran seems awfully close to Moscow in my view. I cannot help wondering if one of Putin's cards is his own red line: not allowing Likudniks to subjugate US military power for their "interests" wrt Iran.

ben , Jun 19, 2019 4:02:47 PM | 27
psycho @ 10 opined;"I am one of the supporters of the good cop/bad cop scenario."

Add me, to the believers column.

ADKC @ 5 said;"Trump has not been fooled or misled, neither have the American people, neither the UK/European governments or peoples. We are destroying ourselves with this act."

james @ 11 said;" it is on trump and the falling usa empire as i see it.. it can't fall soon enough.."

Yes, absolutely, to both above statements..

And I'll add another major player, to the joke, the U$A has become, the corporate MSM for it's failure to honestly inform the public of reality..

chu teh , Jun 19, 2019 4:16:07 PM | 28
...the IRGC along the tanker...
Could s/o kindly point-out a confirmation from Iran that [1] subject boat was operated/manned by the IRGC? I'll check back for your input; thanks in advance.
karlof1 , Jun 19, 2019 4:31:54 PM | 31
Magnier suggests watching this :

"This is a very balanced approach to the #US-#Iran crisis in the Gulf from an #EU point of view."

It links to a short CNN produced video. The few comments show the intensely high level of ignorance of my fellow Americans that are educational all by themselves.

Kristan hinton , Jun 19, 2019 4:37:46 PM | 32
It's about 1500 miles from Tehran to Moscow. That's about equal to the distance between Kansas City and San Francisco.

It is not in Russia's interest to have Iran attacked. Iran is a piece that offers a twofer to the Anglo Zio empire. It follows the edicts of the Yinon Plan and it antagonizes Russia.

joetv , Jun 19, 2019 4:38:38 PM | 33
If a war with Iran is orchestrated I will be very disappointed if Tel-Aviv is not destroyed. At some point in time Israel must pay for its' crimes.
I read today that an Egyptian news agency blamed Israel for the recent attacks on the 2 tankers. I find this heartening. However, I fear Israel is not beyond sinking an US naval vessel. re: USS LIBERTY. and albeit with Bolton's foreknowledge.
Shanahan was forced out. His family troubles pre-date today.
jdmckay , Jun 19, 2019 4:46:20 PM | 34
murgen23 @ Jun 19, 2019 3:56:40 PM:
May be the intention was never to sink the tanker - but just to draw attention with some heavy smoke. The limpet mines may exists in various size, so they may have intentionaly used a small one for this.

As B (and many other media ) pointed out: the crew of the Japanese tanker all said the ship was hit by an air borne projectile. This was not a mine. Seems obvious if US was interested in the truth, they would recover and identify the projectile.

Just for shits and giggles, a brief reminder of some of US "evidence" and false flags (all lies) in service of these "endeavors" previously:

- reading the several excellent books and released CIA docs of the CIA engineered Mosaddegh coup, among other things was CIA bombs set off in Mosques (this was before the Ayatollahs were political), then flooding media with "accesssments" Mosaddegh was responsable. Kermit Roosevelt literally boasted about this.

- Collin Powell's "clear and convincing" evidence of Sadam's mobile missile lauchers (aka mobile weather balloons). And the GWB admin's attempts to literally destroy Hans Blix' reputation, and as it turned out Blix was right about everything.

- Fake Satellite photos of Sadam's troops on Saudi border.

- "Incubator baby" lies to US Senate, swaying Desert Storm I approval by 1 vote (many senators said that fabrication was the difference in their vote). And this after Sadam's incursion into Kuwait was after 18 months of US vetoing Iraq UN resolutions seeking to condemn Kuwait's angle drilling into Iraq's largest southern oil fields.


That's just a few from memory. At what point do US lawmakers finally put all this together (especially given Bolton's association with those who drove GWB's Iraq invasion) and refuse to even consider the non persuasive evidence (not to mention contradictory... aka crew says air borne attack), remind their colleagues and America of the cost of these lies just in last 20 years, and DEMAND proof that can be verified with THEIR OWN EYES.

The surreal, Orwellian fog is descending again.

Jackrabbit , Jun 19, 2019 4:49:01 PM | 35
Judging from the headline and the quoting approvingly from "Former MI6 agent Alastair Crooke", I'd say b believe in the "President Bolton" theory.

Like other commenters, I believe in the bad cop/good cop theory. In fact I wrote of this only yesterday ( here and here , and here ):

The media promote Doublethink ...
... the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts. Doublethink is related to, but differs from, hypocrisy and neutrality... Doublethink is notable due to a lack of cognitive dissonance -- thus the person is completely unaware of any conflict or contradiction.
... such that Trump is both peace-loving nationalist and empire-loving antagonist. Except that the latter is expressed as a positive: "staunch ally", "tough negotiator", "protector", etc instead of a negative. Some people fall for it (Kool-Aid drinkers) and MSM ignores those that talk about the meta issues of MSM complicity.

And it's not just Trump. Whenever a President does things that might cause cognitive dissonance, apologists and the feckless press explain it away as a positive or blame subordinates for "sabotaging" the hero President .

= = = =

IMO President's are just members of the Deep State team. Presidents lead the team that's "on the field" - like a quarterback in American football. But the Deep State 'coach' calls the plays. And the 'coach' is, in turn, ultimately responsible to the owners (capitalists)

= = = =

I sense that there's now an effort to essentially 'shout down' or otherwise sideline those that argue that the attacks are more likely to be a false flag by an anti-Iranian organization (probably connected to Mossad or CIA) and question the efficacy of a Iranian strategy stealth attacks.

karlof1 and Peter AU 1 described the likely subterfuge of the US claim that Iran attached a "limpet mine". But I haven't seen much desire to discuss or spread their theory. Reporting by Israeli media (picked up worldwide) about USA plans to bomb Iran (really just rumors) have worked their magic and turned the page on the question of who attacked the ships. How convenient!

<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

Sadly, I find that I disagree with both of b's latest theories: the "Iranian stealth attack" theory and the "President Bolton" theory. IMO these are propaganda narratives.

Shakesvshav , Jun 19, 2019 4:50:45 PM | 36
Long article reproduced in Russia Insider includes reference to mysterious escalation in the northern part of the Persian Gulf: https://russia-insider.com/en/declassified-sino-russian-masterplan-end-us-dominance-middle-east/ri27290
joetv , Jun 19, 2019 4:50:58 PM | 37
there is some confusion amongst commenters here; as to what the Iranian boat was doing next to the tanker? The first thing one should ask is; what is the source of the video? and when was it taken? Next, the Iranians have been credited with rescuing the crew from at least 1 tanker, if not both. Which explains the large # of persons on a boat that usually operates with a crew of 5.
Jay , Jun 19, 2019 4:54:51 PM | 39
Except the 2007 "Iranian proxy" attacks on US forces illegally occupying Iraq were never proven. Meaning the fable of Iranians being behind attacks in Iraq is hardly new. The infamous Michael Gordon--the lead "reporter" on the "Judith Miller" fall 2002 Iraqi WMDs "reporting" in the NY Times--claimed that such "attacks" were proven in the pages of the NYT in March 2007. (He wasn't fired–only leaving the NYT after 30 years in 2017.)

Except his "reporting" made bogus claims like the Iraqis weren't able to follow armor penetrating shell designs that had been worked out in the 1920s.

In early 2007, there was a push by Cheney to strike Iran, the rumor is that W said "no". So Pompeo can't even lie as well as Cheney, in that the NY Times' main Pentagon reporter reported the 2007 events as fact at the time. (A secondary reporter, James Glanz also in Iraq in 2007, did manage to point out that the "Iranian" shells were marked in English and the US commanders provided nothing more than unsupported assertions regards the shells' origins. Glanz only writes for the NY Times about once every 6 months now.)

karlof1 , Jun 19, 2019 5:02:19 PM | 40
Houthis attack Jizan--on Red Sea just North of Yemen -- power plant with cruise missile causing large fire to erupt. Yemeni Armed Forces Spokesman :

"There are big surprises coming soon, God willing, with higher sensitive impact on the Saudi regime, if its aggression continues."

Expect renewed attacks on oil infrastructure.

Not so long ago, it appeared the Saudi/UAE/Merc coalition had the initiative and was winning. That no longer appears to be the case with the invasion of Saudi territory by ground forces accompanied by missile and drone assaults that have reached as far as Riyadh. Earlier today, Southfront posted videos of two successful Houthi assaults that destroyed 11 armored vehicles and additional technicals--attacks Saudi appears incapable of stopping.

Apparently, Magnier knows more than he's written :

"In the coming days, I'll share more of #Iran's medium and long term plans to face the #US plans."

ben , Jun 19, 2019 5:04:42 PM | 41
Jrabbit @ 35 made this analogy;

"IMO President's are just members of the Deep State team. Presidents lead the team that's "on the field" - like a quarterback in American football. But the Deep State 'coach' calls the plays. And the 'coach' is, in turn, ultimately responsible to the owners (capitalists)"

IMO, the perfect analogy. Maybe the U$A posters will "get it."

Lochearn , Jun 19, 2019 5:35:35 PM | 42
Bolton is Trump's Colonel House. House was influential in plucking Woodrow Wilson out of academia and getting him elected President in 1912 and then he moved into the White House with Wilson. He became in Wilson's words his "alter ego." House was right next to Wilson when he signed the Federal Reserve Act, something Wilson later said he bitterly regretted doing. House was a most shadowy figure – he wasn't even a real colonel -, having performed similar roles with various governors of Texas as if in preparation for his moment on the big stage – and a long moment it was with an allegedly decisive role in Versailles in 1919.

I saw warning signals back on the campaign trail when Trump was asked who he admired in politics and he replied after a pause John Bolton. Then I thought of Obama and Rahm Emanuel, his chief of staff. It struck me that maybe all of us are susceptible to somebody who can get a hold on us, who can grasp our insecurities and ingratiate themselves into our thinking processes. The elites work on this. Jack Kennedy had his brother as his sort of alter-ego so there was no opportunity there – which is maybe why he got shot.

Hoarsewhisperer , Jun 19, 2019 5:38:47 PM | 43
Trump's father became so frustrated with Donald's bullying and reckless behavior that he packed him off to military academy to learn some manners and self-control. Legend has it that Trump thrived in that environment and graduated in 1964. He also studied economics and has a Law degree. One imagines that a military academy graduate must have learned something about governance, leadership, pecking orders, power plays and the US Constitution. Anyone who assumes DJT is stupid or naive probably needs to do some homework...
Harry Law , Jun 19, 2019 6:06:58 PM | 44
Hoarsewhisperer "Anyone who assumes DJT is stupid or naiive probably needs to do some homework". I think prospective Private Donald 'bone spurs' Trump would have made a good General, [too late now, he is too old] maybe one of the greatest Generals in history. If only he had signed up. /S
Seems Rex Tillerson was right about Trump and agrees with this HL Mencken quote.

"As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron".

John Merryman , Jun 19, 2019 6:07:29 PM | 45
The Middle East a smoking ruin. Floods of Arab refugees pouring into Europe. Russia and China sitting back and waiting to pick up the pieces. Do those people actually think beyond the next step? I wouldn't want to be a European Jew for the next few decades. You can be burnt from the bottom up, as easily as from the top down. Lets just go kick the hornets nest, cause we are tough guys. Where. Are. The. Brain. Cells?
Don Bacon , Jun 19, 2019 6:10:31 PM | 46
TIME: President Trump Calls Alleged Iranian Attack on Oil Tankers 'Very Minor'
Ash , Jun 19, 2019 6:24:15 PM | 47
Does it really matter if the good cop/bad cop scenario is true or if Trump is just their useful idiot? Thus far, the difference is academic.
karlof1 , Jun 19, 2019 6:26:37 PM | 48
Promotion of War Crimes: Wheat as a Weapon : "A fellow at a think tank bankrolled by the US gov, NATO, and arms industry insists that 'wheat is a weapon' that can 'be used to apply pressure on the Assad regime.' "The impact this would have on civilians was not mentioned, of course."

Now we know what nation's responsible for the recent firing of wheat and other agricultural fields in Syria--The Outlaw US Empire of course: Never met a War Crime it didn't want to employ itself as current and historic evidence proves. Such people ought to be lobotomized.

Christian J Chuba , Jun 19, 2019 6:31:07 PM | 49
Iran did it, they are competent, we can't find our rear end

CENTCOM gave a scenario that finally made sense, they said that an IRGC boat approached the two tankers at night and attacked the 'mines'. This would explain why it was above the waterline and it would take great skill to do this with no injury and without being detected.

Now look at the U.S., the tanker was sitting their in broad daylight for about 10hrs and we couldn't even get ONE decent picture of an unexploded bomb sitting on the side of hull. And when the IRGC finally did show up, even our high resolution pictures were a joke and we are the SIGINT champions with hi-tech drones. Also, this means that the IRGC was able to slip into a port on the other side of the Persian Gulf and attack mines to 4 tankers undetected.

Prediction: if we do get into a fight with the Iranians we are in for a very rude awakening. All of this talk about their rusted out military is total BS. If ONLY that fool Tom Cotton would be the one to pay the price instead of some 20 yr old kid.

jared , Jun 19, 2019 6:33:55 PM | 50
Perhaps the admin senses that the end is approaching and are trying to wreak maximum havoc and damage while they are able. Like Bolton will serve in next admin.
Virgile , Jun 19, 2019 6:45:17 PM | 51
By minimizing the Oman Gulf incidents, maybe it is way for the White House under Bolton's control to show that it is not impressed nor feeling threatened. it is also encouraging the perpetrators of the attacks to do more provocations and ideally to kill an American...

It is an open invitations to whoever wants to harm Iran to come out more brutally.

AntiSpin , Jun 19, 2019 6:52:05 PM | 52
@ Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 19, 2019 5:38:47 PM | 43

". . . [Trump] studied economics and has a Law degree."

He has a BA in economics and was given an honorary law degree from Liberty so-called "University," a diploma mill dedicated to churning out brain-dead, right-wing religious fanatics.

Jackrabbit , Jun 19, 2019 6:56:28 PM | 54
Ash @47: does it really matter?

Yes, it does matter. Millions of American are ready to send their loved ones to die for "freedom and democracy" that propaganda claims USA champions. Trump as "useful idiot" just means that they elected the wrong guy. Trump as complicit in the dog and pony show means there is no democracy.

Smart people have already described how the system is rigged so that we have a "managed democracy" that mostly works for the "those that matter". Research from Princeton economists have described America as a plutocracy with an "inverted totalitarian" form of government. I have written many times at MoA of a adjunct to that theory: the faux populist leadership model. Obama and Trump are the poster boys for this, though it was mostly developed in the Clinton years.

Harry Law , Jun 19, 2019 7:03:21 PM | 55
That Iranian seaman who is alleged to have pulled off a possibly unstable, unexploded mine wearing nothing but a rubber life jacket thus endangering his life and all his crew mates and survivors in the small boat is the action of a lunatic. Or maybe it never happened.
Jonathan , Jun 19, 2019 7:03:25 PM | 56
Hoarsewhisperer @43,

What is the particular childish naïveté of Americans who believe that learning a system inevitably leads to a willingness to support and uphold it instead of exploiting it for personal gain?

You have to go back.

wagelaborer , Jun 19, 2019 7:14:03 PM | 57
Uncle Jon @16
You are right. My apologies. The optics would be horrible in my version.
oglalla , Jun 19, 2019 7:30:33 PM | 58
>> Posted by: blues | Jun 19, 2019 6:52:22 PM | 53

Do tell!

With trillion dollar deficits pre-recession, the fiscal situation looks dire. Once recession hits, tax revenue will plummet. Then, either they QE even more trillions or they cut the MIC (measured in terms of purchasing power, if not nominally). Or both. But, the rest of the world will suffer nominally as well. So, the dollar might remain a "cleaner dirty shirt".

It's a difficult environment to invest in. Everything seems pricey. But, with currency depreciation via QE, everything might become even pricier.

karlof1 , Jun 19, 2019 7:38:28 PM | 59
Harry Law @55--

Life jackets aren't rubber! Try and get the story straight! Plus, you missed that the limpet mine comes with a cloaking device that once placed onto the deck of any Iranian boat it's rendered invisible! Honestly, we spend a lot of time dreaming up these narratives, so the very least you can do is copy/paste properly!

On a serious note, I scanned a great many pictures of small boats and didn't come up with one example of the one shown in the video. Finding one ought to be easy since it has numerous unique features, most of which I commented upon. Has USN released a complete undoctored video of the limpet removal yet? I thought not. As with the incident with the Russian ship where USN didn't release the entire video taken from the stand-off helo because it proved USN at fault, there won't be any release of this other video for the same reason--it proves zip, nada, nothing.

Otherwise, I'd like to get myself one of those Iranian boats, minus the machine gun, as it looks like an excellent fishing platform, although it lacks a cuddy and below deck stowage room.

Don Bacon , Jun 19, 2019 8:00:57 PM | 60
There's been a shift in the dialogue, to some degree, to a discussion of the overall US role in the Gulf area.

Speaking to TIME, Trump argued that the Gulf of Oman[sic] is less strategically important for the United States now than it used to be, citing China and Japan as nations that still rely on the region for significant proportions of their oil. "Other places get such vast amounts of oil there," Trump said. "We get very little. We have made tremendous progress in the last two and a half years in energy. And when the pipelines get built, we're now an exporter of energy. So we're not in the position that we used to be in in the Middle East where some people would say we were there for the oil." . . here

Air Force Gen. Paul Selva, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters at a roundtable that countries that benefit most from the movement of oil through the Gulf need to take an active role in its security. . . ."The circumstances are very different now than they were in the 1980s," Selva said. "If you think back to the reflagging operation, the 'Tanker War,' as it was nicknamed, where we reflagged and escorted tankers so that they could flow in and out of the Strait of Hormuz, we got a substantial amount of our oil from the Persian Gulf.. . ."We are now in a position where the bulk of that oil goes to countries in Asia, and none of those countries have shown any predilection to pressing Iran to stop what they are doing. What was true in the 1980s, is not true today. We are not wholly dependent on the movement of Saudi, Kuwaiti, Qatari and Emirati oil in and out of the Gulf to sustain our economy.". . here

A broadening of the security mission in the Gulf area would be a positive step. Imagine the navies of China, India and Japan taking a role! The price would be a removal of Iran sanctions, because these countries want Iran oil! . . .I can dream.

Jen , Jun 19, 2019 8:01:59 PM | 61
Hoarsewhisperer @ 43

". . . [Trump] studied economics and has a Law degree."

Hot damn! And Dubya attended and graduated from Yale University (Bachelor of Arts, majoring in history) and later Harvard Business School (MBA).

Helena C , Jun 19, 2019 8:05:58 PM | 62
In the current circs (esp after announcement of the latest Red Line) why write only about the possibility of an ISIS missile landing on a US position being that it wd be "errant"?
Jen , Jun 19, 2019 8:07:16 PM | 64
Wage Laborer @ 15, 57, Uncle Jon @ 16:

After reading WL's comments, I had a vision of the photographer contacting the sniper by mobile phone and berating the fellow for killing Neda Agha Soltan in the head and telling him to find another beautiful young Iranian woman protester and to shoot her in the chest.

[Jun 19, 2019] A Proactive Russia and China Could Prevent US War with Iran by Paul Craig Roberts

Jun 19, 2019 | www.unz.com

There is so much disinformation that it is difficult to judge the Israeli news report below that the US is planning a military attack on Iran. Israel wants the US to attack Iran and the report could be an attempt to push events in that direction.

There is no valid reason for Washington to serve Israeli interests.

It would be extremely irresponsible for Washington to risk starting another war.

As Russian and Chinese interests could be threatened by a US war with Iran, the situation could become uncontrollable.

If there is a real prospect of a US attack on Iran, it would be a responsible action for Russia and China to block it in advance by taking a firm position.

U.N. officials: U.S. planning a 'tactical assault' in Iran

By SHLOMO SHAMIR/MAARIV ONLINE

06/17/2019

The military action under consideration would be an aerial bombardment of an Iranian facility linked to its nuclear program, the officials further claimed.

Is the US going to attack Iran soon?

Diplomatic sources at the UN headquarters in New York revealed to Maariv that they are assessing the United States' plans to carry out a tactical assault on Iran in response to the tanker attack in the Persian Gulf on Thursday.

According to the officials, since Friday, the White House has been holding incessant discussions involving senior military commanders, Pentagon representatives and advisers to President Donald Trump.

The military action under consideration would be an aerial bombardment of an Iranian facility linked to its nuclear program, the officials further claimed.

"The bombing will be massive but will be limited to a specific target," said a Western diplomat.

[Jun 18, 2019] Pompeo plays 'I've Got A Secret" during an interview with Margaret Brennan of CBS Face The Nation, responding to a request for evidence that Iran was behind a Taliban attack on a US convoy in Afghanistan

Jun 18, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Don Bacon , Jun 18, 2019 10:13:32 AM | 111

Pompeo plays 'I've Got A Secret" during an interview with Margaret Brennan of CBS Face The Nation, responding to a request for evidence that Iran was behind a Taliban attack on a US convoy in Afghanistan. Pompeo had painted the Taliban-claimed attack as one of "a series of attacks instigated by the Islamic Republic of Iran and its surrogates against American and allied interests."
QUESTION: One of the things when you were at the podium at the State Department earlier this week you presented as a fact was an attack that was carried out in Kabul in May. The Taliban said they carried it out, but you blamed Iran for it. What evidence do you have that Iran was behind that attack?
SECRETARY POMPEO: We have confidence that Iran instigated this attack. I can't share any more of the intelligence, but I wouldn't have said it if the Intelligence Community hadn't become convinced that this was the case.
QUESTION: So there's more that you can't share with us to back that up?
SECRETARY POMPEO: Yes, ma'am. That's correct. . . here

Juan Cole, an American academic and commentator on the modern Middle East and South Asia, takes a look at that charge.
Once Again Pompeo Displays Hopeless Ignorance of Sunni & Shiite, Iran and Taliban
. . .Pompeo painted the incident as one of "a series of attacks instigated by the Islamic Republic of Iran and its surrogates against American and allied interests."
Pompeo's statement is so embarrassing as to be cringe-worthy. It is either a lie in the service of war propaganda or a display of such bottomless ignorance on the part of America's chief diplomat as to be grounds for impeachment (or perhaps just consignment to an asylum). . . here

Pompeo -- Liar, liar, pants on fire.

[Jun 18, 2019] The Iran crisis was created in Washington. The US must be talked down by Simon Tisdall

Notable quotes:
"... Monochromatic simplifications of this type suit multiple purposes. In the present US-Iran crisis, they supposedly provide official "proof" of nefarious intent. They can be seen to justify escalatory US actions that might previously have appeared unreasonable and provocative. They place pressure on reluctant allies to fall in behind the advancing American columns. Most of all, since democratic consent apparently still counts for something, they are intended to rally public support. ..."
"... We have seen this badly made movie before. And today, as in 2003, it presents a shadowy, unconvincing picture that no amount of White House manipulation and rhetoric can clarify. The fact is, the current crisis was conceived, manufactured and magnified in Washington. It has been whipped up by a group of hawkish policymakers around Donald Trump whose loathing for the Tehran regime is exceeded only by their recklessness. ..."
"... Yet the problem for Pompeo, and fellow Iranophobe, national security adviser John Bolton, is that while most western governments probably believe that hardline elements within Iran, or Iranian-backed proxy forces, initiated last week's tanker attacks and similar incidents last month, they also believe gratuitous US provocations may have forced Iran's hand. They don't believe Trump when he says he merely wants Iran to act "normal" . But they do suspect the ultimate Bolton-Pompeo aim is a putsch. ..."
"... Iran is highlighting the unintended consequences of any conflagration, and the precedent-setting illegitimacy, both legal and moral, of threatened US actions. And then, more dangerously, there is its apparent, increasing willingness to employ a measure of physical resistance, be it through military proxies or, for example, hardliners in the Revolutionary Guards Corps. This is potentially explosive. ..."
"... Iran's is a society under extreme duress. Sanctions are undoubtedly biting deep and patience with the west is waning. ..."
"... Unnecessarily aggressive, ill-considered – and deceptively presented – US policies have once again brought the Middle East to the brink of an accidental war very few want. America's European friends, including Britain, have an urgent responsibility to talk it down – and drag it back from the abyss. ..."
Jun 18, 2019 | www.theguardian.com

President Trump claims he doesn't want conflict, but his actions could accidentally trigger another Middle East war

Grainy video images can be seen to justify escalatory US actions that might previously have appeared unreasonable and provocative.'

Washington, at times of stress, international crises play out in black and white. As in a flickering newsreel from a former age, complex events are reduced to symbolic emblems of right and wrong. Grainy video images of "evil-doers", George W Bush's favoured term, purport to show faceless Iranians acting suspiciously around a burning oil tanker in the Gulf last week. As new Middle East troop deployments are announced, US battleships are pictured bravely patrolling freedom's frontline.

Monochromatic simplifications of this type suit multiple purposes. In the present US-Iran crisis, they supposedly provide official "proof" of nefarious intent. They can be seen to justify escalatory US actions that might previously have appeared unreasonable and provocative. They place pressure on reluctant allies to fall in behind the advancing American columns. Most of all, since democratic consent apparently still counts for something, they are intended to rally public support.

We have seen this badly made movie before. And today, as in 2003, it presents a shadowy, unconvincing picture that no amount of White House manipulation and rhetoric can clarify. The fact is, the current crisis was conceived, manufactured and magnified in Washington. It has been whipped up by a group of hawkish policymakers around Donald Trump whose loathing for the Tehran regime is exceeded only by their recklessness.

The crisis has been building inexorably since President Trump's foolish renunciation last year of the 2015 nuclear deal with Tehran, his imposition of swingeing sanctions , and a campaign of "maximum pressure" to isolate and weaken Iran's leadership. It looks and smells like a crude bid for regime change. And although Trump insists he does not want it, his actions could soon trigger another calamitous Middle East war .

That's not a risk most people or states are ready to countenance. And so far, at least, Washington's parallel, virtual battle for consent and support is not going the way American hawks hoped. Mike Pompeo , the bully-boy evangelist who doubles as US secretary of state, rarely loses an opportunity to demonise Iran. Aware of post-Iraq scepticism over US intelligence claims, he noisily insists, with a creeping tinge of panic, on the accuracy and veracity of his "evidence".

Yet the problem for Pompeo, and fellow Iranophobe, national security adviser John Bolton, is that while most western governments probably believe that hardline elements within Iran, or Iranian-backed proxy forces, initiated last week's tanker attacks and similar incidents last month, they also believe gratuitous US provocations may have forced Iran's hand. They don't believe Trump when he says he merely wants Iran to act "normal" . But they do suspect the ultimate Bolton-Pompeo aim is a putsch.

The foreign secretary Jeremy Hunt, to Britain's shame , has tamely applauded Washington's dodgy video dossier. But the Europeans, rightly, don't buy it. The EU backs diplomacy , not sabre-rattling, and is still pursuing alternative barter arrangements to circumvent US sanctions. Russia, naturally, opposes the US. But China, in an unusually outspoken rebuff, said Washington's destabilising, unilateral behaviour "has no basis in international law".

Iran's neighbours have serious misgivings too. The impulsive and autocratic crown princes who run Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, Mohammed bin Salman and Mohamed bin Zayed, are the local equivalent of Bolton and Pompeo. Like them, Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu is egging the Americans on. But next-door Iraq has zero interest in a renewed conflict, likewise Turkey and weaker Gulf states.

Nor is the US public, despite years of White House fearmongering, fully aboard the "Get Iran" bandwagon. A Reuters/Ipsos survey last month found that nearly half of Americans – 49% – disapprove of Trump's handling of Iran. Just over half – 53% – saw Iran as a "serious" or "imminent" threat. But 60% said they wouldn't support a pre-emptive US military strike on the Iranian military.

Resistance to the US hawks' pell-mell rush to confrontation is coming most strongly from within Iran itself. Its foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, cuts a cool and thoughtful figure in contrast to Pompeo. He stresses how unilateral US sanctions, especially on oil exports, do unjustifiable harm to Iran's people and the international economy. His is an effective pitch to global opinion.

Iran also points out that, unlike the US, it is in full compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal. This week's warning from Tehran that it may soon breach enrichment limits is a calibrated response. It's unfortunate. But it does not amount to "nuclear blackmail", as the US claims, since Iran has no bomb and, according to the UN, is not seeking one . What it does amount to is diplomatic leverage with third-party states fearful of more Middle East chaos.

Iran is highlighting the unintended consequences of any conflagration, and the precedent-setting illegitimacy, both legal and moral, of threatened US actions. And then, more dangerously, there is its apparent, increasing willingness to employ a measure of physical resistance, be it through military proxies or, for example, hardliners in the Revolutionary Guards Corps. This is potentially explosive.

It would be a mistake to think Iran is totally in control of its responses to this unfolding crisis any more than the US. There are bellicose hawks in Iran's national security council, clerical establishment and the supreme leader's office, just as there are in the White House. Hassan Rouhani's pragmatic presidency, the majlis (parliament), the merchant class and state-controlled media all represent rival power centres with differing views on what to do next.

Iran's is a society under extreme duress. Sanctions are undoubtedly biting deep and patience with the west is waning. The risk is growing that, in extremis, some regime elements will hit out forcefully – and there is no doubt they have the ability to do so, in the Gulf, in Lebanon, in Gaza, and on the Israel-Syria and Saudi-Yemen borders. US hawks would say that's exactly why Iran must be contained, and very possibly it should. But do they really believe, after serial past failures, they have the power, the will, the backing and the mandate to do so?

Reducing conflict to black and white images of good and evil is not only misleading. It is also delusional. Some now recall the Gulf " tanker war " during the Iran-Iraq conflict that culminated, in 1988, with brief US "surgical strikes" on Iranian oil rigs and ships. In US lore, those strikes taught Iran a swift lesson, obliging it to back off. In truth, Iran was already on its knees after eight years of war with Saddam Hussein. That is absolutely not the situation now.

Unnecessarily aggressive, ill-considered – and deceptively presented – US policies have once again brought the Middle East to the brink of an accidental war very few want. America's European friends, including Britain, have an urgent responsibility to talk it down – and drag it back from the abyss.

• Simon Tisdall is a foreign affairs commentator

[Jun 18, 2019] Jeremy Corbyn: no 'credible evidence' of Iran role in tanker attacks

Notable quotes:
"... Labour leader urges UK to ease tensions in Gulf after Foreign Office links blasts to Tehran ..."
"... The foreign minister, Javad Zarif, had said earlier that the US "immediately jumped to make allegations against Iran without a shred of factual or circumstantial evidence". ..."
"... Corbyn was ..."
Jun 15, 2019 | www.theguardian.com

Labour leader urges UK to ease tensions in Gulf after Foreign Office links blasts to Tehran

US military claims shows Iranian patrol boat removing limpet mine from tanker – video Jeremy Corbyn has called for the government to abstain from escalating tensions with Iran without "credible evidence" that Tehran was responsible for attacks on two oil tankers.

The Labour leader said Britain risked increasing the threat of war after the Foreign Office (FCO) said it was "almost certain" in its assessment that "a branch of the Iranian military attacked the two tankers on 13 June".

Corbyn tweeted : "Britain should act to ease tensions in the Gulf, not fuel a military escalation that began with US withdrawal from the Iran nuclear agreement.

"Without credible evidence about the tanker attacks, the government's rhetoric will only increase the threat of war."

The foreign secretary, Jeremy Hunt , described Corbyn's comments as "pathetic and predictable".

The FCO had said: "No other state or non-state actor could plausibly have been responsible," and pointed to a "recent precedent for attacks by Iran against oil tankers".

Hunt, who had said the attacks built on "a pattern of destabilising Iranian behaviour and pose a serious danger to the region", criticised Corbyn for his comments.

"Pathetic and predictable," Hunt tweeted. "From Salisbury to the Middle East, why can he never bring himself to back British allies, British intelligence or British interests?"

Later on Saturday, the UK Foreign Office also said a report from the semi-official ISNA news agency that the British ambassador to Tehran had been summoned to a meeting with an Iranian foreign ministry official was incorrect.

On Friday, the US released footage said to show an unexploded mine being removed from one of the tankers by Iranian special forces.

But the Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, accused the US of "carrying out an aggressive policy and posing a serious threat to regional stability".

The foreign minister, Javad Zarif, had said earlier that the US "immediately jumped to make allegations against Iran without a shred of factual or circumstantial evidence".

Corbyn was criticised last year for warning against rushing to "hasty judgments" after the former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, were poisoned with a nerve agent in the UK.

The shadow foreign secretary, Emily Thornberry, warned on Saturday against the UK becoming "enmeshed in a war".

She said "independent evidence" should be established over who was responsible for the attacks, but cautioned that the severity of the situation and "the scale of what it is we may be about to get dragged into" should be the main focus for politicians.

"These are extremely dangerous developments and we really have to pause and think about where we are going next," she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

Refusing to either back or reject Corbyn's comments, Thornberry insisted the main issue was avoiding "British forces being drawn into a conflict of that size".

... ... ...

[Jun 18, 2019] Have the neoliberal ruling elite gotten lazy or stupid

Notable quotes:
"... The Gulf of Credibility - I really cannot begin to fathom how stupid you would have to be to believe that Iran would attack a Japanese oil tanker at the very moment that the Japanese Prime Minister was sitting down to friendly, US-disapproved talks in https://t.co/P1wE1Y886i ..."
"... When the ruling elite wanted a war with Iraq they invented incubator babies and WMD programs that didn't exist. Their inventions were far fetched, but not unbelievable. However, the idea that the paranoid dictator Saddam was just going to hand over his most powerful weapons to religious fanatics that hated his guts, was laughably stupid. ..."
"... When the ruling elite wanted a war with Libya they invented a genocidal, Viagra-fueled, rape army. Their invention was far fetched, and bit lazy, but you could be forgiven for believing that the Mandarins believed it. ..."
"... This latest anti-Iran warmongering is just plain stupid. It's as if they don't really care if anyone believes the lies they are telling. For starters, look at the shameless liar who is telling these lies. ..."
"... Looking at this incident/narrative from any/every angle leaves one to conclude "false flag". ..."
"... As for the "most obvious culprit is usually responsible for the crime" that also happens to be "bazaar-level conspiracy theories involving a false-flag operation by Israel's Mossad". Because Mossad actually does that. ..."
"... If El Trumpo was going to drain the swamp, why did he take these cretins, Bolton, Pompeo, Haspel, Abrams into his cabinet? Is the tail, wagging the dog as usual? ..."
"... The elite are both lazy and stupid. Even the Orange Man will not be sucked into another Douma style false flag operation. The reasons why this is a basic false flag is obvious. If anybody reading about this doesn't understand the culprits responsible weren't Iranian, then they should be interviewed for mental competency. ..."
"... But Pompous Mike and Bolt-on Bolt-off need to be removed from any semblance of governmental authority. I could go on but this whole affair is making me tired...I'm going back to my swamp. ..."
Jun 14, 2019 | caucus99percent.com

gjohnsit on Fri, 06/14/2019 - 5:42pm

The Gulf of Credibility - I really cannot begin to fathom how stupid you would have to be to believe that Iran would attack a Japanese oil tanker at the very moment that the Japanese Prime Minister was sitting down to friendly, US-disapproved talks in https://t.co/P1wE1Y886i

-- Craig Murray (@CraigMurrayOrg) June 14, 2019

When the ruling elite wanted a war with Iraq they invented incubator babies and WMD programs that didn't exist. Their inventions were far fetched, but not unbelievable. However, the idea that the paranoid dictator Saddam was just going to hand over his most powerful weapons to religious fanatics that hated his guts, was laughably stupid.

When the ruling elite wanted a war with Libya they invented a genocidal, Viagra-fueled, rape army. Their invention was far fetched, and bit lazy, but you could be forgiven for believing that the Mandarins believed it.

This latest anti-Iran warmongering is just plain stupid. It's as if they don't really care if anyone believes the lies they are telling. For starters, look at the shameless liar who is telling these lies.

You mean "Mr. We Lied, We Cheated, We Stole"? What a disgraceful character... pic.twitter.com/pMtAgKaZcG

-- Brave New World (@ClubBayern) June 13, 2019

Then there are the many problems of their "proof".

Where is the video of the Iranians PLACING explosives & detonating them? Removal would be prudent by any Navy/CG. Also location of explosives is VERY high off waterline ...Weird. It's not a limpet mine, it's a demo charge. Had to be put on by fairly high boat w/ a long gaff/pole https://t.co/3qzB7TrrYv

-- Malcolm Nance (@MalcolmNance) June 14, 2019

The distress call went out at 6 am. So, according to CENTCOM's analysis of this video, they're suggesting that 10 hours after the tanker was hit, the IRGC just casually pulled up to the tanker to remove unexploded limpet mine in broad daylight?!

-- Rosalind Rogers راز (@Rrogerian) June 14, 2019

BREAKING: Owner says Kokuka Courageous tanker crew saw "flying objects" before attack, suggesting ship wasn't damaged by mines.

-- The Associated Press (@AP) June 14, 2019

The Japanese company that owns the ship has refused to cooperate in this false flag mission.

But in remarks to Japanese media, the president of the company that owns the ship said the vessel wasn't damaged by a mine. "A mine doesn't damage a ship above sea level," said Yutaka Katada, president of Kokuka Sangyo, the owner and operator of the vessel. "We aren't sure exactly what hit, but it was something flying towards the ship," he said.

When the propaganda begins to fall apart and @realDonaldTrump tries to find another way to start a war to win an election. pic.twitter.com/r8Cp7BNQ7z

-- Bamboozll (@bamboozll) June 14, 2019

Looking at this incident/narrative from any/every angle leaves one to conclude "false flag".

Finally, there is the question of "why"?

What would Iran hope to accomplish by this? I found one establishment source that tried to rationalize.

Iran denied responsibility, with Foreign Minister Javad Zarif descending to bazaar-level conspiracy theories involving a false-flag operation by Israel's Mossad.

If you're not inclined to believe the Trump administration – and such skepticism is entirely reasonable – most detectives would still tell you that the most obvious culprit is usually responsible for the crime.

To those seeking logic behind the attacks, though, it may be hard to see why Iran would do this – but that assumes that the regime in Tehran is a rational actor.

The Gulf of Oman attacks are especially hard to explain: targeting Japanese shipping on the very day that Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was meeting Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on a well-publicized peace mission would seem extraordinarily counterproductive, even for a regime with an almost fanatical commitment to self-harm.

Have you ever noticed that everyone that we want to start a war with is crazy? Regimes that stand solid for generations under hostile conditions are always run by maniacs. You'd think that insanity would prevent them from taking power in the first place, but that seems to only be true with our allies.

As for the "most obvious culprit is usually responsible for the crime" that also happens to be "bazaar-level conspiracy theories involving a false-flag operation by Israel's Mossad". Because Mossad actually does that.

Since the U.S.'s tightening of sanctions has squeezed Iranian oil exports, nobody else's should be allowed to pass through waters within reach of the IRGC.

The Iranians know that these threats, if repeated, can lose their power if not followed with action. The attacks on the tankers, then, can be explained as a demonstration that Khamenei's attack dogs have some teeth.

There is another rationale. If Iran does eventually agree to negotiate with the U.S., it will want to bring some bargaining chips to the table – something it can exchange for the removal of sanctions. In the negotiations over the 2015 nuclear deal, Iran was able to offer the suspension of its nuclear program. It doesn't have that particular chip now, although Tehran has recently threatened to crank up the centrifuges again.

Meanwhile, the regime may have calculated that the only way to secure some kind of negotiating position is blackmail: End the sanctions, or we take out some more tankers, and send oil prices surging.

This almost sounds logical, except for one thing: Iran tried that in 1988 and it didn't work. It only caused the one thing the U.S. was itching for: to kill some Iranians.
Do you think that they've forgotten? Or that the U.S. is less warlike? Oh wait. Iranians are crazy and can't be reasoned with, amirite?

US public radio @NPR does not mention it was Iranians who saved the crew. That's how terrible they are at journalism

-- boomerWithaLandline (@Irene34799239) June 14, 2019

The only real question is, why such a transparent lie? Has the ruling elite gotten lazy or stupid? Or do they think that we are that lazy and stupid? I have an alternative theory .

For the last two years, as you've probably noticed, the corporate media have been not so subtly alternating between manufacturing Russia hysteria and Nazi hysteria, and sometimes whipping up both at once. Thus, I've dubbed the new Official Enemy of Freedom "the Putin-Nazis." They don't really make any sense, rationally, but let's not get all hung up on that. Official enemies don't have to make sense. The important thing is, they're coming to get us, and to kill the Jews and destroy democracy and something about Stalin, if memory serves. Putin is their leader, of course. Trump is his diabolical puppet. Julian Assange is well, Goebbels, or something. Glenn Greenwald is also on the payroll, as are countless "useful idiots" like myself, whose job it is to sow division, discord, racism, anti-Semitism, anti-capitalism, anti-Hillaryism, collusion rejectionism, ontological skepticism, and any other horrible thing you can think of.

Their bullsh*t lies have gotten lazy and stupid because real effort isn't required to start a war and kill a lot of people.

WoodsDweller on Fri, 06/14/2019 - 6:18pm

I'm going to go with "desperate"

Something's happening to move up the time table, and it isn't the election, we're already in plenty of wars, another one won't help El Trumpo.

Sirena on Fri, 06/14/2019 - 6:31pm
Who is playing who?

That is the question, I ask thee? If El Trumpo was going to drain the swamp, why did he take these cretins, Bolton, Pompeo, Haspel, Abrams into his cabinet? Is the tail, wagging the dog as usual?

TheOtherMaven on Fri, 06/14/2019 - 6:31pm
All of the above

Lazy, stupid, and desperate.

Alligator Ed on Fri, 06/14/2019 - 6:33pm
The answer to your title is YES

The elite are both lazy and stupid. Even the Orange Man will not be sucked into another Douma style false flag operation. The reasons why this is a basic false flag is obvious. If anybody reading about this doesn't understand the culprits responsible weren't Iranian, then they should be interviewed for mental competency.

My money, the little that I have, is on either the Saudis or the Israelis; maybe even both.

But Pompous Mike and Bolt-on Bolt-off need to be removed from any semblance of governmental authority. I could go on but this whole affair is making me tired...I'm going back to my swamp.

[Jun 18, 2019] How to manipulate financial markets by Igor Kuchma

Notable quotes:
"... The question that must be raised is who gains what from these incidents. Let's start from saying that even if Tehran had nothing to do with these attacks, it will still suffer the consequences. It is enough to recall the Gulf of Tonkin incident that took place in August 1964. Back then, a US-staged false flag initiated full-scale conflict in Southeast Asia. ..."
Jun 18, 2019 | www.asiatimes.com
There have always been people who have tried to gain power and control. The only distinction was the mechanism through which they planned to achieve it: brute force or something more original. For example, researchers manipulate data to attain the results they want, while traders try to manipulate and influence market prices by disseminating erroneous information. Some go even further by conducting so-called "false flag" and "fake news" operations.

However, it is a gradual process. First, the technique of misinformation is implemented – as you may remember, in 2016, the Internet was filled with fake news aimed at distorting public opinion and helping one of the candidates to become president of the United States of America. This year, intelligence agencies and non-government entities have decided to use similar ploys to influence oil prices.

According to Wikipedia, a false flag is "intentional misrepresentation or covert operation designed to deceive; the deception creates the appearance of a particular party, group, or nation being responsible for some activity, disguising the actual source of responsibility." Recently it became popular for countries to "organize attacks on themselves and make the attacks appear to be by enemy nations or terrorists, thus giving the nation that was supposedly attacked a pretext for domestic repression and foreign military or economic aggression."

Recently there were news report that two oil tankers had been damaged in a suspected attack in the waters between the United Arab Emirates and Iran as they were leaving the Persian Gulf. And predictably, the United States claimed that Iran was responsible for damaging the vessels in the Gulf of Oman. This was the second such incident in four weeks.

The question that must be raised is who gains what from these incidents. Let's start from saying that even if Tehran had nothing to do with these attacks, it will still suffer the consequences. It is enough to recall the Gulf of Tonkin incident that took place in August 1964. Back then, a US-staged false flag initiated full-scale conflict in Southeast Asia.

Iran has already accused the US of lying about a "torpedo attack" on an American-linked oil tanker. "The US and its regional allies must stop warmongering and put an end to mischievous plots and false-flag operations in the region," Iran's mission to the United Nations said .

As history has shown, the Americans won't back down. Does it mean that Iran is next on its target list for war? Only time will tell.

Nevertheless, without waiting for the results of an investigation, Brent prices spiked after the reports of the attacks on tankers leaving the Persian Gulf.

The Brent crude quote won 4.45% on Thursday, shortly after news of the attacks broke, but it has since slightly decreased, or, should we say, corrected. Without any doubt, someone managed to put up a really good million-dollar front.

[Jun 18, 2019] The UNSG calls for an investigation

Jun 18, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Don Bacon , Jun 18, 2019 10:43:42 AM | 114

June 14

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called on Friday for an independent investigation to establish the facts and who was responsible for attacks on two oil tankers this week in the Gulf of Oman.

The United States blamed Iran for the attacks on Thursday, a charge Tehran rejected. Amid the rising tensions, Guterres said he was available to mediate if the parties agreed, however he added that "at the present moment we don't see a mechanism of dialogue possible to be in place."

"It's very important to know the truth and it's very important that responsibilities are clarified. Obviously that can only be done if there is an independent entity that verifies those facts," he told reporters, adding that he believed only the Security Council could order a U.N. investigation. . .

here

[Jun 18, 2019] Trump Admin Thinks It Can Ignore Congress on Iran Because of 9-11 Fortune

Jun 18, 2019 | fortune.com

Tensions between the United States and Iran are flaring -- and possibly headed toward war if left unchecked.

Attacks against Japanese and Norwegian tankers in the Straits of Hormuz, which the United States has blamed Iran for despite skepticism from European allies, coupled with Iran's announcement that it would violate the 2015 multinational nuclear deal that the Trump administration withdrew the United States from in 2018 and President Trump's move to deploy an additional 1,000 troops to the Middle East, have created sky-high tensions between the two countries.

Should the Trump administration take military action against Iran, officials have suggested that the president already has authorization from Congress to attack Iran, which has drawn intense skepticism and outrage from members of Congress and legal experts.

"We always have the authorization to defend American interests," said Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on CBS' Face the Nation on Sunday, when asked whether the administration had the legal authorization to strike Iran.

Lawmakers have said that the administration in private has stated it does not need their backing, and it has floated using the same legal authority that the Bush administration used after September 11, 2001, in Afghanistan, despite the fact that there is no evidence that Iran was involved in the terrorist attacks.

Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), a former CIA analyst, said on June 13 that Sec. Pompeo presented to members on "how the 2001 AUMF [Authorization to Use Military Force] might authorize war on Iran." Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) on May 21, referring to the Pompeo briefing, also confirmed that the administration felt it could attack Iran without authorization: "What I heard in there makes it clear that this administration feels that they do not have to come back and talk to Congress in regards to any action they do in Iran."

(The State Department did not return a request for comment from Fortune on whether it thought the 2001 authorization applied to Iran; Pompeo did not answer the question before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, saying he would rather "leave that to lawyers.")

Pompeo and Trump administration officials have repeatedly said that they do not want a war with Iran. Nevertheless, Pompeo said there is "no doubt" a connection between Iran and al-Qaeda, despite doubts from experts who analyzed al-Qaeda documents that there have been close ties, and no evidence that Iran and al-Qaeda cooperated in terror attacks.

Legal experts and members of Congress from both parties said that the 2001 authorization did not apply.

Heather Brandon-Smith, legislative director for militarism and human rights at the Friends Committee on National Legislation and an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center, told Fortune that there was "definitely not" a provision to use force against Iran in the authorization.

"That is quite a stretch and it's something we've never seen before. It's certainly not what members of Congress intended when they authorized the president to go after those who attacked the U.S. on 9/11 and those who harbored them," she said.

"The 2001 AUMF does not authorize the use of force against Iran. Iran was not implicated in the 9/11 attacks, Iranian forces are not al Qa'ida or the Taliban or their associated forces, nor are they a 'successor' to any of those forces," wrote Brian Egan, former legal adviser to the State Department, and Tess Bridgeman, former deputy legal adviser to the National Security Council, in the legal blog Just Security.

Members of Congress have also said that the 2001 authorization does not apply to Iran. Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas), ranking member on the House Armed Services Committee, said on June 13 that he did not think that the authorization applied to the "state of Iran." Lawmakers, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) , have said that the administration needed to go to Congress to militarily attack Iran.

Further, Pompeo's comments on CBS about defending "American interests" signaled a legal authority for the president to act militarily as commander in chief under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which experts doubted applied in the current standoff with Iran.

Steve Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law, tweeted , "I must've missed the clause in Article II of the U.S. Constitution that authorizes the President to unilaterally use military force in defense of commercial vessels flying foreign flags in international waters "

Nevertheless, despite recent efforts in the House to repeal the authorization , Brandon-Smith said that Congress bore blame as well for repeatedly balking at repealing it, which has led to a situation where the administration has signaled at an interpretation beyond its intended scope.

"The administration -- in three presidents -- have interpreted the 2001 AUMF to apply to groups and in places that Congress never intended, and Congress hasn't done anything to stop that. They've continued to appropriate funds for these wars. They'll criticize what the president does, but they haven't passed legislation to repeal the 2001 AUMF," she said. "Instead, Congress has ceded its authority to the executive branch."

[Jun 18, 2019] Iran's UK Ambassador Unfortunately We Are Heading Towards A Confrontation With The US

Jun 18, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

The Iranian Ambassador to the UK Hamid Baeidinejad warned that the United States and Iran are "unfortunately headed toward a confrontation which is very serious for everybody in the region."

In an interview with Christiane Amanpour, the Ambassador reacted to rapidly escalating tensions between the two countries - late on Monday the US announced it was sending another 1,000 troops to the Middle East - as the United States continues to blame Iran for an attack on two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman.

Ambassador Baeidinejad, a senior Iranian official within the Foreign Ministry, denied the allegations, and cautioned the White House would be "very sorry" to underestimate Iran, should a military conflict ensue. Baeidinejad stopped short of predicting the possibility of U.S. plans for a limited strike in the Persian Gulf, but argued that such plans may already be underway in a bid to spark a fight.

"I'm sure this is a scenario where some people are forcefully working on it, they will drag the United States into a confrontation. I hope that the people in Washington will be very careful not to underestimate the Iranian determination," Baeidinejad told CNN. "If they wrongly enter into a conflict, they would be very sorry about that, because we are fully prepared by our government and our forces that we would not be submitting to the United States."

He explained that Iran was not opposed to negotiations but that the U.S. should "not interfere" Iran's economic relationships with other countries, a tactic he referred to as "economic terrorism."

When asked who else could be responsible for the attack, Baeidinejad pointed to other countries in the region " who have invested heavily, billions and billions of dollars to draft the United States into a military conflict with Iran ."

And since everyone knows who they are, he didn't even have to name them.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/-ziX82bpOvA

Ms No , 21 minutes ago link

People wont consider this but with the grave danger that Zionist empire has put every nation in, a first strike by China and Russia is entirely possible.

In big fights the first one to strike has the best odds. This is the street fighters rule.

Its not like they didnt plead and attempt to reason with these psychopaths and the western peoples. They are being backed into a corner. Dont be surprised if Iran is the red line that you didnt know about.

Once Saud and Israel get hit in response to an attack on Iran, a whole lot of things could start going down very quickly, or even instantly.

I have zero doubt that they have had generals advise them of throwing everything they have at the empire right there. That feasibly could be their best chance of survival. They of course wouldnt inform anyone of this.

WorkingClassMan , 9 minutes ago link

Wonderful world we live in, isn't it?

Ms No , 37 minutes ago link

Russia and China have to be resigned to the near inevitability of WWIII. They simply have to be. They know who they are dealing with. Short of collapsing on themselves, they will not stop.

Laughing.Man , 30 minutes ago link

China's been building up their military at a mind boggling pace, especially their Navy. I just read that Russia is going to repair their sole carrier and it should be ready by 2021. Originally the Russian Navy have been toying with the idea of scrapping her.

I am Groot , 42 minutes ago link

Hey Iran, if you have a nuclear weapon, NOW would be the time to use that sucker on Washington. If you wait, you're dead.

HK91 , 3 minutes ago link

Thank you brother. Nailed it. But I think if they have one or more they will wait for our attack and Israel will be wiped away like an inadvertent cum shot.

SilverDoctors , 1 hour ago link

Breaking: U.S. Planning MASSIVE 'Tactical Assault' Against Iran – UN Report

Baron von Bud , 1 hour ago link

Trump is a narcissist; Fort Trump in Poland, Trump Heights by Israel. The guy needs to be loved and that's common to most politicians. Trump wants a better economy and his neocons want war. Bolton is forcing him to choose which isn't smart but Bolton is a fanatic, not a good thinker. If Trump backs off from war then he'll be made to look weak as Pompeo piles on the make-believe offenses of Iran. If he starts a skirmish then Bolton will add a blowtorch and off we go. Trump's statement that he knows who did 9/11 just might be his ace in the hole. Expose the perpetrators and for what they've did 18 years ago. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld need to testify. Might be Trump's only way to avoid a war and win re-election.

Anonymous IX , 1 hour ago link

They may not have the military power that the U.S./Israel/SA have, but their Ambassador, in the above video, looked determined to me. His face set and hardened as he spoke during that part (about their readiness for war) revealing, to my mind, that Iran is more than ready for war with the U.S. The countries which will suffer will be SA and Israel if the skirmish goes badly. Maybe Iran has a missile or bomb no one knows they have. Who knows? Anything's possible. SA will be taken out. If Iran feels pressed against the wall, they'll take out SA.

UBrexitUPay4it , 1 hour ago link

The way for Iran to avoid war is simple: they need an IBS controlled central bank, and to give all their resources over to western corporations, but I repeat myself.

Anonymous IX , 37 minutes ago link

Honey...unfair. I don't think that Iran is incompetent; they are simply being pressured by the most powerful military force in the world. Look at what we spend!!! Equals the top next six countries in the world.

The Ambassador said that Iran simply wants the U.S. to leave them alone. No economic sanctions. No throwing around our weight. A fair enough request. (I don't believe in our economic sanctions for any country. Studying the Magnitsky debacle showed me how conditions upon which the U.S. bases arguments for sanctions are more than likely fabricated and manufactured. The Magnitsky Affair was a travesty of the highest order.)

Let's consider this argument. Suppose Iran is proven guilty of spreading terrorism. Instigating terrorist activities. Is not the U.S. also guilty of spreading terrorism? Who funded and supplied al Qaeda/al Nusra? Protected them? Who toppled Iran and Libya's leaders? Who was running guns through Benghazi? For whom? The U.S.A. has spread terrorism. If anyone reads for even 15 minuts a day from sources outside the U.S....i.e., they're not governed by U.S. media...they will get a sharply different viewpoint.

The only reason Iran is being pressed is because the U.S. has the might and power to do so and Iran doesn't. Really simple, Honey. Really simple.

emmanuelthoreau , 2 hours ago link

Throw in some shadowy "Russians" and it'll be a two-fer. Russia to be sanctioned out of existence as the US tries to stiffarm the entire world at the UN and throws Iran against the wall like a doll.

At least that's what Pentagon City and Langley thinks. But every empire has an expiration date and it's not too much of a stretch to see the irony of a fall during Pride Month.

Too many people in this country think the US has the mandate of heaven to do whatever it wants on earth. And many more think they live on an island in the sky, untouchable and inviolate. If the war doesn't work out, oh well, life goes on!

Yep. That ends sometime. Could be any day now.

LibertarianMenace , 2 hours ago link

Too many in this country don't think. Increasingly it's not by choice: the skills required are quickly escaping them - being sapped by "smart" phone itis.

I am Groot , 2 hours ago link

Here again ? (groans)

My money is on losing a destroyer in the Gulf. Maybe even aircraft carrier for a false flag maximum outrage.

Anonymous IX , 11 minutes ago link

I know what you mean, Groot. This warmongering seems endless. They constantly drum up a new conflict. Another dastardly episode from a U.S.-designated terrorist. I feel like the figure the painting The Scream.

chunga , 2 hours ago link

I feel like I live on another planet. The US has been banging the drums against Russia for three years because they hacked our sacred election and we've learned the basis for that was completely fake. Not one word about that from D.C. and here we are days later gearing up to fight Iran.

r0mulus , 2 hours ago link

Damn it's almost like our resident deep-state bootlickers never heard of operation ajax or the how the shah came to be. People are born ignorant and it's sad but not surprising to see so many so utterly uniformed.

[Jun 18, 2019] Strange Iran behaviour after the tanker incident

Jun 18, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Laguerre , Jun 17, 2019 3:04:57 PM | 7

Me, I thought that the Iranian announcement that it's going to go beyond the limits agreed was provocative. Why did they do it? It's not necessary for them. So, is there a necessity we don't know about, or are they pushing the Americans a bit? Pushing the Americans is a dangerous game. Are they desperate?

I was in Iran a month ago. I didn't think they were desperate. But the collapse of the riyal was having an effect. I'm not quite sure what's pushing this risky announcement.

psychohistorian , Jun 17, 2019 3:06:00 PM | 8

I continue to believe that history will show that we are in WWIII already. The Iran gambit fits within a bigger ME strategy that sits aside the EU/NATO one.

And then there is the private banking cartel part of the war. This part effects all of the gambits and strategies and its do or die in their eyes.

The steamroller of China/Russia and aligned continues apace.

karlof1 , Jun 17, 2019 3:10:39 PM | 9
Seems I need to relearn a few things. The current enrichment regime goes to 3% except for a small amount that's enriched to 20% to derive medical isotopes. To produce a nuclear weapon, 80-85% enrichment's required which means building a very large number of new centrifuge cascades. Plus, you don't just leap from 3% to 85%; it takes quite some time, but I can't recall the number of centrifuges or the time required. You can bet the old debunked to death warning "Iran's only a month away from making a bomb" will resurface with a vengeance.

As b, myself, and many others have noted, the Outlaw US Empire is the one in violation of everything as usual but isn't being called out for it thanks to its command of BigLie Media. As I reported in the open thread, Putin's continuing remarks call out illegal actions and continual bullying by the Outlaw US Empire, and I imagine the joint consensus statements from the SCO and CICA forums will contain similar language as has recently become commonplace. The EU continues to act like its helpless. It doesn't even do the bare minimum by calling out the Empire for its gross illegal behavior. I don't understand why, if indeed it did, Russia ceased its importation of Iranian nuclear material. The Arak plant is being developed with Chinese financing and engineering help.

Spicing the situation further is Iran's reported busting of another CIA spy ring: "Iran has dismantled a CIA-run 'large US cyber-espionage' network."

Laguerre , Jun 17, 2019 3:22:12 PM | 10
re Karlof1. I think everyone understands that Iranian enrichment is not actually very great. The question is why Iran put it in a way that was likely to provoke a reaction.
Passer by , Jun 17, 2019 3:24:53 PM | 11
Do you really think that the EU will start a trade war with the US over Iran? Now that economic crisis is near? Nope, it is not going to happen. Too many naive people.
Passer by , Jun 17, 2019 3:39:11 PM | 13
Posted by: Laguerre | Jun 17, 2019 3:34:05 PM | 12

It is because the US knows with whom they are dealing with. Merkel "i support the Iraq war", Macron the cuck, Scandinavian/Eastern European "please USA, protect me from Russia", UK "i'm your biggest Poodle, don't you like it?" and Italy "oh my god, our economy will implode at any moment".

The EU, generally speaking, in a political way, is a joke.

Zack , Jun 17, 2019 3:49:59 PM | 15
JPOST:U.N. OFFICIALS: U.S. PLANNING A 'TACTICAL ASSAULT' IN IRAN
Diplomatic sources at the UN headquarters in New York revealed to Maariv that they are assessing the United States' plans to carry out a tactical assault on Iran in response to the tanker attack in the Persian Gulf on Thursday .

According to the officials, since Friday, the White House has been holding incessant discussions involving senior military commanders, Pentagon representatives and advisers to President Donald Trump.

The military action under consideration would be an aerial bombardment of an Iranian facility linked to its nuclear program , the officials further claimed.

" The bombing will be massive but will be limited to a specific target ," said a Western diplomat.

frances , Jun 17, 2019 4:48:53 PM | 22
reply to
" The military action under consideration would be an aerial bombardment of an Iranian facility linked to its nuclear program, the officials further claimed.

"The bombing will be massive but will be limited to a specific target," said a Western diplomat."
Posted by: Zack | Jun 17, 2019 3:49:59 PM | 15

I read somewhere that Iran bought S-300's a while ago and that they were heavily customized. As Russia has been involved with Iran my guess is Iran has an S-400 equivalent defensive capability. And as Iran now has a heads up regarding a pending US attack, we may finally see how well US weapons/planes perform against S-400s as well as Iran's formidable missiles.
We may also see how well Israel's Iron Dome does against an assault by both Hamas and Hezbollah. Trump is going down a dark road if he attacks Iran.

karlof1 , Jun 17, 2019 4:59:00 PM | 24
frances @22--

Here's the Anna News report about Iran's air defense capabilities I posted last week. It's in Russian but is easily machine translated. Where Iran's strength lies is in its retaliation ability combined with target vulnerabilities, which we've been over and back about in detail. Last week after the tanker attacks, CENTCOM issued a statement saying the Outlaw US Empire doesn't seek war with Iran, which I also posted here.

Passer by , Jun 17, 2019 5:34:23 PM | 26
Yeah, Americans frequently think that. They can't cope with Europe being independent.

Posted by: Laguerre | Jun 17, 2019 3:57:47 PM | 17

Well, make that happen then. I have been waiting for a long time.

Btw it is not only that they think like that, they don't sit on their hands, they work actively to make that EU dependence happen.


Posted by: Zack | Jun 17, 2019 3:49:59 PM | 15

Its psychological war. Posturing. What happens if Iran fires back and a salvo of ballistic/cruise missiles destroy a US base in the Middle East? Or the Taliban gets manpads? US bases in Iraq under fire by shia millitias just like in 2007? EFP IEDs work great against US armored vehicles..

The US military consistently resisted the push for war against Iran. I don't believe a war with Iran will happen. Especially not now, with the already shaky global economy and Brexit ongoing.

Posted by: DontBelieveEitherPr. | Jun 17, 2019 4:20:31 PM | 19

"So Iran stands alone, with the other Countrys daring to defy the US supremacy.
Will be hard next 5 years."

Depends on the severity of the economic crisis coming. The US was very nice and quiet in 2008-2009 right after the financial crisis. It even wanted a reset in relations with Russia.

When the US or the EU have it bad, they become very very nice. Like kittens. Look at how bankrupt Italy is seeking better trade relations with Russia and China.

So i expect a decrease in geopolitical tensions in the next several years as the crisis bites and countries are forced to concentrate on internal problems. I also think there will be too much debt around and that will force decrease in military budgets as well.

If the crisis is big, the trade war against China and the EU sanctions against Russia will end. More EU countries will join OBOR.

So it all depends on the severity of the crisis and who will be hit the most.

Oscar Peterson , Jun 17, 2019 5:40:33 PM | 27
Good points by Clueless Joe and DBEP-- #18 and 19.

And underlines just how dangerous it's going to be going forward. For Iran to have a shot at changing the current dynamic, it has to generate a situation that is more economically threatening than the threats that the US has made to isolate Iran. Active hostilities, with the first shots preferably fired by the US, setting the stage for Iranian action significantly reducing the amount of energy exported from the region and generating a global economic crisis may be required. That's why, as I have said repeatedly, it's a very risky strategy. But as I have also asked, what are the alternatives?

vk , Jun 17, 2019 5:46:09 PM | 28
The EU won't start a trade war with the US mainly for two reasons:

1) its economy is in a much more fragile state, so it wouldn't be able to withstand a Fabian war; as a peripheral region, its survival depens on never fully taking one side between the superpowers (USA vs China-Russia);

2) NATO.

There's also an ideological reason: since the post-war, the Western Europeans developed an ideology called Atlanticism, which states that the USA is a continuation of the European empire/civilization, therefore the continuation of Western Civilization itself. Therefore, the USA must be protected as if it was Europe, even if just culturally.

Indeed, this is a big problem the European far-right will have to face: until now, they are using a narrative of a "sovereign and pure" Europe ("Europe for Europeans"). When the time comes and they are in power, they will have to face the reality Europe now is just an American pet: will they budge and, at the end of the day, strenghten the USA's position in the peninsula, or will they go all in and seal its fate?

Ian , Jun 17, 2019 5:49:04 PM | 29
psychohistorian | Jun 17, 2019 3:06:00 PM | 8:

Or WW4. WW3 was the first Cold War against the Soviets, while this War of Terror / Cold War 2.0 would be WW4.

Hoarsewhisperer , Jun 17, 2019 5:50:49 PM | 30
JPOST:U.N. OFFICIALS: U.S. PLANNING A 'TACTICAL ASSAULT' IN IRAN

Diplomatic sources at the UN headquarters in New York revealed to Maariv that they are assessing the United States' plans to carry out a tactical assault on Iran in response to the tanker attack in the Persian Gulf on Thursday.
...
Posted by: Zack | Jun 17, 2019 3:49:59 PM | 15

Trust the "Israelis" to publish meaningless "He said - She said" claptrap about Iran.
J-Post's gullible audience is way too dumb to realise that a US announcement of US unilateral military action, delivered from the steps of the UN, does not mean that the idiocy is condoned or endorsed by the UN Security Council.

Apart from anything else, if there was a genuine likelihood that the US was going to bomb Iran, J-Post would be telling "Israelis" to check the food and water in their bunkers and stay the Hell away from Dimona and "Israel's" other nuke sites.

Lochearn , Jun 17, 2019 6:45:38 PM | 33
The elites distract us from finding out who they are and what they do by continually throwing up scenarios for us to ponder over. Since 2011 it's been Syria, then Ukraine, then back to Syria, a rumble with Kim in NK, a sort of mini-scenario with Venezuela then back to Iran. It's been more or less non-stop. Add in Trump and Brexit and we have more than enough bones to chew on. We focus on that tiresome old sub-entity the military-industrial complex when it is just a glorified cop enforcing the interests of its master – global capital.

We consider countries and regions as separate – the EU and the US for example – but the elites don't. The Bank of International Settlements – the world's central banks' bank is in Basel, Switzerland. The elites are interested in one thing and one thing only and that is getting a return on the $80 trillion in AUM or assets under management. When global GDP is just a little less than that figure that's a lot of money chasing around looking to earn a buck or two. It requires that every sector of every economy be "in play." Remember Trumps comment about privatizing the NHS in Britain after Brexit? That's because it's all Britain has left of what they call low-hanging fruit. Everything else has been downsized, rightsized or fucksized.

What we need to focus on is not the G7 or G20 but the G30 or Group of Thirty – a group of extremely powerful bankers. Check out the members on their website if you want to know who controls things. It only came to notice because Mario Draghi, the head of the ECB, used to be a member. Some fine individual complained to the EU Ombudsman that the ECB is supposed to supervise the banks, not conspire with them, and Draghi was forced out. Two members are ex-governors of the Bank of China!

The big fish of the G30 – Jacob A Frenkel - is someone probably nobody has ever heard of. A stint at the IMF, then governor of the Bank of Israel (1991-2000), before moving on to head Merril Lynch International and membership of the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations), the Trilateral Commission and the New York FED – which effectively controls the FED. He even has his grubby little hands in China as a member of the Advisory council of the China Development Bank. China again! Oh, and lastly he is Chairman of J P Morgan International. He is joined there by the scum Tony Blair and the eternally corrupt ex UN chief Kofi Annan, as well as the chairman of China's soverign wealth fund, among many others whose names and careers we should all be familiar with.

Don Bacon , Jun 17, 2019 7:06:43 PM | 37
Iran might consider going this way to encourage Europe to act:

The JCPOA set a limit of 3.67 percent enrichment and a stockpile limit of around 660 pounds for 15 years with 5,060 older centrifuges. But that will change. Considering the wrongful actions taken by the US to end the international agreement affirmed by the UN Security Council, this is now the Iran position:

Iran's options include:
--increasing the number of centrifuges to 20,000
--surpassing the 3.67 percent limit to 5 percent to provide fuel to the Bushehr power plant, and to twenty percent for the Tehran research reactor
--the possibility of further enrichment percentages
--halting the redesign of the Arak reactor which would eliminate plutonium production
--non-participation in any policing of terror attacks in the Gulf region

It's your move, all options are on the table.

wontonpiece , Jun 17, 2019 10:11:24 PM | 58
@Zachary Smith | Jun 17, 2019 6:11:41 PM | #31

Yeah, he is stupid enough and moreover very easily swayed. Remember he's got Sheldon Adelson, Kushner, Bibi, Bolton, Pompeo, Cotton and even Adam Schiff telling him to bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran.

karlof1 , Jun 17, 2019 10:22:00 PM | 59
Anon @34--

Here're some of those newly released/doctored photos , thus begging the question, why was the grainy video released when such clear photos were available? Oh, and they don't prove anything either--unless--one looks closely at the boat. 7 people have very obvious life vests on while 3 don't. There's no flag/standard flying from the boat anywhere whereas in all other photos of similar Iranian vessels, the Iranian flag is proudly displayed. The vessel's design is quite interesting for a boat-guy like myself--I've never seen anything like its cockpit. Besides the two chests, there's nothing aboard that resembles a limpet mine. The crew all seem to be wearing the same uniform, but a variety of life vests--3-4 different types--plus the life ring lays on the deck improperly stowed. No hull markings or registration numbers are seen. And as I noted on the previous thread, the boat type seems unique. The seam on the hull appears where? And so on....

USN has zero credibility and that hasn't improved one iota with this release. There ought to be 100s of photos, not just these few. And how about an undoctored video! Ought to check what sorts of ship's boats USN has as this one's very specific.

karlof1 , Jun 17, 2019 10:33:59 PM | 60
Don Bacon @57--

Well, that's a few more photos than from my link. The caption clearly states the overhead shot of the boat was after the supposed mine removal--again, where is it?!?! There's no stowage area anywhere on that vessel. IMO, given its cockpit's arrangement, it's meant to ferry personnel--note all the places to sit along the gunwalls. The previous video showed it to have a specific hull type designed to be both seaworthy and stable--a difficult combination to attain--but at the cost of any stowage space below deck.

Ha! Maybe they decided to just drop it into the sea! Otherwise, where is it in that overhead photo?!

Don Bacon , Jun 17, 2019 10:48:17 PM | 61
@ karlof
And what's with the red splotches? Protecting the innocent?
Don Bacon , Jun 17, 2019 10:51:16 PM | 62
@ DPC 56
re: Morsi
Yes, I think I remember some of that. Thanks for your comment.
Don Bacon , Jun 17, 2019 10:59:23 PM | 63
@ karlof
Yes, an IRGCN ferry boat, outside of its Persian Gulf AOR, in the Gulf of Oman. I can't get that out of my head. I would think that IRGCN would be unwelcome in IRIN territory.
psychohistorian , Jun 17, 2019 11:05:10 PM | 64
@ Don Bacon with link #57 comment

Thanks....Anyone knowledgeable about the bomb mounting pictures they show at the bottom?

The first and second picture seem to show the same hull face but they don't agree with the fourth picture showing damage. Take the length of the white hull height numbers/markers on the right as a ruler and measure out the same distance on the 1/2 versus number 4 pics and see the difference.

Is it humanities karma to die on the basis of a poor lie? What a bunch of losers the elite are. They talk big but when it comes to actual merit they have none...only undeserved faith

Don Bacon , Jun 17, 2019 11:24:35 PM | 65
@ ph
Yes, the nail holes, aluminum and green composite material have moved and/or disappeared. Photoshop does have its limitations.
Don Bacon , Jun 17, 2019 11:43:34 PM | 66
comments from Europe (via CNN)..
>Downing Street spokesperson said at a briefing Monday that if Iran breaches its low-grade uranium stockpile limits, which was agreed under the nuclear pact, then the UK would look at "all options."
> French President Emmanuel Macron said that the Iran announcement was regretful, adding that France "encourage(s) them to adopt a patient and responsible behavior."
> German government spokesman Steffen Seibert and the European Union's foreign policy chief Frederica Mogherini both said that they expect Iran to live up to its obligations as laid out in the deal.. . here

Forget them.
Zachary Smith , Jun 17, 2019 11:47:38 PM | 67
@ karlof1 | Jun 17, 2019 10:22:00 PM #59

I'm late to this party, so your close-up images are the first I've seen. If they're not "doctored", then somebody has a really interesting new weapon. Here is what Julian Borger in Washington wrote in the UK Guardian:

One of the images is said to show the remnant of a limpet mine that had been removed – a small jagged piece of green metal, as well as holes made by nails used to hold the mine in place.

Yes, Borger 'was told' that the explosives were nailed to the steel hull of the tanker. Now I don't know the thickness of a tanker's hull, but wouldn't it be at least half an inch of good steel? Was Bolger born with a fishhook through his lip?

It's my WAG (wild-ass-guess) that what the Iranians were removing was an unexploded lightweight devices which had been delivered to the side of the ship by some kind of projectile or drone. If it was theirs, they'd not want the US to inspect it so they went after it themselves. Of course an alternate viewpoint is that they took down a US device to carry home and study.

b4real , Jun 17, 2019 11:51:05 PM | 68
@33 lochearn

"We focus on that tiresome old sub-entity the military-industrial complex when it is just a glorified cop enforcing the interests of its master – global capital."

Do you really believe those bankers with their terminals and wingtip shoes are telling the boys with the billion dollars of weaponry what to do? At best they share mutual consideration at times, and when push comes to shove between them, those bankers are going to be looking down the business end of those armaments. Nice little villa you've got there...shame if something were to happen to it.... They are going to work together until they don't.

b4real

[Jun 18, 2019] War With Iran Would Become 'Trump's War' by Patrick J. Buchanan

It is not a secret that the USA have a very powerful MIC lobby that by-and-large defines the USA foreign policy. Israel can be considered as a yet another MIC lobbyist. This lobby in interesting in launching the war (especially pro-Israel faction of the MIC lobby)
The USA can definitely crush Iran military, but the cost might be higher that in case of Iraq. Also without occupation of the country that will not be anything like a decisive victory. In Iraq, the USA was helped by the fact that military quickly crumbed and was undermined by betrayals of several high ranking generals. Whether the same will be the case in Iran is difficult to predict.
Theocratic regimes tend to became more fragile with time, so at that stage is Iran now is difficult to predict without being in the country. So counting on the fragility of the regime might be a valid consideration. But the war typically unites nations so to exploit those weaknesses with war is more difficult task, then just waiting for the regime collapse.
That USA has at least two firm allied in such a war: Israel and Saudis.
Notable quotes:
"... It would widen the "forever war," which Trump said he would end, to a nation of 80 million people, three times as large as Iraq. It would become the defining issue of his presidency, as the Iraq War became the defining issue of George W. Bush's presidency. ..."
"... Trump's repudiation of the treaty was followed by his reimposition of sanctions and a policy of maximum pressure. This was followed by the designation of Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a "terrorist" organization. ..."
"... U.S. policy has been to squeeze Iran's economy until the regime buckles to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's 12 demands, including an end to Tehran's support of its allies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen. ..."
"... Sunday, Pompeo said Iran was behind the attacks on the tankers in the Gulf of Oman and that Tehran instigated an attack that injured four U.S. soldiers in Kabul though the Taliban claimed responsibility. ..."
"... Tehran has denied any role in the tanker attacks, helped put out the fire on one tanker, and accused its enemies of "false flag" attacks to instigate a war. ..."
"... Writing in The Wall Street Journal Monday were Ray Takeyh and Reuel Marc Gerecht, a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a neocon nest funded by Paul Singer and Sheldon Adelson. In a piece titled, "America Can Face Down a Fragile Iran," the pair make the case that Trump should squeeze the Iranian regime relentlessly and not fear a military clash, and a war with Iran would be a cakewalk. ..."
"... "Iran's fragile theocracy can't absorb a massive external shock. That's why Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has, for the most part, adhered to the JCPOA (the nuclear pact) and why he is likely angling for negotiation over confrontation with the Great Satan." ..."
"... This depiction of Iran's political crisis and economic decline invites a question: If the Tehran regime is so fragile and the Iranian people are so alienated, why not avoid a war and wait for the regime's collapse? ..."
"... Who wants a U.S. war with Iran? Primarily the same people who goaded us into wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen, and who oppose every effort of Trump's to extricate us from those wars. ..."
"... Should they succeed in Iran, it is hard to see how we will ever be able to extricate our country from this blood-soaked region that holds no vital strategic interest save oil, and America, thanks to fracking, has become independent of that. ..."
Jun 18, 2019 | original.antiwar.com

War With Iran Would Become 'Trump's War'

Posted on June 18, 2019 June 17, 2019 President Donald Trump cannot want war with Iran.

Such a war, no matter how long, would be fought in and around the Persian Gulf, through which a third of the world's seaborne oil travels. It could trigger a worldwide recession and imperil Trump's reelection.

It would widen the "forever war," which Trump said he would end, to a nation of 80 million people, three times as large as Iraq. It would become the defining issue of his presidency, as the Iraq War became the defining issue of George W. Bush's presidency.

And if war comes now, it would be known as "Trump's War."

For it was Trump who pulled us out of the Iran nuclear deal, though, according to U.N. inspectors and the other signatories – Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China – Tehran was complying with its terms.

Trump's repudiation of the treaty was followed by his reimposition of sanctions and a policy of maximum pressure. This was followed by the designation of Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a "terrorist" organization.

Then came the threats of U.S. secondary sanctions on nations, some of them friends and allies, that continued to buy oil from Iran.

U.S. policy has been to squeeze Iran's economy until the regime buckles to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's 12 demands, including an end to Tehran's support of its allies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen.

Sunday, Pompeo said Iran was behind the attacks on the tankers in the Gulf of Oman and that Tehran instigated an attack that injured four U.S. soldiers in Kabul though the Taliban claimed responsibility.

The war hawks are back.

"This unprovoked attack on commercial shipping warrants retaliatory military strikes," said Senator Tom Cotton on Sunday.

But as Trump does not want war with Iran, Iran does not want war with us. Tehran has denied any role in the tanker attacks, helped put out the fire on one tanker, and accused its enemies of "false flag" attacks to instigate a war.

If the Revolutionary Guard, which answers to the ayatollah, did attach explosives to the hull of the tankers, it was most likely to send a direct message: If our exports are halted by U.S. sanctions, the oil exports of the Saudis and Gulf Arabs can be made to experience similar problems.

Yet if the president and the ayatollah do not want war, who does?

Not the Germans or Japanese, both of whom are asking for more proof that Iran instigated the tanker attacks. Japan's prime minster was meeting with the ayatollah when the attacks occurred, and one of the tankers was a Japanese vessel.

Writing in The Wall Street Journal Monday were Ray Takeyh and Reuel Marc Gerecht, a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a neocon nest funded by Paul Singer and Sheldon Adelson. In a piece titled, "America Can Face Down a Fragile Iran," the pair make the case that Trump should squeeze the Iranian regime relentlessly and not fear a military clash, and a war with Iran would be a cakewalk.

"Iran is in no shape for a prolonged confrontation with the U.S. The regime is in a politically precarious position. The sullen Iranian middle class has given up on the possibility of reform or prosperity. The lower classes, once tethered to the regime by the expansive welfare state, have also grown disloyal. The intelligentsia no longer believes that faith and freedom can be harmonized. And the youth have become the regime's most unrelenting critics.

"Iran's fragile theocracy can't absorb a massive external shock. That's why Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has, for the most part, adhered to the JCPOA (the nuclear pact) and why he is likely angling for negotiation over confrontation with the Great Satan."

This depiction of Iran's political crisis and economic decline invites a question: If the Tehran regime is so fragile and the Iranian people are so alienated, why not avoid a war and wait for the regime's collapse?

Trump seems to have several options:

  • Negotiate with the Tehran regime for some tolerable detente.
  • Refuse to negotiate and await the regime's collapse, in which case the president must be prepared for Iranian actions that raise the cost of choking that nation to death.
  • Strike militarily, as Cotton urges, and accept the war that follows, if Iran chooses to fight rather than be humiliated and capitulate to Pompeo's demands.

One recalls: Saddam Hussein accepted war with the United States in 1991 rather than yield to Bush I's demand he get his army out of Kuwait.

Who wants a U.S. war with Iran? Primarily the same people who goaded us into wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen, and who oppose every effort of Trump's to extricate us from those wars.

Should they succeed in Iran, it is hard to see how we will ever be able to extricate our country from this blood-soaked region that holds no vital strategic interest save oil, and America, thanks to fracking, has become independent of that.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Web page at www.creators.com .

[Jun 17, 2019] Tanker attacks serve warning to Gulf monarchies

Notable quotes:
"... The US initially granted waivers to eight allied importers of Iranian oil for its sanctions instituted in November of last year but has since revoked them, making matters worse for the flailing Iranian economy. In turn, Tehran has raised the long-threatened prospect that it could close the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow outlet of the Persian Gulf through which 20% of the world's oil passes. "Iran has made these threats for the better part of the last 20 to 30 years. ..."
"... It hasn't followed through on it because it would also inhibit its ability to ship its oil abroad, so closing it would be counterintuitive," said Esfandiary. "However, given that the US is deliberately trying to shut off all avenues of Iran exporting its oil, it doesn't stand to lose as much if it closes the strait." Rather, the Gulf monarchies would be at the greatest risk should a conflict break out. ..."
"... "This is why the Emiratis have been urging for restraint since the last tanker attacks a few weeks ago," she said. ..."
"... The captain of the Japanese ship has already called out American *LIES*! The tanker was hit by a flying object, not a mine underwater, directly contradicting the liars looking to plant another Gulf of Tonkin incident. Since the US lost so badly in Vietnam, you'd think that they'd think twice before starting a war with Iran. ..."
"... This article, along with the entire Western media is promoting the line that Iran most likely was responsible for this affair. This is absurd on many levels. First, has Iran gained anything from this? Has anyone? Of course! The US and its allies are creating a huge propaganda campaign. ..."
Jun 14, 2019 | asiatimes.com

Tanker attacks serve warning to Gulf monarchies

Evacuation of two ships off Oman drives home potential fallout from US 'maximum pressure' campaign against Iran By Alison Tahmizian Meuse , Beirut

The attacks on two tankers laden with petroleum products in the Gulf of Oman on Thursday may have been designed to highlight the risks of the Trump administration's "maximum pressure" campaign against Iran, analysts told Asia Times on Friday. The US accused Iran of being behind the attacks, a charge Tehran has vehemently denied. But this kind of non-lethal warning, which caused a spike in oil prices, has been in the hardline Iranian playbook since the Trump administration signaled it would take steps to squeeze the Islamic republic's ability to sell its petroleum.

"It was being debated even before the oil waivers were revoked [in November], but largely as a possible response to an attempt to zero [eliminate] Iran's exports," an Iranian source told Asia Times on condition of anonymity as he was not authorized to speak on the matter. "The idea was to raise costs for global markets and the Gulf states to get them to more directly intercede with Trump" and to drive home the potential fallout of US sanctions, the source said.

President Donald Trump's administration sees the Saudi heir to the throne, Mohammed bin Salman, and the Emirati de facto ruler Mohammed bin Zayed, or MBZ, as the pillars of American policy – and arms deals – in the region, and the goal would have been to make them feel economic pain. "If MBZ tells Trump that it's time to slow down the maximum pressure policy that is very different than [Japanese President Shinzo] Abe calling for negotiations," the source said.

The Japanese leader – who visited Tehran on a mission to reduce tensions – instead got a front-row seat to the rising risks of the shipping business, in which the G-7 nation has a major interest. Just as news surfaced that the Japan-operated Kokuka Courageous was forced to evacuate its crew, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei was telling Abe that he would not be dignifying Trump with talks.

Limits of pressure

The latest attacks came exactly one month after a similar non-lethal incident against four tankers off the coast of the United Arab Emirates. Washington also blamed Iran for those attacks, though a Security Council report earlier this month stopped short of naming the Islamic republic.

The latest incidents have yet to be independently investigated. However, US Central Command released video footage on Thursday which purports to show an Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps' patrol boat removing a limpet mine from the side of the Kokuka Courageous – ostensibly to maintain plausible deniability and prevent an American military escalation. Iran does not want the situation in the region to escalate, but it is increasingly being forced into a corner by US economic pressure, according to Dina Esfandiary, an Iran expert and fellow at The Century Foundation.

If the latest attacks were found to have been carried out by Iranian forces, it would be consistent with their modus operandi , she said: "The damage was done above the hull of the ship, so clearly the point was to avoid death, but [ ] show that it is capable of doing something like this, and won't hesitate to do it if it needs to." Indeed, the crew members of both ships were safely evacuated on Thursday, some by the US and others by Iran. But the vessels were carrying hundreds of thousands of barrels of petroleum products, and one of them burned for hours after the attack.

The US initially granted waivers to eight allied importers of Iranian oil for its sanctions instituted in November of last year but has since revoked them, making matters worse for the flailing Iranian economy. In turn, Tehran has raised the long-threatened prospect that it could close the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow outlet of the Persian Gulf through which 20% of the world's oil passes. "Iran has made these threats for the better part of the last 20 to 30 years.

It hasn't followed through on it because it would also inhibit its ability to ship its oil abroad, so closing it would be counterintuitive," said Esfandiary. "However, given that the US is deliberately trying to shut off all avenues of Iran exporting its oil, it doesn't stand to lose as much if it closes the strait." Rather, the Gulf monarchies would be at the greatest risk should a conflict break out.

"This is why the Emiratis have been urging for restraint since the last tanker attacks a few weeks ago," she said. The Eurasia Group, a political risk consultancy, also acknowledged the possible strategy behind the attacks. "The latest incidents appear aimed at demonstrating the vulnerability of Gulf shipping while damaging confidence in the US ability to protect freedom of navigation," it said. In an interview on Friday, Trump said he was seeking talks with Iran: "We want to get them back to the table if they want to get back. I'm in no rush."

Sushi8524 • 2 days ago ,

The captain of the Japanese ship has already called out American *LIES*! The tanker was hit by a flying object, not a mine underwater, directly contradicting the liars looking to plant another Gulf of Tonkin incident. Since the US lost so badly in Vietnam, you'd think that they'd think twice before starting a war with Iran.

Iron Felix • 2 days ago ,

This article, along with the entire Western media is promoting the line that Iran most likely was responsible for this affair. This is absurd on many levels. First, has Iran gained anything from this? Has anyone? Of course! The US and its allies are creating a huge propaganda campaign.

Abe was on a delicate mission, one which he had extensively discussed with Trump the Iranians to discuss whether there are any grounds for negotiations. Is there anyone sane out there who think Iran would create such a crisis at this time? Of course not, but we all know who is trying to sabotage any normalization between the US and Iran.

Then there was the video perporting to show an Iranian boat REMOVING a mine from a ship, but the Iranians claim they had fished the sailors out of the water. Is this what the video shows? Can't say, but it is all over CNN, NBC, FOX etc as "proof" We have been here before, haven't we.

All told, this is a very unconvincing attempt to frame up Iran.

Truth • 2 days ago ,

Radical Jewish Extremists did this to start another war that only they would benefit from.

[Jun 17, 2019] Cotton s Warmongering on Iran

Notable quotes:
"... Cotton unwittingly proves that there are other states that have a motive to attack shipping in order to provoke a war with Iran. The Saudis, Israel, half the U.S. govt, and the UAE. The UAE is an interesting case because they hired a former U.S. navy Seal as a General to conduct their war in Yemen. ..."
Jun 17, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com

SteveM • 11 hours ago

Daniel, re your Scott Shapiro retweet:

"We have to change the culture in America to one in which warmongering renders one unfit to hold public office"

Yet again, changing the culture in America requires smashing the Cult of Military Exceptionalism in the U.S. The sanctified Generals are part and parcel of the war-monger cabal. They turn the warped fear-monger gears with abandon, yet are immune from public criticism.

The war-monger views of atrocious Tom Cotton are afforded special consideration because he is a "Warrior-Hero" who wasted taxpayer money in Iraq. The retired Generals fronting for the Pentagon on network news are treated with obsequious deference by the feckless MSM hacks .

The combined effect is a massive beat-down of the realism and restraint that the public says it actually wants. When push comes to shove, the propaganda saturated public surrenders to the pathological "wisdom" of the Generals.

As long as the massively dominating influence of the Pentagon is fenced off from criticism, America's economically, politically and morally bankrupt foreign policy will not, and cannot change.

P.S. please suggest this to Scott Shapiro.

kingdomofgodflag.info • 14 hours ago
"First they make intervention seem cheap and easy to gain support, and then when things don't go as planned and public opinion turns against them they insist that they can't stop until we 'finish the job,' and then when things go really wrong they say we have to 'stay the course[...]'"

"...or they will have died in vain."

ken_lov • a day ago
If Iran has one over-riding policy goal today, it is surely to isolate the USA, maintain normal relations with the rest of the world and convince other countries it is being treated irrationally and unfairly by America. Nothing could be more inclined to defeat that policy than Iran making random attacks against merchant ships with no connection to America.

Needless to say this is not conclusive. People often do stupid things and the leaders of Iran are presumably no exception. However in the absence of hard evidence, one has to assume these attacks were the work of actors hostile to Iran. If the USA wants to convince people to the contrary, they'll have to come up with evidence a lot more persuasive than we've seen so far.

curunir • a day ago • edited
What's the point... You notice that right on cue, as it were, the Saudis want protection. They already have a substantial naval presence in the Persian Gulf, and a large and experienced air force. They do not need our help. We will have another pretty little war if we want it or not.
john curunir • 11 hours ago
They are too busy creating a famine in Yemen to bother with this.
MountainAngel • 9 hours ago
We need to stop this constant intervention. Americans are tired of the blood and treasure we continue to donate to these stupid war neocons! Nobody in their right mind wants constant conflict all over the world!
scottrob • 11 hours ago
The Saudis are willing to fight to the last American. Cotton, Pompeo and company are radical, right wing Christians. Until we are willing to be politcally incorrect and see that radical Christianity is in control of our foreign policy, we will forever be in warfare.
chris chuba • 12 hours ago
Cotton unwittingly proves that there are other states that have a motive to attack shipping in order to provoke a war with Iran. The Saudis, Israel, half the U.S. govt, and the UAE. The UAE is an interesting case because they hired a former U.S. navy Seal as a General to conduct their war in Yemen.
EliteCommInc. • 10 hours ago
Well,

considering that the tankers were Japanese it might be worth a look at their official view and response.

https://www.breitbart.com/m...

Japanese position before -- https://www.haaretz.com/wor...

Japanese position now -- http://www.newsonjapan.com/...

An interesting dilemma is whether our security agreement with Japan entitles the US to respond to said attack regardless of Japanese approval.

john • 11 hours ago
I would think that the threshold for kicking off a new war should be higher than a couple of dented foreign tankers. Show me several hundred dead Americans and then maybe.
Mel Profit • 14 hours ago
Neocons remain obsessed with foreign interventions and democracy propagation for multiple reasons. One is to avoid the catastrophe that is today's US and that Republicans and other "conservatives" have ignored and surrendered to since before the "Golden Age of Reagan".
Sid Finster Mel Profit • 11 hours ago
Democracy propagation?

The neocons haven't shown any interest in democracy or its propagation, except as an excuse to get the wars that they want.

[Jun 17, 2019] Why the US rushed to propagate the 'naval mine' scenario to explain recent attacks on two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman

Notable quotes:
"... Under these circumstances and given the endless history of US manufactured incidents used to justify the start of another war, most people rightfully thought that this has been just another false flag operation. ..."
"... And it makes sense actually. Why the hell Iran would attempt to blow up its relations with Japan in the midst of Japanese PM Shinzo Abe visit in the country? Only the US empire would have reasons to do it in order to force one of its key allies to cut ties with Iran. ..."
"... According to the company , its crew spotted "flying objects" before the attack in the Gulf of Oman, contradicting US claims that the vessel was damaged by a naval mine. ..."
"... Yet, despite company's alternative story of what happened, at the time we were finishing this report, many major Western media insisted to circulate the scenario that an Iranian 'naval mine' was responsible for the attacks against the oil tankers. Trump's statements, who immediately rushed to blame Iran, and media reports, were based exclusively on a video showing Iranian special forces removing a mine which had failed to explode. ..."
"... The question is, why the US has been so anxious to stick to the 'naval mine' scenario? A probable answer would be that it wants to clear the path for a military invasion. According to a 2009 Stratfor analysis : [key part highlighted red] ..."
"... The US imperialists know that an all-out war with Iran would equal a suicide. The goal is probably a 'surgical' invasion on the south shores of the country that would last just as long as to permit the US and allies to control the Strait of Hormuz, and therefore, the global oil market. The first step towards such an operation would be the mine-clearing of the strait. ..."
"... The US doctrine has changed. The imperialists are only interested to achieve goals, not to win wars, no matter how long will it take and what will it cost in the end. The winners are always the big companies and the losers are those who will lose their lives no matter which side they fight for. ..."
Jun 17, 2019 | failedevolution.blogspot.com

The incident of the recent attack against two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman elevated the heat between the US and Iran. Naturally, the attack also produced some level of turmoil in the oil global market.

Trump's hostile attitude against Iran was clearly evident even before his election. His totally unjustifiable and completely incomprehensible action to kill the Iran nuclear deal, destroyed any remnants of US reliability. Consequently, even the US Western allies refused to follow this evidently counterproductive strategy.

Under these circumstances and given the endless history of US manufactured incidents used to justify the start of another war, most people rightfully thought that this has been just another false flag operation.

And it makes sense actually. Why the hell Iran would attempt to blow up its relations with Japan in the midst of Japanese PM Shinzo Abe visit in the country? Only the US empire would have reasons to do it in order to force one of its key allies to cut ties with Iran.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/ysQ7HWEmDMQ

Everything shows that the US effort to make its allies fully align against Iran is failing for the moment. Iranian President, Hassan Rouhani, said that he saw Japanese interest in continuing to buy oil as a "guarantee" for the ongoing development of bilateral ties. Japan immediately throw the ball to the private sector in order to leave an open door for oil purchases from Iran. Takeshi Osuga, the spokesman for Japan's foreign ministry said that deciding on oil purchases was the domain of private companies.

Indeed, the Japanese company that owns 'Kokuka Courageous', one of the tankers that were attacked in the Gulf of Oman, refused to adopt the US scenario.

According to the company , its crew spotted "flying objects" before the attack in the Gulf of Oman, contradicting US claims that the vessel was damaged by a naval mine. Yutaka Katada, president of Kokuka Sangyo, told reporters on Friday that sailors on board the ill-fated oil tanker observed "flying objects" just before the incident in which the ship caught fire and was badly damaged. The giant vessel was hit twice, first near the engine room and then on its starboard side. He suggested that those flying objects could have been bullets, and called reports of striking a mine "false." Both points at which the ship was damaged were above her waterline, which couldn't be so if it had struck an underwater mine.

Yet, despite company's alternative story of what happened, at the time we were finishing this report, many major Western media insisted to circulate the scenario that an Iranian 'naval mine' was responsible for the attacks against the oil tankers. Trump's statements, who immediately rushed to blame Iran, and media reports, were based exclusively on a video showing Iranian special forces removing a mine which had failed to explode.

The question is, why the US has been so anxious to stick to the 'naval mine' scenario? A probable answer would be that it wants to clear the path for a military invasion. According to a 2009 Stratfor analysis : [key part highlighted red]

The initial shock to the global economy of a supertanker hitting a mine in the strait [of Hormuz] would be profound, but its severity and longevity would depend in large part on the extent of the mining, Iran's ability to continue laying mines and the speed of mine-clearing operations. And, as always, it would all hinge on the quality of intelligence. While some military targets -- major naval installations, for example -- are large, fixed and well known, Iran's mine-laying capability is more dispersed (like its nuclear program). That, along with Iran's armada of small boats along the Persian Gulf coast, suggests it may not be possible to bring Iran's mine-laying efforts to an immediate halt. Barring a cease-fire, limited, low-level mining operations could well continue.

Given the variables involved, it is difficult to describe exactly what a U.S. mine-clearing operation might look like in the strait, although enough is known about the U.S. naval presence in the region and other mine-clearing operations to suggest a rough scenario. The United States keeps four mine countermeasures ships forward deployed in the Persian Gulf. A handful of allied minesweepers are also generally on station, as well as MH-53E Sea Dragon helicopters, which are used in such operations. This available force in the region approaches the size of the mine-clearing squadron employed during Operation Iraqi Freedom to clear the waterway leading to the port of Umm Qasr, although it does not include a mine countermeasures command ship and represents a different clearing scenario.

The US imperialists know that an all-out war with Iran would equal a suicide. The goal is probably a 'surgical' invasion on the south shores of the country that would last just as long as to permit the US and allies to control the Strait of Hormuz, and therefore, the global oil market. The first step towards such an operation would be the mine-clearing of the strait.

This probably explains why the Western media insisted to circulate the scenario of the 'naval mine'. They want to drag Western leaderships behind US in an operation to clear the mines in the Strait of Hormuz, in the name of global energy security.

Also, already since 2017, the US announced that it will increase the number of US troops in Afghanistan , and one reason probably has to do with Iran. A significant number of US troops on the Iranian eastern border would be very useful. It will be used to keep the Iranian forces busy and gradually weaken the Iranian operational capabilities in an extended attrition war. This will permit the US to gradually secure and establish their presence in the Strait of Hormuz.

This attrition war could be held - and probably would be more effective - through proxy forces, or mercenaries of private armies, or a combination of them in the front line together with the US forces in the background.

The US doctrine has changed. The imperialists are only interested to achieve goals, not to win wars, no matter how long will it take and what will it cost in the end. The winners are always the big companies and the losers are those who will lose their lives no matter which side they fight for.

Vijay Prashad U.S. Rushes to Blame Iran for Tanker Attacks as Much of World Pushes for Diplomacy - YouTube

[Jun 17, 2019] Averting a Disastrous War with Iran by Daniel Larison

Jun 17, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com

There is a report that the Trump administration may be preparing an attack on Iran:

Diplomatic sources at the UN headquarters in New York revealed to Maariv that they are assessing the United States' plans to carry out a tactical assault on Iran in response to the tanker attack in the Persian Gulf on Thursday.

According to the officials, since Friday, the White House has been holding incessant discussions involving senior military commanders, Pentagon representatives and advisers to President Donald Trump.

The military action under consideration would be an aerial bombardment of an Iranian facility linked to its nuclear program, the officials further claimed.

If this report is true, that would mean that the worst of the Iran hawks in the administration are prevailing once again. The report goes on to say that "Trump himself was not enthusiastic about a military move against Iran, but lost his patience on the matter and would grant Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who is pushing for action, what he wants." If that is true, that is an absurdly casual way to blunder into an unnecessary war. Trump should understand that if he takes the U.S. into a war against Iran, especially without Congressional authorization, it will consume the rest of his presidency and it should cost him his re-election. Starting an unnecessary war with Iran would go down as one of the dumbest, most reckless, illegal acts in the history of U.S. foreign policy.

Congress must make absolutely clear that the president does not have the authority to initiate hostilities against Iran. Both houses should pass a resolution this week saying as much, and they should block any funds that could be used to support such an action. There is no legal justification for attacking Iran, and if Trump approves an attack he would be violating the Constitution and should be impeached for it.

The risk of war with Iran is greater than it was six months ago, and it is much greater than it was two and a half years ago when Trump took office. The U.S. and Iran are in this dangerous position solely because of the determined efforts of Iran hawks in and around this administration to drive our country on a collision course with theirs. Those efforts accelerated significantly thirteen months ago with the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA and the reimposition of sanctions, and things have been getting steadily worse with each passing month. It is not too late to avert the collision, but it requires the U.S. to make a dramatic change in policy very soon. Since we know we can't count on the president to make the right decision, Congress and the public need to make him understand what the political price will be if he makes the wrong one.

[Jun 16, 2019] Did The 'B-Team' Overplay It's Hand On Iran

Jun 16, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

Did The 'B-Team' Overplay It's Hand On Iran?

by Tyler Durden Sun, 06/16/2019 - 11:35 5 SHARES Authored by Tom Luongo,

Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif has a term of endearment for Iran's enemies, "The B-Team."

The "B-Team" consists of U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton, Israeli Prime Minister (nee Dictator) Benjamin Netanyahu, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman and the UAE's Mohammed bin Zayed.

When we look seriously at the attacks on the oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman this week the basic question that comes to mind is, Cui bono? Who benefits?

And it's easy to see how the B-Team benefits from this attack and subsequent blaming Iran for it. With Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in Tehran opening up a dialogue on behalf of U.S. President Donald Trump the threat of peace was in the air.

And none of the men on the B-Team profit from peace in the Middle East with respect to Iran. Getting Trump to stop hurling lightning bolts from the mountain top the B-Team guided him up would do nothing to help oil prices, which the Saudis and UAE need/want to remain high.

Bin Salman, in particular, cannot afford to see oil prices drop back into the $40's per barrel. With the world awash in oil and supply tight, even with OPEC production cuts, Bin Salman is currently on very thin ice because of the Saudi Riyal's peg to the U.S. dollar, which he can't abandon or the U.S. will abandon them. Falling oil prices and a rising dollar are a recipe for the death of the Saudi government, folks. Iran knows this.

Netanyahu and Bolton don't want peace because the U.S. fighting a war with Iran serves the cause of Greater Israel and opens up the conflict in the hopes of regime change and elimination of Iran.

Bolton, as well, is finally feeling the heat of his incompetence and disloyalty to Trump, according to John Kirakau at Consortium News .

Of course, a more rational person might conclude that Bolton has done a terrible job, that the people around him have done a terrible job, that he has aired his disagreements with Trump in the media, and that the President is angry about it. That's the more likely scenario.

Here's what my friends are saying. Trump is concerned, like any president is near the end of his term, about his legacy. He said during the campaign that he wanted to be the president who pulled the country out of its two longest wars. He wanted to declare victory and bring the troops back from Afghanistan and Iraq. He hasn't done that, largely at the insistence of Bolton. Here we are three years later and we're still stuck in both of those countries.

Second, my friends say that Trump wants to end U.S. involvement in the Yemen war, but that Bolton has been insistent that the only way to guarantee the closeness of the U.S. relationships with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates is to keep providing those countries with weapons, aerial refueling planes, and intelligence support.

So, couple the attacks on these tankers with the timing of Abe's visit and the vote on Rand Paul's bill to end selling arms to the Saudis in support of their war in Yemen (which flew through the Senate thanks to this attack getting a number of senators to change their vote at the last second) and we have a perfect cui bono.

That's the entire B-Team's motives distilled down to a couple of drones flying in to create a casus belli which saves Bolton's job, keeps the weapons flowing to the murderous Saudis and creates an opportunity for Netanyahu to feed Trump bad information via his 'intelligence' services.

The rush to judgment by the usual suspects in the Trump administration should be all the proof you need that we're looking at a set up to get Trump to fly off the handle which he, so far, hasn't done.

Remember, Trump wants lower oil prices. He wants a weaker dollar and lower interest rates. He needs the frackers in Eagle Ford and Permian to keep raising output but they keep bleeding red ink . He's fighting the Fed as well as former directors of the FBI, CIA and ODNI via his new attorney general, William Barr.

His approval rating is high and he's going after his political enemies now. But a potential war in the Middle East is a real problem for him.

And this is where Moon of Alabama's Bernard comes in with his excellent analysis of the current situation vis-a-vis Iran. The whole article is worth your time but the money-shot, as it were, is right here:

To say that the attacks were provocations by the U.S. or its Middle East allies is made easier by their evident ruthlessness. Any accusations by the Trump administration of Iranian culpability will be easily dismissed because everyone knows that Trump and his crew are notorious liars .

This cat and mouse game will now continue and steadily gain pace. More tankers will get damaged or even sunk. Saudi refineries will start to explode. UAE harbors will experience difficulties. Iran will plausibly deny that it is involved in any of this. The U.S. will continue to blame Iran but will have no evidence to prove it.

Insurance for Middle East cargo will become very expensive. Consumer prices for oil products will increase and increase again. The collateral damage will be immense.

All this will gradually put more pressure on Trump.

Don't forget that the U.S.'s sanctions on Iran make it difficult for Iran to insure its cargoes. So, even if a company or country wanted to still do business with NIOC, they can't because they can't get insurance on the cargo.

It's been a real problem that Iran had to solve by having its own fleet of tankers which it also insures domestically to keep what oil it can export flowing. So it only makes sense to begin hitting the rest of the world via the same weapons being used against Iran.

But as Trump has ratcheted up the pressure he's put Iran in the exact position that makes them the most dangerous. Acting through deniable proxies Iran can now drag this out as a low-grade conflict far longer than Trump can bear politically.

They don't need to shut down the Strait of Hormuz. They just have to screw with its enemies' ability to make a living. The political pressure that will come to bear on a global economy imploding because of instability in the flow of oil is not something a butcher like Bin Salman of Saudi Arabia is capable of handling.

Bernard calls Trump's administration 'notorious liars' and that's the key. People can look no further than the ludicrous and inept handling of the regime change operation in Venezuela and see the mendacity first hand.

That operation was so bad, culminating in the pathetic "Bay of Fat Pigs" coup attempt, that it has left every country that backed Bolton and Pompeo's play there, including Trump himself, looking like morons.

You don't embarrass the narcissists who inhabit high-level government offices and not suffer in some way. This is why I give a lot of credence to John Kirakou's conclusion that Bolton being one approved candidate away from unemployment.

Firing Bolton and having Abe and German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas go to Tehran are good will gestures. But Trump has let his B-Team badly mismanage this situation in the same way that he let Bolton and Pompeo mismanage Kim Jong-un and North Korea.

No one believes he's capable of peace or showing shame. He's left himself in no position to climb down from this position without the help of Iran itself.

This is exactly the argument I made in April of 2017 after his missile strike on Syria over a "beautiful piece of chocolate cake." He revealed himself to be both tactically and strategically incompetent.

He has to come groveling to them now. But he won't. And Iran and its benefactors, Russia and China, have no incentive to come to him. He can't keep his promises since he's not really in charge of policy. As Ayatollah Khamenei pointed out on Twitter (oh, the irony):

me title=

me title=

Trump thought the B-Team was giving him negotiating leverage. But what happens to your leverage when the other person takes his chips, walks away from the table and says, "No. I won't deal with you."

So now the screws will be put to everyone. Trump pushed Erdogan of Turkey away over the S-400 and Putin called in his marker forcing Erdogan to end his support for Al-Qaeda in Idlib. That campaign will be slow and excruciating but it will eventually grind them out.

Iran has been handed all the cards they need to become the exact thing Pompeo, Trump and the B-Team have been accusing them of being but now with the cover of deniability and asymmetry. All of the things Moon of Alabama laid out are now going to happen even if Trump fires Bolton, pulls troops out and lifts the oil embargo on Syria, etc.

Netanyahu will scream bloody murder and up the ante until Putin slaps him down. Because now that Trump has made it clear he doesn't want war with Iran we know there's a limit to what Bibi can incite.

If Trump was serious about war with Iran it would have already been declared. The smoke, however, is blowing in a different direction.

Iran will retaliate here just to make the point that they can. They will make Saudi Arabia and the UAE pay the biggest price directly while Trump finally has to start thinking things through or his presidency will end badly next year.

The war of attrition against the fragility of the Western financial system will enter the next stage here. Iran, China and Russia will now, sadly, activate the weapons they have been holding back for years, hoping that Trump and his B-Team would come to their senses.

This is what happens when you let the B-Team overplay your hand for you against people who are 1) smarter and 2) more patient than you are.

And, frankly, I don't blame them one bit. Because as the only thing that American power brokers understand is strength. And you have to hit them between the eyes with a stick to get them to respect you.

* * *

Support for Gold Goats 'n Guns can happen in a variety of ways if you are so inclined. From Patreon to Paypal or soon SubscribeStar or by your browsing habits through the Brave browser where you can tip your favorite websites (like this one) for the work they provide. Tags Politics

  • Comments
Sign in to comment filter_list Viewing Options arrow_drop_down
  • All Comments 204
IronForge , 4 hours ago link

Been There and Done This, Luongo - with One Comment:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-15/pentagon-readies-contingency-plans-potential-iran-military-escalation?commentId=be118750-5717-478a-803d-e8705d9c8bf8

*****

The Sith Hands have been OverPlayed for Decades. The Rest of the World - including Factions amongst Vassals - are starting to Move Forward.

Stick in the Mud , 4 hours ago link

Trump doesn't need Seth Adelson to tell him what to do....Seth can rely completely on Jared to do that. When Kelly was Chief of Staff and Mattis headed DOD, there was a semblance of chain of command.

Acting toady at DOD Shanahan won't be a check on Trump or Bolton. Bolton reportedly can by-pass chain of command to talk directly to any General he wants.

Trump in a corner is a frightening prospect.

quidam101 , 5 hours ago link

The B stand for ********?

medium giraffe , 5 hours ago link

Bastard, I think.

Ruler , 5 hours ago link

B as in Boy team

Moribundus , 5 hours ago link

"...only thing that Americans understand is strength. And you have to hit them between the eyes with baseball bat..." This is 100% truth

desertboy , 4 hours ago link

An ignorant bigot is projecting. This adventurism is a result of American nationalism? Very ignorant.

Et Tu Brute , 5 hours ago link

Trump is such a dumbfuck

Badsamm , 5 hours ago link

The Iranian people will never accept another US backed puppet government no matter how many of them DC, Tel Aviv, and Riyadh kills. Best these fuckers can hope for is total chaos and war spilling over borders

youshallnotkill , 5 hours ago link

Trump set this in motion when cancelling the nuclear control treaty, and imposing tough new sanctions on Iran.

He then hand picked very bad neocon actors like Pompeo and Bolton. Now it all hinges on his preference for peace and his ability to understand that these guys are playing him. God help us all, and help the president to see through this ruse.

Lavrov , 5 hours ago link

Well ya KNOW it wasn't THUMP who pick out the "B" Team it was his MASTER Satanyahoo..

youshallnotkill , 3 hours ago link

So close . But no cigar.

Neochrome , 6 hours ago link

Trump's one term will be remembered by the political divisions being brought to the absurd level of sitting POTUS undoing everything that the previous POTUS from the opposing party have accomplished.

TheRapture , 6 hours ago link

Trump got conned (by the neocons)

1. Trump brought Bolton on board because Trump's biggest donor, Sheldon Adelson, instructed him to do so .

2. Note that the Israeli Lobby were Trump's biggest donors. Let that sink in.

3. Trump doesn't do research. He has trouble reading memos. He can't read briefing papers. (eg, the CIA daily brief ).

4. Trump doesn't need to research the neocons. He *is* a neocon. Up to his eyeballs.

5. Trump is an obvious Israel-Firster if ever there was one. Far more than any other U.S. president. Or world leader.

6. Trump is the one making the decisions. Not Bolton. Not Pompeo. Trump. He's in charge.

7. Trump uses distractions such as 'Q', "disloyal subordinates", leaks and incoherent Twitter tweets as ropeadope to confuse his critics and avoid taking responsibility for screwups. If something breaks, Trump blames a subordinate. That's his pattern. Look how many we've seen come and go. Bolton will surely become another of Trump's scapegoats. Just a matter of time.

Lavrov , 3 hours ago link

Who cares. The DAMAGE is done

Snípéir_Ag_Obair , 6 hours ago link

They hated us all FIRST.

And then they got a nation state ...

And what happened? New Evidence Proves Israel Attacked USS Liberty With Orders To Kill 294 Americans

Fresh evidence presented in an exclusive Al Jazeera investigation into the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty that killed 34 Americans proves the incident was not a mistake

https://www.mintpressnews.com/new-evidence-proves-israel-attacked-uss-liberty-orders-kill-294-americans/198757/

https://me.me/i/can-you-tell-these-two-flags-apart-israel-claimed-that-19860153

🤨👉

http://israeli-connections-to-911.com/

https://americanfreepress.net/web-exclusive-israels-use-of-false-flags-in-global-terrorism/

https://www.mintpressnews.com/historys-dire-warning-beware-false-flag-trigger-for-long-sought-war-with-iran/258478/

Newly Released FBI Docs Shed Light on Apparent Mossad Foreknowledge of 9/11 Attacks

New information released by the FBI has brought fresh scrutiny to the possibility that the "Dancing Israelis," at least two of whom were known Mossad operatives, had prior knowledge of the attacks on the World Trade Center.

https://www.mintpressnews.com/newly-released-fbi-docs-shed-light-on-apparent-mossad-foreknowledge-of-9-11-attacks/258581/

http://lesvisible.net/DOCS/MastersOfDeception.pdf

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9-11/Israel_did_it

http://www.unz.com/article/911-was-an-israeli-job/

👉53 Admitted False Flag Attacks

https://www.globalresearch.ca/53-admitted-false-flag-attacks/5432931

👉Israel's Use of False Flags in Global Terrorism

http://americanfreepress.net/web-exclusive-israels-use-of-false-flags-in-global-terrorism/?print=print

👉History's Dire Warning: Beware False-Flag Trigger for Long-Sought War with Iran

Israel's "false flag" attack on the U.S.S. Liberty in 1967 cost 34 American lives. **** Cheney planned to disguise U.S. troops as Iranians to fire on American ships to start a war. With Bolton and Israel on the warpath, the risk of another similar act is higher than ever.

https://www.mintpressnews.com/historys-dire-warning-beware-false-flag-trigger-for-long-sought-war-with-iran/258478/

IUDAEA DELENDA EST.

Einstein101 , 5 hours ago link

So you cite a bunch of links from a bunch of fake websites created by the Global Iranian Propaganda Network:

https://www.wired.com/story/iran-global-propaganda-fireeye/

And you think people here are that stupid to fall for it? Wake up!

youshallnotkill , 5 hours ago link

And you think people here are that stupid to fall for it?

Have you read the comments here?

medium giraffe , 5 hours ago link

Ah, the hypocrisy....

Scipio Africanuz , 4 hours ago link

The US Military investigation is here:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Moorer_Report

It's conclusive, damning, and comprehensive, so, knock yourself out.. terrorists in tel aviv deliberately attacked the USS LIBERTY, and the crime was covered up by the US government, even till date..the US Military said so. It's their ship, and their sailors, take it up with them, cheers...

AriusArmenian , 6 hours ago link

The UK, Israel, and Saudis have substantial control over US foreign policy and are trying to spill more American blood and treasure in the Middle East. But they have met their match in Russia, China, and Iran and the rest of resistance to the West.

A good start to stopping these vipers in the US would be to throw out of government service all the dual passport holders from those countries.

johnnycanuck , 6 hours ago link

Someone posted a link recently to the history of arch neocon Irving Kristol , Bill Kristol's pa and upon further exploration I realized Saint Reagan opened the door to a myriad of dual citizen zionists who became the backbone of the neocon movement and that most of those same individuals have popped up in pretty much every Republican administration in some capacity since then and some even appeared in Obama's admin. ie Cheney's girl Vicky Nuland / Kagan. The Kagan's being big neocon Republican movers and shakers in the past and they never really go away.

trump's idea of draining the swamp was to inject his regime with a large number of those very same neocons many whose names are infamous now and were major players in every organized cesspool of so called right wing thinkers such as PNAC, American Enterprise Institute and even the rank Gatestone Institute.

Insert definition of insanity here ..

Einstein101 , 6 hours ago link

Once I read this article I did laugh so much I spat wine all over the keyboard. So many false and misleading facts and arguments I don't even know where to begin.

In this post I'll start with a small thing

Israeli Prime Minister (nee Dictator) Benjamin Netanyahu

So this Tom Luongo guy, who is completely in bed with Iran's Muslim extremist regime, calls the PM of Israel dictator. A PM that was elected in a free democratic election, in a country with separation of powers, free press, free speech, independent judicial system, Etc. Etc.

OK so now let's see how Iran's democracy works, the beloved of our great author, Mr. Tom Luongo.

One supreme leader that is not elected. He controls the military and the economy and practically everything.

Nobody can be elected to the parliament or prime minister unless he gets permission to run for office from the supreme leader.

No civil rights, no freedom of press, no freedom of speech. women that do not dress as instructed get punished (but not men).

Iranian women & girls as young as 9 who don't wear hijab face jail

Women are being executed for adultery (but not men). Gays are being executed. Anyone who expresses opposing opinions is being executed without trial, or at best imprisoned and tortured.

And that is the great democracy of Iran...

cashback , 6 hours ago link

So you can have any political system/constitution you like but the Iranians must have your choice of political system/constitution ? Are they ought to play the second class citizens in their own country ?

Kinda ploy to make 'em all Palestinians eh ?

Einstein101 , 6 hours ago link

but the Iranians must have your choice of political system/constitution?

No, you are right, I think the Iranians should have the political system of their choice. And how would we know what the Iranians want? How about allowing them to choose in a free election? that anyone can run for office? Are you in favor?

cashback , 6 hours ago link

Every country has the government it deserves that Includes Saudi Arabia too. Also, could that call to "fair election" be anything like Libyan liberation ?

It's the Jews making the call after all.

Einstein101 , 6 hours ago link

Every country has the government it deserves that Includes Saudi Arabia too.

In my opinion, in any country it's the citizens that have the right to decide who will rule them, in a free election, but that's me.

that Includes Saudi Arabia too.

SA and Iran are the same evil tyrant dictatorships.

cashback , 5 hours ago link

Have you ever visited Saudi Arabia ? Do you have any idea the level of comfort the Saudi citizen live in ? As for Iran, the financial problems there are courtesy of The Zionist filth that you're the member of. Your opinion is of jackshit. The troubled countries in the ME are the ones that have democracy. The monarchies are doing just fine.

Einstein101 , 5 hours ago link

Do you have any idea the level of comfort the Saudi citizen live in?

Did you know that until recently Saudi woman were not allowed to drive? do you know that man have total control over the life of their daughters and wives? Do you know that anyone that criticize the regime on tweeter is immediately put to prison? do you know that foreign workers are treated like slaves? and this can go on and on...

As for Iran, the financial problems there are courtesy of The Zionist filth that you're the member of.

Not really. The Iranian extremist Muslim regime is directly responsible for the sufferings of the Iranian people. They spend billions of Dollars on their proxies in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Etc. at the expense of the well being of common Iranian people. All this money is deprived from their own people, cutting food and gas subsidies. Iran has abundance of oil reserves but a large chunk of the oil revenues goes to support insurgent groups in other countries while Iran's citizens live in misery and hunger.

And what is this money used for? Encouraging one sect of Muslims (Shia) to kill members of another Muslim sect (Sunni). Just in Syria Iran's money and soldiers allowed Assad's regime to commit terrible atrocities against civilian population, including the massacre of thousands upon thousands Sunni Muslims, men women and children; while millions others were forced to fled the country and become refugees.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/world/middleeast/syria-bashar-al-assad-atrocities-civilian-deaths-gas-attack.html

cashback , 5 hours ago link

Why do you assume the Saudi women to value the liberal lifestyle ? Maybe they themselves don't want to drive eh ? The rest of the points are based on the same assumption, default starting point which is liberalism is good, conservatism is bad. Just because you think liberalism is good doesn't mean anyone else has to abide with your values.

I understand you attempt to appeal to the western audience in painting Iran as bad actor so you talk along the same lines. YOU WILL LOOSE ISRAEL. The best part is you'll live to see the day ;]

Ddin't read any of your horseshit about Iran but I can bet with my eyes closed it will be a similar attempt.

youshallnotkill , 5 hours ago link

@cashback

Not sure if you are just playing devil's advocate, but some women rights activists in SA risked everything to gain the right to drive:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/21/saudi-arabia-tortured-female-right-to-drive-activists-says-amnesty

And many women try to escape the golden cage.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/15/rahaf-mohammed-al-qunun-saudi-arabia-flee-persecution

cashback , 5 hours ago link

That doesn't negate the counter argument I made in response to the usual hasbara propaganda. How many citizen in the US have given their citizenship up because of the rouge crimes their government commits ? How many protests held in Paris and Barcelona ? Have you ever heard anything from this Jewish shill about that ? How about the financial crimes of bibi and his wife ?

oncemore1 , 6 hours ago link

what you describe is a Jewish system of keeping the power. what about to use iranian system? means what they have today?, why should they follow yewish system?

Einstein101 , 6 hours ago link

why should they follow yewish system?

Letting the people to decide who will rule them is a Jewish system? Good to know.

Jumanji1959 , 6 hours ago link

Remember the Avis rented 2001 Dodge Caravan with 4 dancing Israelis or better yet, Mossad terrorists. I always tend to remember The Holocaust©®™ and the 6 gazillion killed.

Dickweed Wang , 6 hours ago link

He [Trump] can't keep his promises since he's not really in charge of policy.

This is so ******* obvious it's become ridiculous yet we still have people out there saying Trump is going to drain the swamp and other some such ********. Face it, no president in the last 100 years has control of anything and if they decide to try to change that they get the JFK, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter or Ronald Regan treatment.

schroedingersrat , 6 hours ago link

Trump hired Bolton. Trump is a complicit Zionist swamper and should be voted out of office as soon as possible.

AriusArmenian , 6 hours ago link

Ok, but then the establishment parties will give us the next swamper.

scottyji , 6 hours ago link

Who benefits MOST ? Who did it? Not Iran. A false flag operation totally within the scope of the Mossad.

[Jun 16, 2019] Will the Real Bombers Please Stand Up -- Strategic Culture

Jun 16, 2019 | www.strategic-culture.org

June 16, 2019 © Photo: Public domain Eric S. MARGOLIS

Who is attacking oil tankers in the Gulf between Oman and Iran? So far, the answer is still a mystery. The US, of course, accuses Iran. Iran says it's the US or its local allies Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Magnetic mines are blamed for the damage, though there have been claims of torpedo use. Last month, four moored tankers were slightly damaged, though none seriously. This time the attacks were more damaging but apparently not lethal.

A few cynics have even suggested Israel may be behind the tanker attack in order to provoke war between Iran and the United States – a key Israeli goal. Or maybe it's the Saudis whose goal is similar. The Gulf is an ideal venue for false flag attacks.

One thing appears certain. President Donald and his coterie of neocon advisers have been pressing for a major conflict with Iran for months. The US is literally trying to strangle Iran economically and strategically. By now, Israel's hard right wing dominates US Mideast policy and appears to often call the shots at the White House and Congress.

However, this latest Iran `crisis' is totally contrived by the Trump administration to punish the Islamic Republic for refusing to follow American tutelage, supporting the Palestinians, and menacing Saudi Arabia. Most important, the Gulf fracas is diverting public attention from Trump's war with the lynch mob of House Democrats and personal scandals.

Many Americans love small wars. They serve as an alternative to football. Mussolini's popularity in Italy soared after he invaded primitive Ethiopia. Americans cheered the invasions of Grenada, Haiti and Panama. However, supposed 'cake-walk' Iraq was not such a popular success. Memories of the fake Gulf of Tonkin clash used to drive the US into the Vietnam War are strong; so too all the lies about Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction.

Curiously, Trump's undeclared war against Iran has had unanticipated effects. Japan, which relies on Iranian oil, is furious at Washington. Last week, Japan's very popular prime minister, Shinzo Abe, flew to Tehran to try to head off a US-Iranian confrontation and assure his nation's oil supply – the very same reason Japan attacked the US in 1941. Abe warned an accidental war may be close.

Canada used to have warm relations with China. They are now in shambles. Canada 'kidnapped' Chinese bigwig Meng Wanzhou, the crown princess of technology giant Huawei, at Vancouver airport while changing planes on a US arrest warrant for allegedly trading with wait for it Iran. Canada foolishly arrested Meng on a flimsy extradition warrant from the US.

This was an incredibly amateurish blunder by Ottawa's foreign affairs leaders. If they had been smarter, they would have simply told Washington that Meng had already left Canada, or they could not find her. Now Canada's relations with Beijing are rock bottom, Canada has suffered very heavy trade punishment and the world's biggest nation is angry as a wet cat at Canada, a nation whose state religion is to be liked by everyone.

Now, Japan's energy freedom is under serious threat. China mutters about executing the two Canadians it arrested for alleged espionage. Meanwhile, US-China relations have hit their nadir as Trump's efforts to use tariffs to bully China into buying more US soya beans and to trim its non-trade commerce barriers have caused a trade war.

The US-China trade war is badly damaging the economies of both countries. President Trump still does not seem to understand that tariffs are paid by American consumers, not Chinese sellers. Trump's nincompoop foreign policy advisers don't understand how much damage they are doing to US interests. Putting gambling mogul Sheldon Adelson in charge of US foreign and trade policy is not such a good idea.

A good way to end this growing mess is to fire war-lover and Iran-hater John Bolton, send Mike Pompeo back to bible school, and tell Iran and Saudi Arabia to bury the hatchet now. Instead, the White House is talking about providing nuclear capability to Saudi Arabia, one of our world's most backwards and unpleasant nations. Maybe Trump will make a hell of a 'deal' and have North Korea sell nukes to Saudis.

And now we wait the all-time bad joke, the so-called 'Deal of the Century,' which Trump and his boys hope will get rich Arabs to buy off poor Palestinians in exchange for giving up lots more land to Israel. It's hard to think of a bigger or more shameful betrayal by Arabs of fellow Arabs, or a more stupid policy by the US. But, of course, it's not a made-in-the-USA policy at all.

ericmargolis.com

[Jun 16, 2019] "Triumphant War Hero" Gets Re-elected Dissident Voice

Jun 16, 2019 | dissidentvoice.org

"Triumphant War Hero" Gets Re-elected?

by William Manson / June 15th, 2019

A bit splattered by the blood of thousands of its "collateral" victims, the old, tattered "Re-election Playbook" is being actively consulted once again. Back in 1787, Thomas Jefferson had adamantly insisted that the new U.S. Constitution stipulate only one presidential term, but his prescient warning was ignored. (Fortunately his other requirement, that a Bill of Rights be appended, was approved.) Like so many well-read 18th century politicians (including the young Napoleon), Jefferson looked to the history of the Roman Republic for cautionary precedents. He knew well that political opportunists like Julius Caesar had won their early mass popularity through their exploits as military conquerors. In the early stages of his political career, victorious general Caesar would march into Rome, leading a "Triumph" -- an endless procession of chained war-captives and cartloads of plunder – before the admiring crowds of plebeians. His renown was such that, when he was off on his Gallic campaign, he convinced the Senate to pass a special edict allowing him to run for election as Consul in absentia (successful). His older rival Crassus, financier and slumlord ("the richest man in Rome"), even re-invented himself as a conquering general for political advantage (but he was fortunately, as Plutarch relates, led to his own destruction in Parthia–now Iraq).

Turning to U.S. political history, one could draw up quite a list of military generals who, celebrated by the public as heroes, sought greater political power by running for president (often successfully). And, of course, such cynical manipulation of the electorate continues up to the recent present. One major, if not the major, objective for waging war against non-threatening Iraq was to secure this, almost invariable, political advantage as the election year 2004 loomed ahead. As far as the timing of the attack was concerned (March 19, 2003), the self-impressed Rumsfeld had assumed that "victory" would be attained in a matter of weeks. And such "victory," in the aftermath of the vicious "Shock-and-Awe" bombing campaign, was indeed soon proclaimed, thus enabling Rove and his ilk to plan a gala, Roman-style "Triumph," with the military-attired and swaggering Bush landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln , to a national frenzy of celebration and under a presumptuously boasting "Mission Accomplished" banner (May 1). Allowing for such a hugely popular, "patriotic" kick-off for an 18-month re-election campaign, the timing of May 1 seemed advantageous. (That Iraq had never been a threat, and that the alleged WMDs were never found, barely moderated this wellspring of popular acclaim for the "war hero" -- at least for some months.)

In any event, we may now jump exactly eight years hence -- to on or about May 1, 2011. Now it was Obama's turn to play military hero -- in his own kick-off for re-election! So far, despite his escalation of the war in Afghanistan, as well as his well-publicized "kill list" (drones), he hadn't yet demonstrated the kind of ruthlessly unprincipled crushing of a "foreign" people which the majority of potential voters seem to relish. But he had a perfect, quicker, and far less expensive alternative: "take out" Osama bin Laden! Although the majority of Americans passively or willingly understood little or nothing about the geopolitical distinctions between Iraq and Saudi Arabia, they had been certain that "Saddam Hussein" -- this moniker repeated over and over by Bush! -- was the personification of all-that-is-evil. But by 2011 Saddam was dead -- having been hanged after a kangaroo-court conviction -- and Americans could once again redirect their hate toward an alternative Satan ("Goldstein" of Orwell's 1984 being unavailable). Obama's political handlers, like Bush's, agreed that an 18-month halo of heroic triumph would help considerably in the long march toward re-election–and they were right. Of course, Obama, in announcing "the killing of Osama bin Laden" to an awestruck citizenry (May 1, 2011), lied about the actual circumstances, as Seymour Hersh and others have noted. (E.g., the non-existent "fire-fight" which was claimed in order to re-sell the assassination team as heroic commandos.) And, of course, with the universally impressed and fawning media adding to the "Triumph," Obama virtually coasted, with only a few bumps, to re-election in November 2012.

As aforementioned, this "Re-election Playbook," however old and frayed, has nonetheless proven its ongoing usefulness to the recent crop of lying, opportunistic and murderous presidents. For Trump -- as for virtually all insatiably ambitious presidents -- political advantage will always trump any practical strategic (or even economic) considerations. Thus, deceptively cooking up the usual "justifications" for imminent war, this time with Iran, a nation which, as attested by the EU and other agencies had abided by the signed agreement only to see the U.S. under Trump unilaterally withdraw. Trump's hand-picked "national security" advisers are offering him huge political dividends: immense re-election financing from the likes of billionaire casino-mogul Sheldon Adelson (AIPAC), as well as the usual Big Oil industry funders (such as the Kochs, conspicuously represented in policy by their protege Pompeo).

If May 1, 2019 has come and gone, Trump may still have ample time -- with the enthusiastic support of his flag-waving base ( and the reliably acquiescent media) -- to ride the crest of a trumped-up Iranian war, into re-election in November of next year. But if that scenario doesn't quite materialize, there is always the tried-and-true fallback: the venerable "October Surprise"!

[Jun 16, 2019] US Blames Iran for Tanker Attack Let's Talk Facts! Dissident Voice

Jun 16, 2019 | dissidentvoice.org

US Blames Iran for Tanker Attack: Let's Talk Facts!

by RT / June 15th, 2019

https://www.youtube.com/embed/HTAu2BMEnsA?feature=oembed

Caleb Maupin is a widely acclaimed speaker, writer, journalist, and political analyst. He has traveled extensively in the Middle East and in Latin America. He was involved with the Occupy Wall Street movement from its early planning stages, and has been involved many struggles for social justice. He is an outspoken advocate of international friendship and cooperation, as well 21st Century Socialism.

The RT network now consists of three global news channels broadcasting in English, Spanish, and Arabic. Read other articles by RT , or visit RT's website .

This article was posted on Saturday, June 15th, 2019 at 8:08pm and is filed under Iran , Video .

[Jun 16, 2019] Think Media Won t Help Lead US Into War With Iran Based On False Intelligence Looks Like They Already Are

Notable quotes:
"... The U.S. military late Thursday released blurry, black-and-white video footage that it claimed -- without any underlying analysis or further details -- to show an Iranian patrol boat removing an unexploded limpet mine from the Japanese-owned Kokuka Courageous, one of the oil tankers damaged in attacks in the Gulf of Oman. ..."
"... Iran has denied any involvement in the attacks, and Yutaka Katada -- the owner of the Kokuka Courageous -- contradicted the Trump administration's account during a press conference on Friday. ..."
"... "Our crew said that the ship was attacked by a flying object," Katada said. "I do not think there was a time bomb or an object attached to the side of the ship." ..."
"... Independent critics were quick to call for extreme skepticism in the face of U.S. government claims, given the quality of the "evidence" and the warmongering track records of those presenting it. ..."
Jun 16, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Jake Johnson and Jon Queally via Common Dreams

If there were any lingering hopes that the corporate media learned from its role in perpetuating the lies that led to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and would never again help start a Middle East war on the basis of false or flimsy evidence, the headlines that blared across the front pages of major U.S. news websites Thursday night indicated that such hopes were badly misplaced .

The U.S. military late Thursday released blurry, black-and-white video footage that it claimed -- without any underlying analysis or further details -- to show an Iranian patrol boat removing an unexploded limpet mine from the Japanese-owned Kokuka Courageous, one of the oil tankers damaged in attacks in the Gulf of Oman.

Here's how CNN presented the U.S. military's video: https://www.youtube.com/embed/WFcjzKAcC-c

Iran has denied any involvement in the attacks, and Yutaka Katada -- the owner of the Kokuka Courageous -- contradicted the Trump administration's account during a press conference on Friday.

"Our crew said that the ship was attacked by a flying object," Katada said. "I do not think there was a time bomb or an object attached to the side of the ship."

Independent critics were quick to call for extreme skepticism in the face of U.S. government claims, given the quality of the "evidence" and the warmongering track records of those presenting it.

[Jun 16, 2019] The Gulf of Credibility. False Flag, Ludicrous Allegation. Iran Rescued the Crew of the Japanese Tanker - Global ResearchGlobal

Jun 16, 2019 | www.globalresearch.ca

The Gulf of Credibility. False Flag, Ludicrous Allegation. Iran Rescued the Crew of the Japanese Tanker By Craig Murray Global Research, June 15, 2019 Craig Murray 14 June 2019 Region: Europe , Middle East & North Africa Theme: Media Disinformation , US NATO War Agenda In-depth Report: IRAN: THE NEXT WAR?

I really cannot begin to fathom how stupid you would have to be to believe that Iran would attack a Japanese oil tanker at the very moment that the Japanese Prime Minister was sitting down to friendly, US-disapproved talks in Tehran on economic cooperation that can help Iran survive the effects of US economic sanctions.

The Japanese-owned Kokuka Courageous was holed above the water line . That rules out a torpedo attack, which is the explanation being touted by the neo-cons.

The second vessel, the Front Altair, is Norwegian owned and 50% Russian crewed (the others being Filipinos). It is owned by Frontline, a massive tanker leasing company that also has a specific record of being helpful to Iran in continuing to ship oil despite sanctions.

It was Iran that rescued the crews and helped bring the damaged vessels under control.

That Iran would target a Japanese ship and a friendly Russian crewed ship is a ludicrous allegation. They are however very much the targets that the USA allies in the region – the Saudis, their Gulf Cooperation Council colleagues, and Israel – would target for a false flag. It is worth noting that John Bolton was meeting with United Arab Emirates ministers two weeks ago – both ships had just left the UAE.

The USA and their UK stooges have both immediately leapt in to blame Iran. The media is amplifying this with almost none of the scepticism which is required. I cannot think of a single reason why anybody would believe this particular false flag. It is notable that neither Norway nor Japan has joined in with this ridiculous assertion.

*

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

[Jun 15, 2019] The Bully Who Cried "Iran!" by Daniel Larison

Jun 13, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Ali Vaez rebuts Mike Pompeo's terse, evidence-free statement accusing Iran of responsibility for the two tanker attacks in the Gulf of Oman:

Pompeo delivered his remarks without providing any evidence to support his accusations, and then walked off the stage without taking any questions. The Secretary of State's credibility has already been shot to pieces by his frequent lies and misleading statements on a range of issues touching on everything from North Korea to Yemen to Iran, so he needed to clear an even higher bar than usual to back up his accusations. He didn't come close. Aside from misleading the public and Congress about important issues, Pompeo's serial fabrications have a real cost in that no one believes a word he says about anything. It might be the case that Pompeo is telling the truth for once, but if so it would be extremely unusual for him. I made that point earlier today:

I have previously discussed Pompeo's complete lack of credibility , and it is worth revisiting part of that post now:

Pompeo is the chief representative of the United States abroad besides the president, so his habit of making things up out of thin air and telling easily refuted lies can only harm our reputation, undermine trust, and cause even our allies to doubt our government's claims.

Pompeo is the bully who cried "Iran!" so many times that we have no reason to trust his anti-Iranian claims now. The fact that he and the National Security Advisor are so clearly slavering at the possibility of increased tensions with Iran gives us another reason to be skeptical. We assume that they are trying to turn even the smallest incident into an excuse for escalation, and so we naturally look at their claims of Iranian responsibility with great suspicion. Vaez's thread goes through Pompeo's statement very carefully and points out the serious flaws and falsehoods, of which there are quite a few.

Once again, we see Pompeo's tendency to pin the blame for anything and everything that happens in the region on Iran, and many of these are no more than unfounded assertions or deliberate distortions. For example, the Houthi attacks on Saudi pipelines and airports are a result of the ongoing war on Yemen and the Saudi coalition bombing of Yemeni cities and towns. All indiscriminate attacks on civilian targets and infrastructure are wrong and should be condemned, but we also need to remember that these attacks are the direct consequence of belligerent and destructive policies of Saudi Arabia and the UAE backed by the United States. If the Saudis and Emiratis stopped bombing Yemen tomorrow, the missile attacks on Saudi targets would almost certainly cease thereafter. Just as Pompeo won't acknowledge the administration's role in goading and provoking Iran, he refuses to acknowledge the role of the Saudi coalition's war in provoking Yemeni retaliation. He desperately tries to make Iran the culprit of every crime, but instead of proving Iran's guilt it only calls into question Pompeo's judgment and honesty.

Probably the most galling part of Pompeo's statement was his declaration that "Iran should answer diplomacy with diplomacy." What diplomacy would Iran be responding to? Does Pompeo think his list of preposterous demands delivered as a diktat last year counts as diplomacy? Does he think that waging relentless economic war on a country of eighty million people qualifies as diplomatic? The Trump administration has chosen the path of provocation and confrontation for at least the last thirteen months, and then they have the gall to fault Iran for its lack of diplomacy. If the administration had not trashed the most important diplomatic agreement that our government had with Iran and proceeded to penalize them for keeping up their end of the bargain, our two countries would not be as dangerously close to war as they are now. The administration bears responsibility for creating the heightened tensions between the U.S. and Iran, and it is their obnoxious and destructive policy of collective punishment that has brought us to this point.

JR, says: June 14, 2019 at 2:24 am

Pompeo proudly stated "We lie, we cheat " and even thought funny too. Guess that's one of the rare moments his statement contained some truth at least.
JEinCA , says: June 14, 2019 at 4:09 am
This is fundamentally an internal Chinese dispute therefore it is none of our business just as our internal disputes are none of theirs.
Ken_L , June 14, 2019 at 4:49 am
You do have to admit, the blurred 30 second video of a boat next to the hull of a ship was absolutely DAMNING! It proved conclusively that the Iranians launched unprovoked attacks on helpless civilian oil tankers.

Innocent sailors would have left the limpet mines in place, so they could blow up and damage the tanker some more.

Christian J Chuba , says: June 14, 2019 at 8:26 am
It could have been Iran, I don't know. This would be an understandable response for a country under blockade. I would feel differently if people died.

People in Iran have died because of our illegal sanctions hindering flood relief and medical care while Pompeo and others laughs at them. This does not include the suffering imposed on the civilian population. I do not expect Iran to curl up into a ball and accept their punishment.

If this was an Iranian operation it demonstrates their competency as opposed to use wasting Jet fuel having F35's circling around.

This might be a shot over the bow, who knows?

Gary Williams , says: June 14, 2019 at 10:05 am
Iran means virtually nothing to the United States. They have nothing to do with our national interest. As far as the tankers being mined; I have to say my first thought is that we (i.e. the United States) did it so we could start a war. Very similar to the Gulf of Tonkin incident in the Viet Nam war.
Sid Finster , says: June 14, 2019 at 10:29 am
Deepfakes, hasn't there been a lot of talk about those lately?

And lies used to justify wars, haven't we heard those from the neocon crew before?

[Jun 15, 2019] US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, UK...who is behind the false flag in Gulf of Oman by Richard Galustian

Jun 14, 2019 | www.unz.com

First let me be clear; I greatly admired the principles that Americans used to espouse, in my lifetime; I am very fond of the majority of the people; I've spent in total some of years living there, in different States; it is I suppose mostly the silent majority, the 'middle Americans' that I am most fond of certainly not the 'elite', the super rich 1% 'ters it has as a Country dramatically changed since 9/11 .and sadly the Catch 22 that defines America today is best summed up thus:

"The United States is exceptional, just like every country is. But it has problems just like every other country has. It ought to be able to learn from other countries but it refuses, because it believes it's exceptional "

The above is a recent quote by eighty one year old Jared Mason Diamond, an American historian.

Let's talk specifics.

According to a Middle Eastern English language newspaper of 12 June, "the US appears confident that boosting its military presence in the Gulf is having an impact on Iran's behaviour in the region but insisted that the end goal is still to bring Tehran to the negotiating table".

What does it mean when the US, at its most arrogant, says, "it is having an impact on Iran"? What bullshit. Iran, ancient Persia (the second oldest civilisation on the planet after China) doesn't give a damn what America says or does; never did since its 1979 revolution. Nor does China for that matter.

Who is threatening who?

In the case of Iran, is Iran in the Gulf of Mexico with its Navy or is the huge American Navy in the Persian Gulf supported by numerous US Military Bases in the region threatening Iran?

Now yesterday new very serious news, a lie, was confirmed by Pompeo: "It is the assessment of the United States that the Islamic Republic of Iran is responsible for the attacks."on the two oil tankers the other side of the Strait of Hormuz, in the Gulf of Oman.

Why would Iran?

Without any doubt this is a false flag operation to blame Iran in order to create circumstances for Neocons like Pompeo and 'President Bolton' to start a war with Iran.

Where and what is President Trump? Does he really know what's going on?

Let American madmen Neocon Zionists have their wish (as dictated by Netanyahu); let the US attack Iran .and then see what happens!

While the US attempts to start yet a new war also ask yourself why there are upwards of nearly a thousand US Military bases around the world?

There is no doubt that US, with Israel, are the two most dangerous terrorist States that exist today in the world and that they both threaten world peace, even nuclear Armageddon, more than any countries on earth. Yet anyone who says the truth is labelled 'a conspiracy theorist ' or 'a Russian sympathiser'. I am neither.

America is today like a wounded animal as it faces its gradual decline as an Empire, much like the Roman, Ottoman and British Empires did.

But let's forget at this time Iran (also Syria and Venezuela et al and regime changing), how about talking of this US Administration's threat to British democracy?

The Guardian reported on the 9th June: "Labour has accused Donald Trump's top official, Mike Pompeo, of trying to stop Jeremy Corbyn becoming Prime Minister, after he was caught on tape telling Jewish leaders that he would "push back" against the party's leadership. In a recording leaked to the Washington Post, the US secretary of state was asked what he would do if Corbyn were to be elected as prime minister, after sustained criticism over Labour's handling of accusations of antisemitism within the party."

Pompeo added "It could be that Mr Corbyn manages to run the gauntlet and get elected," he said on the recording. "It's possible. You should know, we won't wait for him to do those things to begin to push back. We will do our level best. It's too risky and too important and too hard once it's already happened."

Is this not the most serious threat ever to the world's oldest parliamentary democracy, that has been in existence from the early 13th century. America as an independent country has been around since only the latter part of the 18th Century!

That said, America is today singularly the most powerful State on earth with a military bigger than the rest of the world's countries combined; She spends trillions of dollars a year on defence, security and wars; with a global state surveillance reach that can see and hear anyone with a phone and a laptop at any time, and we Brits, our precious BBC in particular, remain silent despite the US's top diplomat implying that the US will act to undermine a potential democratically elected leader of the UK if needs be.

If needs be for who?

What happened to British reporters and media? Why is this not front page news? Why are their few protestations?

HEREDOT , says: June 14, 2019 at 8:25 pm GMT

The crimes of the United States have been recorded in history. Abd is the empire of persecution, He will be tried by history. History and god will not forgive.
MarkU , says: June 15, 2019 at 9:04 am GMT

US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, UK Who Is Behind the False Flag in Gulf of Oman

They all are. Even if they weren't directly operationally involved in the actual attacks, they are all clearly involved in the propaganda. It is impossible that anyone with functioning critical faculties can honestly claim to be convinced that the Iranians did the attack.

animalogic , says: June 15, 2019 at 9:53 am GMT
As chief diplomat Pompeo's comments on Corbyn don't particularly surprise me -- monumental arrogance, hypocracy & contempt, just another day . That Zionists are behind it all? Big fucking surprise. That their (the UK Zionists') behaviour amounts to some kind of constructive treason, but will remain invisible is also no surprise.
What does surprise me a little (it shouldn't but I suffer bouts of irrational optimism ) is the muted British response. This should go way beyond Party politics. It is a national insult, a display of casual disdain & utter contempt for the sovereignty of another nation -- & this nation is said to be the US's greatest ally!
The UK should be frothing at the mouth with anger!
The UK has sold it's collective soul .

[Jun 15, 2019] When Oman Means Tonkin by Robert Fantina

Notable quotes:
"... Trump's National Security Advisor is the equally unhinged John Bolton. It is no secret that Bolton is itching for war with Iran, something even Trump has been hesitant to do. But what if a ship of the sacred United States, in an area of the world where it has no legitimate business to be, were to be attacked? Then, of course, U.S. retaliation would be swift and harsh. ..."
Jun 14, 2019 | ahtribune.com

The world awoke today to the alleged 'news' that U.S. authorities were investigating attacks on two ships in the Gulf of Oman. For anyone paying attention, this is déjà vu all over again. Let's put this in the context of current world politics as directed through the skewed lens of that self-proclaimed stable genius, United States President Donald Trump. The man who so considers himself, and has commented in the past on his own good looks, has stated that, regardless of what his advisors tell him, he rules by his 'gut' feelings. In 2017, against the advice of all allies except Israel, and also against the advice of his closest advisors, he withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

This was an international agreement by which sanctions against Iran would be withdrawn, in exchange for Iran making adjustments to its nuclear program. By so violating this agreement, and threatening sanctions against the other signatories if they continued to abide by it, the U.S. basically nullified it, yet expected Iran to comply. Iran has done so for over a year, with the hope, if not the expectation, that the other parties to the agreement would figure out a way to bypass U.S. threats. This has not happened.

The U.S. wants Iran to return to the bargaining table; why on earth it would is beyond the comprehension of any reasonable person. If Iran signed another agreement with the U.S., Trump could decide in a month, or a week, or even a day, that that, too, was 'the worst deal ever'.

Trump's National Security Advisor is the equally unhinged John Bolton. It is no secret that Bolton is itching for war with Iran, something even Trump has been hesitant to do. But what if a ship of the sacred United States, in an area of the world where it has no legitimate business to be, were to be attacked? Then, of course, U.S. retaliation would be swift and harsh. MORE...

Recently, there was alleged sabotage against U.S. ships in the Persian Gulf. Nothing came of that smoke screen. But today, a new violation of U.S. sanctity is alleged. While time alone can tell how this will play out, it is not without deadly and devastating precedence. On August 4, 1964, a U.S. ship, the Maddox, was in the Gulf of Tonkin, off the coast of China and northern Vietnam. That night, instruments on the Maddox indicated that the ship was either under attack or had been attacked. The Maddox and another U.S. vessel, the C. Turner Joy, fired into the darkness with support from U.S. warplanes. The Navy notified Washington that naval vessels in the Gulf of Tonkin were being attacked. Washington launched Operation Pierce Arrow (where oh where do these stupid names originate?): sixty-four sorties from nearby aircraft carriers pounded North Vietnam that evening. When the so-called retaliatory attack concluded, President Lyndon Johnson appeared on American television to announce that "gunboats and certain supporting facilities in North Vietnam" had been attacked by American aircraft. Had U.S. ships actually been attacked? Personnel on both vessels soon " decided they had been shooting at 'ghost images' on their radar; the preponderance of available evidence indicates that there was no attack." [1] But this was just what Congress wanted, so its members could prove their anti-Communist credentials, as important than as anti-terrorism hubris is today; it was the perfect ploy to escalate the war. Yet like the personnel on the ships, U.S. government officials knew very quickly that there had been no attack. Just a few days later, Johnson, upon learning the truth said this: "Hell, those dumb, stupid sailors were just shooting at flying fish." [2] The truth did nothing to stop violent U.S. escalation. By the end of the following year, the number of U.S. soldiers invading Vietnam increased from 23,000 to 184,300. Eleven years later, with over 55,000 U.S. soldiers dead, hundreds of thousands wounded, and, by conservative estimates, 2,000,000 Vietnamese dead, the U.S. fled Vietnam in defeat. Fast forward fifty-four years, an eternity in terms of U.S. governance. An independent nation (Iran) is minding its own business, protecting its borders and assisting its allies (including Syria), but it refuses to kowtow to U.S. demands. The mighty U.S., whose actions are not to be questioned by any nation that wants to survive, must determine some reason to invade it that will fly with the U.S. public. In 1964, its desire to invade Vietnam was given legitimacy by the lies of the Gulf of Tonkin non-incident. In 2019, will its desire to invade Iran gain U.S. support because of the Gulf of Oman non-incident? If so, one can only hope that, unlike the devastation that the U.S. wrought on Vietnam before that country was victorious over the U.S., Iran will be able to defeat the U.S. more quickly, and with fewer Iranian casualties. There really isn't much that the United States needs to do to diffuse the tension between it and Iran. Simply abide by its own international agreement, the JCPOA. But in for this to happen, Trump would have to find some reason to say that the sanctions were successful; he will never admit to making a mistake. But the workings of his brain are a conundrum; it's possible he could invent and believe such a scenario. For the sake of the U.S., Iran, and much of the world that could easily be dragged into a major war should the U.S. invade Iran, it is to be hoped that Trump does, indeed, invent such a reason. Endnotes [1] Chambers, (John Whiteclay II. ED. 1999. The Oxford Companion to American Military History . New York: Oxford UP). Jian, Chen. China's Road to the Korean War: The Making of the Sino-American Confrontation, P. 151. [2] Donald E. Schmidt, The Folly of War: American Foreign Policy, 1898-2005 (New York: Algora, 2005), 265. Gulf of Oman Incident

peter mcloughlin • a day ago ,

Where Oman differs from Tonkin is today we are facing a far more dangerous scenario. We could all 'be dragged into a major war should the US invade Iran'. Vietnam did not lead to nuclear Armageddon, nor did any other confrontation of the Cold War. There is much talk of a new Cold War. But the Cold War was the peace, a post-world war environment: we now live in a pre-world war environment. Humanity has experienced long periods of peace (or relative peace) throughout history. The Thirty Years Peace between the two Peloponnesian Wars, Pax Romana, Europe in the 19th century after the Congress of Vienna, to name a few. The Congress System finally collapsed in 1914 with the start of World War One. That conflict was followed by the League of Nations. It did not stop World War Two. That was followed by the United Nations and other post-war institutions. But all the indications are they will not prevent a third world war.
https://www.ghostsofhistory...

Blake • a day ago ,

From Craig Murray:

I really cannot begin to fathom how stupid you would have to be to believe that Iran would attack a Japanese oil tanker at the very moment that the Japanese Prime Minister was sitting down to friendly, US-disapproved talks in Tehran on economic cooperation that can help Iran survive the effects of US economic sanctions.

The Japanese-owned Kokuka Courageous was holed above the water line. That rules out a torpedo attack, which is the explanation being touted by the neo-cons.

The second vessel, the Front Altair, is Norwegian owned and 50% Russian crewed (the others being Filipinos). It is owned by Frontline, a massive tanker leasing company that also has a specific record of being helpful to Iran in continuing to ship oil despite sanctions.

It was Iran that rescued the crews and helped bring the damaged vessels under control. That Iran would target a Japanese ship and a friendly Russian crewed ship is a ludicrous

[Jun 15, 2019] BREAKING Pompeo's FALSE FLAG REFUTED by Japanese Media Authority - Tanker hit by flying object, not mine

Jun 15, 2019 | www.fort-russ.com

TOKYO ( with NHK) – June 14, 2019 – The Japanese state news agency NHK has revealed that workers on the tanker saw a plane flying toward the tanker before the explosion. United States is pinning the blame for the tanker attacks on Iran. Tehran denies the accusation.

The Japanese state media agency has taken the line: "Tanker hit by flying object, not mine", in quoting Japanese workers on the vessel. Now the Japanese operator of one of the tankers is providing new details about what happened, in a major revelation which refutes the claims of the U.S's Mike Pompeo.

The president of the Tokyo-based shipping firm Kokuka Sangyo says its tanker was hit by an incoming projectile. He says several crew members witnessed the source of the second blast. Yutaka Katada, president of Kokuka Sangyo said,

"I've received reports that they saw something come flying toward them, then there was an explosion, and then there was a hole in the vessel."

He denied that the tanker was hit by a floating mine, torpedo or an attached explosive as had been previously reported. He said the damage was way above sea level.

This version of events entirely refutes the claims made by the U.S's Mike Pompeo, who says that Iranian mines are to blame:

"This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed to execute the operation, recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping, and the fact that no proxy group operating in the area has the resources and proficiency to act with such a high-degree of sophistication,"

Pompeo for his part has not released any evidence to back his claims.

"Kokuka Courageous" and another tanker owned by a Norwegian shipping company were attacked on Thursday in international waters near the Strait of Hormuz, a key oil shipping route, as reported by FRN.

Crew-members from both vessels were rescued, but one person was injured. The Japanese tanker is now on its way to the United Arab Emirates.

The US is blaming Iran. Its military has released a video which allegedly shows the country's Revolutionary Guard removing an unexploded mine from one of the tankers. It's believed to be a limpet mine which can be detonated remotely.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said, "This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed to execute the operation, recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping, and the fact that no proxy group operating in the area has the resources and proficiency to act with such a high degree of sophistication."

Tehran is denying any involvement. The Iranian Foreign Minister tweeted that the US is making allegations without a shred of factual or circumstantial evidence, accusing the US of "sabotage diplomacy."

The UN Security Council held an emergency closed-door meeting on Thursday at the request of the US.

Acting US Ambassador Jonathan Cohen said, "I've asked the Security Council to remain seized of this matter. And I expect that we will have further conversations about it on how to respond in the days ahead."

Kuwait's ambassador, currently the rotating president of the Council, told reporters that they "didn't discuss any evidence" that may have shown Iran was behind the action.

The attacks came as Japan's prime minister was in Iran to try and ease tensions between Tehran and Washington.

Experts speculate that the U.S was behind the attack, and pushed it through in order to sour Japan-Iran relations, and to create a cause for war or further hostile action against the Islamic Republic.

In Tokyo, Japanese ministers are debating what to do next. Transport Minister Keiichi Ishii said, "We do not know details of the attack, including who is responsible. we are gathering information from the people concerned and we have alerted the Japanese vessels sailing in the region through a related business association."

Defense Minister Takeshi Iwaya said, " At this moment, we haven't been asked to send Japan's Self Defense Forces. So, we don't have a plan to send the units to the region near the Strait of Hormuz to respond to this incident."

Iwaya added that Japanese citizens are not at risk right now, but if that changes the government would make a different judgment.

NHK's position in itself reveals that Japan-US relations are strained, as Japanese authorities would neither encourage NHK nor allow workers of the vessel to make public reportage and claims which contradict those of Pompeo and the American administration.

The manner in which the Japanese media-intelligence sphere has handled this event so far lends credence to Japanese Prime Minister Abe's claim that his mission to Tehran was to look for real solutions, and not to deliver a list proposed or desired by the United States.

[Jun 15, 2019] False flags here, false flags there, false flags everywhere. All too further the aims of the masters of the universe

Jun 15, 2019 | off-guardian.org

Milton

Interesting that this Israeli-First traitor Clawson mentions Lincoln and Ft. Sumter. He finally admits what genuine historians of the Civil War long knew: Lincoln was a warmonger and tyrant, not an emancipator. The Civil war was fought to eliminate true freedom and equality in this country and it has been downhill ever since. The working class and soldier-class in America today are slaves in every sense of the word. Slaves to Zion. No wonder the certified warmonger and racist Lincoln is worshiped equally by Left and Right today, whilst genuine American patriots like Robert E. Lee have their legacy torn down. Lincoln was the proto-Neocon. Tom Dilorenzo summed up the real Lincoln when he wrote in Lincoln Unmasked:

"Imagine that California seceded from the union and an American president responded with the carpet bombing of Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco that destroyed 90 percent of those cities. Such was the case with General Sherman's bombardment of Atlanta; a naval blockade; a blocking off of virtually all trade; the eviction of thousands of residents from their homes (as occurred in Atlanta in 1864); the destruction of most industries and farms; massive looting of private property by a marauding army; and the killing of one out of four males of military age while maiming for life more than double that number. Would such an American president be considered a 'great statesman' or a war criminal? The answer is obvious.

A statesman would have recognized the state's right to secede, as enshrined in the Tenth Amendment, among other places, and then worked diligently to persuade the seceded state that a reunion was in its best interest. Agreat statesman, or even a modest one, would not have impulsively plunged the entire nation into a bloody war.

Lincoln's warmongering belligerence and his invasion of all the Southern states in response to Fort Sumter (where no one was harmed or killed) caused the upper South -- Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas -- to secede after originally voting to remain in the Union. He refused to meet with Confederate commissioners to discuss peace and even declined a meeting with Napoleon III of France, who offered to broker a peace agreement. No genuine statesman would have behaved in such a way.

After Fort Sumter, Lincoln thanked naval commander Gustavus Fox for assisting him in manipulating the South Carolinians into firing at Fort Sumter. A great statesman does not manipulate his own people into starting one of the bloodiest wars in human history."

mathias alexand
Here's a man who holds a press conference to announce a secret plan. Only in America.
Gezzah Potts
False flags here, false flags there, false flags everywhere. All too further the aims of the 'masters of the universe'. We know who was responsible for the tanker attacks. Who are the 3 countries absolutely desperate to take Iran down and install a completely pliant puppet regime answerable to Washington, Tel Aviv and to a lesser extent Riyadh. And creatures like Clawson, and all the other vermin can only see $$$$. Thats all they care about. Opening up more markets to further enrich themselves. I echo the other commenters also. The evil men stoop to for greed, power and control. Psychopaths.
harry law
The Foreign Office issued a statement saying: "It is almost certain that a branch of the Iranian military – the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – attacked the two tankers on 13 June. No other state or non-state actor could plausibly have been responsible."
Unbelievable, The UK vassal will use this to as one more reason to evade their responsibilities in implementing the JCPOA.
Gezzah Potts
Well they would say that, wouldn't they. The UK vassal state will spout any peice of crap in their assigned role as vassal state. Australia is just as gushingly sycophantic and cravenly jellified.
mark
Maybe it's "highly likely."
Gezzah Potts
Like an apple is green? They must think we're complete amoeba's to believe this. Sigh.
William HBonney
A Riyadh/Tel Aviv conspiracy. Genius!
Gezzah Potts
Er . just a rough guess Bill going on the belligerent foaming at the mouth by people in those places along with the likes of Bolton and Pompeo. In fact, you can probably go all the way back to about 1980 or so.
mark
I think the real giveaway was when all three rogue states openly stated their intention of doing this 1,000 times over the past 10 years. That was the crucial clue Sherlock Holmes was looking for.
Wilmers31
And who funds the Washington Institute? Last time I looked the International Crisis Group existed thanks to Soros and is usually treated like a serious organisation.

Many Europeans are not in love with the idea of war with Iran, just to achieve obedience to the US. 90 million people is bigger than Germany.

wardropper
These are the shysters, the spivs and the con men of bygone times. They are the ones who lurked at street corners, waiting for someone to come along who was gullible enough to buy the Moon from them.
But, for some reason, they are all in politics today.
Now how could that be?

Only because there are people whom it currently suits to use shysters, spivs and con men in order to create enough chaos for us to want to give up and just let those people have their way.

I agree with Rhys below. There is no more disgusting example of sub-humanity to be found on earth than these warmongers.
To deal with them, however, we will have to realize that their "philosophy", if you can call it that, runs very deep. It didn't just enter their heads last week.
They are reared and trained in it.

It will be a tough battle.

wardropper
I should add that, in bygone times, the police and the law were usually able to deal with the shysters, spivs and con men, since their lack of conscience often gave them away.
The modern version, however, which has moved into politics, was shrewd enough to use a few decades of bribery and threats in order to build around itself a nice little shell, through which the law simply cannot penetrate, except on special occasions, mainly for show.
Rhys Jaggar
There is a big cabal of warmongers who stoke the fuel but never see action. I find those people more disgusting than anyone on earth.

Draft dodgers, academics, 'historians' etc etc.

Ball-less pricks is what I call them .

mark
All fully paid up members of the Bill Clinton Light Infantry.
William HBonney
Yeah, well I'm not a great fan of those who would appease Assad, Putin, Hussein, Gaddafi

You must be so proud.

andyoldlabour
The appeasers would include the US who fully supported Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran, who provided him with chemical weapons and logistical help in using those weapons, which killed around 50,000 Iranian troops and Kurdish civilians.
The same appeasers armed and funded the Taliban (Mujahideen) against the Soviets.
The US are the single largest force for terrorism the World has ever seen.
William HBonney
The easiest, and perhaps best metric by which to judge a country, is 'do people aspire to live there? '.

I see you admire the Soviet Union, but at its dissolution, people were queuing to leave. And yet the US, and the UK, according to you, iniquitous places of tyranny, are oversubscribed. Could it be, that for all your implied erudition, you are merely a bellend?

axisofoil
You must be a big fan of CNN and the NYT. Ignorance is bliss, isn't it?
BigB
Well, even as a pacifist: if that is his sentiment – I hope he has sons or daughters in the military stationed in CENTCOM in Qatar. I bet he hasn't, though.
Rhisiart Gwilym
He should be right there on the frontline himself. That would straighten the disgusting creep's ideas out about the 'usefulness' of deliberately provoking war

[Jun 15, 2019] US Secretary of State Pompeo alleged that Iran had attacked the tankers to raise the global price of oil

Jun 15, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Hoarsewhisperer , Jun 13, 2019 1:52:29 PM | 104

ben , Jun 13, 2019 2:02:19 PM | 106

From an article in the Navy Times last summer:
Standing at the forefront of game-changing innovations in undersea warfare, Navy Cmdr. Scott Smith has only one small request. Don't call the Navy's fleet of unmanned undersea vehicles "drones." "It has a negative connotation," Smith said. "We think of drone strikes as taking out Taliban, and we're nowhere near that." Not yet, anyway. But the Pentagon is trying quickly to get there.

Last fall, the Navy named Smith as the first-ever commander of the new Unmanned Undersea Vehicle Squadron 1, or UUVRON-1. It's spearheading the service's development and deployment of unmanned underwater vehicles. Called UUVs, they're are already being used for surveillance and to clear mines and map the ocean floor, according to Bryan Clark, a retired submariner who is now a senior fellow with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

So don't get it twisted, this ascendent FUKUS drone army is doubleplusgood; it's designed for mapping and minesweeping! Sort of like a bunch of little Indian Joneses! Of course the article does go on to brag:

There are even ongoing efforts to launch UUVs from Virginia-class submarines to conduct surveillance or deliver payloads. He said that over the next decade sailors should expect to use the underwater robots to bring sonar arrays and mines to the seabed, launch torpedoes or become torpedoes themselves to destroy enemy warships . Smith wants to see UUVs in all kinds of sizes to fill gaps in future missions. "Those missions that are too dangerous to put men on," Smith said.

It is absolutely side-splitting though that they think they can achieve Total Spectrum Dominance with these toys. Sorry, I'm looking for any old silver lining these days.

Posted by: sejomoje | Jun 13, 2019 1:59:56 PM | 10 5 No matter the culprit in this latest incident, I lay this current world unrest at the feet of our current empire.

The economic terrorism, imposed on other nations through U$ sanctions, is the real problem..

And ALL done, to enrich the already rich....

arby , Jun 13, 2019 2:08:02 PM | 109
"US officials, however, were quick to point the finger at Iran. "It's clear that Iran is behind the Fujairah attack. Who else would you think would be doing it? Someone from Nepal?" said US National Security Adviser John Bolton.

In turn, US Secretary of State Pompeo alleged that Iran had attacked the tankers to raise the global price of oil.

Tehran has denied any involvement and called for an investigation."

https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Two-Oil-Tankers-Come-Under-Attack-in-Sea-of-Oman-20190613-0002.html

karlof1 , Jun 13, 2019 2:39:14 PM | 116
Overlooked/ignored is this item of interest :

"On the previous day, a fire broke out on an Iranian oil platform of the South Pars gas field in the Persian Gulf and was subsequently contained and no fatalities were reported."

Recall the plot of the movie A Fistful of Dollars and another can of worms becomes possible.

rockstar , Jun 13, 2019 2:41:38 PM | 117
Pompeo is already blaming the attacks on Iran.

Whenever the US has their conclusion this quickly, before even the appearance of an investigation (as with MH17, and Syria "chemical" attacks), I feel it is almost certain that they are making $&!% up, and the reality is likely the opposite of what they have said.

Miranda , Jun 13, 2019 4:03:25 PM | 130
Both Israel and the Saudis are far too incompetent to carry out a sophisticated attack like this - see, ships didn't sink but a message was delivered nonetheless. Probable some military contractor idling in Syria was reassigned to do this.
Zanon , Jun 13, 2019 4:04:11 PM | 131
Now Pompeo have accused Iran, that is why I said it was idiotic to even dwell into that, we see now what it leads to.
Yonatan , Jun 13, 2019 4:14:38 PM | 134
Japanese-owned ship hit just as Abe visits Tehran? A warning to Japan to stop the rapprochement with Iran, or look to more damage to your ships.

Parallels with MH370/MH17 strikes against Malaysia for their temerity in finding the IDF guilty of war crimes.

Oscar Peterson , Jun 13, 2019 4:44:08 PM | 139
An obvious question is why the US is not providing evidence to support its claims.

On possible explanation is that there is no evidence.

Another would be that there is evidence but that if the US produced the evidence, then it would be constrained to "do something." In the scenario in which Iran is conducting these quasi-attacks to warn of impending greater escalation if the US continues to starve it, both sides want the other to initiate any violence, and the US doesn't really want the global economic chaos that hostilities would inevitably bring--especially in conjunction with the trade/tech war with China. Therefore, it is pulling its punches and withholding the evidence it has.

Iran may sense that given the US-China and US-Russia issues and the 2020 election, they had better escalate now or be slowly bled to death. But they would like the US to provide a pretext for Iran to take real action to block traffic into and out of the Persian Gulf. But the US wants to be able to portray Iran as the aggressor.

Hence the cat-and-mouse game ongoing. I have to admit, it does make a certain comprehensive sense.

librul , Jun 13, 2019 5:07:25 PM | 141
The Japanese Prime Minister was visiting Tehran at the time of the attack upon a Japanese tanker.

What a perfect time to attack a Japanese tanker.

Such a plan reeks of incompetence.

Incompetence is a finger print of the Saudis.

Reminder that they butchered journalist Jamal Khashoggi in their own embassy. They mailed bombs (hidden in printers) to the US and Britain
and kept the tracking slips of the packages - nice plan ! All bombers must remember to save their tracking slips.

They tried to embarrass Iran by attacking a Japanese tanker while the Japanese Prime Minister was having a positive visit to Tehran.

Incompetence is a finger print of the Saudis.

james , Jun 13, 2019 5:08:43 PM | 142
the usa has produced 'phony' hard evidence in the past... it typically goes with false flags.. i am not saying this will come out of this, or that iran is not involved, but i lean strongly to the ramp up in a focus on the strait of hormuz as all part of a longer strategy of creating stress on iran and potentially dragging them into war.. either way as OP mentions in his last line @128...
karlof1 , Jun 13, 2019 5:12:47 PM | 145
Oscar Peterson @139&140--

Evidence versus claims. I give you the recent near collision between Russian and USN warships where USN claimed Russian fault whereas the evidence decisively proved otherwise. USN shut-up rather quickly and the incident went to the dust bin. In an earlier comment, I speculated that an IED-type device was used and that it was installed while the ships laded. Torpedoes were certainly not used, and the limpet mine assertion remains that until a forensic examination is done, and that won't happen until the ships return to a port where repairs can be made. Also, we have the much less reported attacks on Iranian ships and extraction infrastructure--the tit for tat where we'll only be treated to the tits as I commented in a trivial comment that disappeared. The upshot is, the Outlaw US Empire has scant credibility when it comes to making claims about anything sans extraordinary evidence. Iran, of course, knows that. But given the overall context, I doubt Iran's responsible and stand by my earlier prediction of a CIA/MI-6 proxy doing the deed.

Oscar Peterson , Jun 13, 2019 5:30:31 PM | 147
@karlof1 145

I agree that US credibility on many things is weak--especially in connection with Iran--but the point is that there is a plausible scenario in which Iran is ready to escalate--or threaten to escalate--to break out of the US stranglehold but needs to execute the escalation very carefully.

I also agree that the false flag scenario is still very much in play.

karlof1 , Jun 13, 2019 5:36:29 PM | 148
Here're links to a couple of things bouncing around the Twitterverse. The first is a video clip of Bolton Caitlin does an excellent job of unpacking again . It's actually a good thing this video was saved as it needs to be distributed once again.

The second is a pic of Bolton framed at the header by "Iran is going to attack us" and at the footer with "Even if we have to do it ourselves."

Both IMO are worthy of viral retweeting provided you have an account.

Curtis , Jun 13, 2019 5:54:05 PM | 150
DW interviewed a guy today who said it could be Iran but that it could also be a false flag by one of the Emirates. His interview didn't last long before they went to someone with more of the US voice. The whole time I was thinking they said it was a torpedo and we know Israel has at least one submarine. I wonder where it is right now. Meanwhile the official US statement sounds similar to early declarations about Russians hacking HRC's email: "We assess ..."
Curtis , Jun 13, 2019 5:57:00 PM | 151
librul 141
I thought the same thing. It's like the chemical weapons attack in Syria that happened on the same day the inspectors arrived. It's like the White Helmets being wherever HTS is. The alt media is the only arena where people say this sounds fishy.
Pnyx , Jun 13, 2019 6:01:47 PM | 152
You shouldn't be misled. Iran does not want war, because the leadership knows that it will definitely lead to gigantic damage in its own country. In Tronald's administration and elsewhere, on the other hand, there are people who absolutely want a war, the four B's in the first place. Tronald himself doesn't really want one, but is caught between a rock and a hard place. He absolutely wants to make the economy look positive until the next elections, but this is difficult because there are signs of recession everywhere in the world. An important factor is the price of oil. Despite the sanctions against Iran, it has not yet risen, the fracking industry, which produces what it can do due to its debts service necessities, continues to lose money at these prices. It will be difficult to avoid collapses. So Tronald may be willing to do more to push up the price of oil. For example, a nice little false flag action. The Relotius media are almost convinced, no wonder if even someone like B is wobbling.

But, people; the empire is the empire, we know how it works, that doesn't change. That's Tonkin 2.0.

El Cid , Jun 13, 2019 6:06:10 PM | 154
Cui Bono. Who wants to destroy Iran? Israel and Saudi Arabia. Cui Bono, merchants of war, and the bankers who fund and make war possible.
Peter AU 1 , Jun 13, 2019 6:10:51 PM | 155
IF the US or its proxies had pulled off these attacks as false flags, there would be dead and injured people and at least one or two sunken ships.

This looks very much like a message or warning to the financial world that has abandoned Iran due to US sanctions.

karlof1 , Jun 13, 2019 6:37:03 PM | 160 John Smith , Jun 13, 2019 7:06:54 PM | 161
Lucy Komisar:
‏
State Dept admits it ran troll farm to smear critics of Iran policy.

The Independent:

United States officials say they are outraged by a government-funded troll campaign that has targeted American citizens critical of the administration's hardline Iran policy and accused critics of being loyal to the Tehran regime.

State Department officials admitted to Congressional staff in a closed-door meeting on Monday that a project they had funded to counter Iranian propaganda had gone off the rails. Critics in Washington have gone further, saying that the programme resembled the type of troll farms used by autocratic regimes abroad.

<...>

John Smith , Jun 13, 2019 7:15:40 PM | 162
Edward R. Murrow on McCarthy, 1954
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEvEmkMNYHY
psychohistorian , Jun 13, 2019 7:17:57 PM | 163
Alright then, how is WWIII going for everyone? Everyone got their pith helmet at the ready?

I agree with the sentiments that think this is a warning to empire instead of false flag because no body bags

I feel sorry for those MoA barflies that continue to have some faith that Trump has a scintilla of humanism in him and continue to ask for some proof other than BS Q spewment. Show me ANY example of Trump showing compassion, empathy for other than his fellow war criminals he is rumored to pardon. Trump is a very hurt human being who is being used as such by those that control empire for their purposes. To the extent that he agrees to do their bidding, he is just another in a string of president war criminals of the US, since Jimmy Carter.

The world outside the West is playing the long game and the West is now very punch drunk and coming to the end of its run of empires. I read a posting from Reuters in the last 48 hours or so where some pundit was quoting folks "telling" China that they should not include private finance in this trade war thing......GRIN

The West is holding a very weak hand except for the extinction card. Will they play it because they are sore losers? Given what they have done to our planet, it would not surprise me for them to have the ultimate hubris to call the game over......sigh The Cosmos may be better for it but we have potential if we try.....

james , Jun 13, 2019 7:23:52 PM | 164
pat lang makes a good distinction on what is a us gov't assessment, verses an intel assessment..

@160 karlof1 / 161 john.. thanks for those links.. my position - all that is no surprise... i find it surprising some are surprised.. the usa is thick into propaganda at this point and said they would spend good money on war propaganda.. videos of bolton saying lying is okay aren't helpful to their cause though..

John Smith , Jun 13, 2019 7:38:58 PM | 167
Global Warfare: "We're Going to Take out 7 Countries in 5 Years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan & Iran.."

Video Interview with General Wesley Clark

https://www.globalresearch.ca/we-re-going-to-take-out-7-countries-in-5-years-iraq-syria-lebanon-libya-somalia-sudan-iran/5166

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D89TFRwXkAEPw3c.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8YtF76s-yM

John Smith , Jun 13, 2019 7:54:31 PM | 168
Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 13, 2019 7:34:22 PM | 166

CENTCOM has issued a statement. Here's the meat:

"'We have no interest in engaging in a new conflict in the Middle East. We will defend our interests, but a war with Iran is not in our strategic interest, nor in the best interest of the international community.' --@CENTCOM spokesman Lt. Col. Earl Brown."

Seems the Pentagon has flipped the bird to Pompeo and Bolton, which happened before during BushCo.
--------------------------

Maybe such a war with Iran is not in the interests of the United States, but certainly in the interests of Israel.

Top US General Says American Troops Should Be Ready To Die For Israel

"Greater Israel": The Zionist Plan for the Middle East

dltravers , Jun 13, 2019 9:09:47 PM | 183
Trump goes to Japan and asks them to mediate with Iran.

Trump ratchets up the sanctions before and Abe visits Iran which does reflect his negotiating style. Iran allegedly hits a tanker while Abe is taking to Iran. Now Abe has to go back towing the US line, as usual, saying it was Iran's fault and he loses face being insulted by Iran. What a perfect way to step up the tensions and garner more UN support.

These events will continue and slowly get worse until the coup de gra, which would be something like the sinking of a large US naval vessel in the Persian gulf. The US peoples minds are not right yet and it will take time for their minds to be framed back into war.

During the Iran Iraq war the US re flagged Kuwait tankers during the Tanker War. We could easily see a new Tanker War but on a much lower lever driven by the third party actors who stand to profit.

War with Iran will be a disaster for everyone involved except one small nation that knows how to cover their tracks.

Iran will be demolished eventually. Those who gain from destroying Iran are behind


snake , Jun 13, 2019 9:26:36 PM | 184
presstv. published a video showing 44 people saved from two on fire sinking ships. I know how difficult it is to identify these people from their faces, especially a 44 crew member crowd but I think even stinkcom could manage to do that. The media BS about this incident suggest, who ever done it, is dealing with something that went very wrong.. Iran saves 44 sailors and shows them on TV.. the west claims, with no proof whatsoever, that the Iranians did not save these sailors even though the sailors are safe in Iran? Hmmm!
I suggest the reporters and journalist that reported this, be tasked to investigate the suspicious looking dark hole named "false flag". Its a possible threat to Israel and Saudia Arabia. Its approximate location is about 200 trillion light years due East from here.. The media are saying Iran and Russia teamed up to dig a hole in space, and once the Iran-Russian team managed to get the hole dug, they climbed deep inside of the hole and turned its lights off. The west is saying they flipped the switch in the WH to keep the Iranian-Russian team from claiming its "light out" success. When the reporters and journalist get back, I am sure we will be all ears to hear the how the Russian and Iranian team managed to make a hole in space, dark.
Grieved , Jun 13, 2019 9:49:43 PM | 185
I haven't seen this posted yet, Iran's Foreign Minister has given formal assurance that Iran is not behind this, and has pointedly commented that the whole episode is "very suspicious" since Abe was visiting:
'Suspicious doesn't begin to describe what happened': Iran's FM on tanker 'attacks' in Gulf of Oman

@karlof1 - I read the Luongo piece and I find it the most pivotal of all current commentary - largely because it's about the oil situation globally. Neither Iran nor Russia need the price of oil to go up in order to prosper - the US and Saudi Arabia do need the price to go up.

Having said that, I don't know that insurance rates rising are actually adding to the producer's revenue at the wellhead/refinery.

I do know that oil is self-regulating, in that whenever it gets around $100 a barrel and over, the global economy stalls and the demand for oil goes down, resulting in glut for a time and lower prices - not to mention global recession. As Luongo illustrates, right now the world is in a large glut. There's nothing to push the price up (which Trump desperately needs) except tightening production, which Saudi wants, but which Russia doesn't want to do.

~~

So imagine a world filled to the brim with bluster, and yet once again what actually moves on the ground (or below the waves) is actually very little. Enough bluster to scare everyone and increase leverage of the security apparatus, and just enough damage to inch the oil price up without crashing the global economy. Expect more such ratcheting.

Iran didn't do this latest episode. The US and Israel are the likely actors, with Saudi and UAE providing lunch money for the excursion. Also, the false flag works fine without dead bodies if the intent is not for a war with Iran - which the US military absolutely knows cannot be won - but to trigger oil prices up. At times, commercial interests take over, and ride the wave of military activity, and I suspect this one is about the money.

And these neocons, by the way, seem able to live on pure fantasy. I don't think they'll achieve a real war. They visibly make their points - increase their stature - in their peer group purely from grandstanding.

Grieved , Jun 13, 2019 9:59:53 PM | 186
It's worth linking the Tom Luongo piece again for a nice understanding of oil fundamentals in the region and the world currently. It's important to understand how illusory and temporary the US fracking phenomenon is:
Trump Thinks US Oil Is His Strength When It's His Achilles' Heel

As a commenter here (David on May 13) said recently, the US fracking industry's appalling indebtedness comes due in 2023. This is far enough through Trump's potential second term that he can blame everyone else and move on. I've made a personal note to expect a US economic plunge in that year.

To see Trump's acts as merely keeping the ponzi scheme going for as long as possible, and for as much short-term reward through the second term, is the best understanding of White House policy I think.

h , Jun 13, 2019 10:05:51 PM | 187
Grieved @184 thanks for that link. Just saw an update on Fox stating Iran has formally denied any part of this incident but can't find a solid Iranian news source to confirm.
Don Bacon , Jun 13, 2019 10:16:54 PM | 188
@ Pnyx 181
. . . for the usa it is not the same. Their homeland is far away, while Iran would suffer extreme devastation in the event of a war - whatever the final result. So I think it is absolutely unthinkable that Iran would do anything to increase the risk of war.

You don't understand -- every US death in war is now a news item. When 5 or 6 dies it's huge news. This is not Vietnam with 200 dying every week. Its different now. So if a thousand soldiers die in the beginning of a conflict with Iran it's HUGE. No American cares how many Iranians would die, but they DO care if Americans die, homeland or not. THAT's why the generals are against it too. . .PS: If the Iranians sink that carrier, it's 5,000+ American dead. Unacceptable.

So that's why Iran is free to dispute the aggression against them with some violent events. More power to them.

dh , Jun 13, 2019 10:21:23 PM | 189
I'm very disappointed in John Bolton. There should be another carrier group on the way by now. Is he losing his touch?
psychohistorian , Jun 13, 2019 10:31:02 PM | 190
I would think that if the Iranian's held the crew and took off an unexploded bomb that they can ask the crew how they might have gotten there......

Were the ships in Iran controlled waters such that the empire side could not retrieve the unexploded bomb? If that is the case then I suspect the unexploded bomb may show up in pictures we see that show where it might have come from.....

Isn't it grand watching our own sick soap opera?

james , Jun 13, 2019 10:43:19 PM | 191
@186 h... fars news is always a good place to start.. http://en.farsnews.com/

@188 dh... you might have to vote for a different lunatic then the last one you voted for in 2016!!

Don Bacon , Jun 13, 2019 11:06:34 PM | 195
from the grasping at straws mines department.
news report
Iran removed a mine from a ship, so that proves that Iran put it there!
The U.S. military has released a video it says implicates Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in the attack on two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman, the latest violent incident the United States and its allies blame on Tehran.
The U.S. Central Command on June 13 said the video shows crews from IRGC boats removing what looks like an unexploded mine from the side of one of the two attacked oil tankers. . . here

the US has met its match, asking for a seizure at the UNSC --
Earlier in the day at the UN, U.S. acting Ambassador Jonathan Cohen called on the Security Council to confront the "clear threat" posed by Tehran in the region.
The attacks "demonstrate the clear threat that Iran poses to international peace and security," Cohen told reporters following the closed-door Security Council meeting.
Cohen said that "no proxy group in the area has the resources or the skill to act with this level of sophistication."
"Iran, however, has the weapons, the expertise, and the requisite intelligence information to pull this off," he said.
"I've asked the Security Council to remain seized of the matter and I expect that we will have further conversations about it, and how to respond in the days ahead," he added.

Loud chuckling was heard in Tehran.
Don Bacon , Jun 13, 2019 11:06:34 PM | 195 Anon , Jun 13, 2019 11:20:05 PM | 196
So this is what comes to mind...

Houthi or al. are responsible for first event. They target Saudi/Nor. ships.

Saudi et. al. target ships friendly to Iran.


Understand though that in these events there is a total asymmetry at play. That is to say that actions will not follow any logic we know of. The above is the closest I get to making sense BUT as far as I know each side might have been responsible for the actions that seemed most counterproductive to itself. Planners know the mindset of society, a false false flag is an option.

We are left with qui bono, and I think the reply to that is as reliant on the global geopolical and economic environment, as well as who will de facto gain the upper hand. It seems to me to be a form of psychological warfare where expansion of power is questioned by the appearance or reality of being goaded. This is not a good circumstance at all.

Don Wiscacho , Jun 13, 2019 11:44:26 PM | 197
A fluid situation for sure. I wish I had had the time to follow things more closely. Thanks karlof, Oscar for all the links and info.
Can't add anything substantial apart from a general maxim: when the Empire had proof the 'other' is to blame, they readily display said proof. When they are to blame... Skripols, Mari Marmara, MH17, etc.
psychohistorian , Jun 13, 2019 11:51:21 PM | 198
@ Anon who wrote
"
It seems to me to be a form of psychological warfare where expansion of power is questioned by the appearance or reality of being goaded. This is not a good circumstance at all.
"
The first part is confusing to me

I think you meant
Psychological warfare is going on
I assume you mean the West that is questioning "by the appearance or reality of being goaded".
Your "expansion of power" leaves me wanting the meat

Yes, China/Russia and aligned are collaborating in ways that reduces the power of empire but not necessarily in ways that translates into the same sort of power......That said, global private finance versus "socialism is the eye of the storm and everything else is proxy. We are not seeing the beginning of socialism but we are seeing the end of global private finance which I think your "expansion of power" misrepresents because one supports a few and the other supports all......maybe it would be clearer to say the elimination of power by a few and the assumption of the power by the many.

I think it is a good circumstance and way past due for our species to survive.

james , Jun 13, 2019 11:54:11 PM | 199
@193 dh... i thought you could... what happened? are you one of those long lost draft dodgers?

hey - maybe he can hide under his mustache if the bombs start falling? it is almost big enough... either that, or bugs bunny can grab it when he ain't watching.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ-BOqQw_TQ

Yeah, Right , Jun 13, 2019 11:55:49 PM | 200
@194 Is it my imagination or is that video showing a "limped mine" that is on THE OTHER SIDE of the ship than the one that is aflame?

If that is true - and it looks like it - then we have to assume that the Dastardly Iranians(tm) stuck limpet mines to both sides of that ship.

Why do that?

It maximizes your chances of being detected, and maximises the time it takes to attach the limpets, and with no discernible benefit.

Why do that, when speed and stealth are at a premium?

Don Wiscacho , Jun 14, 2019 12:12:46 AM | 205 David Gibson , Jun 14, 2019 12:57:54 AM | 206
MOA 14/06/19
If the strategic aim of the Imperialist powers is to still claim all of the Middle East oil and resources and to crush any movement towards independence then the stumbling block is Iran and Russia who have stood in their way vis-a-vie Syria.

NATO has succeeded in Iraq and Libya and almost succeeded in Syria but are still trying using the flip/flop position of Turkey and Idlib as a Castle in the game to defeat any independence movement out of US hegemony.

At this time no oil or chemicals have spilled into the Gulf waters. This is by design.
Whilst the comments pertaining to the main article are informative and useful most are getting bogged down and arguing about details and missing the overall global plans of the Imperialist plans.

The Imperialist plan remains the same whilst their tactics can and do change. Their bag of dirty tricks is quite bottomless and yes they think they can fight against any move for National Independence anywhere in the world.
Latin America most notably Venezuela, Africa with AFRICOM already using drones.

Australia, fully under MI6/CIA control. No defence of Assange an Australian Citizen, plus the coup against Gough Whitlam.
The UK, with either Boris, or Hunt being in bed with Donald, both lap dogs to the USA and like with Harold Wilson they won't allow Corbyn to become PM.

France with Macron the poodle trying to show he is as tough as Trump by being more stupid. We all know the situation of an Empire in decline. It isn't all about oil!

David Gibson , Jun 14, 2019 12:57:54 AM | 206 Jen , Jun 14, 2019 1:07:57 AM | 207
Psychohistorian @ 189:

The crews of both tankers were rescued by an Iranian rescue ship so I would say both tankers were in Iranian waters in the Gulf of Oman.

Link showing maritime borders of Iran in Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman

Peter AU 1 , Jun 14, 2019 1:20:37 AM | 208
Don Wiscacho
I take it that Abe on this exercise was no more than a US asset. Iran has stuck to the Nuke agreement and US has reneged so nothing to negotiate or mediate on Iran's side. Abe going to Iran as mediator means he was asking for concessions from Iran - that Iran make some moves to appease the US.
US is the type that if you give an inch, they take a mile. If Iran made one concession then US would take it as a sign of weakness and expect them to make more.
eagle eye , Jun 14, 2019 1:23:11 AM | 209
I might have missed mention of it in all the hullabaloo, but I have seen nothing of the US Navy response which would involve tracking down the perpetrators, and ensuring no further acts were committed.

It is that absence of obvious response which causes me to think that our host might be incorrect in his assessment, and that the perpetrator is a party the US Navy would sooner not apprehend.


All Forone , Jun 14, 2019 1:24:48 AM | 210
Iran would be crazy to take on the US so why provoke them. They stand to lose their oil then anyway. War is an economy and Everyone knows that Bolton is a war monger and that Iran is a thorn in Israels side and he needs an excuse to go to war. Also he can't use the WMD card again to start a war and JumpStart the US economy.
C , Jun 14, 2019 1:28:29 AM | 211
In 10 years we will know if it was the CIA, in order to justify the next war
james , Jun 14, 2019 1:32:07 AM | 212
@206 jen... on your link i get this message - No file by this name exists.
Big Tim , Jun 14, 2019 1:54:49 AM | 213
I have not followed this closely. There is real proof of "attack" and not accidental or set fire? There is video of a crew "abandoning ship? But then again, in 2019 there is no such thing as video or image proof, at least without expert verification.
John Carter , Jun 14, 2019 2:01:41 AM | 214
guys its BIG OIL... TRUMP approved Ethanol 15 for YEAR ROUND USE a few days ago... that means GAS PRICES would be cheaper for Americans as more corn instead of oil would be used in Automobiles. That drove OIL prices down! This attack on the two ships immediately drove CRUDE OIL up 2.87%!

It seems that TRUMP pissed off some very powerful big oil men & oil-rich Arab nations when he approved the E15!

Why blame Iran? No idea.
Why attack the ships owned by Japan while Shinzo Abe is there negotiating peace? No Idea.
Who carried out the attack? No Idea.

Mark2 , Jun 14, 2019 3:04:52 AM | 215
Interesting and sane interview on 'today program' news radio 4 bbc U.K. 7.50am ish.
Admiral Lord west - - - could be any US - proxy group in Middle East looking to gain by escalating US -Iran conflict !

He said it could well be ''a pro US group in Iran'' similar to the US backed opposition in Venezuela !

My view is this makes the most sense!
Probably given the nod by Bolton/Trump ect
Definitely funded and armed by US !
Just as in Venezuela.

Plus- bare in mind the main motive will be western public voter deception, same as anti Russia/ Skripal, Anti Syria / chloride. Venezuela/opposition.

Criminal psychopath profile tells us -> USA Trump.

Zanon , Jun 14, 2019 3:29:59 AM | 216
Meanwhile Twitter censorship thousands of iranian accounts. Pro-american accounts for war is of course never removed.

Twitter has announced that it is removing 4,779 accounts associated or backed by Tehran, the latest strike in the ongoing anti-Iran campaign perfectly timed to coincide with the attack on two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman.
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/461825-iran-trolls-gulf-tonkin-twitter/

Don Bacon

Iran removed a mine from a ship, so that proves that Iran put it there!

Indeed, that is the illogical proapganda MSM use now, very disturbing. Its Tonkin once again.

Not to mention, is it iranians? Is it a mine to begin with? Is that really how you handle a mine? Just pull it off with your bare hands around 10 plus people on a small boat?
Interesting also that US just happend to be there spying.

Hmpf , Jun 14, 2019 3:51:24 AM | 217
IRO that 'high-res' video footage from the usual suspects.

By coincidence they've had a surveillance drone or a chopper on location? Maybe, I don't know.
The Iranians do have the means to spot drones and choppers, we do know this ever since they hijacked and/or crashed RQ-170 and MQ-9 vehicles a couple of years back.
Are we to believe them - the Iranians - being that stupid to launching such an operation while knowing full well they are being watched by their main adversary?

Regarding technicalities:
Iran has got the know-how to build limpet mines? So it must have been done by Iranian forces? You don't say. Building a limpet mine is trivial. Get your hands on a bunch of Nd-magnets, a 3rd grade chemist cooking up a couple of kilos of a HEI composition, a mechanical engineer for the hardware and a physicist assisting in creating the fusing system and you're all set.

I, for one, am being positive Lichtenstein did it - most likely on direct orders of the ruling prince - after all there's chemists, physicists and mechanical engineers inhabiting that tiny speck of land.

Zanon , Jun 14, 2019 3:52:51 AM | 218
Would be intreresting if iranians actually picked up a mine though and it was an american made, israeli made mine. Iran has a big chance now to frame the incident.
Peter AU 1 , Jun 14, 2019 4:10:26 AM | 219
Japans oil imports by country for 2018.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/761568/japan-crude-oil-import-by-country/

"Japan expects a limited impact from the U.S. decision not to renew waivers previously granted on Iran oil import sanctions, the country's trade and industry minister said Tuesday."
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/04/23/business/meti-says-japan-foresees-little-impact-u-s-scrapping-iran-oil-waivers/#.XQNTg3r5XtQ

The majority of Japans oil imports come through the Hormuz Strait. Probably wasn't a good idea for Abe to trot off to Iran at Trump's bidding.

Mark2 , Jun 14, 2019 4:31:47 AM | 220
Good points zanon
To add - If the US start all-out War with Iran, how many refugees would that create ? millions !
And if so, would we blame them/ the victems and drive them back from safety to the conflict area, or do we blame the US and demand they compensate their victems.
If we are to return to a sane world, the perpetrators MUST pay the price and receive full punishment .
American politicians always say ' we will do what is in America's interest' and right there is the problem - - - not able to anticipate the outcome of there own actions !
Example - all recent conflict.
One definition of insanity is making the same mistake over and over again !!
Arioch , Jun 14, 2019 4:47:32 AM | 221
Meanwhile Russia committed new batch of tests for Arctic-specific anti-air missiles, TOR-M2DT

https://lenta.ru/news/2019/06/14/torm2dt/

Reportedly, shooting was proceeded at maneuvering targets and in radio warfare environment

Wolle , Jun 14, 2019 5:09:27 AM | 222
This picture shows something:
https://heise.cloudimg.io/width/2000/q75.png-lossy-75.webp-lossy-75.foil1/_www-heise-de_/tp/imgs/89/2/6/9/6/1/8/2/hormus-9703e11223eece26.JPG
(it's also in some other german online media portals)
Most likely the damage caused by small limpet mines.
This devices can't sink a tankship particularly with a double hull.
It was definitly not a torpedo, an anti ship missile or a huge sea mine.
An Iranian coast watch or rescue boat retrieved an unexploded limpet mine from the other ship(Front Altair). IMHO it's normal to remove dangerous things before starting rescue operations. The USN/CENTCOM claims Iran try to hide something. This is also quite common. ;-)
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/06/13/video-shows-iranians-removing-limpet-mine-tanker-centcom-says.html
Yeah, Right , Jun 14, 2019 6:33:20 AM | 223
@224 Bizarre. The photo shows the limped mine on the starboard side of the ship. The video from the Bainbridge shows the Iranians removing that limped mine on the port side of the ship.

The photo doesn't appear reversed - the name is clearly seen - so why would the US reverse the video?

somebody , Jun 14, 2019 6:34:19 AM | 224
Posted by: All Forone | Jun 14, 2019 1:24:48 AM | 209

Yes, they have been taking on the US for quite some time now. No, they are not crazy.

They have been doing this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMaRO8NVfjc

In case you wonder - Iran is the guy who did NOT get his tongue stuck.

Curtis , Jun 14, 2019 6:44:24 AM | 225
Okay, not a torpedo. Now it's a mine. But wait a minute, the Japanese say something was flying above the water. The US shows a video of the Iranians removing a limpet mine. The Japanese contest the "assessment" of the US and the US video shows the Iranians removing a mine NOT placing one.
The story gets stranger as the neoclowns push for war.
TEP , Jun 14, 2019 7:08:29 AM | 226
@18 b
Spot on. Time will tell how risky that was .... for us all.
Jen , Jun 14, 2019 7:27:31 AM | 227
James @ 212:

Try this Payvand.com link .

The other Wikipedia-connected link was the best I could find and the Payvand.com link is about second-best.

Walter , Jun 14, 2019 8:37:51 AM | 228
If infact the Iranians did recover from either ship an explosive machine, a mine, flying machine, rocket, unexploded torpedo,etc, or indeed any forensic material, that and the debriefings of the crews will make for great political theater...that stuff is fairly festooned with serial numbers... "film at 11", as they used to say...
William Gruff , Jun 14, 2019 8:58:52 AM | 229
Imagine the consternation in Langley!

"What? Only three booms? But we gave those idiots we hired four mines to attach to that ship! Oh, cr@p, the place is swarming with drones by now. What do we do about the fourth mine now? Can we pretend the Cubans stole it from us with their killer crickets and gave it to Iran?

Frank , Jun 14, 2019 9:16:56 AM | 230
Moon of Alabama lost all credibility with this article. Israel has a huge online troll party going on blaming Iran for this. Attack 2 tankers tied to Japanese interests,while the Japanese Leader is conferring with Iran's leader, outside the mouth of the Persian Gulf is too much codswallop to swallow.
Great Blue , Jun 14, 2019 9:26:57 AM | 231
Two comments: "Blamed Iran but did not present any evidence" says it all. These incidents remind one of the Vietnam Gulf of Tonkin "incident" in which the US government claimed their forces were attacked by North Vietnam. Subsequently it was proven by the NSA and others that there was no attack. It was simply propaganda to give the Americans an excuse to escalate the war. It would surprise no one, if it turned out that the US or Saudi's hired black operatives to stage these attacks so that they could escalate tensions with Iran.

and.

It was previously reported that the limpet mine was still attached to the ship. So why didn't the US, in need of solid evidence, go to the ship and remove the mine thereby obtaining hard evidence that could be evaluated? Instead, the US did nothing, Iran undertook its removal not wanting it to explode which makes sense. Then the US used it's removal by others to suggest complicity. The US is either incompetent or just making plots up (lying as usual). Iran's removal of the mine means nothing.

librul , Jun 14, 2019 9:29:19 AM | 232
I came to this article fully expecting another update from b

Don't see it. Is it being proofread at this moment?

The latest word is that some of the crew saw "flying objects" "shortly before the explosion".

Drones?

ALSO, the explosions were above the waterline. Mines are not known to behave like flying fish and jump out of the water at ships.

Update pending?

Grieved , Jun 14, 2019 9:33:00 AM | 233
@196 Anon - I agree

@134 Yonatan - A little frightener to Japan - this makes great sense and should have been obvious. Thanks for pointing it out.

@198 psychohistorian - it was a mouthful, but actually makes sense. Anon is saying that under the guise of seeming to be provoked and acting purely in reaction (to the bad actions of Iran, etc), the US is actually exerting and expanding its power in the region, all the while making the narrative say that it's the other unruly elements causing the ruckus.

I agree with Anon that it's more a case that a psy-ops theater has intensified, which tells several departments of the empire that the game can get a little harsher, and they can get away with it. It doesn't hurt that increased violence and aggravation on the region will raise the price of oil, which fits US thinking. In fact, with Bolton accusing Iran of trying to raise the price of oil, we now know with virtual certainty that these words reflect a US intention somewhere in the mix.

[Sidebar: Funny how they never dropped that old propaganda thing of accusing the target of your own actions before the target can accuse you of this act. I suspect this is an ancient ploy of evildoers - when you can't seize the moral high ground because you have no place there, then you must steal the moral high ground. Plunder and occupation by another name.]

The warning to Japan to hold steady to its western mission is very plausible. And anything that happens can be blamed on Iran anyway - the perfect patsy for all kinds of mayhem. And still Israel would like to provoke the US military into a suicidal attack on Iran.

So, several incentives for several players, several actions, and more to come, all under the virtual fog of virtual war.

Great Blue , Jun 14, 2019 9:35:35 AM | 234
The US has claimed that the tanker attacks showed "a level of sophistication implicating a nation, not a random terrorist". Again this is pure bullshit and propaganda from the Trump bunch. I recall the attack on the guided missile carrier, USS Cole in which the ship was damaged and a number of sailors were killed. The USS Cole was attacked successfully by a small fiberglass boat loaded with C4. Successful yet hardly "sophisticated". The US has been selling limpet mines and other armaments to every whack job group and country for decades. That a few of these made it onto a small boat and were delivered to the tankers is hardly surprising and does not require any sophistication at all. So once again, we have deception, lies, and war mongering coming out of the Blight House and its Trumpian orifices.
jared , Jun 14, 2019 9:43:32 AM | 235
I am guessing those Iranian mine removers accidentally left passport behind?
Or was flag on boat and Iranian Guard uniforms were give-away.
Thank goodness for the I/C - you can never have enough intelligence (or war).
Brave heart , Jun 14, 2019 9:50:47 AM | 236
This is my first time commenting in this blog. With all due respect to the writer and the quality of his journalism, sometimes it is easy to miss the distinction between causality versus correlation between events.
We tend to find patterns where they might not exist. From Iranian perspective, it was the first time they were being sanctioned for petrochemical materials versus raw oil. Not a fan of any government, but I believe true journalism should stay away from any judgment or speculation.
Thanks for all the great articles and analyses.
james , Jun 14, 2019 10:17:56 AM | 237
@227 jen... that link doesn't work either... maybe it is something on my end?

@235 jared... sounds about right!!

William Kierath , Jun 14, 2019 10:18:58 AM | 238
Has anyone thought it might be in the interests of the US which has a Glut of oil and want's to keep the price up and the Stock Market up too?
james , Jun 14, 2019 10:20:25 AM | 239
craig murrays take on it - The Gulf of Credibility
Seby , Jun 14, 2019 10:24:00 AM | 240
UAE
Seby , Jun 14, 2019 10:24:59 AM | 241
I meant uae
dh , Jun 14, 2019 10:26:55 AM | 242
@237 Just delete the / at the end of the URL. Happens a lot for some reason.
Don Bacon , Jun 14, 2019 10:30:09 AM | 243
"flying objects" = drones?
...from JapanToday
Operator of tanker says sailors saw 'flying objects' just before attack
The Japanese operator ship operator of one of two oil tankers attacked near the Strait of Hormuz on Thursday said that sailors on board its vessel, the Kokuka Courageous, saw "flying objects" just before the attack, suggesting the tanker wasn't damaged by mines.
That account contradicts what the U.S. military has said as it released a video it says shows Iranian forces removing an unexploded limpet mine from one of the two ships in the suspected attack.
Speaking at a news conference in Tokyo, Yutaka Katada, president of Kokuka Sangyo Co, said he believes the flying objects seen by the sailors could be bullets, and denied possibility of mines or torpedoes because the damages were above the ship's waterline. He called reports of mine attack "false." . . here

Don Bacon , Jun 14, 2019 10:41:17 AM | 244
from a limpet-skeptic
The two tanker vessels attacked Thursday are adrift in the Gulf of Oman today as the U.S. military is directing everyone's attention to a newly released, low-resolution video that allegedly shows a group of people in a watercraft removing an unexploded mine from the damaged hull of the M/T Kokuka Courageous in broad daylight and in clear view of the U.S. Navy's guided-missile destroyer, USS Bainbridge.
U.S. Central Command claims the small watercraft in the video belongs to Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps: "an IRGC Gashti Class patrol boat," according to one of two evening statements by CENTCOM officials.
Worth noting: The boat's clear and distinct connection to Iran or the IRGC, however, is not evident in the video itself. Nor is it clear from the video (1) where the boat came from, (2) who the occupants were, (3) whether what was allegedly removed was in fact a limpet mine (as the OSINT folks at Bellingcat pointed out this morning), or (4) where the boat went to after its occupants concluded their activity from the side of the Courageous. . . here
james , Jun 14, 2019 10:44:40 AM | 245
@242 dh... thanks... jens link now works.. i will remember that for the future...

willy b at sst's site comments - The Tanker Attacks In the Gulf of Oman: Cui Bono?

by Willy B

arby , Jun 14, 2019 10:56:48 AM | 246
James

I liked the first comment--

"

Isn't it amazing how the Enemy-of-the-day always does exactly what you want it to do when you want it to?

Posted by: Patrick Armstrong | 14 June 2019 at 10:15 AM "

james , Jun 14, 2019 10:57:57 AM | 247
'Flying Object' Struck Tanker in Gulf of Oman, Operator Says, Not a Mine nyt article....

@244 don bacon - your link isn't working..

comment from craig murray poster spencer eagle- "There's one glaring thing wrong about that US video of Iranians allegedly removing a limpet mine from that tanker, too many spectators. Even if they did plant the mine, no crew in their right minds would gather round as their colleague made safe a live mine from a bobbing boat."

james , Jun 14, 2019 10:59:00 AM | 248
@arby - lol... patrick is pretty insightful...
Don Bacon , Jun 14, 2019 10:59:30 AM | 249
@james
link works for me
EricT , Jun 14, 2019 11:00:05 AM | 250
It would be interesting to checkout the Call Option and Oil contract activity prior to the attack.
Don Bacon , Jun 14, 2019 11:00:19 AM | 251
from LongWarJournal
Yemen's Houthis target Saudi airports
Over the span of 24 hours, Yemen's Houthi insurgent movement has twice targeted the Abha international airport with missiles and suicide drones.
At least 26 people were wounded on Wednesday after the Houthis launched a cruise missile at the Abha airport. Video of the bombing released by Saudi Arabia shows the moment the missile struck the airport. The use of a cruise missile on a civilian infrastructure represents a major shift in the war between Saudi Arabia and the Houthi insurgents.
Speaking to the Houthi-ran Al Masirah News, an official spokesman said that the strike came in response to Saudi aggression in Yemen and civilians should avoid "vital and military areas as they have become legitimate targets to us." . . here
james , Jun 14, 2019 11:03:13 AM | 252
@249 don.. i tried it again and it works.. weird... thanks..
Barbarossa , Jun 14, 2019 11:09:24 AM | 253
These tanker attacks have Butthead and Pompusass written all over them. Butthead and Pompusass - meglomania at its finest.
mk , Jun 14, 2019 11:12:47 AM | 254

I've just seen the Navy video. I've got some problems with the shadows. They seem too long.

The incident has supposedly happened at 4 pm local time. The location is almost exactly situated on the Tropic of Cancer, i.e now, Mid June, the sun creates almost vertically shadows at midday. At 4 pm, the angle should still be 60 degree or so. Correspondingly the shadows should still be very short. The shadows in the video to me appear to be created by a 30 degree sun angle at most. This is of course only a preliminary estimation.

Bottom line: The video doesn't match the supposed time and location of the incidence.

Don Bacon , Jun 14, 2019 11:13:12 AM | 255
Trump says tanker attack 'has Iran written all over it' as Tehran denies involvement
"Iran did do it, and you know they did it because you saw the boat" . . here
and here's the boat. High-resolution it ain't.

Also lacking any resolution is what can the US do next, since its options are severely limited.
IMO Iran has the US by the short hairs. In fact Iran may provide an encore,just to rub it in.

Jackrabbit , Jun 14, 2019 11:14:48 AM | 256
Drone-delivered limpet mines?
Arioch , Jun 14, 2019 11:20:38 AM | 257
Correct map links from #206/207 and #227 were:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Iranian_borders_in_Omans_and_Persian_Gulf_(Cro).PNG
http://www.payvand.com/news/16/jan/Farsi-Island-in-Persian-Gulf.jpg

Notice - they end with the file name, not with a folder name ( no "/" slash on the end ).

Dunno how people manage to insert that extra slash to the end.
Without it both links work ok.

Virgile , Jun 14, 2019 11:21:17 AM | 258
After hundred of sanctions on Iran, Trump is now faced with a tough decision.
1- Order military attacks on Iran and start a tit for tat escalation that would to a disaster in the region and hampers Trump re-election
2 Attack Iran's so called proxies: Hezbollah, Houthis, Syria then regional allies of the USA, ie the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Israel will get more of these 'mini attacks' that will disrupt oil supplies and Israel security. These attacks will show the world that Trump's big talk and economical sanctions are totally ineffective

I think that while Iran may not be responsible for the attacks in the Oman Gulf, I am sure that they condone them without hesitation. Who ever is doing it intentionaly or not is giving to Iran a posture that Trump will have to match.

That is why Trump's only choice other than war is to fire Bolton and scapegoat him at the risk of losing the Israeli lobby and the neocons support for his re election.
Yet if he wants to keep the Israeli lobbies support, Trump will need to have Netanyahu re-elected..
That is his only choice
Already foreign medias are demonizing Bolton as a prelude to his firing
Is John Bolton the most dangerous man in the world?

Zanon , Jun 14, 2019 11:22:51 AM | 259
Intersting that the boarding crew on one of the boat were russians, also a puzzle?

Don Bacon

US could of course do anything they want, as they have in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan - you name it.
Next thing could be an explosion on a military US frigate or something similar. We all know who would be blamed and call for US attacks would be real simple.

Don Bacon , Jun 14, 2019 11:25:29 AM | 260
from CDR Salamander
Let's break that in to little bits.
1. No USA ships are involved.
2. No USA citizens are involved.
3. No USA territory or waters are involved.
4. All cargo was headed to Asia.
. . .This. Is. Not. Our. Problem.
What is Norway doing? Japan? They are both our allies, but they have the lead on this - not us.
Who really benefits from this? It isn't Iran. It certainly is not the USA.
Everyone needs to take a powder and take a step back.
This talk of military action this soon is insanity. This is irresponsible. . . here
Jackrabbit , Jun 14, 2019 11:28:20 AM | 261
If drone-delivered: the mines would be heavy so a long-range drone would be needed. However, if the drone took off from a near-by ship then then a less complex drone could be used. But a small ship lacks space for a runway. It would need some sort of launcher/catapult. Oh, here's one .

What ships were in the area?

Zanon , Jun 14, 2019 11:32:59 AM | 262
What is needed now is information what really happend - I dont see any info on what was actually happend but people that call for war.
Was it a mine? Missile? Torped? Grenade? Lets say it was a type of missile that was produced by nation X, who fired it?
Who/what was put there?
Was it an exercise that these ships accidently moved in to? - Was it an accident?
jared , Jun 14, 2019 11:38:34 AM | 263
@Don Bacon

Relates to security of transport through the straight.
If Iran were in fact responsible, would make me question their sanity.
Barring that they are insane, I cannot see how it could be Iran, could be anybody except Iran.
To state the obvious: Look at motive and opportunity.
If Trump were not insane/idiot, he might suggest that there are many with possible motive and that it should be carefully investigated before action or even comment is made - more babies from incubators and dead ducks. How stupid is Trump really.

UFO's Are Real! , Jun 14, 2019 11:41:32 AM | 264
"Our crew said that the ship was attacked by a flying object," Mr. Katada said of the incident on Thursday.

What kind of flying object? Apparently it is as of yet unidentified.

In other words, the NYT is reporting that the operator of the ship is claiming that the ship was hit by a UFO (Unidentified Flying Object.) Whoo, Whoo!

Don Bacon , Jun 14, 2019 11:43:15 AM | 265
Iran tightens the screws....
from TehranTimes
B-Team launching 'sabotage diplomacy' against Iran, Zarif warns
TEHRAN – Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif on Friday accused Washington of jumping "to make allegations against Iran without a shred of factual or circumstantial evidence" as two oil tankers were attacked in the Gulf of Oman on Thursday. . . here
Zanon , Jun 14, 2019 11:44:16 AM | 266
The propaganda war has already been won by the US, it is Iran Iran Iran and the MSM and even some people here talk about Iran having or might have some culpability. Meanwhile NO ONE could show any evidence or reason for the argument.
Think about that, how easily desinformation works and how illogical it really is.
Don Bacon , Jun 14, 2019 11:52:41 AM | 267
@ jr 261
[Drone] would need some sort of launcher/catapult
Couldn't it be a rotary-wing drone like they sell at Verizon?
Oscar Peterson , Jun 14, 2019 11:58:43 AM | 268
@James 239

Murray makes good points--as usual. The bit out the Norwegian tanker's owners having a history of cooperation with the Iranian government is interesting.

@mk 254

The timeline in the CENTCOM release is interesting, claiming that the alleged IRGC craft arrived at the Japanese ship around 0800 but didn't take the "limpet mine" or whatever it was until 1600. If the boat were IRGC and was trying to remove evidence--a command-detonated explosive that failed to explode?--you'd think they would do it immediately. Also, I can't tell what kind of video the released clip is--EO or IR? It doesn't look like EO taken in daylight.


Zanon , Jun 14, 2019 12:01:02 PM | 269
Important comment at Craig Murray's blog:

The american admiral in charge is fanatically anti-iranian:


It is important to realize that Chief of Naval O[erations Admiral John Richardson, a creature of former Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, is taking the lead in this warmongering against Iran.

He and Carter were opposed to the nuclear agreement that the Obama administration worked out with Tehran, and are now working to deneuclarize the Iranian regime.

Richardson had the Navy look allegedly for those two sunk subs found soon after they disappeared, the USS Scorpion and Thresther, when they were actually looking for the USS Batfish and Puffer which were sunk in 1982 in the Anglo-American War against Sweden soon after Ricgardson joined the submarine corps.

He is a full blown warmonger against America's alleged enemies.


https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/06/the-gulf-of-credibility/comment-page-1/#comment-874155
jared , Jun 14, 2019 12:03:46 PM | 270
I am surprised to see some posters and Bevin proposing that maybe it was Iran, at this point.
Seems premature. Though it is possible, barring substantial evidence, it would be my starting point that that is the least likely scenario.
And the jump to conclusion (as by Trump et al) suggests bias or motive.
Jackrabbit , Jun 14, 2019 12:04:09 PM | 271
There are also helicopter drones .

Here's another catapult drone and this video also shows drone recovery via wire from a mast .

Distance to target would be reduced by heavy mines but using multiple drones would help with that problem.

<> <> <> <> <> <>

It's not just the drone tech that's important. If you're going to do a 'op' like this where you want guaranteed non-attribution, then you've got to have the tech well tested and very reliable. A drone failure or mission foul-up could be devastating.

So, its not an off-the shelf drone and it's a hand-picked crew that has been trained on such a mission over months and it's "off the books" and it's carried out by an organization that can ensure secrecy (implying intelligence organization). Thus, a "state actor".

Don Bacon , Jun 14, 2019 12:06:28 PM | 272
I think that concluding now that Iran didn't do it is a mistake.
> We don't know who did it.
> Tehran clearly indicated it had enough of the US aggressive baseless sanctions, and would do something.
> Tehran is controlling the discourse ("lack of evidence," etc).
> US (AKA world-power) choices are extremely limited; Iran's aren't.
jared , Jun 14, 2019 12:07:34 PM | 273
OT: Excellent posting by (in my layman's opinion) excellent site for info and comment and excellent author:
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2019/06/01/brainwashing-in-action-pence-hails-virtue-of-certain-war/
h , Jun 14, 2019 12:10:52 PM | 274
Man, people still don't get Trump's voters.

Virgil suggests above that Trump's only choices to deal with this incident is to start a war or fire Bolton. He goes onto suggest if Trump fired Bolton he'd lose the neocon vote and Israel's support.

WRONG. Please go to conservative sites. Any of them. During the primaries and campaign. Read and learn for yourself what the conservative voter was demanding of the nominee in comment sections. Please. Folks make these declarations that are not true. Trump voters do not want war. Trump voters do not want regime changes. And Trump voters are as suspicious if not more so of Bolton than many here are.

Neocons aka Never Trumpers after the campaign took their toys and left the right side of the aisle. They embraced their kissing cousins the neo libs who own the Dem Party. Conservatives loathe the neocons. The neocons loathe conservatives.

Only warmongers and its profiteers want war - NeoCons and NeoLibs. The rest of us Americans - right, left, middle, indy, green whatever DO NOT WANT WAR WITH ANY DAMNED BODY.

Don Bacon , Jun 14, 2019 12:12:11 PM | 275
@ Zanon 269
The american admiral in charge is fanatically anti-iranian:
The CNO has no authority over naval operations, that takes place in the combat commands, CENTCOM (Tampa) in this case.
jared , Jun 14, 2019 12:13:48 PM | 276
More on topic:
Voice of reason (nails it as usual)-
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/06/14/seven-reasons-to-be-highly-skeptical-of-the-gulf-of-oman-incident/
librul , Jun 14, 2019 12:17:30 PM | 277
@various

Isn't it amazing how the Enemy-of-the-day always does exactly what you want it to do when you want it to?

that about sums it up

Don Bacon , Jun 14, 2019 12:19:18 PM | 278
Johstone linked @ 276
". . .the US has been provoking Iran with extremely aggressive and steadily tightening sanctions, which means that even if Tehran is behind the attacks, it would not be the aggressor and the attacks would most certainly not have been "unprovoked". Economic sanctions are an act of war; if China were to do to America's economy what America is doing to Iran's, the US would be in a hot war with China immediately. It could technically be possible that Iran is pushing back on US aggressions and provocations, albeit in a strange and neoconservatively convenient fashion."
Don Bacon , Jun 14, 2019 12:19:50 PM | 279
sorry, Johnstone
jared , Jun 14, 2019 12:20:32 PM | 280
@h

Excellent comment.
But neocons and zionists are taking over the Trump agenda.
Trump supporters are becoming confused about what they support - they support Trump so they are increasingly defending this ziocon crap.

But your point is I think very excellent, the public (and Trumps original supporters in particular) does not want war (with the exception of some religious kooks, perhaps).

jared , Jun 14, 2019 12:23:05 PM | 281
@Don Bacon

Yes, it is possible.
But why would that be important to note, at this point?
Many things are possible.

Don Bacon , Jun 14, 2019 12:26:40 PM | 282
Neocons aren't solely responsible for anything, but depended upon support form "liberals" AKA neo-libs for the various mistaken wars. That includes people like: Gore, Biden, Obama, and the Clintons.
Trump is anti-establishment for the most part so that is a good thing, in regard to Russia for one specific thing, but nothing in life is perfect.
Don Bacon , Jun 14, 2019 12:29:02 PM | 283
@ jared 281
What are you talking about?
Zanon , Jun 14, 2019 12:32:15 PM | 284
Don Bacon

Trump has been as bad on Russia as the "establishment" - perhaps even worse, its a myth that Trump appease Russia.

Jackrabbit , Jun 14, 2019 12:33:48 PM | 285
I would remind everyone that the greatest pressure against US+allies strategy of economic strangulation of Iran and Syria is the current operation to retake Idlib.

Yesterday's attacks against shipping will almost certainly be used as an excuse to increase US troop levels and/or act belligerently in defense of their "interests" such as retaining Idlib.

From SST (see link provided by james @245):

As for what the US might do about it, the New York Times reports that yesterday morning, after the news of the attack began to break, there was a previously scheduled meeting in "the Tank" at the Pentagon, involving Shanahan, Dunford and other top officials to discuss threats in the Middle East and US troop levels. The Times reports that weeks prior Centcom chief Gen. McKenzie had actually asked for 20,000 troops but that Dunford expressed the fear that if that many were ordered to the Gulf, it would be provocative "and perhaps a sign that, despite denials, the Trump administration's real goal was regime change." [Note: 1,500 troops were reported to have been approved] Prior to yesterday's meeting Shanahan and Dunford were ready to make the case that Mr. Trump had told the Pentagon to reduce American forces and United States involvement in the current wars in the Middle East, and avoid direct confrontation with Iran ...
Don Bacon , Jun 14, 2019 12:37:38 PM | 286
Now Tehran has the option to say to the US: Drop those thirteen demands and we'll talk.
It has other options also, now that the air has been cleared a bit.
Khamenei will have to approve whatever it is, and he's a realist
Peter AU 1 , Jun 14, 2019 12:39:52 PM | 287
https://www.bs-shipmanagement.com/en/media/emergency-response
14 June 2019
Media Statement
"Update - Kokuka Courageous incident – Gulf of Oman
The Bernhard Schulte Shipmanagement (BSM) managed product carrier Kokuka Courageous is now safely undertow in the Gulf of Oman heading towards Kalba Anchorage, UAE....

...The vessel was about 70 nautical miles from Fujairah and about 16 nautical miles from the coast of Iran
BSM is actively monitoring the situation in the Gulf of Oman and will issue another statement when we have further details."
....

A search of the internet brings up no photos whatsoever of this ship under tow or at any time after it was attacked... apart from the microsoft paint job. I guess the damage does not match the US narrative.

karlof1 , Jun 14, 2019 12:40:46 PM | 288
Seriously, a drone attaching a limpet mine?! Please use your brains before proposing something that ludicrous!

Why not look at what occurred in the Brent Oil Market for drones instead. This chart shows trading volume and price before and after event. What you see is a massive shorting followed by covering, followed by another short play, then further covering. Some entity(ies) made a lot of money with their prior knowledge of the event. The tankers didn't need to be sunk to drive that play; just a little Flare to provide visibility. How do I know what's depicted by the chart is shorting followed by covering? I've seen such behavior a great number of times before, particularly in the run-up to the massive financial takedown in 2007-8 when many mortgage writing firms were shorted massively so they could be bought-up for next to nothing. Such behavior has CIA/Mossad stamped all over it, which is what I thought to begin with.

Zack , Jun 14, 2019 12:41:54 PM | 289
Politico: Trump points the finger at Iran for oil tanker attacks

Pompeo:

Well, Iran did do it. You know they did it, because you saw the boat, I guess one of the mines didn't explode and it's probably got, essentially, Iran written all over it," he said. "And you saw the boat at night trying to take the mine off , and successfully took the mine off the boat and that was exposed. And that was their boat, that was them. And they didn't want the evidence left behind.

Trump:

While Trump added that Iran must not have known the U.S. has nighttime surveillance capabilities , a timeline from U.S. Central Command accompanying the video's release indicates the apparent mine removal happened in broad daylight , which would make the operation even more brazen."

Hmmmm........

These attacks could have only been the work of a sophisticated nation state actor. Specifically a sophisticated nation state actor that does not know that the US has "nighttime surveillance capabilities".

The US has officially jumped the shark.

Don Bacon , Jun 14, 2019 12:42:00 PM | 290
@ Zanon 284
Trump has been as bad on Russia as the "establishment"
Not by choice, I believe, and the US president is not a total dictator. Often he must do what he's told, especially when the establishment (especially the "intelligence" community) is out to get him, and they don't take prisoners.
Don Bacon , Jun 14, 2019 12:45:57 PM | 291
@ karlof 288
Seriously, a drone attaching a limpet mine?! Please use your brains ..
Where did you read that?
A reference would be helpful.
Or are you kidding. Must be. So say so?
Don Bacon , Jun 14, 2019 12:48:41 PM | 292
The US has not only lost the narrative, it has royally screwed the pooch, getting in deeper and deeper with its falsehoods. Can a laughing-stock rule the world?
somebody , Jun 14, 2019 12:50:33 PM | 293
Posted by: h | Jun 14, 2019 12:10:52 PM | 274

I agree. Trump can only do this election wise if it is a quick campaign that lets him claim victory fast and does not involve dying US soldiers.

As is, there is a huge problem already for the US to leave Afghanistan.

Saudi might have been crazy enough to do it as they need serious help with the Houthis.
I doubt Israel is interested in a war that might get them into Hezbollah's crosshairs.

I don't think, by the way, that economic problems from the sanctions are forcing Iran, as there is this Chinese - Pakistan - Iran sea route. There is also a connection to Russia via the Caspian . And I don't doubt they have good relations to the -stans.

They simply own one of the most strategic places the world has to offer. With mountains .

And they have something like a 2500 year tradition of empire and strategy .


[Jun 13, 2019] Yet another false flag: Today's Attacks On Ships In The Gulf Of Oman Are Not In Iran's Interest - Or Are They

Notable quotes:
"... Abe will be pissed because Japan needs continuing access to Iran's hydrocarbons and Bolton isn't smart enough to gain their complicity beforehand. ..."
"... At first I had simply typed a one word post: Israel but then thought, "what about Saudi Arabia?", then thought, "Saudi Arabia is known for their incompetence and some-one else would have to step up", then thought, "but Israel would get some-one else to do their dirty work". ..."
"... This is classic USA Gulf of Tonkin, Remember the Maine, WMD, Yellow Cake stuff.... ..."
"... The US threat to bring Iranian oil sales to zero is a act of war, if they were successful, [unlikely] Iran's population would starve and die in their millions, just as in Yemen. ..."
Jun 13, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Dolores P Candyarse , Jun 13, 2019 6:02:02 AM | 2

Bolton's big moment 'the gulf of oman incident' will not work. It is a transperant attempt to stitch up Iran by insinuating that the Houtis did this to stop any deal between Iran and trump which Abe is trying to put together.
They cannot implicate Iran so they will fit up Yemen and then say "Iran encouraged them Mommy".

Abe will be pissed because Japan needs continuing access to Iran's hydrocarbons and Bolton isn't smart enough to gain their complicity beforehand.

librul , Jun 13, 2019 6:05:10 AM | 3

OZ @1

I was just about to post the same "One word" and then spotted your post.

At first I had simply typed a one word post: Israel but then thought, "what about Saudi Arabia?", then thought, "Saudi Arabia is known for their incompetence and some-one else would have to step up", then thought, "but Israel would get some-one else to do their dirty work".

The One we know for sure didn't do it is: Iran. The One group we have been witnessing attacking multiple countries will have their media shout in unison: Iran.

Ghost Ship , Jun 13, 2019 6:15:56 AM | 5
The Guardian goes for the guilt by association shit :
Iran and the Yemeni rebels both follow branches of the Shia sect of Islam but Tehran has always denied providing more than moral support to the rebels.

That's like saying that Northern Irish Catholics and Protestants both follow Christianity.

Meanwhile OT - all that stands between Julian Assange and the wrath of Washington are British and European judges :

The home secretary, Sajid Javid, has revealed he has signed a request for Julian Assange to be extradited to the US where he faces charges of computer hacking.

Speaking on the Today Programme on Thursday, Javid said: "He's rightly behind bars. There's an extradition request from the US that is before the courts tomorrow but yesterday I signed the extradition order and certified it and that will be going in front of the courts tomorrow."

I always thought that Tory ministers were a bunch of sniveling little shits, and they've just proved me right. Don't think it was just Sajid David who made this decision, it was the entire cabinet including Theresa May .

The next time someone farts on about how oppressed the media is in Russia just remember the different outcomes (so far) for Ivan Golunov and Julian Assange. The Russians don't need disinformation operations to discredit western government and institutions, they only have to stand aside and let those western governments and institutions do it themselves.

Michael Droy , Jun 13, 2019 6:33:12 AM | 8
This report: Zerohedge
claims that one of the ships is Japanese owned.
The manager of one of the tankers, the Panama-flagged, Japanese-owned Kokuka Courageous, which had been carrying a cargo of methanol from Saudi Arabia to Singapore, said the vessel had been damaged as the result of "a suspected attack," though the manager added that the ship's cargo was secure.

"The hull has been breached above the water line on the starboard side," Bernhard Schulte GmbH & Co KG said in a statement on its website.

Ironic - it makes direct Iranian involvement pretty unlikely

Ghost Ship , Jun 13, 2019 6:36:30 AM | 9
>>>> librul | Jun 13, 2019 6:05:10 AM | 3
"Saudi Arabia is known for their incompetence and some-one else would have to step up"

Pulease. Every now and then I get the urge to edit the internet and today is one of those days. Hope you don't mind.

"Saudi Arabia and Israel are both known for their incompetence and some-one else would have to step up"

Israel depends for its continued existence on a couple of hundred highly capable pilots some of whom might be American contractors, the rest of the IDF and Mossad are worth less than jack shit.

The UAE is slightly less incompetent than Saudi Arabia or Israel, so why not them. The UAE is part of the anti-Iran coalition of the morons and does have frontage on the Gulf of Oman, so that gives them motive and opportunity. As for means, there are reports the more severely damaged one was hit by a torpedo, and the UAE does have a navy with helicopters.

The Q , Jun 13, 2019 6:44:53 AM | 11
This has dual US/Israeli citizen John Bolton's fingerprints all over it, especially with the rumors of his potential ouster soon forcing him to ramp up his push for an attack on Iran. False flag attempt for sure. The real question is whether the world sees through it.
Yeah, Right , Jun 13, 2019 6:52:20 AM | 15
@3 "then thought, 'Saudi Arabia is known for their incompetence and some-one else would have to step up',"

Well, heck, there are signs of incompetence here. One of the ships caught fire and will, in all likelihood, sink. The other, apparently, has not caught fire. That second ship is therefore going to be studied verrrrrry carefully.

If it took a torpedo hit then the damage will be below the waterline and the hull plates will be bent inwards.

If it is sabotage then the damage is more likely to be above the waterline and the hull plates will be bent outwards.

It is unlikely to be Iran if the damage indicates the latter rather than the former.

Yeah, Right , Jun 13, 2019 7:11:55 AM | 17
@11 The Q "This has dual US/Israeli citizen John Bolton's fingerprints all over it,"

I have two comments on that.

1) Is Bolton an Israeli citizen? I've heard it repeated many times, without ever once having it confirmed by anything other than the rumour-mill. He is the wrong religion, for one thing.

2) According to the NYTimes (aka the paper of record) "On a visit to the U.A.E. about two weeks ago, John Bolton, President Trump's national security adviser, said ".... I don't really give a s**t what Bolton has to say, since it is almost certain to be a falsehood."

But he was chin-wagging with UAE officials "about" two weeks ago, which is more than enough time to gin up a false-flag operation.

Yeah, Right , Jun 13, 2019 7:32:36 AM | 20
From the zerohedge article: "Another tanker, Norwegian-owned and Marshall Islands-flagged Front Altair, sent a distress signal to the UAE port of Fujairah. It had loaded an oil shipment in Abu Dhabi not long before the incident. The ship was reportedly hit with three explosions. Officials said it appeared the ships had been attacked with torpedoes."

Bullllllllls**t.

This is what happens when a ship with a 12-inch armoured belt and anti-torpedo bulges is hit by three torpedoes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HMS_Barham_explodes.jpg

Yet zerohedge expects us to accept that a fully-laden supertanker can be hit by three torpedoes and the result is this:
https://www.moonofalabama.org/images8/frontaltair3.jpg

Yeah, Right , Jun 13, 2019 7:47:32 AM | 23
@18 b The key will be where the damage is: above the waterline, or below the waterline.

If Iran specifically targeted those two ships then we can rule out mines, unless it is limpet-mines attached while the ships were in harbour. But these ships were underway, which tends to make that unlikely, and were from different harbours, which makes it even more unlikely.

Torpedoes from a midget-submarine are still a possibility, but by definition the damage would be below the waterline. And the Iranian midget-subs have only two torpedoes, which means some mighty fine shootin'

Any indication of damage above the waterline would tend to rule out Iranian involvement. Certainly would rule out anti-ship missiles or shelling. And Iranian sabotage would mean they circumvented security in both the UAE and Saudi Arabia, which is doubly-difficult.

But a false-flag? That's another matter, as the UAE and the Saudis can both be in on it.

Damage below the waterline could be Iran, or a competent false-flag. Damage above the waterline suggests an incompetent false-flag.

ken , Jun 13, 2019 8:02:28 AM | 25
This is classic USA Gulf of Tonkin, Remember the Maine, WMD, Yellow Cake stuff....

If in fact Iran is the culprit then they have been forced into it and the blame again rests upon the USA.

Another war,,, just what we (USA) need. sigh.........

Harry Law , Jun 13, 2019 8:20:21 AM | 30
The US threat to bring Iranian oil sales to zero is a act of war, if they were successful, [unlikely] Iran's population would starve and die in their millions, just as in Yemen. In those circumstances Iran does have the right to say 'if we can't sell oil, our putative enemies Saudi Arabia, UAE et al will not be allowed to either. In those circumstances the Iranians should quietly arm any group wishing the Saudis harm, the Saudis are a bunch of US ass licking scumbags who deserve everything coming to them.
Ian Jonhson , Jun 13, 2019 8:27:21 AM | 33
I copied and pasted this very interesting comment below which was found on the Iranian News site 'Press TV'.

"The 'Rumours from the Dark Web team' (a Russian based group recently shut down on youtube and delisted on google) are reporting that prior to this incident they have heard chatter that there was more 'UUV activity in area than usual' (a UUV is an unmanned underwater vehicle / drone which can be used for exploration, spying, or for combat).

The team also mentioned that UUV's from various nations (including arms and drug smugglers) had been regularly entering and leaving the area under cover of hiding beneath tankers or sometimes actually attached to tankers.

Chatter suggests that a UUV or weaponised drone or smugglers drone of some description exploded or was taken out by another UUV or drone outside the Persian Gulf.

The team stressed that 'this incident occurred outside of the Persian Gulf for a specific reason' (not given).

The team also reminded people that several tankers had previously been armed with ATGM's of soviet era type for potential use in a planned false flag attack against a US warship, but they had already been taken out of service to prevent this (is this the previous tanker incident involving mines?).

The team suggested that it was possible that these tankers were again pre-emptively hit by a state actor to prevent another false flag involving them, or to simply destroy advanced Iranian or Saudi missiles and arms on route to Yemen or Syria.

The full report is not out yet but there is no mention on the Dark Web of Iran being responsible for this yet."

naiverealist , Jun 13, 2019 8:28:40 AM | 34
Don't rule out the MEK assistance in something like this. The MEK was formerly ruled a terrorist organization by the US. As soon as the US started using Jihadists (i. e. al-quada branches) to continue its battle against the government of Assad, the MEK were reclassified as a non-terrorist organization. I remember hearing reports about members of MEK trying to buy the sae fast boats used by the IRG.

This whole thing stinks.

Walter , Jun 13, 2019 8:39:30 AM | 36
"Naphtha" can be of various levels of volatility - from lighter fluid to more or less raw gasoline. Withal it is lighter than water, more or less. Methanol (CH3OH) is the simplest alcohol. It too is lighter than water.

It does not seem that tanker with either fluid can sink. They can burn quite well, however.

Insurance rates are going up...

Walter , Jun 13, 2019 9:02:36 AM | 38
Tankers are notoriously difficult to sink. Modern tankers are double bottom double hull, generally speaking. Yes indeed, a supertanker (these just now are small tankers not supertankers, but the facts are similar), can probably "take" three torpedoes and not sink, especially if loaded with fluid lighter than seawater.

The attacks seem to have been by flying objects, not torps.

The result is going to be something like escorts and vastly high insurance costs...jus'fer starters...

Walter , Jun 13, 2019 9:02:36 AM | 38 Walter , Jun 13, 2019 9:09:40 AM | 39
Assumption about plates bending in or out due to torps is not valid. Torps can detonate under ship, or inside it, or on contact. The under ship detonation breaks the ship in half. This was a big deal in 1940...

Again, flying object, not torp.

Circe , Jun 13, 2019 9:17:37 AM | 40
Thank-you for helping Trump with his dirty work! Honestly, do you think your article helps Iran in any way???

Do you have concrete proof? NO. Iran threatened many things in the past it never followed through on. Why don't you just apply for a job with Trump Ministry of Propaganda digging for dubious dirt Trump can tweet and act on?

Why didn't you just write that Iran has a right to defend itself? Why do you put statements in bold? How about putting up a billboard instead?

Speaking of billboard: The keyword here is "petrochemical". In quotes too!

Followed by your smoking torpedo:

Now we can apply the keyword Khamenei used today to these sentences:

What lying-ass Trump is doing is an ACT OF WAR. He is trying to destroy a sovereign nation!

U.S. President Trump tries to move Iran towards negotiations with him.

REALLY? You call an ACT OF WAR ne go tia tions ? Is cutting off a critical industry negotiation or mafia strongarm???

Then you follow up with: Even while Iran rejects negotiations with the U.S.

Good Trump wants to negotiate--baaad Iran doesn't.

Yeah-yeah you couched this hit-job in a couple of understated phrases like someone else might have initiated it and Iran has no interest in disturbing current diplomacy . But boy, you sure went out of your way to try to disprove it!

If Trump cut off Russia's oil industry, would you be so quick to provide him with unsubstantiated proof in bold of acts that could be JUSTIFIED even though TOTALLY UNPROVEN who committed them? Never mind, Russia wouldn't bother picking up the crew of whatever vessels it would blow sky high in retaliation AND NEITHER WOULD TRUMP, Commander-in-crime!

Yeah, you allude that it could be a false flag after you torpedo'd it in bold lettering!

Wow! Still carrying Emperor Trump's water here, I see. There is NOTHING redeeming in this tool expose, or the update that is merely a twist of the knife. Neocon Bolton is grinning all his yellow teeth under his bushy mustache: he couldn't have laid it out better himself! Hired!

So, what's next: yellow cake and aluminum tubes?

Such a gift at the service of Trump deception and destruction for total domination. I'm appalled. All this misguided effort to whitewash Trump that could be directed at Sanders who is trying to expose the Regime Change that Zionists had a hand in in Brazil.

Not a bad word about Trump in all this. Trump tries to negotiate...Is that what you call what he's doing? I call what he's doing casus belli, on second thought, this piece might be the casus belli Trump needs to carry out his plan for Iran in the next 4-year installment of high crimes. Ugh.

Hoarsewhisperer , Jun 13, 2019 9:21:53 AM | 41
This is my favourite part of the story...

"The Iranian Search and Rescue ship Naji picked up the 44 crews members of both ships and brought them to Bandar-E Jash."

Therefore, the potential witnesses are in Iranian custody, and can be interrogated at Iran's leisure. One wonders if Iran's accusers will tone down the rhetoric whilst the crew remain in Skripal-type custody, and whether Iran will delay their release until Iranian authorities and medical experts are confidant that their health is A-OK?

Jackrabbit , Jun 13, 2019 9:27:38 AM | 42
b: Iran might have this motive

b's argument for suspecting Iran involvement makes some sense because USA can just sit back and let sanctions take their toll, strangling Iran's economy and destabilizing the country.

Recall the oil sanctions against Japan in the 1040's. Ultimately, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.

HOWEVER , USA+allies have a very real and pressing reason to ramp up tensions in the region: Idlib .

The war in Syria is NOT over. The Idlib occupation is strategic, not tactical (as are the other occupations in Syria). And a US response to the tanker attack might well be to show its strength elsewhere: Idlib.

If I'm right we will see some dramatic developments in Syria in the coming days.

Hoarsewhisperer , Jun 13, 2019 9:31:35 AM | 43
It's interesting that Iran was more concerned with the welfare of the crew of both ships than the perpetrators of the attacks...
Lysander , Jun 13, 2019 9:40:57 AM | 44
I'm not ready to say Iran did it, but will say that,

1) Iran has every right to hinder as much as possible the exports of KSA and UAE, since they are the second biggest instigators (after Israel) of hostility towards Iran.

2) If Abe is acting as Trump's pawn and not an honest mediator, then to hell with him. And it wouldn't be crazy for Iran to let him know they are completely unimpressed with his false mediation.

3) It would really be ironic if the world has suffered so much false flag fatigue that the very few times something isn't a false flag, the intended audience assumes that it is.

That said, I do not believe Iran did this. I do think it is a false flag and the authors of it are too tone deaf to realize people don't trust them anymore.

Jackrabbit , Jun 13, 2019 9:48:18 AM | 45
Circe

I agree that USA/Trump is not really interested in negotiation but only in the appearance of seeking peace.

b's belief that "... Trump tries to move Iran towards negotiations with him" doesn't adequately express the reality: USA/Trump offers to negotiate with 'no preconditions' after previously establishing the conditions required to force Iran's surrender (the oil embargo). Naturally, Iran's most important "pre-condition" for talks is for USA to release it's hostage (the Iranian economy).

Lysander , Jun 13, 2019 9:48:55 AM | 46
Forgot to add to my comment in 50, that it would be extremely easy for UAE and KSA to sabotage their own ships, since they would only have to pass through their own security, not penetrate someone else's. And they are exactly the types who would want to implicate Iran and also the ones to dumb to realize false flags aren't automatically believed anymore.
Michael Droy , Jun 13, 2019 9:58:12 AM | 47
Oil prices have barely moved - they have not even recovered yesterday's fall.Still well below levels of Mon/Tues
That is weird.
Don Wiscacho , Jun 13, 2019 10:00:05 AM | 48
Japan's PM is in Tehran for talks. This is by itself unusual. Then two tankers ultimately owned by Japan are attacked in the Gulf. Very unusual.
Bad timing wouldn't begin to describe this if Iran was to blame. They normally are quite cautious with international relations, especially with countries they are trying to woo away from ther US.
Just this would point to a false flag in my book.
But what else hit the news cycle in the last 24 hours? Britain relishes in its poodle status as it signs extradition order for Assange. Should be big news, but who cares about press freedom when we've got "a new Middle eastern war?"
What else? Turkish observation posts in Idlib come under attack and they reportedly call the coordinates in to the Russians to bomb them. Again, should be tectonic news, but "war war war!".
There is simply a snowball's chance in Trump's asscrack that Iran attacked those tankers.
somebody , Jun 13, 2019 10:02:56 AM | 49
It is the art of the deal :-))

Trump/Bolton/whatever_moron has now created a situation where US proxies (plus anybody depending on oil from the Strait of Hormuz) urgently need an agreement with Iran, whilst an isolationist US do not need this.

US proxies will now have to bribe Trump to have him step down from the brink or jump the fence.

In other news Houthis have taken positions in Saudi's Najran and bombed a Saudi airport.

Jackrabbit , Jun 13, 2019 10:36:34 AM | 53
I agree with those that have pointed out that attacking Japanese vessels while talking with the Japanese PM is nonsensical. Any country that does such a thing is acting against their own interest.

If Iran wants to "send a message", it's likely that they can do so without shooting themselves in the foot.

The attack pressures Iran, but IMO it ALSO offers an excuse for USA to stall/stop the SAA+Russia attack on Idlib by claiming to confront Iranian proxies.

Jackrabbit , Jun 13, 2019 10:41:34 AM | 54
CardD @52

Yeah. The first attacks seemed too minor to be a "message" but are a great backdrop (for propaganda purposes) to the attacks today which nonsensically occur while meeting with the Japanese PM.

[Jun 05, 2019] 'First bullet' fired in the Gulf will make oil prices jump above $100 Tehran

Jun 05, 2019 | www.rt.com

A full-fledged war with Tehran will tank the US economy because the fighting will immediately make the price of oil skyrocket, an adviser to Iran's supreme leader warned. US leaders will not go to war against Tehran if they care for the economic wellbeing of their country, Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi, aide and adviser to Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, told Fars News Agency.

The first bullet fired in the Persian Gulf will push the oil prices well above $100. It will be unbearable for the US and Europe, as well as American allies like Japan and South Korea.

Safavi, who has led the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in the past, stated that Washington prefers to wage "economic and psychological war" against the nation. The US knows there will be "significant costs" should a full-fledged conflict erupt, he said.

Also on rt.com 'Your forces will be exterminated!' Hezbollah warns US, Israel & Saudi Arabia not to attack Iran

The Pentagon had earlier announced plans to deploy marines and Patriot air defense missile systems to join an aircraft carrier strike group operating near the Persian Gulf. Officials in Tehran have been downplaying the military buildup by the US near its borders but vowed to strike back if attacked.

Last month, Iran partially suspended its commitments under the 2015 deal on its nuclear programs, known as the JCPOA. The step followed several rounds of sanctions reimposed on Iran by the US which withdrew from the agreement a year ago.

[Jun 05, 2019] Does Iran's Economic Fate Depend on a Lifeline From China?

Jun 05, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Posted on May 30, 2019 by Yves Smith Yves here. I don't know enough about the structure of the Iranian economy to assess whether oil export revenue is as critical as this article suggests. Iran clearly needs foreign currency (exports) to buy imports like pharmaceuticals and any critical materials and products they don't produce domestically like chips.

I was under the impression that Iran had become pretty autarchical due to having been under sanctions for so long. But it may still have enough import dependence to prevent it from simply net spending. If the sanctions have indeed meaningfully reduced domestic productive capacity, "printing" would produce inflation pronto. The Western press says yes. However an academic who visited the country in the last year (but before the latest round) said they didn't see any signs of distress during several weeks there when he went about freely (and this individual spends most of his time in developing economies).

By Vijay Prashad, an Indian historian, editor and journalist. He is a writing fellow and chief correspondent at Globetrotter , a project of the Independent Media Institute. He is the chief editor of LeftWord Books and the director of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research. He has written more than twenty books, including The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World (The New Press, 2007), The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South (Verso, 2013), The Death of the Nation and the Future of the Arab Revolution (University of California Press, 2016) and Red Star Over the Third World (LeftWord, 2017) . He writes regularly for Frontline, the Hindu, Newsclick, AlterNet and BirGün. Produced by Globetrotter , a project of the Independent Media Institute

It's hard to predict what will happen in the oil market as the U.S. sanctions on Iran tighten. For now, it looks like India, Japan, South Korea and Turkey will hold off from buying Iranian oil. These countries -- with China -- had been the main sources of Iran's foreign exchange. It is unlikely -- at the present time -- that India, Japan, South Korea and Turkey will break the U.S. siege on Iran. They have made it clear that they do not want to rattle the U.S. cage. Request for new waivers from the U.S. came to naught. India's government had said that it would reassess the purchases of cheap Iranian oil after the elections. It is likely that India will restart some buys, but certainly not enough to prevent economic collapse in Iran.

As the May deadline for the U.S. sanctions loomed, these countries bought vast amounts of oil from Iran to create their own buffer stocks. Revenues from the export of oil reached $50 billion for the Iranian financial year of 2018-19 (ending March 20). The oil sector contributed to 70 percent of Iran's exports. This income is essential for running Iran's government and paying its 4.6 million employees. The cost of the government is roughly $24 billion. With the collapse of sales to India, Japan, South Korea and Turkey, Iran will have a very difficult time raising revenues to maintain its economy. The National Development Fund and the hard currency reserves have already begun to be depleted, with dollar holdings now in the tens of billions.

New Silk Road

Tehran has long been hoped that China would continue to buy Iranian oil and prevent the meltdown of Iran's economy and its government. There are two reasons why China would want to ignore U.S. sanctions and continue to buy Iranian oil. The first has to do with the fact that Iran's oil is cheap and of a quality that Chinese refiners prefer. The second has to do with Iran's crucial location along the line of China's Belt and Road as well as its String of Pearls initiatives. Chaos in Iran or a government in Tehran that is pliant to the United States would be unacceptable to Beijing. Roads, trains and pipelines -- the infrastructure of the Belt and Road Initiative -- are to run from the Chinese territory through Central Asia into Iran and then outward toward West Asia and -- via Turkey -- into Europe. Iran's centrality to this project should not be underestimated.

In the first few months of 2019, China bought about half of Iran's crude oil exports. It has become a crucial pillar for Iran, whose diplomats say quite openly that if China no longer buys Iran's oil or invests in Iran, the problems for the country will be grave. Massive oil buys from China in the weeks leading to the end of the U.S. waivers are, however, no indication of the continuation of this relationship. Chinese oil companies put in large orders to stockpile oil in anticipation of the cuts. Oil analysts suggest that the two major Chinese oil importers -- China Petrochemical Corporation (Sinopec) and China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) have not put in any buys since the U.S. waivers expired.

Why China Is Not Buying Iranian Oil

China -- the world's fastest-growing consumer of oil -- continues to buy oil from the United States -- the world's fastest-growing producer of oil. These two countries are locked in a trade war, with tariffs rising on a raft of products from steel to soybeans. China has not placed any tariffs on U.S. crude oil imports, but it has reduced its purchases of U.S. oil by 80 percent. Despite China's withdrawal from the U.S. oil market, it has not closed the door on future purchases. Meanwhile, China has increased its oil purchases from Saudi Arabia by 43 percent in April. There is every indication that China will continue to increase its buys from the kingdom during the course of this year -- to substitute for Iranian oil and, perhaps, for U.S. oil. China has also been slowly increasing its natural gas imports from Australia, a tendency that is expected to rise.

New surveillance technology of tankers, low oil prices and more constraints on settling bills have made it difficult to smuggle oil out of Iran. Last year, smuggled oil out of Iran totaled a minuscule 0.3 million barrels per day. This is not enough to compensate for the oil purchases stopped by East and South Asian countries. U.S. sanctions, in this climate, have made tanker owners and insurers skittish about carrying Iranian oil.

Chinese firms are susceptible to this pressure. Nonetheless, the Liberian-flagged tanker Pacific Bravo is said to have loaded Iranian oil after the expiry of the waiver and is making its way to China. As of this writing, the tanker is off the coast of Sri Lanka. When it arrives in China and offloads its cargo, how will the U.S. respond?

Iran-Iraq-Syria

Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif was in Baghdad on May 26. He met with Iraq's Foreign Minister Mohamed al-Hakim, who said that Iraq's government does not believe that the "economic blockade" -- namely the U.S. sanctions -- was good for the region. "We stand with Iran in its position," Hakim said.

Earlier in May, Iraq's Oil Minister Thamer Gadhba said that his country would continue to buy Iran's natural gas -- essential for Iraq's electricity grid. This was despite U.S. pressure to cut natural gas purchases from Iran and to substitute this through a $14 billion deal with U.S. energy firms (including General Electric). Indications show that Iraq will not bend to U.S. pressure at this time. Nor will Iraq block Iranian oil from going to Syria by truck -- an energy source that is essential to Syria.

China's Shield

U.S. troops continue to arrive in the Gulf region, threatening Iran. Zarif and al-Hakim jointly said that this is a dangerous development. Pressure on Iran increases daily.

China has made it clear that it could buy Iranian oil if it can pay in yuan or euros, but it does not want to make Iran part of its dispute with the United States. The appetite to bring Iran onto the bargaining table with the United States does not exist in Beijing. Nor is Beijing willing to provide Iran with a protective shield.

But there are pressures on China not to ignore its own interests in the region. China built a large port in Gwadar, Pakistan, which was intended to circumvent the long transit of goods (and oil) from the Gulf through the Straits of Malacca to the South China Sea. But there are tensions here, as Baloch Liberation Army attacks mount on Chinese targets. One hundred and fifty kilometers west of Gwadar is the Iranian port of Chabahar, developed with Indian assistance. The United States -- at a request from the Afghan government -- has turned the other way to continued Indian involvement in that port, which includes transportation lines to the Afghan border through Iran. Iran has signaled that it would be interested in giving China a role in this port if India begins to drift away.

China has increased its engagement in West Asia, but not to the point of getting sucked into a conflict that it sees as unfortunate. What this means is that Iran cannot rely fully on China. And yet, China is the only antidote to the U.S. suffocation of Iran.

Global oil production is high, as are oil inventories. Oil prices, consequently, are low and will likely be lowered by reduced global demand. Projected low oil prices should raise more alarms in Tehran, since Iranian external revenues will decline and so too will its importance to Chinese importers. The only reason for China to throw a shield around Iran is to protect the Belt and Road Initiative. Not for the oil.

PlutoniumKun , May 30, 2019 at 2:58 am

I've no insights into the internal economy of Iran, but i would have assumed that the victory in Syria will take a lot of pressure off – its support for Assad cost Iran many billions in foreign currency which it can now hopefully wind down, especially as it looks like the Chinese and Qatari's will step up in providing recovery aid for Syria.

Another potential major source of revenue is Qatar, which is of course still in conflict with its Gulf neighbours. Qatar shares its vast off-shore gas reserves with Iran with a variety of secret protocols. It would hardly be a surprise if it turned out much of the gas they sell is in fact Iranian. The Saudis are dependent on Qatari gas for their electricity supply, so they could well be inadvertently providing funding for Iran.

But the biggest problem for Iran is surely consistent low oil prices and the fact that their main customers have built up very large stockpiles. Also, low prices for Irans other exports, such as plastics, fertilisers, copper and aluminium can't be helping. I believe climate change might also be impacting on their long term prospects for exporting agricultural produce, especially nuts and fruit. Iran future may be as dependent on avoiding drought as it is on rising oil prices.

Anon , May 30, 2019 at 9:43 am

Qatar does not export natural gas into KSA, however UAE (and Oman) is reliant on Qatari natural gas.
https://www.mei.edu/publications/energy-implications-gulf-crisis

PlutoniumKun , May 30, 2019 at 4:02 pm

Yes, sorry, my mistake, out of date information – KSA used to get natural gas from the South Pars field in Qatar prior to the LNG boom, but is seemingly now self sufficient for electricity generation. I was getting my pipelines mixed up.

Ignacio , May 30, 2019 at 4:34 am

I wonder whether the aggressive stance against Iran has more to do with blocking the Silk Road Initiative rather than just Iran herself and Iran's oil. Probably Xi Jinping feels this and will support Iran, in agreement with Prashad's statement in this sense. I also believe that some EU leaders share this view. Given the importance of Iran this migth result in an acceleration of the development of swift independent payment systems. We will see.

NotTimothyGeithner , May 30, 2019 at 8:40 am

Xi knows the Silk Road importance, and Obama's forgotten Pivot to Asia wasn't a feel good initiative.

I think US foreign policy types are hold deeply racist convictions. Iran is still the target because Iran dumped our man In Tehran. How dare those little people reject a US approved choice? Combined with an expat crowd of SAVAK every bit as deluded as the Cubans who came after the fall of Batista who have it on "good authority" they are about to be returned to power I mean democracy is about to flourish, the usual thugs in Washington have what they need to rant and rave.

As a counter narrative, the problem is Iran is another country I wouldn't normally worry about. I don't have a monthly premium I send to Iran or went to Iran's for school when I was a kid. Naturally only the SAVAK narrative gets pushed. Like anything, my guess is this is a bit of a last hurrah. 1979 was so long ago.

PlutoniumKun , May 30, 2019 at 8:43 am

I think part of the justification for a hardline on Iran is indeed to block the Silk Road initiative, but its a clumsy and stupid one if that's the case. You could argue that a more open Iran, trading freely with Europe and the US on its own terms would be much more cautious about being used as a transit hub for China. But Iran really has very little choice now but to make itself indispensable to China.

From what I understand from the business media, it seems the US really is taking a hard line on the EU's attempt to bypass the Swift system and most European companies are reluctantly falling in line with the sanctions. The EU may be given no choice but to accept the sanctions or overtly challenge them at every level – the latter being unlikely as it would need a unanimity and toughness the EU rarely shows, especially when it comes to the US.

MyLessThanPrimeBeef , May 30, 2019 at 4:28 pm

Xi feels this and will support Iran

The whole New Silk Road involves a lot of nations Xi will have to support, if not all the time, many times in the future.

That will keep Beijing busy could be opportunities to project power, I guess.

Brooklin Bridge , May 30, 2019 at 8:35 am

Interesting how this fits in or contrasts with the recent (and remarkably well written) article on What does it Mean to Live in a Multi Polar World? We May Be About to Find Out. It's clear from China's behavior as described in this present article that the United States still has considerable and, given how much it's been abused, remarkable clout. One can justifiably be boggled that the United States' indiscriminate weaponization of economic sanctions hasn't already exerted a devastating price internationally for US credibility that Trump – setting the world ablaze merely to distract his base and keep the virtually insane thugs in his administration happy – could care less about.

Regardless that Trump is merrily squandering (more blatantly but hardly having a monopoly over recent US Presidents) any residual US credibility in unilateral power being a beneficial force, the suggestion that "Even the historic tendency to focus on state power should be questioned in this moment," from the Multi Polar article, is well couched as a question rather than an assertion.

It seems inconceivable that Trump is aware of it, but his self serving conflagrational antics if they don't set off a major military conflict that could easily spread out of control, may be beneficial in the long run, but we're not there yet.

Mention of Russia and it's reaction is unfortunately missing from the article (or I missed it).

Ignacio , May 30, 2019 at 9:02 am

Yes, Trump looks not aware of much which doesn't fall within his narrow set of interests.Regarding Russia, what I've heard is that it has an ambivalent position. In one side Russia fears the US but in the other side migth somehow fear the increasing power of China. Regarding oil they won't protest high prices if this is a consequence of US politics, but Russia economically depends on Europe so they should be interested on diversification. And Russia's leadership hate climate change initiatives of course. Just to make things clearer hahahahahahah

Brooklin Bridge , May 30, 2019 at 9:48 am

Actually, the points you raise are exactly what would have been interesting to at least touch on in this article.

Re Russia, I suppose this article is more about oil consuming nations than oil producing ones, but since US hegemony and the apparent lack of push back is so intrinsic to the discussion, it would have been helpful to include some mention of Russia.

Also, as I look at it, my point that the US as a nation state still has clout can be turned on it's head and align more with the question mark raised in the Muilti Polar article if one argues that the US instigated conflict with Iran stems more from perceived interests of the oil and fossil fuel industries and that Washington or more specifically puppet Trump, fickle as he is, is simply going along to get along and trying at the same time to use it for his own ends as much as possible.

Ptb , May 30, 2019 at 9:15 am

I've been reading up on the natgas angle (Iran uses its big natgas supply mostly domestically, but this is related)

Pakistan seems willing to block the Iran connection for now – the unfinished Peace pipeline (natgas) is an indicator.

Also in natgas, Asian spot prices collapsed in the past year to the $4 range due to both LNG and pipeline supply racing ahead of demand (import terminals, power plants), and also Japan in the process of reactivating its nuke electric. Asian NG was around $10 when the gold rush started, post Fukushima. This is also part of the story.

At the same time, much seaborne LNG import capacity is being built in SE asia (Japan a big player in development apparently), due in mid 2020s. Together with Chinese and other NG plants being built to displace oil, this is supposed to drive prices to recover and probably overshoot in 4 years or so.

For now, the economic pressure on gas importers is unusually low, and pressure on gas exporters is higher. The US is still basically neutral in net import/export, which is the best way to be. It is not good for Iran, since their natgas export will not be developed until this market phase passes. It does make it harder for US energy exports to work as leverage over importers in general (China, India, Pak.).

Ignacio , May 30, 2019 at 12:30 pm

But the US wants to export " freedom gas "

Ptb , May 30, 2019 at 1:52 pm

Correction- NG plants to displace coal, not oil

RBHoughton , May 30, 2019 at 9:28 pm

I think this author is too influenced by the power of money and neglects the power of nationalism and justice. Hardship brings people together in a delightful way, a shared burden and a real sense of "we are all in this together" – the sense that Cameron tried and failed to activate in UK because society had been destroyed by Thatcher. The Iranian people are strengthened by sanctions. I expect Chinese energy purchases will increase when the railway connection is perfected and shipments are no longer exposed to maritime attack by pirates or governments.

I was glad to see this author characterise the sanctions as a blockade. We need to be straightforward in our terminology and Ron Paul was right to give them their proper name – blockade is an act of war, placing warships off another country's commercial ports to prevent trade in and out. Lat's be frank about that.

Why is the Baluchi Liberation Army focused on attacking China? How does that enhance the prospects of independence for Baluchistan? There has been nothing on this in the western press to my knowledge. It sounds like cover for a gang of crooks. Can anyone help?

[Jun 03, 2019] Bolton Brazenly Lies About Iran Again by DANIEL LARISON

Notable quotes:
"... From what I have read, including excerpts of JCPOA, it seems that Iran's move to restart some low level enrichment is captured in the agreement as something that Iran could do if the other party(ies) are in breach of the agreement. And at this time, the US is not a party any longer and the EU is in breach by stopping any economic intercourse with Iran. ..."
"... This should be reiterated again and again, because just mentioning that Iran unilaterally is starting enrichment puts a target on their back especially in the United States of Amnesia, while they are still just doing only what is prescribed by the JCPOA. ..."
"... Bolton's lying goes with his broad contempt for the American people. He treats us like contemptible sheep, he lies to us, and then he tries to manipulate Trump into sending our sons and daughters to fight wars for his foreign buddies. ..."
"... It is indeed remarkable in a very bad way that Bolton has any credibility to speak on issues. He has a very long track record of lie after lie after lie, going back to the build up for Iraq war. Indeed, he has never acknowledged that Iraq war a monumental tragedy. ..."
May 29, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com

John Bolton repeats one of the Trump administration's biggest and most important lies:

Donald Trump's national security adviser said Wednesday there was "no reason" for Iran to back out of its nuclear deal with world powers other than to seek atomic weapons, a year after the U.S. president unilaterally withdrew America from the accord.

Bolton and other administration officials have promoted the lie that Iran seeks nuclear weapons for months. Unfortunately, members of Congress and the press have largely failed to call out these lies for what they are. There is no evidence to support the administration's claims, and there is overwhelming evidence that they are wrong, but if they can get away with saying these things without being challenged they may not need evidence to get the crisis that Bolton and others like him want.

In this case, the AP story just relays Bolton's false and misleading statements as if they should be taken seriously, and their headline trumpets Bolton's dishonest insinuations as if they were credible. This is an unfortunate case of choosing the sensationalist, eye-catching headline that misinforms the public on a very important issue. Bolton's latest remarks are especially pernicious because they use Iran's modest reactions to Trump administration sanctions as evidence of Iran's imaginary intent to acquire weapons. The U.S. has been trying to push Iran to abandon the deal for more than a year, and at the first sign that Iran begins to reduce its compliance in order to push back against the administration's outrageous economic warfare Bolton tries to misrepresent it as proof that they seek nuclear weapons. Don't fall for it, and don't trust anything Bolton says. Not only does he have a record of distorting and manipulating intelligence to suit his purposes, but his longstanding desire for regime change and his ties to the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK) make him an exceptionally unreliable person when it comes to any and all claims about the Iranian government.

The story provides some context, but still fails to challenge Bolton's assertions:

Bolton said that without more nuclear power plants, it made no sense for Iran to stockpile more low-enriched uranium as it now plans to do. But the U.S. also earlier cut off Iran's ability to sell its uranium to Russia in exchange for unprocessed yellow-cake uranium [bold mine-DK].

Iran has set a July 7 deadline for Europe to offer better terms to the unraveling nuclear deal, otherwise it will resume enrichment closer to weapons level. Bolton declined to say what the U.S. would do in response to that.

"There's no reason for them to do (higher enrichment) unless it is to reduce the breakout time to nuclear weapons," Bolton said.

Earlier this year, the Trump administration ended the sanctions waivers that enabled Iran to ship its excess low-enriched uranium out of the country. They made it practically impossible for Iran to do what they have been reliably doing for years, and now Bolton blames Iran for the consequences of administration actions. The administration has deliberately put Iran in a bind so that they either give up the enrichment that they are entitled to do under the JCPOA or exceed the restrictions on their stockpile so that the U.S. can then accuse them of a violation. Left out in all of this is that the U.S. is no longer a party to the deal and violated all of its commitments more than a year ago. Iran has patiently remained in compliance while the only party to breach the agreement desperately hunts for a pretext to accuse them of some minor infraction.

Iran's record of full compliance with the JCPOA for more than three years hasn't mattered to Bolton and his allies in the slightest, and they have had no problem reneging on U.S. commitments, but now the same ideologues that have wanted to destroy the deal from the start insist on treating the deal's restrictions as sacrosanct. These same people have worked to engineer a situation in which Iran may end up stockpiling more low-enriched uranium than they are supposed to have, and then seize on the situation they created to spread lies about Iran's desire for nukes. It's all so obviously being done in bad faith, but then that is what we have come to expect from Iran hawks and opponents of the nuclear deal. Don't let them get away with it.

The reason that Iran is threatening to enrich its uranium to a higher level is that the U.S. has been relentlessly sanctioning them despite their total compliance with the terms of the JCPOA. The Trump administration has done all it could to deny Iran the benefits of the deal, and then Bolton has the gall to say that they have no other reason to reduce their compliance. Of course Iran does have another reason, and that is to put pressure on the other remaining parties to the deal to find a way to get Iran the benefits it was promised. It is a small step taken in response to the administration's own destructive policy, and it is not evidence of anything else. Iran is not seeking nuclear weapons, and it is grossly irresponsible to treat unfounded administration claims about this as anything other than propaganda and lies.

Kouros, says: May 29, 2019 at 10:58 am

From what I have read, including excerpts of JCPOA, it seems that Iran's move to restart some low level enrichment is captured in the agreement as something that Iran could do if the other party(ies) are in breach of the agreement. And at this time, the US is not a party any longer and the EU is in breach by stopping any economic intercourse with Iran.

This should be reiterated again and again, because just mentioning that Iran unilaterally is starting enrichment puts a target on their back especially in the United States of Amnesia, while they are still just doing only what is prescribed by the JCPOA.

Braced , says: May 29, 2019 at 3:24 pm

Bolton's lying goes with his broad contempt for the American people. He treats us like contemptible sheep, he lies to us, and then he tries to manipulate Trump into sending our sons and daughters to fight wars for his foreign buddies.

Taras 77 , says: May 29, 2019 at 3:56 pm

It is indeed remarkable in a very bad way that Bolton has any credibility to speak on issues. He has a very long track record of lie after lie after lie, going back to the build up for Iraq war. Indeed, he has never acknowledged that Iraq war a monumental tragedy.

I think NK has it right to assert that Bolton is a defective human product.

But there he is stacking intell in trump's ear.

[Jun 03, 2019] Don t Fall for Pompeo s Empty Rhetoric by DANIEL LARISON

Neocon hawks are destroying US economics very effectively by supersizing military expenses and the costs of foreign wars.
Essentially Trump administration is acting in Israeli and Saudi interests in this case
Notable quotes:
"... Like many other phony administration offers to negotiate, Pompeo's proposal doesn't really include anything new or different. The administration is still insisting on the preposterous demands that the Secretary of State delivered last year. That is what Pompeo's "normal nation" reference means. In other words, the administration still expects Iranian capitulation, and they are willing to meet with Iranian officials to accept their surrender. ..."
"... Of course, this would not be a "conversation," which implies give-and-take between equals who speak to each other with respect. This would amount to something much more like a demarche where the U.S. tells Iran what it must do and then expects Iran's representatives to nod in agreement. ..."
"... Pompeo is an Iran hawk, but he is also a yes-man who seeks to curry favor with the president at all times. If he thinks that the president wants him to make diplomatic-sounding noises, he will make those noises, but it doesn't mean very much in terms of the administration's goals and means. ..."
"... Iran hawks are used to feigning interest in diplomacy while doing everything they can to undermine and poison it. As always, judge the administration by what it does and not what it happens to be saying at the moment. As long as the U.S. keeps its illegitimate sanctions in place and continues to make unrealistic and excessive demands, offers to talk are meaningless because the administration has already rendered negotiations useless. ..."
"... Pompeo is an unskilled purveyor of "smoke & mirrors" diplomacy: he thinks the world is unaware that preconditions with Iran have been in place since May 2018 when Trump unilaterally tore up the JCPOA followed by a slew of unprecedented sanctions against the Iranian people. ..."
"... Of course this statement is not for Iran, it is for the U.S. public to make the case for 'we tried' when in actuality, 'we lied'. ..."
Jun 03, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Pompeo made a statement about talks with Iran that is much less meaningful than it seems:

The United States is prepared to engage with Iran without pre-conditions about its nuclear program but needs to see the country behaving like "a normal nation", U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Sunday.

Iran dismissed the offer as "word-play".

Like many other phony administration offers to negotiate, Pompeo's proposal doesn't really include anything new or different. The administration is still insisting on the preposterous demands that the Secretary of State delivered last year. That is what Pompeo's "normal nation" reference means. In other words, the administration still expects Iranian capitulation, and they are willing to meet with Iranian officials to accept their surrender. The report continues:

"We are certainly prepared to have that conversation when the Iranians can prove that they want to behave like a normal nation," he told a joint news conference with his Swiss counterpart Ignazio Cassis.

Of course, this would not be a "conversation," which implies give-and-take between equals who speak to each other with respect. This would amount to something much more like a demarche where the U.S. tells Iran what it must do and then expects Iran's representatives to nod in agreement.

The Iranian government's dismissive response is to be expected. For one thing, the distrust between Washington and Tehran is immense, so Iran's government is bound to view any offer with suspicion. The Iranian government has already explained what the U.S. has to do if they want to talk about anything, and the administration has no intention of doing any of those things. As far as Iran is concerned, their nuclear program isn't up for discussion, so what would be the point of meeting with U.S. officials when the administration remains committed to its outrageous policy of economic warfare and collective punishment?

Pompeo is an Iran hawk, but he is also a yes-man who seeks to curry favor with the president at all times. If he thinks that the president wants him to make diplomatic-sounding noises, he will make those noises, but it doesn't mean very much in terms of the administration's goals and means.

Iran hawks are used to feigning interest in diplomacy while doing everything they can to undermine and poison it. As always, judge the administration by what it does and not what it happens to be saying at the moment. As long as the U.S. keeps its illegitimate sanctions in place and continues to make unrealistic and excessive demands, offers to talk are meaningless because the administration has already rendered negotiations useless.

There is an understandable temptation to seize on comments from administration officials as proof that they are giving up on a destructive and fruitless policy, but until the administration translates its rhetorical gestures into actions we should assume that the policy remains unchanged.

Procivic, says: June 3, 2019 at 2:10 am

Pompeo is an unskilled purveyor of "smoke & mirrors" diplomacy: he thinks the world is unaware that preconditions with Iran have been in place since May 2018 when Trump unilaterally tore up the JCPOA followed by a slew of unprecedented sanctions against the Iranian people.

The exodus of qualified State Department careerists can't be plugged by promoting the likes of Brian Hook.

Christian J Chuba , says: June 3, 2019 at 8:07 am

Of course this statement is not for Iran, it is for the U.S. public to make the case for 'we tried' when in actuality, 'we lied'.

[May 31, 2019] China: the UN Security Council has not imposed any restrictions on the export of petroleum from Iran. Certain countries may impose unilateral sanctions against certain places on the basis of their own considerations. Those sanctions are outside the scope of the UN Security Council sanctions implemented by the HKSAR

May 31, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

William Gruff , May 31, 2019 7:18:06 AM | 62

For those who think China is going to help the American Empire take down Iran and thus wreck their Belt and Road Initiative , please think again: HK ignores US sanctions on Iran as tanker heads east

Western corporate mass media is cherry-picking what China has said: "Restrictions imposed by the UN Security Council on Iran have been fully implemented in the HKSAR under the United Nations Sanctions [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action – Iran] Regulation [Chapter 537BV of the Laws of Hong Kong]."

"Woohoo! China's on our side! They are backing US sanctions!" -gullible American mass media consumer

Fake western "journalists" leave out the very next three sentences: "However, the UN Security Council has not imposed any restrictions on the export of petroleum from Iran. Certain countries may impose unilateral sanctions against certain places on the basis of their own considerations. Those sanctions are outside the scope of the UN Security Council sanctions implemented by the HKSAR."

In other words, "Go f#$k yourselves, you exceptional fools!" , though of course the Chinese are too polite to say that outright.

[May 28, 2019] Pompeo redefined Trumpism as Neoconservatism hijacking Made America great again slogan for the push for regime change in other countries> by William S. Smith

Notable quotes:
"... Brissot's dilemma when facing the French nationalists of his time was precisely the dilemma of contemporary neoconservatives when Donald Trump was elected president. Trump's criticism of the Iraq war and his nationalistic America First rhetoric was a direct repudiation of the central tenet of neoconservatism, the need to spread universal ideals with American military power. Or, as George W. Bush speechified, to seek "the expansion of freedom in all the world." ..."
"... In reaction to Trump's criticisms, some of the less-savvy neoconservatives, such as Max Boot and Bill Kristol, simply went out into the public square and lit themselves on fire in protest. These self-immolating Never Trumpers will likely never wield power again. ..."
"... continue to treat all non-democratic regimes with belligerence, continue to disparage the traditions of all other nations and cultures by asserting American moral superiority -- but adopt and co-opt the language of Trumpian nationalism. ..."
"... Cotton and Pompeo are, after all, good Straussians, admirers of the late political theorist Leo Strauss. They understand that the masses live in dark ignorance and that smart philosophers can manipulate them into supporting universal ideals through the use of cant phrases like "Make America Great Again." ..."
"... Like Brissot, Pompeo accomplished this bait and switch by rewriting history. He argued that the framers of the American Constitution were not skeptical of entangling alliances, standing armies and global commitments; they were actually warlike neoconservative crusaders. ..."
"... Pompeo argued, as forever war: "Conflict is the normative experience for nations." ..."
"... Adams's admonition was to respect other nations. Pompeo turned this upside down by warning other nations to respect us -- or else. ..."
"... He then, like Brissot, laid out the threats and conspiracies that erode "America's power." The only solution to this challenge was to "proudly" associate with "nations that share our principles and are willing to defend them." How about George Washington's warning against permanent alliances? ..."
"... There is here not even a faint resemblance to what Washington actually believed, but Pompeo's ideological hucksterism drew a warm reception from the Claremont audience, composed in part by people considering themselves scholars of 18th-century America. ..."
"... Toward the end of the speech, Pompeo proceeded to redefine the meaning of "America First" to make it agree with a neoconservative agenda. "Here is what this really means," he said. While Trump has expressed no desire to spread the American model, "America is exceptional -- a place and history apart from normal human experience " (emphasis mine) and "among political ideas, there is none better than the American idea." As compared with this metaphysical American Exceptionalism, the cultures, traditions, and political histories of all other nations shrink into illegitimacy and nothingness. ..."
May 28, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Given contemporary events, one of the most interesting figures of the 18th-century French revolutionary period was Jacques-Pierre Brissot, a leader of the Girondins, the neoconservatives of revolutionary France.

Brissot believed that the animating universal ideals of the Revolution had made France, as one of his allies put it, "the foremost people of the universe," not just better than all earthlings, better even than Martians. Yet, despite France's position as the exceptional nation, the Girondins worried that universal ideals were under siege by a complex array of conspiracies hatched by the absolutist powers surrounding France.

The only way to confront these foreign conspiracies, he believed, was preemptive war. Robespierre, who hated Brissot, was skeptical. Robespierre believed that war would strengthen the monarchy, which was wobbly but still intact in 1791, and that foreign adversaries would be formidable military opponents. Robespierre famously quipped: "No one loves armed missionaries." In true neoconservative fashion, Brissot countered that the people of many nations who were longing for liberty, especially the Dutch and Flemish, would welcome France's revolutionary army with open arms. Sound familiar?

But, Brissot had a problem. When he rose to prominence in the Assembly in 1791, the monarchists and other traditionalists still held significant sway, and Louis XVI was still on the throne. How to persuade these traditional French nationalists to launch crusading wars to spread universal ideals when these retrogrades understood the only sound French foreign policy to be one that advanced France's interests, its raison d'état?

Brissot's solution was pure genius: mask wars for French national glory as the ideological crusade for universal liberty. As one scholar put it, Brissot argued that, "patriotic virtue would emanate out of these cosmopolitan ideals and their diffusion, thus allowing France to once again become a 'great nation.'" Brissot co-opted the language of traditional French nationalism paving the way for the Assembly and Louis XVI to embrace war with Austria and Prussia.

Brissot's dilemma when facing the French nationalists of his time was precisely the dilemma of contemporary neoconservatives when Donald Trump was elected president. Trump's criticism of the Iraq war and his nationalistic America First rhetoric was a direct repudiation of the central tenet of neoconservatism, the need to spread universal ideals with American military power. Or, as George W. Bush speechified, to seek "the expansion of freedom in all the world."

In reaction to Trump's criticisms, some of the less-savvy neoconservatives, such as Max Boot and Bill Kristol, simply went out into the public square and lit themselves on fire in protest. These self-immolating Never Trumpers will likely never wield power again.

But the clever neoconservatives, such as Tom Cotton and Mike Pompeo, adopted the Brissot strategy. Continue the military crusade for universal ideals, continue to treat all non-democratic regimes with belligerence, continue to disparage the traditions of all other nations and cultures by asserting American moral superiority -- but adopt and co-opt the language of Trumpian nationalism.

Cotton and Pompeo are, after all, good Straussians, admirers of the late political theorist Leo Strauss. They understand that the masses live in dark ignorance and that smart philosophers can manipulate them into supporting universal ideals through the use of cant phrases like "Make America Great Again."

In Pompeo's May 11 speech at the Claremont Institute, the bastion of the West Coast Straussians, the Brissot strategy was on full display and, understandably, was met with raucous cheering by the neoconservatives in the audience who understood that Pompeo and John Bolton had succeeded in hijacking Trump's foreign policy for neoconservatives, a significant accomplishment. While Trump's rhetoric is still the husk of American foreign policy, when it comes to core principles and political practice, "America First" is out, the " Freedom Agenda " is in. "Getting along" with other nations is out; regime change and belligerence is in.

Like Brissot, Pompeo accomplished this bait and switch by rewriting history. He argued that the framers of the American Constitution were not skeptical of entangling alliances, standing armies and global commitments; they were actually warlike neoconservative crusaders.

He argued that the "foreign policy of the early republic" could be characterized by three words: "realism, restraint, and respect." This is fine as far as it goes, but he then proceeded to define these terms in ways that would have made them unrecognizable to the Framers. Alexander Hamilton defined realism, Pompeo argued, as forever war: "Conflict is the normative experience for nations." Quoting Thomas Jefferson, he defined "restraint" as the willingness to go to war, because "the temper and folly of our enemies may not leave this in our choice." Finally, without a hint of irony as the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier battle group was steaming to the Persian Gulf in search of monsters to destroy, Pompeo quoted John Quincy Adams on the need for respect in international relations. Adams's admonition was to respect other nations. Pompeo turned this upside down by warning other nations to respect us -- or else.

He then, like Brissot, laid out the threats and conspiracies that erode "America's power." The only solution to this challenge was to "proudly" associate with "nations that share our principles and are willing to defend them." How about George Washington's warning against permanent alliances? What Washington really meant in his Farewell Address, Pompeo said, is to have many, many alliances "based on 'policy, humanity and interest.'" If he were president today, Washington would welcome America's alliances with Israel, Australia, India, Japan, and South Korea in order to make certain, for example, that "each Indo-Pacific nation can protect its sovereignty from coercion." Washington was really a neoconservative, you see.

There is here not even a faint resemblance to what Washington actually believed, but Pompeo's ideological hucksterism drew a warm reception from the Claremont audience, composed in part by people considering themselves scholars of 18th-century America.

Pompeo's rhetoric represents the transvaluation of the Framers' foreign policy restraint into those of neoconservatism. It is hard to know if Trump is aware that his foreign policy principles have been hijacked, but given his apparent disdain of intellectual pursuits, the answer is probably in the negative.

Toward the end of the speech, Pompeo proceeded to redefine the meaning of "America First" to make it agree with a neoconservative agenda. "Here is what this really means," he said. While Trump has expressed no desire to spread the American model, "America is exceptional -- a place and history apart from normal human experience " (emphasis mine) and "among political ideas, there is none better than the American idea." As compared with this metaphysical American Exceptionalism, the cultures, traditions, and political histories of all other nations shrink into illegitimacy and nothingness.

George Washington's view of Pompeo's puffed up triumphalism would be that a nation that hubristically pounds its chest and claims exceptional moral purity and righteousness may just be a nation that has lost its virtue. The American Framers were well aware that the great republican experiments in ancient Greece and Rome ended with prideful imperial overreach.

In 1792, when Louis XVI read, "in a flat, faltering voice," the war proclamation against Austria he understood it to be a death sentence for the French monarchy. We should know that if neoconservatives are able actually to carry out the wars that their ideology and will to power suggest, it would be a death sentence for the American republic.

William S. Smith is Research Fellow and Managing Director of the Center for the Study of Statesmanship at The Catholic University of America

[May 27, 2019] The Pathology of John Bolton by Joe Lauria

In short Bolton is a neofascist.
Notable quotes:
"... Most diplomats, officials, and journalists were shocked that Bolton (evading confirmation with a recess appointment) had actually become the U.S. representative, given his long, public disdain for the UN ..."
"... It's been the strategy of Republican administrations to appoint the fiercest critic to head an agency or institution in order to weaken it, perhaps even fatally. ..."
"... Bolton possesses an abiding self-righteousness rooted in what seems a sincere belief in the myth of American greatness, mixed with deep personal failings hidden from public view. ..."
"... It is more than an ideology. It's fanaticism. Bolton believes America is exceptional and indispensible and superior to all other nations and isn't afraid to say so. ..."
"... Bolton's all too willing to make his bullying personal on behalf of the state. He implicitly threatened the children of José Bustani, who Vice President Dick Cheney wanted out of his job as head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons because Bustani had gotten Iraq to agree to join the chemical weapons protocol, thereby making it harder for the U.S. to invade Iraq. ..."
"... We saw a pattern of Mr. Bolton trying to manipulate intelligence to justify his views. If it had happened once, maybe. But it came up multiple times, and always it was the same underlying issue: he would stake out a position, and then, if the intelligence didn't support it, he would try to exaggerate the intelligence and marginalize the officials who had produced it." ..."
"... Bolton is no fan of democracy if things don't go his way. He is a vociferous instigator of the so-far failed U.S. coup in Venezuela and of course Bolton organized the "Brooks Brothers riot" that disrupted the recounting of votes in Florida in the disputed 2000 presidential election ..."
"... This is a common ruling class tactic in the U.S. to portray disobedient leaders ripe for overthrow as Hitler. Saddam was Hitler, Milosevic was Hitler, Noriega was Hitler and Hillary Clinton called Putin Hitler. It is a false revival of U.S. glory from World War II to paint foreign adventures as moral crusades, rather than naked aggression in pursuit of profits and power. ..."
"... Bolton is the distillation of the pathology of American power. He is unique only in the purity of this pathology. ..."
"... Two months after Bolton was appointed national security adviser, in June 2018, Trump pulled the U.S. out of the six-nation deal that has seen Tehran curtail its nuclear enrichment program in exchange for relaxation of U.S. and international sanctions. ..."
"... Both Israel and Saudi Arabia, lacking the military firepower of the United States, have long tried to get the U.S. to fight its wars, and one no more important than against its common enemy. ..."
"... It is the typical provocation of a bully: threaten someone with a cruise missile and the moment they pick up a knife in self-defense you attack, conveniently leaving the initial threat out of the story. It then becomes: "Iran picked up a knife. We have to blow them away with cruise missiles." ..."
"... The New York Times that day reported : "Privately, several European officials described Mr. Bolton and Mr. Pompeo as pushing an unsuspecting Mr. Trump through a series of steps that could put the United States on a course to war before the president realizes it." ..."
"... Pompeo told a radio interviewer after the briefing that the U.S. had still not determined who attacked two Saudi, a Norwegian and an Emirati oil tanker in the Gulf last week, which bore the hallmarks of a provocation. Pompeo said "it seems like it's quite possible that Iran was behind" the attacks. ..."
"... But also last Sunday he told Fox News that the "military-industrial complex" is real and "they do like war" and they "went nuts" when he said he wanted to withdraw troops from Syria. Trump said he didn't want war with Iran, here possibly reflecting Israel's views. ..."
"... Joe, nice piece of work covering the psycho-pathology of America's leading nazi! ..."
"... To correct one of your statements: Trump DID NOT appoint him National Security Adviser, but Adelson and Mercer did. Trump is a brain-dead, blackmailed puppet who fancies himself as POTUS ..."
"... Everybody I know who is following the Washington Beltway histrionics of Trump et al know full-well that a certain intelligence agency of a small Middle East domiciled country have THE definitive dossier on Trump and have been building it for the last five decades. ..."
"... The Bolton-Pompeo-Pence presidency is destined to go down in history as one of infamy and treason. Trump? dead-man walking, more than likely by a stroke-heart attack when he's popping out one of his idiotic and manic tweets! ..."
"... John Bolton is a psychopath, He should be dismissed immediately, but I think that he should be institutionalized. ..."
"... Yeah Joe, it wasn't just you and other reporters who were stunned by Bolton's recess appt to the UN by W -- - many of us were staggered by the jaw-dropping inappropriateness of it, ..."
"... But, as you accurately mentioned, the Republicans had long-ago (I recall first hearing about it during Nixon's reign, with Earl Butz) used that gambit to effectively sabotage regulatory agencies & depts. Rather than try to dissolve an agency that most people want, they can neutralize it by appointing some hack or lobbyist for the entity being regulated so that nothing meaningful gets done, AND it has the 'beneficial' effect of discrediting the agency involved, and government in general, which is what many libertarian-inclined Republicans like. ..."
"... Israel doesnt want the US to attack Iran Well that is BS! Israel and its Fifth Column in the US have agitated for the US to attack Iran for years .we've all seen and heard it .and now they want to try to wipe our memories of their war mongering with their typical hasbara in the NYT and Netanyahu claiming .'oh we have nothing to do with it." ..."
"... Bolton is a psychopath but he is Sheldon Adelson's errand boy .who Bolton met with in Las Vegas the week before Trump appointed him and Adelson is the Orange carnival barker's 100 million dollar donor. ..."
"... Trump's incoherent mixture of neoconservative & isolationism almost make him a Bush! ..."
"... I assume Trump knows what a 'neocon' but is so indebted to Israel and intoxicated by Islamophobic rhetoric that he cannot free himself from his addiction to surrounding himself with more neo-cons ..."
"... The progression from Flynn to McMaster to Bolton was just selecting between neocon flavors for his National Security Advisers. What a joke of a nation! ..."
"... I appreciate the article, but it doesn't mention Israel, which is the fountainhead of the agenda to take out Iran, Iraq, and Syria. ..."
"... "Overall, 28 sitting senators have received sizable contributions from John Bolton PAC during the election cycle, as have nine representatives on the House defense, foreign affairs, and homeland security subcommittees." ..."
"... Don't forget who told Donald Trump to hire John Bolton. It was Steve Bannon and Roger Ailes. ..."
"... They like Bolton because he is "incapable of empathy and good on Israel." ..."
"... The NYT has indeed supported wars but it is not alone nor is this a recent trend. There is a very old trend of the commercial news establishments becoming war hawks and regurtitators of official propaganda whenever the USA wants to pick a fight. It goes back to the period after the establishment of the nation when expansionism set its roots down and what grew out of that is pretty much the same kind of nationalistic propaganda we see today. ..."
May 23, 2019 | consortiumnews.com

Special to Consortium News 129 Comments

John Bolton has been saying for years he wants the Iranian government overthrown, and now he's made his move. But this time he may have gone too far, writes Joe Lauria.

I knew John Bolton and interacted with him on a nearly daily basis with my colleagues in the press corps at United Nations headquarters in New York when Bolton was the United States ambassador there from August 2005 to December 2006.

Most diplomats, officials, and journalists were shocked that Bolton (evading confirmation with a recess appointment) had actually become the U.S. representative, given his long, public disdain for the UN. But that turned out to be the point. It's been the strategy of Republican administrations to appoint the fiercest critic to head an agency or institution in order to weaken it, perhaps even fatally.

Bolton's most infamous quote about the UN followed him into the building. In 1994 he had said : "The Secretariat building in New York has 38 stories. If it lost ten stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference."

But a more telling comment in that same 1994 conference was when he said that no matter what the UN decides the U.S. will do whatever it wants:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/VOINBs8eOdk?feature=oembed

Bolton sees such frank admissions as signs of strength, not alarm.

He is a humorless man, who at the UN at least, seemed to always think he was the smartest person in the room. He once gave a lecture in 2006 at the U.S. mission to UN correspondents, replete with a chalk board, on how nuclear enrichment worked. His aim, of course, was to convince us that Iran was close to a bomb, even though a 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate being prepared at the time said Tehran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

I thought I'd challenge him one day at the press stakeout outside the Security Council chamber, where Bolton often stopped to lecture journalists on what they should write. "If the United States and Britain had not overthrown a democratically elected government in Iran in 1953 would the United States be today faced with a revolutionary government enriching uranium?' I asked him.

"That's an interesting question," he told me, "but for another time and another place." It was a time and a place, of course, that never came.

More Than an Ideology

Bolton possesses an abiding self-righteousness rooted in what seems a sincere belief in the myth of American greatness, mixed with deep personal failings hidden from public view.

He seemed perpetually angry and it wasn't clear whether it was over some personal or diplomatic feud. He seems to take personally nations standing up to America, binding his sense of personal power with that of the United States.

It is more than an ideology. It's fanaticism. Bolton believes America is exceptional and indispensible and superior to all other nations and isn't afraid to say so. He'd have been better off perhaps in the McKinley administration, before the days of PR-sugarcoating of imperial aggression. He's not your typical passive-aggressive government official. He's aggressive-aggressive.

And now Bolton is ordering 120,000 troops to get ready and an aircraft carrier to steam towards Iran.

Bolton's all too willing to make his bullying personal on behalf of the state. He implicitly threatened the children of José Bustani, who Vice President Dick Cheney wanted out of his job as head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons because Bustani had gotten Iraq to agree to join the chemical weapons protocol, thereby making it harder for the U.S. to invade Iraq.

After Bolton's failed 2005 confirmation hearings, Tony Blinken, the then staff director of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told The New Yorker 's Dexter Filkins:

"We saw a pattern of Mr. Bolton trying to manipulate intelligence to justify his views. If it had happened once, maybe. But it came up multiple times, and always it was the same underlying issue: he would stake out a position, and then, if the intelligence didn't support it, he would try to exaggerate the intelligence and marginalize the officials who had produced it."

Bolton is no fan of democracy if things don't go his way. He is a vociferous instigator of the so-far failed U.S. coup in Venezuela and of course Bolton organized the "Brooks Brothers riot" that disrupted the recounting of votes in Florida in the disputed 2000 presidential election.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/MbVtROU9J_E?feature=oembed

What is alarming about the above video is not so much that he justifies lying, but the example he gives: lying to cover up military plans like the invasion of Normandy. This is a common ruling class tactic in the U.S. to portray disobedient leaders ripe for overthrow as Hitler. Saddam was Hitler, Milosevic was Hitler, Noriega was Hitler and Hillary Clinton called Putin Hitler. It is a false revival of U.S. glory from World War II to paint foreign adventures as moral crusades, rather than naked aggression in pursuit of profits and power.

Bolton is the distillation of the pathology of American power. He is unique only in the purity of this pathology.

Regime Change for Iran

The U.S. national security adviser has been saying for years he wants the Iranian government overthrown, and now he's made his move. But this time John Bolton may have flown too high.

He was chosen for his post by a president with limited understanding of international affairs -- if real estate is not involved -- and one who loves to be sucked up to. Trump is Bolton's perfect cover.

But hubris may have finally bested Bolton. He had never before maneuvered himself into such a position of power, though he'd left a trail of chaos at lower levels of government. Sitting opposite the Resolute desk on a daily basis has presented a chance to implement his plans.

At the top of that agenda has been Bolton's stated aim for years: to bomb and topple the Iranian government.

Thus Bolton was the driving force to get a carrier strike force sent to the Persian Gulf and, according to The New York Times, on May 14 , it was he who "ordered" a Pentagon plan to prepare 120,000 U.S. troops for the Gulf. These were to be deployed "if Iran attacked American forces or accelerated its work on nuclear weapons."

Two months after Bolton was appointed national security adviser, in June 2018, Trump pulled the U.S. out of the six-nation deal that has seen Tehran curtail its nuclear enrichment program in exchange for relaxation of U.S. and international sanctions.

At the time of Bolton's appointment in April 2018, Tom Countryman, who had been undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, as had Bolton, predicted to The Intercept that if Iran resumed enrichment after the U.S. left the deal, it "would be the kind of excuse that a person like Bolton would look to to create a military provocation or direct attack on Iran."

In response to ever tightening sanctions, Iran said on May 5 (May 6 in Tehran) that it would indeed restart partial nuclear enrichment. On the same day, Bolton announced the carrier strike group was headed to the Gulf.

Bolton Faces Resistance

If this were a normally functioning White House, in which imperial moves are normally made, a president would order military action, and not a national security adviser.

"I don't think Trump is smart enough to realize what Bolton and [Secretary of State Mike] Pompeo are doing to him,"

former U.S. Senator Mike Gravel told RT's Afshin Rattansi this week.

"They have manipulated him. When you get the national security adviser who claims that he ordered an aircraft carrier flotilla to go into the Persian Gulf, we've never seen that. In the days of Henry Kissinger, who really brought sway, he never ordered this, and if it was ordered it was done behind closed doors."

Bolton claimed he acted on intelligence that Iran was poised to attack U.S. interests close to Iran.

Both Israel and Saudi Arabia, lacking the military firepower of the United States, have long tried to get the U.S. to fight its wars, and one no more important than against its common enemy. An editorial on May 16 in the Saudi English-language news outlet, Arab News , called for a U.S. "surgical strike" on Iran. But The New York Times reported on the same day that though Israel was behind Bolton's "intelligence" about an Iranian threat, Israel does not want the U.S. to attack Iran causing a full-scale war.

The intelligence alleged Iran was fitting missiles on fishing boats in the Gulf. Imagine a government targeted by the most powerful military force in history wanting to defend itself in its own waters.

Bolton also said Iran was threatening Western interests in Iraq, which led eventually to non-essential U.S. diplomatic staff leaving Baghdad and Erbil.

It is the typical provocation of a bully: threaten someone with a cruise missile and the moment they pick up a knife in self-defense you attack, conveniently leaving the initial threat out of the story. It then becomes: "Iran picked up a knife. We have to blow them away with cruise missiles."

But this time the bully is being challenged. Federica Mogherini, the EU's high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, resisted the U.S. on Iran when she met Pompeo in Brussels on May 13.

"It's always better to talk, rather than not to, and especially when tensions arise Mike Pompeo heard that very clearly today from us," said Mogherini. "We are living in a crucial, delicate moment where the most relevant attitude to take – the most responsible attitude to take – is and we believe should be, that of maximum restraint and avoiding any escalation on the military side."

The New York Times that day reported : "Privately, several European officials described Mr. Bolton and Mr. Pompeo as pushing an unsuspecting Mr. Trump through a series of steps that could put the United States on a course to war before the president realizes it."

Ghika: No new threat from Iran. (YouTube)

British Maj. Gen. Chris Ghika then said on May 14: "There has been no increased threat from Iranian-backed forces in Iraq or Syria." Ghika was rebuked by U.S. Central Command, whose spokesman said, "Recent comments from OIR's Deputy Commander run counter to the identified credible threats available to intelligence from U.S. and allies regarding Iranian-backed forces in the region."

A day later it was Trump himself, however, who was said to be resisting Bolton. On May 15 The Washington Post reported:

"President Trump is frustrated with some of his top advisers, who he thinks could rush the United States into a military confrontation with Iran and shatter his long-standing pledge to withdraw from costly foreign wars, according to several U.S. officials. Trump prefers a diplomatic approach to resolving tensions and wants to speak directly with Iran's leaders."

The Times reported the next day:

"President Trump has told his acting defense secretary, Patrick Shanahan, that he does not want to go to war with Iran, according to several administration officials, in a message to his hawkish aides that an intensifying American pressure campaign against the clerical-led government in Tehran must not escalate into open conflict."

Then it was the Democrats who stood up to Bolton. On Tuesday Pompeo and Shanahan briefed senators and representatives behind closed doors on Capitol Hill regarding the administration's case for confronting Iran.

"Are they (Iran) reacting to us, or are we doing these things in reaction to them? That is a major question I have, that I still have," Sen. Angus King told reporters after the briefing. "What we view as defensive, they view as provocative. Or vice versa."

Democratic Representative Ruben Gallego told reporters after the briefing: "I believe there is a certain level of escalation of both sides that could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The feedback loop tells us they're escalating for war, but they could just be escalating because we're escalating."

Pompeo told a radio interviewer after the briefing that the U.S. had still not determined who attacked two Saudi, a Norwegian and an Emirati oil tanker in the Gulf last week, which bore the hallmarks of a provocation. Pompeo said "it seems like it's quite possible that Iran was behind" the attacks.

Bolton was conspicuously absent from the closed-door briefing.

It's Up to Trump

Trump has pinballed all over the place on Iran. He called the Times and Post stories about him resisting Bolton "fake news."

"The Fake News Media is hurting our Country with its fraudulent and highly inaccurate coverage of Iran. It is scattershot, poorly sourced (made up), and DANGEROUS. At least Iran doesn't know what to think, which at this point may very well be a good thing!" Trump tweeted on May 17.

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump

The Fake News Media is hurting our Country with its fraudulent and highly inaccurate coverage of Iran. It is scattershot, poorly sourced (made up), and DANGEROUS. At least Iran doesn't know what to think, which at this point may very well be a good thing!

77.7K 9:44 AM - May 17, 2019 Twitter Ads info and privacy
34K people are talking about this

Then he threatened what could be construed as genocide against Iran. "If Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran. Never threaten the United States again!" he tweeted on Sunday.

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump

If Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran. Never threaten the United States again!

239K 4:25 PM - May 19, 2019 Twitter Ads info and privacy
128K people are talking about this

But also last Sunday he told Fox News that the "military-industrial complex" is real and "they do like war" and they "went nuts" when he said he wanted to withdraw troops from Syria. Trump said he didn't want war with Iran, here possibly reflecting Israel's views.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/vc4vYWJfJnE?feature=oembed

On Monday he implied that the crisis has been drummed up to get Iran to negotiate.

"The Fake News put out a typically false statement, without any knowledge that the United States was trying to set up a negotiation with Iran. This is a false report ."

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump

The Fake News put out a typically false statement, without any knowledge that the United States was trying to set up a negotiation with Iran. This is a false report....

80.8K 1:30 PM - May 20, 2019 Twitter Ads info and privacy
25.5K people are talking about this

John Bolton must be stopped before he gets his war. It is beyond troubling that the man we have to count on to do it is Donald Trump.

Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former correspondent for T he Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe , Sunday Times of London and numerous other newspapers. He can be reached at [email protected] and followed on Twitter @unjoe .

Jym Allyn , May 26, 2019 at 19:27

Or as Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and he is US." As in the lies that created the Vietnam war and the waste of 58,000 American soldiers and thousand of Vietnamese. Or the lie that Iran is our enemy when we funded and encouraged Saddam to attack them and destroyed their attempt to have a secular government.

Or the lie of the WMD's and the 9/11 attack which was funded by Saudi Arabia, and run by Saudis and NOT Iraq.

Or the lies of Afghanistan which was economically and culturally better off when it was controlled by the USSR...

John Hawk , May 26, 2019 at 16:56

Joe, nice piece of work covering the psycho-pathology of America's leading nazi!

To correct one of your statements: Trump DID NOT appoint him National Security Adviser, but Adelson and Mercer did. Trump is a brain-dead, blackmailed puppet who fancies himself as POTUS.

It can't get any more delusional than this. Everybody I know who is following the Washington Beltway histrionics of Trump et al know full-well that a certain intelligence agency of a small Middle East domiciled country have THE definitive dossier on Trump and have been building it for the last five decades.

After all, deception is their game and they use it liberally, like feeding their agenda to Bolton as 'intelligence' info of the highest order. The Bolton-Pompeo-Pence presidency is destined to go down in history as one of infamy and treason. Trump? dead-man walking, more than likely by a stroke-heart attack when he's popping out one of his idiotic and manic tweets!

Zhu , May 26, 2019 at 03:20

If Bolton were struck by lightning tomorrow morning, would anything change much? I doubt it. We Americans are as warlike as the ancient Assyrian. We've been slaughtering Indians, Koreans, SE Asians, Central Americans, and multiple Middle Eastern people for a looong time. It is flattering to blame this individual or th t country, but no. We, as a community, are all responsible to some degree. Even me, on the far side of the world.

Alex , May 25, 2019 at 21:50

Bolton's choosing destroyed IRAN but staying friends with Saudi Arabia it's so contradicting, and so obvious that he is influenced to behave this way is because Israelies influence. Saudy Kingdom using Bolton to get IRAN so Saudy will be only country promote Extreme version of Wahhabi Islam which is didn't existed In Islam's history.

So Bolton's obsession with destruction of Iran is ignorance as its best. September 11th suspects were most of them Saudy nationals, yet nobody wanted to talk about it, because there is irony that, George W Bush was and probably still doing business with Saudy. So how can you explain that to American people? No you can not.

Perhaps collectively hypnotism !

OlyaPola , May 26, 2019 at 02:58

" So how can you explain that to American people?"

Given that useful fools are useful, why would you want to?

" No you can not."

An illustration of the benefits of dumbing down do not accrue solely to those actively engaged in dumbing down, facilitating the minimising of blowback during implementation of strategies based on "How to drown a drowning man with the minimum of blowback", given that many believe that critical mass is a function of linear notions of 50% +1 and above; a further conflation of quantity with quality to which the opponents are prone.

William , May 25, 2019 at 19:06

John Bolton is a psychopath, He should be dismissed immediately, but I think that he should be institutionalized. Put him in a strait jacket and keep him in a padded cell. He poses a threat to millions of people.

Eddie S , May 25, 2019 at 11:26

Yeah Joe, it wasn't just you and other reporters who were stunned by Bolton's recess appt to the UN by W -- - many of us were staggered by the jaw-dropping inappropriateness of it, IF it was assessed from a pro-peace perspective.

But, as you accurately mentioned, the Republicans had long-ago (I recall first hearing about it during Nixon's reign, with Earl Butz) used that gambit to effectively sabotage regulatory agencies & depts. Rather than try to dissolve an agency that most people want, they can neutralize it by appointing some hack or lobbyist for the entity being regulated so that nothing meaningful gets done, AND it has the 'beneficial' effect of discrediting the agency involved, and government in general, which is what many libertarian-inclined Republicans like.

Good article about a reprehensible politician.

renfro , May 25, 2019 at 11:18

"But The New York Times reported on the same day that though Israel was behind Bolton's "intelligence" about an Iranian threat, Israel does not want the U.S. to attack Iran causing a full-scale war. "
________________________________

Israel doesnt want the US to attack Iran Well that is BS!
Israel and its Fifth Column in the US have agitated for the US to attack Iran for years .we've all seen and heard it .and now they want to try to wipe our memories of their war mongering with their typical hasbara in the NYT and Netanyahu claiming .'oh we have nothing to do with it."

Bolton is a psychopath but he is Sheldon Adelson's errand boy .who Bolton met with in Las Vegas the week before Trump appointed him and Adelson is the Orange carnival barker's 100 million dollar donor.

Seriously, how stupid do they think we are? If we attack Iran it will be for the Zionist and Saudis and we all know it.

Luther Bliss , May 25, 2019 at 10:57

Trump's incoherent mixture of neoconservative & isolationism almost make him a Bush!

Remember it wasn't until Bush JR's second term that he asked his father, "What's A Neocon?" to which Pappy Bush replied, "Israel."

I assume Trump knows what a 'neocon' but is so indebted to Israel and intoxicated by Islamophobic rhetoric that he cannot free himself from his addiction to surrounding himself with more neo-cons.

The progression from Flynn to McMaster to Bolton was just selecting between neocon flavors for his National Security Advisers. What a joke of a nation!

Mark , May 25, 2019 at 02:30

I appreciate the article, but it doesn't mention Israel, which is the fountainhead of the agenda to take out Iran, Iraq, and Syria. Bolton stands out for his extremity among extremists, but he's a means rather than the end. The agenda is something into which he bought, passionately by all indications, but which a paucity of other people created strictly to advance their own, tiny, exclusive clan, not for the benefit of the United States.

Hank , May 25, 2019 at 09:43

To think that this administration campaigned on a promise to restrict future wasteful and needless interventions and then hired this dinosaur of a warmonger makes my blood curl! Everyone with half a brain knows what Bolton's agenda is yet here he is leading the USA into a war at the behest of a foreign nation led by a felon and terrorist! The American people who want peace and their tax dollars invested into improving the USA have once again been stabbed in the back by a conniving administration. Will this cycle of non-democracy ever end? Until it does, future administrations will continue on just like previous ones- kowtowing to special interests, in particular the military/industrial mafia and the apartheid criminal state of Israel! All this massive business of holding "elections" in the USA, all the talk about "Russian collusion" and the REAL collusion is right there in front of us all- the US administration has once again COLLUDED to go back on a campaign promise and once again open the money trough for the military/industrialist pigs!

Mark , May 26, 2019 at 05:31

I get the idea, but it's necessary to look 'behind' back-stabbing, conniving, colluding administrations, and Bolton, and the military/industrial complex, and to bring Israel and some barely known U.S. history, at least back to World War I, explicitly to the fore for public scrutiny. That's a monumental task, to say the least, owing to American attention spans and the contrary interests of the powers that be.

Taras77 , May 24, 2019 at 20:24

Bolton has his own well funded PAC, from which he is free to "contribute" (bribe) sychophant congress individuals. What a situation for the fix for war.

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/05/interests-pushing-for-hard-line-against-iran/

"Overall, 28 sitting senators have received sizable contributions from John Bolton PAC during the election cycle, as have nine representatives on the House defense, foreign affairs, and homeland security subcommittees."

ricardo2000 , May 24, 2019 at 17:29

By far the most productive, and most verifiable, way to eliminate weapons is at a negotiating table. The easiest way to start a war is with ignorant blather.

O Society , May 24, 2019 at 16:09

Don't forget who told Donald Trump to hire John Bolton. It was Steve Bannon and Roger Ailes.

They like Bolton because he is "incapable of empathy and good on Israel."

Trump initially declined on Bolton because "he doesn't like Bolton's moustache."

Kool Aid drinkers and idiots. We're being lead by a cult of morons who worship the bombs, money, and a white separatist state.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/01/michael-wolff-fire-and-fury-book-donald-trump.html?gtm=bottom

Truth First , May 24, 2019 at 11:40

They don't call him, 'Bonkers' Bolton for nothin'.

Pedro Masculino Ghirotti , May 24, 2019 at 10:53

Nice piece Joe, but you just forgot to mention who Bolton actually works for, the Israelis.

JOHN CHUCKMAN , May 24, 2019 at 07:11

"Pathology." That's exactly the right word. But I think it has a wider application. See:

https://chuckmanwordsincomments.wordpress.com/2019/05/11/john-chuckman-comment-why-trump-doesnt-rein-in-bolton-dismal-bolton-pompeo-and-abrams-are-part-of-the-price-trump-paid-for-political-support-against-threats-he-felt-and-getting-a-big-pile-of-ca/

old geezer , May 26, 2019 at 13:08

an accurate, concise review.

i doubt the iranians will test a nuke until after djt is out of office. after that you might wake up one morning and everything you knew before becomes quite obsolete.

my guess is israel has stealth cruise missiles with h bombs. it would be very foolish of them to not have them. those descendants of egyptian slaves are anything but foolish.

Sam , May 27, 2019 at 00:33

@ CitizenOne: Thank you for your long comment. I agree with much of what you wrote, but would like to know why you claimed, "Iran is surely guilty of vowing the destruction of Israel " . According to what I've read, Iran has not initiated hostilities with any nation for over a century – a clear, peaceful contrast to the rogue states of Israel & the U.S. Are you referring to the long-ago-debunked claim that Iran claimed to 'wipe Israel off the map'?
(See https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/jun/14/post155 ? "So there we have it. Starting with Juan Cole, and going via the New York Times' experts through MEMRI to the BBC's monitors, the consensus is that Ahmadinejad did not talk about any maps. He was, as I insisted in my original piece, offering a vague wish for the future.

"A very last point. The fact that he compared his desired option – the elimination of "the regime occupying Jerusalem" – with the fall of the Shah's regime in Iran makes it crystal clear that he is talking about regime change, not the end of Israel. ")

Or perhaps you're referring to Revolutionary Guard deputy leader Hossein Salami's warning that if Israel starts an aggressive war against Iran, it 'will end with {Israel's} elimination from the global political map'? IMHO, warning an extremely aggressive, self-obsessed, Apartheid-practicing rogue state against trying to attack your nation is wise ;-) .

I look forward to your response. Thanks very much.

Sam F , May 27, 2019 at 06:12

Sam: please use an identifier initial as I do, to prevent confusion.
I have asked you twice before; perhaps not the same person.
It is unfair to expect others to make the clarification, and easy to prevent.

O Society , May 23, 2019 at 21:15

Neoconservative war pigs riding the bomb and the belligerence of Empire

http://opensociet.org/2019/05/23/the-belligerence-of-empire/

mike k , May 23, 2019 at 18:55

How is it that crazies like Bolton can end up high in our government hierarchy? It is because the whole damned government is crazy through and through

Joe , May 23, 2019 at 20:48

His Dad probably made a huge donation to Yale just like Bush's Dad. That's what happens when the system is gamed.

Art Thomas , May 25, 2019 at 09:22

Yes, in my opinion. The state stripped of patriotic rhetoric and other obfuscations that keep us devoted to it is nothing more than a criminal gang that hides behind the law.

Some basic examples. 1. The law: taxation, the crime: theft. 2. The law: monetary credit expansion, i.e. debt financing, the crime: counterfeiting, i.e. creating money out of thin air. 3. The invasion of countries not a threat to the invading state. Etc. etc.

Tiu , May 23, 2019 at 18:30

If the US "political establishment" was working for America's benefit, things would look very different.
They are instead working on the "globalist" agenda, which will, if successful, destroy all nations as we know them today and what remains will be ruled over by a bunch of sociopaths who are the same group that has inflicted John Bolton on the world.
Bolton's a tool, a bit like a hammer, to get their project done. The Democrats have equivalent tools e.g. H R Clinton.

Mark Thomason , May 23, 2019 at 18:04

The problem is if he hasn't gone too far. If he gets his war.

Vonu , May 23, 2019 at 16:53

John Bolton should get to ride the missile in the remake of Dr. Strangelove.

evelync , May 23, 2019 at 19:53

hah hah hah

I loved that movie :)

and yes Bolton is a perfect caricature of Slim Pickens AKA Dr Strangelove.

I also refer to him as Yosemite Sam

one difference for our current real life war monger is that the movie character was simply insane and didn't justify his craziness with explanations.

Bolton, OTOH, blames "national Security" and "the national interests" of this country .say what????

if we look at the horrific human costs and the enormous financial costs of the wars that were fought for U.S. "national interests" one would want to ask, once the rubble had cleared, what "interests" were actually served and whose "security" did they actually improve?
The answers always take us back to Eisenhower's MIC and Ray McGovern's MICIMATT (maybe I got a couple of these letters wrong?).
Whoever profited from the mayhem don't represent either our "national interest' or our "national security" IMO and yet those two phrases are used to shut down any discussion or criticism in the lead up .

whew

Mork D , May 25, 2019 at 01:20

Strictly about the movie – Slim Pickens plays the ranking officer on the B-52 (I think?) which is actually dropping the bomb. Dr Strangelove is a totally different character, one of a few played by Peter Sellers in that movie, and is a (mostly!) wheelchair-bound German scientist.

Jym Allyn , May 26, 2019 at 19:17

And the wheelchair bound psychopathic scientist of Dr. Strangelove was inspired by Kubrick meeting Henry Kissinger at a cocktail party and recognizing that Kissinger was the most evil person on this planet because he looked and sounded so responsible and rational.
Now that Saddam, bin Laden, Pol Pot, Stalin, and Hitler are dead, Kissinger holds the record of the person still alive who has needlessly killed more people, both Americans and non-Americans, than any other person on this planet.
Hillary's idea of destabilizing Libya and creating a political vacuum there was from her training when working for Kissinger.

Abe , May 23, 2019 at 16:51

The Pathology:

John Bolton
Senior fellow at American Enterprise Institute (pro-Israel Lobby organization)
Chairman of Gatestone Institute (pro-Israel Lobby organization)
Former board member of Project for the New American Century (pro-Israel Lobby organization)
Former Adviser to Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (pro-Israel Lobby organization)
https://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/john-bolton/

Richard Goldberg – Aide to John Bolton at NSC (2019 – )
Former Senior Adviser at Foundation for Defense of Democracies (pro-Israel Lobby organization)
https://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/richard-goldberg/

Frederick Fleitz – Bolton's Former Chief of Staff at NSC (2018)
CEO of Center for Security Policy ( (pro-Israel Lobby organization)
https://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/frederick-fleitz/

Abe , May 23, 2019 at 19:32

The Pathology, Part Duh:

Mike Pompeo
Christian Zionist: "We will continue to fight these battles, it is a never ending struggle until the Rapture."
Associate of Center for Security Policy (pro-Israel Lobby organization)
Sponsor of ACT! for America (pro-Israel Lobby organization)
https://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/mike-pompeo/

Sam , May 27, 2019 at 00:38

@ Abe: Thanks for the info!

Litchfield , May 23, 2019 at 16:42

John Bolton is obviously a very sick puppy.
This is patently obvious to any observer with the least desgree of psyhological sophistication and insight.
If he lived on your block and made such statements about his neighbors, or a woman living nearby, he would be looking at restraining orders.
He is an out-of-control abusive pig who belongs in an institution where a course of shock therapy might actually help him. I reckon any basic psychological test would find that he has a least borderline personality and at worst is actually insane and incapable of taking responsibility for the consequences of his action.
Bolton has permanent termporary insanity.
Letting this tortured, psychopathic individual run the military is itself an enormous crime, one of murderous negligence, one for which Trump truly should and could be impeached. Congress must take all possible steps to get this man out of the Executive Branch.

Threaten Trump with impeachment if he doesn't fire Bolton.
His appointment of Bolton is reckless negligence and endangers this country.

James , May 23, 2019 at 19:09

I wonder how good American politicians of the past, if there were any, would react to the appointment of this psychopath as what he is now. Whom should be blamed for it? Donald Trump? The pro-Israeli lobbies? Or the American nation? A glance at the man's face is enough to realize that he is deeply sick. To me, he doesn't look like a human being at all! He looks like a monkey out of a stuffy room. Why don't psychotherapists do anything about him? Shouldn't he be hospitalized for the safety/security of the world population? By the way, I wonder where Netanyahu, the psychopath's provoker, is. He has been very quiet for about a month or so. Maybe he is waiting for the war to ignite without getting himself directly involved in it. Let Americans and Iranians kill one another while he waits to pick up the fruit in the end.

Mork D , May 25, 2019 at 01:27

Where does the blame lie? Who hired him? Who's the chief of the executive branch? Who's a person who could actually fire him (as he's so famous for doing on reality TV shows) instead of wringing his hands on friendly TV networks declaring he doesn't want to actually go to war, but if he's 'forced' to, he'll erase Iran from the map?

Druid , May 26, 2019 at 03:16

He would have to get permission from Adelson and the Mercers first.

CitizenOne , May 24, 2019 at 20:52

Bolton and Pompeo are the only things keeping him from impeachment. As long as Trump satisfies the bloodthirsty war mongers and the insatiable appetite of the MIC and the Pro Israel lobby and the Oil Lobby or Koch Industries he cannot lose. So far Trump is bangin on all cylinders. I really think he knows what he needs to do to survive. All this impeachment talk is just fantasy by the left dreaming about getting him out of office "somehow".

bjd , May 23, 2019 at 16:13

That the mono-maniacal psychopath Bolton is a walking exhibit of the Dunning–Kruger effect is no surprise to me. It is extra frightening though.

Realist , May 23, 2019 at 16:00

What was Bolton's day job before he started mucking around in politics and foreign policy? Master waterboarder or testicular electrificator in extraordinary renditions for the CIA? He seems the sort to have spent much time at Abu Ghraib, and not just to take notes. Honestly, his major goals seem to be the eradication of entire cultures and societies, which will somehow redound to the magnificence of the United States of America. Clearly a sociopathic personality. A lot in common with Cheney.

Jimmy G , May 23, 2019 at 15:57

Again the panic is stirred by .. The NYT! (The source of such good info regarding Russia gate) .
The statement regarding Bolton " ordering" anything is just one more example of the media and the intel bureaucrats trying to put the President in a jam politically . (Remember how a month ago we were invading Venezuela?)

Bolton is doing nothing more than getting enough rope to hang himself, and the military intelligence service, congressional and media Trumpophobes are willing to stir this to the very edge, and we all know Congress could (if it could act in good Constitutional faith, rather than pretending to be the judicial branch) unite for the good of this country and Trump would be amenable to whatever they came up with. Trump is far less of a warmonger than any POTUS we've had in a very long time.

Realist , May 23, 2019 at 16:18

If Congress is the only branch of government with the constitutional power to declare a war, surely it has the power to FORBID the executive branch from fomenting such a war against their judgement.

In fact, wasn't the Boland Amendment such a legislative act passed with the intent of preventing the Reagan administration from pursuing military action in Central America, most notably Nicaragua and El Salvador?

What's to prevent the Congress, if it were so inclined (which I doubt it is) to instruct the president (especially if he seems trigger-happy) to refrain from initiating any unprovoked attacks upon Iran, Venezuela, North Korea or any other country, for that matter?

Vonu , May 23, 2019 at 16:56

Ollie North worked for Reagan, didn't he?

RnM , May 25, 2019 at 17:27

Trump is very aware that 'Stache Bolton and Mike "Mumbles" Pompeo are significant threats to his re-election. Would not be surprised to see them removed before January.

CitizenOne , May 25, 2019 at 21:02

The NYT has indeed supported wars but it is not alone nor is this a recent trend. There is a very old trend of the commercial news establishments becoming war hawks and regurtitators of official propaganda whenever the USA wants to pick a fight. It goes back to the period after the establishment of the nation when expansionism set its roots down and what grew out of that is pretty much the same kind of nationalistic propaganda we see today.

I agree with your statement that Trump is far less vulnerable based on his history but I am sure that the war planners are always concocting special information diets that are carefully prepared to appeal to the particular tastes of the leader of the day. Whatever Trumps opinion is he will be surrounded by the hand picked lunatics of the day who will entice and enjoin him to agree with plans for war based on their carefully prepared menu of propaganda specifically designed to be appealing to the palate of whoever is in charge.

It is less certain that Trump's long history of opposing military action will have real staying power as he is served up courses of a sumptuous meal prepared specially for his palate designed to engage him in support for military action all over the World.

Trump is particularly susceptible to flattery and appeals to his greatness and his very stable genius. He wants to be the great leader and for that he needs a plan to deal with the geopolitical situation in many countries.

Trump is a man who knows what to do too.

He advised Germany that it was a puppet of Russia until he didn't
He advised Teresa May how to do Brexit the right way until he didn't
He announced to the World he had forged deep connections with North Korea until he didn't
He had high hopes for an alliance with Russia until he didn't.
He specified the right type of fire fighting to be used to fight the Notre Dame Cathedral fire until he didn't
He wanted to walk away from the fight in Syria until he didn't
He wanted to walk away from the war in Syria again until he didn't
He wanted to cut the military budget until he didn't

Ordinarily if we were in the middle of a democratic presidency the press would be raising the "flip flopper" argument every second of their available airtime.

Democrats are the flip floppers but never a republican even when he is. It all depends on the way the flips and the flops land. If they land on conservative positions then a flop or a flip never occurred. With republicans, flip flopping is just a corrective action to realign the president on the correct course. If it is a democrat then their hypocrisy and flip flopping are broadcast 24/7 and are portrayed a fundamentally disqualifying events which demonstrate a fundamental lack of principles and weakness of character deserving of condemnation. When errant republicans flip flop over to the "correct" vision they are welcomed with open arms into the fold.

Trump wants to be accepted so badly that the democrats hounding him are in fact herding him into the fold of the conservatives who will shelter him and support him at all costs and the media will never ever ever never call this flip flopping.

In short, if a political candidate shifts to the left his integrity will be destroyed as his character will be portrayed as weak and built on shifting sands. He will be deemed not to be trusted like some loose cannon.

On the other hand, if a political candidate shifts to the right he will be greeted as a prodigal son returning to the fold and will be welcomed with open arms.

So I am not as sure as you that Trump's background will be any indicator of his future ideas about how to succeed in the environment he is in where both democrats by their antagonism and republicans by their defense of him both push him over to the right.

He may once have been far less of a war hawk but politicians on both sides of the aisle are pushing him further to the right every day.

Consortium News editor Joe Lauria may wish to contribute a follow up series of articles detailing the purity of pro-Israel Lobby pathology exemplified by Bolton, Pompeo, and the beyond troubling Trump preferably before the next war.

Litchfield , May 23, 2019 at 19:33

"the wider extent of pro-Israel Lobby pathology in the US government. "

That's it in a nutshell.

KiwiAntz , May 24, 2019 at 18:46

Thanks Joe for the great article. Bolton (aka the moustache) truly is a humourless, warmongering, depraved psycho? This is a cowardly man who dodged the Vietnam draft as he didn't want to die in some foreign patty field! But this lunatic has no qualms to send other peoples sons & daughters into a Iranian war zone as cannon fodder to satisfy his deluded & perverted bloodlust to destroy Iran? If "the moustache" wants a War with Iran he should be forced to fight on the frontlines with his troops along with POTUS Bonespurs Trump, another cowardly draft dodger? Let the moustache & the Dotard make a stand, like Jon Snow in the Battle of the bastards, sword in hand, facing down the so called Iranian, bogeyman enemy, but this would never happen as cowards & bastards like Bolton & Trump don't personally fight in the battles they start, they hide in safety in a Washington situation room, as far away from any War zone as possible! If Bolton gets his War with Iran, Trump will pay the price for this suicide mission because he would be blamed for the fallout of any Military defeat! America's already sorry record of Military humiliation & defeat in Regime change operations around the Globe would reach a crescendo if they ever dared to try to attack & overthrow Iran as it would be the endgame of the US Empire!

mark , May 23, 2019 at 22:28

Trump is just Israel's bitch.

incontinent reader , May 24, 2019 at 01:08

Good comment, Abe. We've missed you. Keep posting more of the same.

Zhu , May 25, 2019 at 01:37

We Americans were bloodthirsty long before Israel existed.

anon , May 25, 2019 at 06:35

What an absurd zionist troll post. Try it with someone dumb, Zhu.

Michael Steger , May 23, 2019 at 15:17

First Joe, McKinley did not implement American submission to British Imperialism, though it began with the end of Grant's administration as with the twice elected Groucher Cleveland, but it's confirmation as US policy began with Teddy Roosevelt. The Roosevelt Corollary destroyed JQA's Community of Principle in the Americas which should be known as the true Monroe Doctrine, contrary to popular opinion today which has incorrectly replaced the Monroe Doctrine with the Roosevelt Corollary (as Bolton is especially want to do). TR signalled the end of the Lincoln Era of American industrial development and global cooperation, which was best represented by Grant, the most overlooked of great Presidents (and perhaps we see similarities of Grant to Trump today). Bolton indeed is Captain Kangaroo, presiding over his Court as the Queen of No Hearts would in Alice's confrontation with British rule once she penetrates behind the facade of British Lockean empiricism. With insight only equalled to Lincoln's, who said "We can't fight two wars at once, so first the Confederacy and then the British," Trump has identified the fascist nexus within our government as that same British foe, a nexus led by Brennan, Rice, Clapper, Jarrett, et al, which works on behalf of what Eisenhower (another overlooked great President and General) called the Military Industrial Complex. The MIC is a British Intelligence deployment to fundamentally undermine our Constitution and put the US into a state of perpetual war and police surveillance. It is now over 70 years in the making, and is enforcing a new Cold War and attempted coup of our elected Government, and yet, it may have finally found its match, not just in Trump, but in Trump's intended cooperation with Putin of Russia and Xi of China. These three nations, along with Modi of India (just reelected) are a true threat to this rotten British system, from Fabian liberals to Bolton chickenhawks, the true enemy is this British System. If we move on that effectively, we may just have a chance to win this revolutionary moment now unfolding throughout the trans-Atlantic world. Let us return to JQA's community of principle for the entire world. Let us work with Trump to end this fascist British nexus. Let us celebrate our true heritage as Americans!

Litchfield , May 23, 2019 at 16:51

Your comments read with interesting and well taken.
BUT: The bottom line is that Trump hired Bolton (and Pompeo) and has wound him up and set him loose goosewalking across the globe.
Why?
The buck for Bolton's suicidal buffonery stops with Trump.
So, I can't see him as a genuine foe of the Deep State-MIC as you describe.

Michael Steger , May 23, 2019 at 18:10

Bolton is loyal to Trump, even though he is a failed chickenhawk. Look at McMaster, at the leaking, and outright betrayal of the President. Same with Tillerson, betrayal. Pompeo and Bolton have ridiculous views and bloated war rhetoric, but they're personally loyal, perhaps opportunistically, and even temporarily, but nonetheless right now they are, and when they're not, I bet they're gone. But Trump does control the policy. Look at North Korea, any war? Media said there would be, then worked to undermine a deal. Venezuela, war? They're talking in Norway now, how'd that happen? Syria, troops out? MIC, Dems and Media opposed, and Trump called them out for the first time since Eisenhower! Pompeo to Sochi to see Putin, progress. How'd that happen? Trump is fighting the MIC and too many good Americans are spinning so fast from the propaganda machine they can't see straight.

anon4d2 , May 24, 2019 at 18:40

Interesting, but it is easy for a president to fight the MIC: simply fire and arrest anyone who acts against efforts to control them. He could send any federal enforcement agency, FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, reserves, national guard, or even the Coast Guard, Secret Service, DC police, or private guards to arrest them and prosecute any resisters as traitors. It is not one man against the MIC.

And they cannot assassinate him once he has announced that intention, without exposing their hand and unleashing a generation of purges and strict controls. If he is surrounded by traitors, he has only to say that and fire the lot of them. He could leak that anonymously to Wikileaks or tweet it and they would be terrified.

Mork D , May 25, 2019 at 01:48

Bolton has been working DC bureaucracy like a pro for decades. He's using Trump like a marionette while he runs circles around the amateur. He was helping orchestrate foreign wars of choice back when Trump was still playing a pretend boss on TV. Bolton has no loyalty except as a facade for those he needs to suck up to.

Your examples of non-wars are terrific. Trump is amazing! – because he's running the government so badly that the State Dept doesn't know what the Pentagon is doing doesn't know and vice versa. He chose to ignore the Iran nuclear deal, which had prevented Iran from developing nuclear weapons. So now, the Iranians declare (out of self defense) that they're now going to pursue nuclear weapons. Trump then says that he doesn't want to attack Iran, but they must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. This is a circular argument exactly of the type the MIC uses to engage in war. Pompeo then indicates that laughable, ineffectual attempts at sabotage are most likely Iranian. This grave threat to our nation can't even do enough damage to an oil tanker to make it take on water.

Just because someone fails to do something doesn't mean that they were against it the whole time. Maybe they're just awful at it. Sure, Trump says some things that are heartening to the anti-war and anti-interventionist crowd. But the next day he'll say something heartening to rabid neocons. He needs to grow a spine, but it's far too late. He's a dandy, a spoiled rich kid fop who's never had to answer for his mishaps, because why, when you have inherited money and a stout legal team?

anon4d2 , May 24, 2019 at 19:06

The idea that "the MIC is a British Intelligence deployment" is fantastical, as the US MIC is several times the size of UK's entire MIC, and such a secret could never be kept. The US MIC has engaged UK secret agencies to subvert the US Constitution by serving as agents to pass intercepted US communications back to the US to pretend that the MIC didn't do it, or that it was foreign intel. But that is a long way from UK controlling the US MIC.

There are certainly confluences of interests between the US and UK oligarchies, but I see no basis for the contention that "American submission to British Imperialism began with the end of Grant's administration" when the US prosecuted Britain for building the Alabama etc. to break the Union blockade, and was outraged that Britain considered recognition of the Confederacy until it lost at Gettysburg. The US under TR was not submitting to anyone when it sent the Great White Fleet on tour, or when it seized Cuba and the Philippines. Nor under Wilson when it stayed out of WWI until very late in the war, despite the Lusitania loss. Nor under FDR when it stayed out of WWII until attacked, despite the passionate pleas of Churchill.

Some detailed argument with credible references would be needed to support those assertions.

Zhu , May 25, 2019 at 01:44

Scapegoating is real popular with lefties & rughties alike. American Exceptionalism forbids we ever accept respobility for what we've done.

Zhu , May 25, 2019 at 01:45

No, the rest of humanity is not any better.

anon4d2 , May 25, 2019 at 06:48

The commenter was searching for causes, and some UK conspiracy is simply too far from any available evidence. In fact it much appears to be a wild attempt to distract from the obvious causes including zionism, which you pretend is "scapegoating." No, zionism is a principle corrupting factor in US politics, especially foreign policy.

If you don't see that, you must start learning the evidence, rather than relying on the presumption that it is mere scapegoating. Otherwise you are serving their wrongful and racist tribal purposes, and others will presume that you know that.

Oscar Shank , May 26, 2019 at 07:24

Zhu knows it.

Vera Gottlieb , May 23, 2019 at 14:56

How much more peaceful the life on our entire planet would be if the Americans weren't around.

Vonu , May 23, 2019 at 16:58

Extend that to all humans, and the head of PETA would support the project.

David G. Horsman , May 23, 2019 at 17:16

I doubt that. Nature hates a void.

Bethany , May 24, 2019 at 17:50

Exactly. Very well put.

Abe , May 23, 2019 at 14:19

Brazilian diplomat Jose Bustani, the first director-general of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), only served about one year of his second term.

Bustani was forced out by the U.S. government in April 2002 because he wanted international chemical weapons monitors inside Iraq and thus was seen as impeding the US push for war against Iraq. The US accused Bustani of "advocacy of inappropriate roles for the OPCW".

Since 2011, the United Nations has stood by a US-Saudi-Israeli Axis financed and armed the mercenary terrorist forces attacked Syria. In addition to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, major support for terrorist mercenaries has provided via NATO-member state Turkey, as well as Jordan. Israel has launched repeated air attacks and provided direct support for terrorist forces in Syria.

From July 2010 to 2018, the Director-General of the OPCW was Turkish career diplomat Ahmet Uzumcu. Uzumcu served ambassador to Israel from 1999 to 2002, and as the Permanent Representative of Turkey to NATO between 2002 and 2004.

Turkey has been the primary channel for mercenary terrorist forces assaulting the Syrian state. The remaining terrorist forces in the Idlib Governorate continue to be supplied through Syria.

Since Uzumcu announced the creation of the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission in Syria on 29 April 2014, not a single OPCW report has acknowledged these basic facts concerning the conflict in Syria.

Following a consensus recommendation by the OPCW Executive Council in October 2017. Spanish career diplomat Fernando Arias was appointed to replace Uzumcu as Director-General of the OPCW. Previously, Arias served as Ambassador of Spain to the Netherlands and the Permanent Representative of Spain to the OPCW. He also has served as Permanent Representative of Spain to the United Nations in New York.

Uzumcu, and now Bustani, obviously understand that the appropriate role of the OPCW is to provide propaganda support for "regime change" operations, and to say nothing contrary to the "narrative" endorsed by the US-Saudi-Israeli Axis.

David G. Horsman , May 23, 2019 at 17:52

The OPCW has certainly disgraced themselves in Syria. What a sham.

Randal Marlin , May 23, 2019 at 13:48

John Bolton's questioner in the second clip should have made the distinction between deception used to lead the country into war, and deception used to pursue a war already constitutionally declared and already underway.
In the first case there is a violation of democratic principle. When the people are the ultimate sovereign, they need to be properly informed. They can agree to deception, like where and when D-Day will occur, during war; but not in the case of leading the people into war. Lying to Congress is always unacceptable, and those who do lie to Congress should be made to suffer serious penalties.

zhenry , May 24, 2019 at 02:13

I read a report that the aircraft carrier strike force and preparation of 120,000 US troops, to Persian Gulf was ordered sometime ago and that Bolton took advantage of that fact to make it look that 'Bolton ordered it'?

vinnieoh , May 24, 2019 at 10:54

What I'd read is that the carrier strike force and bomber detachment were previously scheduled: there had been a previous drawdown and this deployment represents a return to a level similar to the end of the Iraq war, and that does sound like Bolton/Pompeo opportunism. The 120,000 troops plan sounds like something Bolton prodded pentagon scribes to produce. How to interpret when Bolton says that then Trump denies it, and then a new troop deployment (1% of the previous) is announced/suggested/leaked? I see it as Trump taking his dogs out for a walk to snarl at the neighbors.

David G , May 23, 2019 at 13:07

"Thus Bolton was the driving force to get a carrier strike force sent to the Persian Gulf and, according to The New York Times, on May 14, it was he who 'ordered' a Pentagon plan to prepare 120,000 U.S. troops for the Gulf."

That the National Security Advisor, irrespective of whether the job is currently held by a lunatic like Bolton, may be giving such orders should in and of itself be a subject of serious inquiry by Congress and the media.

The National Security Advisor is, as the title states, merely an advisor – not confirmed by the Senate, and therefore not, in constitutional terms, an "officer of the United States" with the authority to carry out the policy of the government. Other than his assistant fetching him lunch, nobody in government should be following Bolton's orders at all while he holds this job.

But this is nothing new. I had the same concern, on an even larger scale, during the first Bush Jr. administration when Cheney was running around reshaping the government in his own warped image. Despite the Vice President's elected status, he has no executive power under the Constitution – no power at all, in fact, except when sitting as President of the Senate. There was a time when everyone knew that.

With all the perennial crowing we see about the greatness of the Constitution, and the mewling about how Trump is degrading it, it would be nice if Congress and the media could spare a moment to care about whether the people giving orders to the world's largest military and covert/intelligence apparatus are legally empowered to do so.

Ash , May 23, 2019 at 17:17

> That the National Security Advisor, irrespective of whether the job is currently held by a lunatic like Bolton,
> may be giving such orders should in and of itself be a subject of serious inquiry by Congress and the media.

It does kind of have an Alexander Haig flavor to it, doesn't it?

David G , May 23, 2019 at 22:08

When Bolton gets up and says "I'm in control here", I'm definitely finding a rock to hide under.

Zenobia van Dongen , May 23, 2019 at 13:06

The question that Joe Lauria asked of John Bolton, i.e. "If the United States and Britain had not overthrown a democratically elected government in Iran in 1953 would the United States be today faced with a revolutionary government enriching uranium?" seems to imply that Iran seeks revenge against the US for the CIA's 1953 coup d'état against prime minister Mohammed Mossadeq.
However the current leaders of Iran are not entitled to consider themselves the heirs of Mossadeq, nor are they morally justified in avenging him, since the CIA coup relied largely on support from the very same clerical establishment that now rules Iran. As a matter of fact in the 1950s and 60s Shia clerics in Iran were routinely considered CIA agents. Consequently the Iranian elite's pretense of carrying on Mossadeq's anti-imperialist struggle is profoundly hypocritical. I grant that the current reactionary clique that governs Iran defends Iran's sovereignty against US imperialism as Mossadeq did. But the underlying concept of the Iranian nation is profoundly different. The present régime has no respect for the principles of democracy and popular sovereignty that pervaded Iran's anti-imperialist struggle in the 1950s and was derived from the democratic ideals of the Persian constitutionalist revolution of 1909.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Constitutional_Revolution
Indeed, Iran has no hesitation in crushing underfoot the aspirations to independence of other nations. It ruthlessly conducts ethnic cleansing in Syria, commits assassinations in South America, and in general behaves with imperialist ruthlessness that is moreover unmitigated by any concern for human rights or international law.

vinnieoh , May 23, 2019 at 14:27

As to your last paragraph please provide proof for your allegations. As to your second paragraph you assume to know the meaning behind the question Mr. Lauria asked. Could it be possible (this I believe is more likely) that what Mr. Lauria meant or realizes that absent the '53 coup would there now be an Islamic theocracy ruling Iran?

Again making the disclaimer that I'm no expert on the region or Iran particularly I have followed many leads of reading and investigation to understand the ramifications of that seminal event (the '53 coup.) What I believe I've understood is that Iran prior to and until the '53 coup was on its own unique trajectory of reclaiming its sovereignty and rejecting its status as a (UK) colonial vassal. There seemed to be a somewhat fluid acceptance of the rising democratic movement of Mosaddeq et. al., a fading nod to the former royal house, and an acceptance of Shiite religiosity of some considerable social legitimacy.

So, three centers of power and influence working its unique way to an unique Iranian future.

With the US/UK engineered coup the imperialists destroyed the legitimate democratic evolution happening there. With the re-installation of the Shah Reza Pahlavi as the puppet ruler of the US, that traditional center of power and legitimacy was likewise forever delegitimized in the eyes of most Iranians. That sentiment was cemented with the creation of SAVAK by the US, UK, and Israel to be the iron fist of the Shah and his new imperial master.

That left only one center of power or authority which retained legitimacy in the eyes of Iranians – the Shiite theocrats, and that is why when Iranians kicked the US out it was the Islamic theocracy doing the booting. You are correct that there was at least one Shiite cleric (I've forgotten his name,) jealous and fearful of the rising influence of democratic governance, who is a known and recorded collaborator with the US/UK machinations of the coup. Without the help of the US/UK his part in the affair would probably have been inconsequential.

It is not Iran that is funding and establishing Islamic madrasses in Pakistan, India, China, Indonesia, Africa and elsewhere. It is the Wahhabist Sunnis and they preach intolerance and violent jihad. Furthermore, of the total global population of adherents of Islam, 75% are Sunni affiliated, and 25% are Shiite affiliated. Those percentages hold true in the immediate region of the ME as well. The repeated claims of Iranian desires of empire are a shibboleth emanating from KSA and UAE.

Nick , May 23, 2019 at 15:36

The leaders of the Islamic Revolution used Mossadegh's image to help get people on board against the Shah, The National Front was allowed to be a party again for a short time, and a Street in Tehran was renamed post-revolution for Mohammad Mossadegh. This was a cynical ploy by the Mullahs to get people on board with their revolution and make people believe that they were indeed the true heirs of Mossadegh and committed to democracy. It was all a sham. The National Front was made illegal again at some point in the 80s, and the street named for Mossadegh was renamed around the same time. These people are the heirs of the Shah whether they like it or not.

anon4d2 , May 23, 2019 at 16:59

Joe's question points out that, had the US not overthrown Mossadegh, there would have been a secular democratic government. That is true throughout the Mideast, where in the 1950s-70s the US supported radical Islamic movements that suppressed secular movements and overthrew secular governments, pretending that the USSR was moving in. There was no evidence of USSR interest there, as it was preoccupied with such factions in its central Asian republics, and apparently only some arms from the USSR in Egypt were ever found as "evidence."

Similar US actions have continued to date, almost 30 years after the collapse of the USSR, the US always supporting fanatics against moderates like Assad and Ghaddafi, and pretending to support "democracy."

Compare the US support of Saudi Arabia, a fanatical fundamentalist monarchy engaged in terrorism throughout the region, including against their only neighbor that defends minority rights, Syria. Again falsely claiming the need to protect oil supply, which it can buy anywhere without bombing anyone, like any other oil buyer. Again falsely claiming to support democracy which it overthrows everywhere at the pleasure of its own oligarchy, always to "protect Israel" or attack socialism, which is always to get political bribes.

There is no evidence of any "ethnic cleansing" by Iran in Syria or elsewhere. Where do you get that idea? Iran is majority Shiah, defending the majority Sunni population of Syria from Sunni fundamentalists. You certainly have no evidence that Iran "commits assassinations in South America" or opposes "aspirations to independence of other nations" and made that up to deceive others. Your comments on this site have been knowingly false.

zhenry , May 24, 2019 at 03:44

The above, re the current Iranian religious govt, very informative, thankyou.
Re Joe's article I cannot take seriously that Trump is against war and the Deep State.
If Trumps rhetoric during his electioneering, supporting the middle class (deeply deprived after the US corporations abandoned them for low paid Chinese labour) was in any way honest he would not have chosen the cabinet he did (and keeps on choosing).
Trump has not chosen one cabinet member that would support that supposed sympathy for the middle class.
Reporting that assumes Trump is fighting for moderation (against his own cabinet) and to establish policies in the direction of that sympathy, is without evidence, it seems to me, regardless of what he might suggest to Fox News.

Vonu , May 23, 2019 at 17:00

"The present régime has no respect for the principles of democracy and popular sovereignty that pervaded Iran's anti-imperialist struggle in the 1950s and was derived from the democratic ideals of the Persian constitutionalist revolution of 1909."
And the American government has equal respect for the Constitution.

David , May 23, 2019 at 12:56

Bolton didn't order a carrier group to the Persian Gulf. He doesn't have the authority. The carrier group left because of the deployment was already planned. Bolton does not have the power that has been ascribed to him. He is a grandiose clown who knows how to play the press. I don't think he will have his job six months from now.

David G , May 23, 2019 at 12:16

"At the time of Bolton's appointment in April 2018, Tom Countryman predicted to The Intercept that if Iran resumed enrichment after the U.S. left the deal, it 'would be the kind of excuse that a person like Bolton would look to to create a military provocation or direct attack on Iran.' In response to ever tightening sanctions, Iran said that it would indeed restart partial nuclear enrichment."

Two problems with this part of the article:

• The link in the main text here goes to an Intercept article about Bolton, but it has no mention of Tom Countryman, or even of Iran.

• It isn't accurate to say that Iran may now, or is saying it will, "resume" or "restart" nuclear enrichment, since it never ceased, nor did it ever commit to cease, such activity. The JCPOA merely imposed strict *limits* and monitoring on nuclear enrichment and stockpiling, some of which Iran is saying it will now depart from.

I also disagree with the imputation elsewhere in the article that Donald Trump has a good understanding of real estate. His disastrous, decades-long record in that business suggests otherwise. But I suppose some people will always believe what they see on TV.

lou e , May 23, 2019 at 12:06

Creeping fascism works like fishing with a rod and reel. You hook the fish and it runs off 100 ft of line . You reel in 50 ft and the fish takes 30 feet back. Do the Math! Some times burning down the village IS the only way to get rid of the infestation. Bit hard on the USSA, but as Ben Franklin put it you have a democratic republic IF ypu can Keep It.

Herman , May 23, 2019 at 11:56

Remember at an earlier time with Bolton, someone described him as a kiss up kick down kind of guy, i.e., a real jerk. I defended Trump against Russiagate because it was a threat to the office of the president. Unless, he gets his head straight, his "political" moves in the Middle East and Southwest Asia can spin out of control. He is not negotiating a new deal with some city to build another hotel, and his rhetoric makes him sound like that is the way he thinks he should act with other countries.

One can defend him by saying maybe it will work, but then maybe not and it is not a matter of your target taking his papers and leaving the room.

Great article, Mr. Lauria. Have you posted your resume on your site? Interested in your confrontation with Bolton.

Trump wants to be reelected more that being the President but in his defense we know what he will face if he decides to enter into honest negotiations. He's going to have a heck of a time finding people to cover his back. He can count on one presidential aspirant, Tulsi Gabbard but she's on the other side.

Jeff Harrison , May 23, 2019 at 11:42

If we have to rely on Thump for anything other than social controls, we're screwed.

David G , May 23, 2019 at 11:40

These personal reminiscences of Bolton at the U.N. by Joe Lauria unfortunately only confirm the man's very public record. The fact that such a creature has been accepted for so long in the heart of U.S. foreign "policy" is yet more evidence that the country's crisis of political culture started long before Trump came on the scene.

I don't quite accept the slight comfort implied in the formulations here that this time Bolton has "gone too far", or "flown too high", since to me they imply that there is some moral or rational bedrock that he has struck beneath which the establishment is not willing to go.

I don't think that's true, as a general proposition. For example, the U.S. continues less noisily but inexorably on its long-term collision course with China, which will be even more catastrophic than war with Iran, not to mention the ultimate one with the planet's environmental limits.

For me it's enough that, for a number of contingent reasons, Bolton's (and MBS's and Netanyahu's) lunge at Iran has fallen flat with both U.S. and European policy and media elites – for now, and I hope forever.

jessika , May 23, 2019 at 11:26

I just called WH 202-456-1111 to tell President Trump that Bolton should be fired; had to wait 8 min to talk. Trump certainly has lots of problems, but he'll have plenty more if he starts a war! Pox Americana!

Litchfield , May 23, 2019 at 16:58

Great idea.
I'll do the same.

vinnieoh , May 23, 2019 at 11:04

Thank you Mr. Lauria. I'm tending to believe that not only has Bolton flown too high, but Trump's predictable method of trying to get what he wants was completely miscalculated wrt Iran. There is no better treaty or deal to be had concerning keeping Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. The failures of the JCPOA that Trump is probably griping about all have to do with matters of Iran's necessary and legitimate right to security and self-defense. No sane nation would willingly give in to this bullying. Thanks again.

vinnieoh , May 23, 2019 at 11:44

Also, wrt Trump's predictable patterns, note that little if anything has changed regarding the US and the DPRK, so if he is a crafty and effective negotiator I'm having a hard time seeing it.

David G. Horsman , May 23, 2019 at 18:22

Good example Vinnieoh. NK and SK are reaching out and (more importantly) shoving out the US. More winning.

I love Trump. He is useful. Fascism, NAFTA, generic racism you name it, he really shines a light on issues.

Here again. (Currently) SA, GAZA, Israel, Syria and of course Iran. Hell, the entire region. What a train wreck he is.

What about the dollar? The EU? Yikes.

By gosh this man could single handedly take down an empire! MAGA!

O Society , May 23, 2019 at 10:47

Well done, Joe Lauria. Of course our dilemma is Donald Trump says one thing and contradicts himself 5 minutes later. You could say he "changes his mind" but I do not think his mind is stable to begin with. He's far too nuts to put any faith in for "doing the right thing,"

Bolton and his neoconservative pox on the world serve the interests of the war machine and fossil fuel corporations. When will be rid of them? When We the People grow a set of testicles and throw them all into prison. Trump isn't going to save us, but he might let Bolton get us all killed.

Time for the people to rise.

http://opensociet.org/2019/05/19/the-interlocking-crises-of-war-climate-chaos

Piotr Berman , May 23, 2019 at 11:31

Seems that Trump is so small minded that what we observe cannot be explained mechanistically, we need quantum mechanics. Rather that a particular state of mind we have a stochastic distribution, wave patterns and spin.

Marc R Hapke , May 23, 2019 at 14:34

Great analogy

O Society , May 23, 2019 at 12:39

The expert says what's going on in Trump's mind is solipsism and I agree with him:

https://opensociet.org/2018/07/07/assault-on-reality-solipsism-whats-wrong-with-donald-trump-part-1/

Sam F , May 23, 2019 at 13:12

Yes, Joe Lauria has presented the problem very well.

A major factor is certainly the persuasiveness of the NSC and other MIC entities which surround the president, and comprise much of official DC. Try persuading anyone in the MIC that war is ever inappropriate: they are all full of extreme scorn and false accusations, and have endless "evidence" of threats behind every tree, and rationales to attack this or at least that, just to make "statements" and "warnings" to invisible foreign monsters. The MIC is a completely and permanently logic-proof subculture of bullying, which bullies every member of its own tribe to line up behind tyrants like Bolton and a million other puerile bullies devoid of humanity.

No doubt you know that this was all well understood by the founders of the US, who restricted federal military powers to repelling invasions and knew that any standing military was a threat to democracy. The Federalist Papers should be required reading in the US. All of those understandings were gradually lost after the War of 1812 and the 1820s, as the founders died off. As the US became confident that it could repel any invasion, it lost the sense of the necessity of unity and cooperation of regions, and Congress degenerated into a battle of intransigent factions leading to the completely unnecessary Civil War. With the ebullient emergence of the middle class, no effort was made to correct the defects of the Constitution in failing to protect the institutions of democracy from the rising power of economic concentrations. With WWI and WWII, the power of oligarchy over mass media was consolidated, and by WWII the oligarchy and MIC effectively controlled elections, mass media, and the judiciary, the tools of democracy. Democracy has been a facade ever since.

The US has zero security problems that the MIC has not created, and could at any time re-purpose 80% of the MIC to developing infrastructure in the poorest nations with positive effects upon its security. Had it done so since WWII, we would have rescued the poorest half of humanity from poverty, ignorance, malnutrition, and disease, and would have had a true American Century. Instead we have killed over 20 million innocents and mortgaged the lives of our children to serve the infantile psychopaths of the MIC.

The solution is not only to eliminate the 2000-member NSC, cut the military by at least 80 percent, prohibit acts of war or surveillance by the executive branch, tax the rich so that no one has income above upper middle class, and demand amendments to the Constitution restricting funding of the mass media and elections to limited and registered individual donations. We also desperately need a fourth branch of federal government, which I am calling the College of Policy Debate, to conduct moderated textual debates of policy issues in all regions, protecting and representing every viewpoint, in which all views are challenged and must respond, and all parties must come to common terms. The CPD should produce commented debate summaries available to the public with mini-quizzes and discussion groups. Without that rational analysis and access to the core debates, we do not have a democracy at all, we are all no more than the fools and pawns of these oligarchy scammers, who must be actively excluded from all government capacities.

Sorry for the lecture.

Linda Wood , May 24, 2019 at 01:59

Please don't apologize, Sam F. Your brilliant and humane words give me hope at a time in which I am in shock at the blatancy of fascism in our government.

Doggrotter , May 23, 2019 at 10:33

Where is a drone strike when you need one?

OlyaPola , May 23, 2019 at 10:23

" seemed to always think he was the smartest person in the room."

Useful fools are often most useful when they are believers that they are not fools.

Once upon a time there was a discussion of which of the opponents' should be proposed for the Nobel Peace Prize – the list being relatively long.

After extensive analysis and discussion the short-list consisted of two opponents in alphabetical order Mr. John Bolton and Mr. Karl Rove.

However in light of the notion "Do you think your opponents are as stupid as you are? " the proposal question was left in abeyance, not only as a function of decorum but also through understanding that "Useful fools are often most useful when they are believers that they are not fools." and that even small dogs can seem tall when you are lying on your stomach.

OlyaPola , May 24, 2019 at 17:33

Since omniscience can't exist perhaps Mr. Bolton was/is subject to misrepresentation and misunderstanding?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6l6vqPUM_FE&list=RDXIOSOlqMaj8&index=17

bobzz , May 23, 2019 at 10:12

"Pompeo told a radio interviewer after the briefing that the U.S. had still not determined who attacked two Saudi, a Norwegian and an Emirati oil tanker in the Gulf last week, which bore the hallmarks of a provocation. Pompeo said "it seems like it's quite possible that Iran was behind" the attacks."

What possible advantage could accrue to Iran from putting a few dents in the ships? Smells of another false flag.

Piotr Berman , May 23, 2019 at 11:46

I would not be so sure. A delicate signal that Iran has more capabilities concerning stopping in-out-Gulf traffic than naive people like Bolton realize has a sobering potential. By the way of contrast, what kind of black flag it is if it is instantly put in doubt, "we do not know" etc. When there were "chemical incidents" in Syria, no one in Washington claimed the need for more facts, uncertainty etc.

Instead, UAE initially denied that it happened at all, subsequently, together with KSA, they did not have any "certain knowledge". Somehow no government appears to promote the incident. Even USA.

BTW, the allegation that Iran is placing missiles on fishing boats staggers the mind. First of all, "missile boats" of which Iran has plenty are small ships, BUT NOT VERY small, ca. 500-800 tons, which are fast, 40 kt, but not as fast as their predecessors, torpedo boats (200-300 tons, 50-60 kt). They are still faster than any of the larger naval vessels, can trail them, and attack from small distance in the case of start of hostilities. That Iran places missiles on such boats can be learned from videos proudly provided by PressTV.ir.

Using "fishing boats" for that purpose is dubious, and the largest question mark would be: WHY? The reason that missile boats are larger and heavier than torpedo boats is that you need more stability to launch missiles than torpedoes. Then you need a radar etc. Placing missiles on fishing boats would be a waste of missiles. Hardly an escalation.

OlyaPola , May 23, 2019 at 12:47

"Hardly an escalation."

Perhaps you are being deflected by framing?

One of the escalations is the escalation of belief in, requirement of, and resort to, the dumbed-downess of the "target audience".

One of the salient questions being deflected is why, and as ever investigation requires some knowledge of Mr. Heisenberg and his principles.

mark , May 23, 2019 at 22:34

Perhaps the Iranians are putting missiles on fishing boats to stun the fish and catch them that way. Fishing boats aren't exactly very fast.

Thomas , May 23, 2019 at 12:21

Anyone who actually believes the oil tanker incidents were carried by Iran should seek an immediate consultation with their doctor. These blatant false flags clearly are the work of fools and Iranians are not fools.

Brian , May 23, 2019 at 17:22

Exactly. According navel personnel, Iran has been using fishing boats to transfer rockets from land to it's vessels for years, supposedly because the gulf is too shallow. I don't have hydrographic maps of the area, anyone know if this is true?

Piotr Berman , May 23, 2019 at 23:33

Clearly, Persian Gulf has routes for the largest ships on Earth, but the supply bases for missiles may be away from ports, and it would make sense to place them so they are not easily accessible to a big ship navy, and in general, to disperse them.

Tim , May 26, 2019 at 06:43

"Thomas"

> These blatant false flags clearly are the work of fools

Since neither you nor I know who did it, and there are a whole slew of plausible suspects, we don't know why they did it, either. So it is silly to claim they are fools.

Since the Saudis and UAE are in the midst of waging war on Yemen, the most obvious suspects are their enemies there, al-Ansara.

(And by the way, contrary to what another commentator claimed, it was not a "few dents", but a gaping hole in the hull just below the waterline. And since the local authorities spoke of an impact by an unidentified object, these were presumably torpedo strikes.)

OlyaPola , May 26, 2019 at 07:58

"What possible advantage could accrue to Iran from putting a few dents in the ships?"

Quite a few including but not limited to further data on the opponents' perception of what constitutes plausible belief for the opponents' target audience, and the opponents' increasing resort to, amplitude, scope and velocity of "misrepresentations".

As is the case with the benefits of dumbing down not accruing solely to those actively engaged in dumbing down, the benefits of creation and implementation of "false flags" do not accrue solely to those engaged in "false flags", and are enhanced when the creators and implementers of "false flags" are immersed in amalga of projection and notions of sole/prime agency, facilitating potential benefits to many others not restricted to Iran.

[May 22, 2019] War with Iran could send oil prices to $250 per barrel

This is unfounded speculation. No facts.
Notable quotes:
"... The Iranian goal is to break the resolve of the US, given American military retreats from the Middle East in the past – Lebanon (1984), Iraq (2011), and Syria (presently) – and to increase the cost of Iranian oil sanctions on the global economy through additional disruptions to supply. ..."
"... This is obviously a dangerous game that could lead to real war, not just proxy war. As a result, it is important to explore the potential impact of both on the world oil market, despite the latter being significantly more likely than the former. ..."
"... On the deterrence front, the US has moved numerous military assets to the Persian Gulf region since the Trump administration's "no waiver" oil sanctions came into effect. These include: hastening the arrival of a carrier strike group; deployment of a bomber task-force; additional Patriot missiles; and as reported by The New York Times, drawing up plans to send up to 120,000 US troops to the Middle East, if Iran attacks US forces or rushes to develop nuclear weapons. ..."
May 21, 2019 | www.rt.com

As tensions between Iran and the US continue to escalate, analysts have begun to consider the likelihood and consequences of an Iran war. There has been much talk of an Iran War in recent weeks, but the likelihood of a war, whether intentional or accidental, is relatively small for the simple reason that the leaders of Iran and the US don't want one. President Donald Trump, who has been remarkably faithful to his campaign promises, to the chagrin of many, doesn't want another Iraq-like war – with a quick victory followed by a long defeat. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Supreme Leader of Iran, doesn't want his revolution and country crushed by the massive military might of America.

This is not to say there aren't powerful individuals in the Trump administration – such as National Security Advisor John Bolton and possibly Secretary of State Mike Pompeo – and regional allies – Israel, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates (UAE) – who want a war to bring about regime change in Iran, and who are willing to stir the pot in an attempt to make it happen.

Trump's personal preference for Iran may also be regime change, with a negotiated neutering of the Islamic Republic his next best outcome. But he probably would settle for long-term containment of Iran through his "maximum pressure" campaign, accepting that the Iranian regime would likely be able to sustain itself though skirting sanctions.

Iran has made huge geopolitical gains in the Middle East since the US inadvertently pushed Shiite-majority Iraq into the Iranian sphere of influence by imposing democracy on the country following the 2003 war. Tehran now directly or indirectly controls an arc of territory north of Saudi Arabia – Iraq, Syria and Lebanon – while supporting Houthi rebels to the south of the kingdom in Yemen.

Although US sanctions on Iran's oil and metal exports are unlikely to bring about regime change, they will make it significantly more difficult for the Islamic Republic to consolidate its territorial gains and sustain its regional proxy network, as the government will have to prioritize domestic spending to maintain social stability. Simply put, the sanctions make it more difficult for Iran to directly challenge its regional enemies, Israel, Saudi Arabia and UAE and score additional foreign policy victories.

Despite an aversion to war with the US, it appears Khamenei has given Qassem Suleimani, leader of Iran's powerful Quds Force and national hero, permission to encourage foreign militias aligned with Tehran to cause mischief for US and allied forces in the Middle East, and if possible, disrupt the flow of oil from the region through non-attributed actions.

The Iranian goal is to break the resolve of the US, given American military retreats from the Middle East in the past – Lebanon (1984), Iraq (2011), and Syria (presently) – and to increase the cost of Iranian oil sanctions on the global economy through additional disruptions to supply.

This is obviously a dangerous game that could lead to real war, not just proxy war. As a result, it is important to explore the potential impact of both on the world oil market, despite the latter being significantly more likely than the former.

US Perspective

Pompeo laid out the Trump administration's rationale and strategy for dealing with the Islamic Republic in "Confronting Iran," an article in the November-December 2018 issue of Foreign Affairs . He argued the deal the Obama administration and international community struck with Iran in 2015 – the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – was fundamentally flawed as it failed to end the country's nuclear weapons ambition. Instead, the deal simply postponed Iran's nuclear ambitions while the regime continued its ballistic missile program to allow it to deliver a nuclear payload.

At the same time, the deal gave "Tehran piles of money, which the supreme leader has used to sponsor all types of terrorism throughout the Middle East (with few consequences in response) and which have boosted the economic fortunes of a regime that remains bent on exporting its revolution abroad and imposing it at home."

The core of the Trump administration's maximum pressure campaign are economic sanctions designed to "choke off revenues" to Iran to force its government to negotiate a "new deal" covering its nuclear activities, ballistic missile program and "malign behaviour" across the Middle East, while providing sufficient military deterrence to keep Tehran from lashing out at US forces and allies in the region.

Trump withdrew the US from the Iran nuclear deal in May 2018, and has since ratcheted up economic sanctions on the Islamic Republic in August and November of last year, while going the full monty on Iranian crude and condensate exports at the beginning of May.

On the deterrence front, the US has moved numerous military assets to the Persian Gulf region since the Trump administration's "no waiver" oil sanctions came into effect. These include: hastening the arrival of a carrier strike group; deployment of a bomber task-force; additional Patriot missiles; and as reported by The New York Times, drawing up plans to send up to 120,000 US troops to the Middle East, if Iran attacks US forces or rushes to develop nuclear weapons.

It should be noted that a military buildup of this size would take months, and the 120,000 number is widely viewed as insufficient for a full-scale invasion of Iran. The Islamic Republic has been planning and building up asymmetric military capabilities to thwart a US attack since the 1990s, while the country is larger in size and population than Iraq. The US military plan reported by the New York Times did not call for a land invasion of Iran.

On May 14, Trump denied the New York Times report, but in characteristic fashion appeared to up the ante. "Now, would I do that? Absolutely," Trump said. "But we have not planned for that. Hopefully we're not going to have to plan for that. If we did that, we would send a hell of a lot more troops than that."

But in the Foreign Affairs article Pompeo wrote that Trump does not want the US to go to war with Iran: "President Trump does not want another long-term US military engagement in the Middle East -- or in any other region, for that matter. He has spoken openly about the dreadful consequences of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the 2011 intervention in Libya."

Iranian Perspective

On May 14, Khamenei explicitly said that Iran does not want to go to war with the US, and suggested the same of America, as a war would be in neither country's interest.

"There won't be any war," he said. "Neither we nor they seek war. They know it will not be in their interest."

In terms of Iran's current situation, David Petraeus, ex-CIA director and America's former top general in the Middle East, possibly put it best.

"Certainly, if Iran were to precipitate that [a war], it would be a suicide gesture," Petraeus said on May 9. "It would be very, very foolhardy. And they know that."

The Islamic Republic has done an excellent job of marshaling relatively limited financial and military resources to expand its influence and control through the Middle East since 2003, but its defense budget of about US$16 billion – or a mere 3.7 percent of GDP – falls considerably short compared to regional rivals Israel, Saudi Arabia and UAE on an individual basis, let alone a collective one. The military capabilities of the US dwarf those of Iran on every conceivable measure, which should come as no surprise since America's most recent defense budget is a massive US$686 billion.

Also on rt.com

Khamenei also said his country has no desire to negotiate with the US, given the Trump administration's extreme demands and unilateral breaking of the nuclear pact, and suggested the current crisis will likely be a long one, a view supported by Hassan Rouhani, the democratically elected president of Iran.

"The Iranian nation has chosen the path of resistance," Khamenei said.

Rouhani was even more explicit. Speaking to activists from a wide range of political factions on May 12, he said Iran is facing "unprecedented" pressure from US sanctions and suggested economic conditions may become worse than during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War.

"The pressures by enemies is a war unprecedented in the history of our Islamic revolution," Rouhani said, according to the state news agency IRNA. "But I do not despair and have great hope for the future and believe that we can move past these difficult conditions provided that we are united ."

This article was originally published on Oilprice.com

See also

[May 20, 2019] Venezuela Exposes the Myth of John Bolton's "Genius" by Martin Sieff

May 20, 2019 | www.strategic-culture.org

The fiasco of the latest obviously unsuccessful US attempt to topple twice democratically-elected President Nicolas Maduro made a laughing stock of the US government throughout the world and is now exposing new splits in the Trump administration in Washington. It is also exposing a dangerous but also ridiculous myth that Washington has credulously swallowed for generations – the idea that National Security Adviser John Bolton is actually competent.

No one among the carefully trained castrated geldings of the US mainstream news media and their pseudo-liberal and libertarian outliers has ever dared to ask how able Bolton actually is. He is held in awe and even fear for his supposed brilliant intellect and for his undoubted energy and relentless determination to push the policies he supports with tunnel vision and fanatical relentlessness as hard as he can.

Yet given such undeniable "qualities" what is truly astonishing is how useless Bolton has been in pursuing his own primary foreign policy goals for more than 40 years. He failed to prevent the first president to take him seriously, Ronald Reagan to conduct sweeping nuclear arms reductions with Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and to push ahead with Gorbachev to dismantle the Cold War. These policies were anathema to Bolton who prophesied – falsely – that war and catastrophe would flow from them. But Reagan ignored him and pushed them through anyway.

Now Bolton has destroyed Reagan's legacy of peace by convincing current President Donald Trump to scrap one of Reagan's greatest achievement, the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.

He succeeded in helping provoke the US invasion, conquest and occupation of Iraq under President George W. Bush in 2003 but failed to persuade even Bush, Junior and his top foreign policy adviser, National Security Adviser and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to pull out of any arms control treaties whatsoever.

Then, the Iraq misadventure was so appallingly bungled that Bolton failed to get any traction whatsoever for his priority project of toppling the government of Iran, even if it took a full scale war to do it.

In Washington, even Bolton's greatest critics among libertarians and paleo-conservatives have spoken for decades with awe of his supposed brilliant intellect, command of all details, endless energy and ability to read and keep track of everything. But now, the latest failed coup in Venezuela instead reveals an ignorant, simplistic rash adventurer and gambler who charges head on into dangerous situations and who relies on bullying and bluster alone to get his way.

Bolton showed none of the ruthless, devious subtlety of a Dwight D. Eisenhower in masterminding a coup and fragrant breach of international law without appearing to have anything to do with it (a skill which Ronald Reagan, though far less masterful than the revered Eisenhower also attempted in Iran-Contra).

Bolton's fingerprints were all over the hard-charging policy of propping up ridiculous Juan Guiado as America's cardboard cutout puppet to run Venezuela, even though he had no credibility whatsoever.

Bolton is in fact is an awesomely bad judge of choosing his own allies in other countries. His combination of recklessness and vanity means he is always a sucker for whatever smooth-talking sociopath can worm his way into his presence.

This explains how the late, unlamented Ahmed Chalabi was able to convince Bolton and his neocon friends that he (Chalabi)) would be welcomed by tens of millions of Iraqis as soon the US armed forces invaded ("liberated" was the politically approved term) his country and how Zalmay Khalizad, a catastrophic clown, was acclaimed as an infallible guru on Afghanistan.

Bolton is widely known to have no small talk, private interests, charm or social skills whatsoever. Far from confirming his "genius", as his many worshipful courtiers claim, this only confirms his haplessness.

If Bolton played poker he would be skinned alive. He cannot read people and being an obsessive courtier and flatterer himself, he always falls flat on his face for the flattery of others. The arch-manipulator is in reality the easiest of figures to manipulate.

Once the strange miasma of worshipful myth is stripped from Bolton, all the confusions and bungles of the April 30 Coup That Never Was in Venezuela become clear.

[May 20, 2019] May be tensions with Iran is the USA neocons strategy of containing China by depriving it economy of oil

China is Iran strategic ally. It will continue to buy Iranian oil.
May 20, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

charles 2 , May 20, 2019 at 6:43 am

Or maybe it is just one front: I.e. making globalisation difficult for the Chinese :
by pushing non Chinese Asians countries to de-integrate their supply chains with China and
by cutting its supply of oil though shortages induced by tensions in the Gulf.
The US knows that it can't be the sole superpower anymore any longer, so the strategy is to reverse globalisation so that no other global superpower (a Russian-Chinese with a dominating Persia in the Middle East) can emerge.
Far too early to say if the strategy will be successful or not.
As far as I am concerned, the silver linings would be that a long period of oil shortage could finally be the trigger to switch industrial infrastructure worldwide away from liquid and gaseous fossils, and that less globalised supply chain would be more robust to shocks, but if these silver linings were the ultimate goals, I could think of less adversarial ways to achieve that globally, with less money wasted on the military

jackson , May 20, 2019 at 8:41 am

The benefits of joint pricing mechanisms are also enormous. Currently, Iran has no choice because of the sanctions but to sell its oil – including from the shared fields – at massively reduced pricing that is comprised of its official selling price (OSP) minus the sanctions discount minus the incremental risk discount. This has resulted in Iran offering 'cost, insurance, and freight' cargoes for 'free on board' pricing, with the difference between the two covered by Iran. "Under this new agreement, Iranian oil from these shared fields will be sold based on Iraq's much higher three month moving average OSP pricing for cargoes, with no discounts at all, and the three month moving average for the effective spot market that Iraq has created and now controls," said the oil source.

https://acdn.adnxs.com/ib/static/usersync/v3/async_usersync.html

https://eus.rubiconproject.com/usync.html

https://c.deployads.com/sync?f=html&s=2343&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nakedcapitalism.com%2F2019%2F05%2Fon-the-cusp-of-war-why-iran-wont-fold.html <img src="http://b.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=2&c2=16807273&cv=2.0&cj=1" />

Geo , May 20, 2019 at 3:02 am

Thanks for the in-depth info. Lots to digest and research.

the US has acted in such bad faith so often in the early stages of conflicts that it's sensible to wonder how much of this account is accurate. It is very frustrating to be dealing with an informational hall of mirrors.

It's depressing to say but I when I read anything from domestic official sources or the media I can't help but think it's mostly lies. Not under the illusion that foreign actors are all righteous and benevolent, but as you said, our nation's track record with the truth in these scenarios is pretty tainted at this point. Just as we found out with Saddam and Qaddafi, these leaders have little reason to poke the dragon, and a lot of reason to build up defenses.

https://acdn.adnxs.com/ib/static/usersync/v3/async_usersync.html

https://eus.rubiconproject.com/usync.html

https://c.deployads.com/sync?f=html&s=2343&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nakedcapitalism.com%2F2019%2F05%2Fon-the-cusp-of-war-why-iran-wont-fold.html <img src="http://b.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=2&c2=16807273&cv=2.0&cj=1" />

PlutoniumKun , May 20, 2019 at 5:35 am

Interesting observations if true, and they certainly do make sense of a lot of the things that have been happening.

I see it hasn't dissuaded Trump though, this morning he is reported as doubling down on his threats to Iran. A big fear now is that Iran does not seem to be in the mood to give Trump the sort of symbolic 'win' he can use to climb down gracefully (and sack Bolton). The Saudi's can probably be scared into stepping back, but the Israeli's and the neocons want a hot war.

Its easy to see this gradually ratchet up step by step into an uncontrolled region wide conflict.

Ignim Brites , May 20, 2019 at 8:54 am

Not sure what to make of this article but the Anglo-American press is not providing much context for the recent ratcheting up of confrontation with Iran.

NotTimothyGeithner , May 20, 2019 at 10:11 am

The MSM is mostly stenographers and right leaning pundits. If no one tells them, they wouldn't know.

Also, the DC elites were pretty irked by Obama's Iran deal. They deferred to Obama and the Europeans who demanded the deal, but I think they live in a world where DC's enemies are the enemies of the American people who overwhelmingly supported the Iran deal. DC hasn't come to grips with this.

JBird4049 , May 20, 2019 at 12:20 pm

but I think they live in a world where DC's enemies are the enemies of the American people who overwhelmingly supported the Iran deal. DC hasn't come to grips with this.

Yes, because all pain, real blood and death, misery and horror that they cause in fighting what they assume putatively are "the American people's enemies" are never suffered by them, but only everyone else including the American people; all the financial benefits do go to them so it is all gain and no cost.

Ian Perkins , May 20, 2019 at 9:11 am

Will Lavrov and Wang Yi's guarantees prevent an Israeli nuclear attack on Iranian facilities, followed by US pledges to fully support Israel's right to self defence?

jackson , May 20, 2019 at 10:01 am

There are two kinds of weapons in the world offensive and defensive. The latter are cheaper, a fighter plane compared to a bomber. If a country does not (or cannot afford to) have offensive intent, it makes sense to focus on defense. It is what Iran has done. Moreover, its missile centered defense has a modern deadly twist -- the missiles are precision-guided. As an Iranian general remarked when questioned about the carrier task force: some years ago it would've been a threat he opined; now it's a target. Iran also has a large standing army of 350,000 plus a 120,000 strong Revolutionary Guard and Soviet style air defenses. In 2016 Russia started installation of the S-300 system. It has all kinds of variants, the most advanced, the S-300 PMU-3 has a range similar to the S-400 if equipped with 40N6E missiles, which are used also in the S-400. Their range is 400 km, so the Iranian batteries are virtually S-400s. The wily Putin has kept trump satisfied with the S-300 moniker without short-changing his and China's strategic ally. The latter continuing to buy Iranian oil.

Iran has friends in Europe also. Angela Merkel in particular has pointed out that Iran has complied fully with the nuclear provisions of the UN Security Council backed Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action i.e. the Iran nuclear deal. She is mustering the major European powers. Already alienated with Trump treating them as adversaries rather than friends, they find Trump's bullying tiresome. President Macron, his poll ratings hitting the lowest, is hardly likely to engage in Trump's venture. In Britain, Theresa May is barely able to hold on to her job. In the latest thrust by senior members of her party, she has been asked to name the day she steps down.

So there we have it. Nobody wants war with Iran. Even Israel, so far without a post-election government does not want to be rained upon by missiles leaky as its Iron Dome was against homemade Palestinian rockets. Topping all of this neither Trump nor Secretary of State Pompeo want war. Trump is as usual trying to bully -- now called maximum pressure -- Iran into submission. It won't. The wild card is National Security Adviser John Bolton. He wants war. A Gulf of Tonkin type false flag incident, or an Iranian misstep, or some accident can still set it off. In Iran itself, moderates like current President Hassan Rouhani are being weakened by Trump's shenanigans. The hard liners might well want to bleed America as happened in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Thomas P , May 20, 2019 at 12:13 pm

I don't trust those air defenses too much, where have they ever performed well? The scary part is where Iran assumes that USA can through repeated air strikes wipe out their missiles. They will from the start find themselves in a "use them or lose them" scenario and may launch everything as response to even a limited US strike, since they can't know if it is limited or the beginning of a full scale attack, and I doubt Iran is willing to go down without doing everything it can to hurt their enemies. (Possibly excluding Israel which is crazy enough to go nuclear in response).

[May 20, 2019] On The Cusp Of War Why Iran Won't Fold

May 20, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Yves here. Glenn F sent along this story about recent events in the US-Iran conflict, many of which don't appear to have been reported in the English language press. Interestingly, the article takes the position that it is the Saudis that have been doing their best and largely succeeding in suppressing these reports.

Going into the weekend, it looked as if the US was trying to turn down the Iran threat meter a notch. Both Iran and the Saudis said they didn't want war but were prepared for one. Then a mystery rocket landed in the Green Zone in Baghdad. Oopsie. From the Wall Street Journal:

No major destruction was inflicted by the rocket, which landed near a museum displaying old planes and caused some damage to a building used by security guards, according to an official in the interior ministry.

The interior ministry official, who declined to be identified, said the rocket had landed around a kilometer from the U.S. Embassy inside Baghdad's Green Zone, where many other diplomatic missions and Iraqi government offices are located.

No group claimed responsibility. But security officials said security forces had found and seized a mobile rocket launcher in an area of Baghdad where Shiite militias, including some with close links to Iran, have a presence.

But also note this:

The Trump administration last week ordered a partial evacuation of its diplomatic missions in Baghdad and Erbil citing increased threats posed by Iran and its allies in Iraq. The Iraqi government has varying degrees of control over an array of armed groups, some of which are closely affiliated with Iran.

... ... ...

[May 18, 2019] Is John Bolton the most dangerous man in the world? by Ben Armbruster

May 18, 2019 | www.theguardian.com

The US is closer to war with Iran than it has been since the Bush years, or perhaps ever. And Bolton is largely to blame

But Bolton is on a fast track, seemingly aware that Trump's time in office may be limited.' Photograph: Jim Young/Reuters Donald Trump's national security adviser John Bolton wants the United States to go to war with Iran .

We know this because he has been saying it for nearly two decades .

And everything that the Trump administration has done over its Iran policy, particularly since Bolton became Trump's top foreign policy adviser in April of 2018, must be viewed through this lens, including the alarming US military posturing in the Middle East of the past two weeks.

Just after one month on the job, Bolton gave Trump the final push he needed to withdraw from the Iran nuclear agreement, which at the time was (and still is, for now) successfully boxing in Iran's nuclear program and blocking all pathways for Iran to build a bomb. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – as the Iran deal is formally known – was the biggest obstacle to Bolton's drive for a regime change war, because it eliminated a helpful pretext that served so useful to sell the war in Iraq 17 years ago.

Since walking away from the deal, the Trump administration has claimed that with a "maximum pressure" campaign against Iran, it can achieve a "better deal" that magically turns Iran into a Jeffersonian democracy bowing to every and any American wish. But this has always been a fantastically bad-faith argument meant to obscure the actual goal (regime change) and provide cover for the incremental steps – the crushing sanctions, bellicose rhetoric, and antagonizing military maneuvers – that have now put the United States closer to war with Iran than it has been since at least the latter half of the Bush administration, or perhaps ever.

And Bolton has no qualms about manipulating or outright ignoring intelligence to advance his agenda, which is exactly what's happening right now.

In his White House statement 10 days ago announcing (an already pre-planned) carrier and bomber deployment to the Middle East, Bolton cited "a number of troubling and escalatory indications and warnings" from Iran to justify the bolstered US military presence. But multiple sources who have seen the same intelligence have since said that Bolton and the Trump administration blew it "out of proportion, characterizing the threat as more significant than it actually was". Even a British general operating in the region pushed back this week, saying he has seen no evidence of an increased Iranian threat.

What's even more worrying is that Bolton knows what he's doing. He's "a seasoned bureaucratic infighter who has the skills to press forcefully for his views" – and he has a long history of using those skills to undermine American diplomacy and work toward killing arms control agreements.

As a senior official in the George W Bush administration, he played key role in the collapse of the Agreed Framework, the Clinton-era deal that froze North Korea's plutonium nuclear program (the North Koreans tested their first bomb four years later).

He said he "felt like a kid on Christmas day" after he orchestrated the US withdrawal from the international criminal court in 2002. And now as a senior official in the Trump administration, he pushed for the US to withdrawal from a crucial nuclear arms treaty with Russia.

While it's unclear how much of a role he played in scuttling Trump's negotiations with Kim Jong-un in Hanoi last year, he publicly called for the so-called "Libya model" with the North Koreans (in other words, regime change by force). Just months before joining the administration, he tried to make the legal case for a preventive war against Pyongyang. And if you think he cares about the aftermath of war with North Korea, he doesn't. Bolton was reportedly "unmoved" by a presentation during his time in the Bush administration of the catastrophic consequences of such a war. "I don't do war. I do policy," he said then.

So far, Bolton has been successful in moving the United States toward his desired outcome with Iran – if getting the Pentagon to draw up plans to send 120,000 US troops to the region to confront Iran is any indication. There are hopeful signs that we can avoid war, as US officials and our European allies, seemingly alarmed by what Bolton is up to, are sounding the alarm about the Trump administration skewing intelligence on Iran.

But Bolton is on a fast track, seemingly aware that Trump's time in office may be limited. The question, ultimately, is whether the president can stick to his instincts of avoiding more military conflict, or acquiesce to a man hellbent on boxing him into a corner with no way out other than war with Iran.

Ben Armbruster is the communications director for Win Without War and previously served as National Security Editor at ThinkProgress

[May 18, 2019] What is the representative of Allmighty Nation doing un Russia?

May 18, 2019 | consortiumnews.com

Bianca , May 16, 2019 at 06:46

So, what is the representative of Allmighty Nation doing un Russia? Why bothering to hint on better relations? Noted in the press conference was the absence of Pompeo's moralizing, limiting itself on US position on issues. What is the point in this flying back and forth?

Yes, Iran -- and arms control. Venezuela -- and arms control. North Korea -- and arms control. I think they are paranoid about Russian weapons. And if Iranians by any chance have some of the new weaponry, providing perfect testing ground, would Russia own to that? What was obvious, no concessions on any issue from Moscow. Not even softened language.

This time, it is different. The economic and military power has shifted east, Europeans forever without a spine this time are spineless in all directions, and it will come as a shock to the establishment that the presumed animosity towards Iran in Gulf, will nowhere to be found. Wil Saudis host US troops against Iran, Doubt that deeply.

[May 17, 2019] Lavrov to Pompeo: And what's the US doing in the Eastern Hemisphere

May 17, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

That brings to mind the recent Arctic Council summit. Both Lavrov and Pompeo were there. Here's a significant exchange:

Lavrov: I believe you don't represent the South American region, do you?

Pompeo: We represent the entire hemisphere.

Lavrov: Oh, the hemisphere. Then what's the US doing in the Eastern Hemisphere, in Ukraine, for instance?

There was no response from Pompeo.

[May 14, 2019] Transcript Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Face the Nation

What is funny is that MARGARET BRENNAN is to the right of Pompeo. That's a real achievement. Pompeo probably was surprised that he was put on the defensive from his right-wing position by this warmongering female neocon.
May 05, 2019 | www.cbsnews.com
MARGARET BRENNAN: You've got the whole world as your portfolio so let's move on to Venezuela and Russia. There was this phone call between Vladimir Putin and President Trump that just happened. The president described it to us in an Oval Office spray. Why didn't he bring up election interference on this phone call when he said he did discuss the findings of the Mueller Report which found sweeping and systematic Russian interference in 2016?

SEC. POMPEO: Well you'll have to ask the White House that question. The president's been very clear. The administration has taken great action. I wish the previous one had stopped the election interference that took place in 2016. They failed to do so. Between 2017 when President Trump came into office and 2018, we had a successful election year, a set of midterm elections. We're working diligently to ensure that the elections in 2020 aren't interfered with by Russia, by Iran, by North Korea or anyone else. We have enormous resource deployed against that challenge. And the American people should be sure that their government is working hard to keep our election safe and secure.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You said, this week, that Moscow has hundreds of people in Venezuela and you were very clear that you think it was Russia that convinced Nicolas Maduro not to get on a plane and to flee the country. Here's what the president said during his- after his phone call with Vladimir Putin.

*Take SOT*

MARGARET BRENNAN: There seems to be a difference in how the president described the situation and how you and Ambassador Bolton have described it.

SEC. POMPEO: No, no difference, no difference. The- the president has said, I think he in fact tweeted, that the Russians must leave Venezuela. We've asked every nation that is in- interfering with Venezuelan democracy- you've seen this. I- I was down on the border. We saw mothers who couldn't feed their children, fleeing the country. We saw families that had sick kids but couldn't get medicines, all sitting, was sitting within 50 miles of where we were located. And Maduro won't allow it to come in. The president's been very clear, we want the Cubans out. There are Iranians on the ground there. We want the Russians- we want everyone out so that the Venezuelan people can get the democracy they deserve. That includes Mr. Maduro leaving.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So when he says, the president says, "Putin is not looking to get involved at all in Venezuela," that is not the president accepting him at face value?

SEC. POMPEO: You'll- you'll have to leave- you'll have to look at--

MARGARET BRENNAN: He knows that that's not the case?

SEC. POMPEO: The- the president has tweeted that he wants the Russians out of Venezuela.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So he was just putting a positive spin on things in that moment?

SEC. POMPEO: We- we are working very diligently to ensure that Maduro leaves and we get free and fair elections in Venezuela. That will require the 2,300 Cuban security personnel, the- frankly, the people closest to Maduro who are protecting the in- tight security for Maduro, they've got to leave. We're working on that as well. We're working with the Cubans to try and get an outcome that will let the Venezuelans have this opportunity.

MARGARET BRENNAN: On this, I know you'll be meeting with the Russian foreign minister in the coming days. Is there a deal to be struck with Russia on this front? I mean, Russia benefits, right, by having Venezuelan oil off the market, by having a level of influence in America's backyard. Is the U.S. going to negotiate a deal with Russia on Venezuela?

SEC. POMPEO: I'll certainly bring up Venezuela, be one of many topics that Foreign Minister Lav- Lavrov and I speak about- speak about. Whether there's a particular deal that can be reached? Only time will tell.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Lindsey Graham, the Republican senator from South Carolina who I know you know well tweeted this week, "Cuba, Russia sent troops to prop up Maduro in Venezuela while we talk and have sanctions. Where's our aircraft carrier?" He seems to be calling a bluff here on your mention and mention from others that military options aren't off the table. What is actually being considered here because you can't refer to the use of military force lightly. Is there an actual option that you are considering deploying in the coming days?

[May 13, 2019] Something about Bolton past and sexual preferences

May 13, 2019 | www.unz.com

FB , says: Website May 11, 2019 at 4:46 pm GMT

@J. Gutierrez Thanks for putting together this commentary J

Bolton a swinger ?

LOL that's a mental picture that's deeply disturbing yet funny at the same time

J. Gutierrez , says: May 11, 2019 at 10:42 pm GMT
@FB Yeah brother that POS was called out during his confirmation hearings during baby bush's presidency. Larry Flint had offered a Million dollars to anyone who had proof of republican sexual exploits. He was quickly fingered by someone who attended those clubs. He was forced to accept a temporary position and quietly resigned after a few months so as to avoid facing questions.

Someone said they saw him proposition a teenage girl outside one of the swinger clubs he frequented.

Glad you enjoyed the piece take care brother

J. Gutierrez , says: May 12, 2019 at 1:05 am GMT
@SeekerofthePresence Thank you your comment is very much appreciated. But I'm definitely not a spokesman for moral truth, just the truth. I just watch in amazement from Mexico at what the US government has become. A den of the most vile people ever assembled in the world far worse than the people that demanded the crucification of Jesus Christ. We just went through a serious political conversion, but the people had to hit the streets for it to succeed. I just don't think the American people feel they are in a do or die situation, and they couldn't more wrong.

[May 13, 2019] John Bolton is the problem

May 10, 2019 | www.unz.com

Sunburst says: May 10, 2019 at 3:22 am GMT

U.S. Foreign Policy used to have only two instruments in dealing with rest of the world, namely carrots and sticks. Since the fall of Soviet Union and certainly after 9/11, only sticks remain. Now the World including the so-called allies are getting tired of the threats and start ignoring the Empire, hence the diminishing effectiveness, paving the way for polymorphic World. This transition is fraught with dangers as pointed out by the Author.

SeekerofthePresence , says: May 10, 2019 at 11:18 pm GMT

Lovely post by Ret. Col. Douglas Macgregor on the end of empire:
"John Bolton is the problem"
"Trump's national security adviser is getting dangerous particularly to the president's ideals"
Douglas Macgregor
https://spectator.us/john-bolton-problem/

Could also be titled, "How to Exhaust an Empire."
Sun Tzu warned of the same demise in the "Art of War."
Didn't they used to teach that book at West Point?

FB , says: Website May 11, 2019 at 12:44 am GMT
@El Dato And also the 90 minute Trump-Putin phone call, where Venezuela was the main subject

From the way I understand Trump's comments afterward, it seems the military option is off the table the two presidents agreed that humanitarian aid is the priority

This is great news I have to give Trump credit here Justin Raimondo presciently opined a week ago that Trump may have been giving the 'walrus' just enough rope on Venezuela to hang himself

I have to wonder what Vlad whispered in carrot top's ear

'Come on man you can do it BE A BOSS '

LOL

J. Gutierrez , says: May 11, 2019 at 10:23 am GMT
When we take a close look at the American Government and it's elected officials, we can only come to one conclusion. The US is a thriving criminal enterprise that uses force to get what they want. The military's role is that of enforcers and the US President is no different than a Mafia Don. In no other time in US history has Government and Organized Criminal Gangs been so indistinguishable. George H.W. Bush with his New World Order announcements, his CIA drug dealing operations and military invasion of Panama to steal the drug cartel's money deposited in that county's banks, came close. Bill Clinton working with George H.W. Bush protecting drug shipments smuggled into Mena, AK, the cover up of murdered witnesses and numerous sexual assault allegations also came pretty close.

But when George W. Bush, Dick Chaney, Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld came into power, that was a Mafia if there was ever one. That group of criminals stole more money and murdered more people than any criminal organization in history. They even conned the American people into believing some rag-heads in Afghanistan hiding in caves did it. It was the first time since Pancho Villa that anyone attacked the US on its own soil. Not only did they steal all the gold stored in bank vaults located in the Twin Towers, but they put money on the stock market. In true gangster fashion the next move was to retaliate against the Muslim Mafia who was fingered by Mayer Lanski (Benjamin Nuttenyahoo) and their own paid snitches (MSM). It was time to hit mattresses and send their enforcers to get payback so the Purple Gang (Israel) can take over their territory.

There is a big difference between the US Government and the Mafia when it comes to war, the Mafia adheres to a strict code of ethics, they do not target their enemies families.

In 2016 the American people elected a true gangster from New York city. A known con man, a swindler, a tax evader and known associate of the criminal underground. A man with numerous court cases and 23 accusations of sexual assault. A man who was screwing a porn star while his wife was given birth. A man who's mentor was Roy Cohen a mob attorney and practicing homosexual who died of AIDS. A man that surrounded himself with the most perverted group of people in New York such as: Roger Stone a well known swinger and gay pride participant. Paul Manafort a convicted criminal and swinger who attended the same clubs as Stone along with their wives. They liked to watch their wives get screwed by other men. Lets not forget John Bolton who was exposed by Larry Flint for also being a swinger. His ex-wife accused him of forcing her to perform sex acts with multiple men at the same clubs the other 2 cuckolds attended. A Russian agent once commented that the best place to find government people to blackmail was the New York swingers scene.

Jeffery Epstein tops the list of perverted friends of Donald Trump. Epstein is the worst kind of perverted human being. The predator pedophile that uses his money to lure young girls into his sick world. Epstein holds the key to uncovering the nation wide pedophile ring that include some of the most famous people in the US. This is Trump's Mafia, a Mafia not like the Gambinos or Luchesis. A Mafia full of Perverts, Criminals, Pedophiles and Cuckolds. These are just a few of the people in Trump's circle of friends. If these are your leaders, what does that say about the American people!

My dad used to tell me tell me who you hang around with, and I'll tell you who you are! Every single person in DC government is compromised! And this incompetent Mafia of Perverts want you to believe that Madurro is a corrupt leader and Iran is a threat to the US!

[May 13, 2019] It's time for Trump to stop John Bolton and Mike Pompeo from sabotaging his foreign policy Mulshine

Bolton power over Trump is connected to Adelson power over Trump. To think about Bolton as pure advisor is to seriously underestimate his role and influence.
Notable quotes:
"... But I always figured you needed to keep the blowhards under cover so they wouldn't stick their feet in their mouths and that the public position jobs should go to the smoothies..You, know, diplomats who were capable of some measure of subtlety. ..."
"... A clod like Bolton should be put aside and assigned the job of preparing position papers and a lout Like Pompeo should be a football coach at RoosterPoot U. ..."
"... "Once he's committed to a war in the Mideast, he's just screwed," ..."
"... Not only Trump, at the same time the swamp creatures risk losing control over the Democrat primaries, too. With a new major war in the Mideast, Tulsi Gabbard's core message of non-interventionism will resonate a lot more, and that will lower the chances of the corporate DNC picks. A dangerous gamble. ..."
"... The other day I was thinking to myself that if Trump decides to dismiss Bolton or Pompeo, especially given how terrible Venezuela, NKorea, and Iran policies have turned out (clearly at odds with his non-interventionist campaign platform), who would he appoint as State Sec and NS adviser? and since Bolton was personally pushed to Trump by Adelson in exchange for campaign donation, would there be a backlash from the Jewish Republican donors and the loss of support? I think in both cases Trump is facing with big dilemmas. ..."
"... Tulsi for Sec of State 2020... ..."
"... Keeping Bolton and Pompeo on board is consistent with Trump's negotiating style. He is full of bluster and demands to put the other side in a defensive position. I guess it was a successful strategy for him so he continues it. Many years ago I was across the table from Trump negotiating the sale of the land under the Empire State Building which at the time was owned by Prudential even though Trump already had locked up the actual building. I just sat there, impassively, while Trump went on with his fire and fury. When I did not budge, he turned to his Japanese financial partner and said "take care of this" and walked out of the room. Then we were able to talk and negotiate in a logical manner and consumate a deal that was double Trump's negotiating bid. I learned later he was furious with his Japanese partner for failing to "win". ..."
"... You can still these same traits in the way that Trump thinks about other countries - they can be cajoled or pushed into doing what Trump wants. If the other countries just wait Trump out they can usually get a much better deal. Bolton and Pompeo, as Blusterers, are useful in pursuing the same negotiation style, for better or worse, Trump has used for probably for the last 50 years. ..."
"... I have seen this style of negotiations work on occasion. The most important lesson I've learned is the willingness to walk. I'm not sure that Trump's personal style matters that much in complex negotiations among states. There's too many people and far too many details. ..."
"... Having the neocons front & center on his foreign policy team I believe has negative consequences for him politically. IMO, he won support from the anti-interventionists due to his strong campaign stance. While they may be a small segment in America in a tight race they could matter. ..."
"... Additionally as Col. Lang notes the neocons could start a shooting match due to their hubris and that can always escalate and go awry. We can only hope that he's smart enough to recognize that. I remain convinced that our fawning allegiance to Bibi is central to many of our poor strategic decision making. ..."
"... I agree that this is Trump's style but what he does not seem to understand is that in using jugheads like these guys on the international scene he may precipitate a war when he really does not want one. ..."
"... "Perhaps the biggest lie the mainstream media have tried to get over on the American public is the idea that it is conservatives, that start wars. That's total nonsense of course. Almost all of America's wars in the 20th century were stared by liberal Democrats." ..."
"... Exceptions are: Korea? (Eisenhower); Grenada? (Reagan); Iraq? (Bush Sr.) ..."
"... So what exactly is Pussy John, then, just a Yosemite Sam-type bureaucrat with no actual portfolio, so to speak? I defer to your vastly greater knowledge of these matters, but at times it sure seems like they are pursuing a rear-guard action as the US Empire shrinks ..."
"... If were Lavrov, what would I think to myself were I to find myself on the other side of a phone call from PJ or the Malignant Manatee? ..."
May 12, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.com
It's time for Trump to stop John Bolton and Mike Pompeo from sabotaging his foreign policy | Mulshine

"I put that question to another military vet, former Vietnam Green Beret Pat Lang.

"Once he's committed to a war in the Mideast, he's just screwed," said Lang of Trump.

But Lang, who later spent more than a decade in the Mideast, noted that Bolton has no direct control over the military.

"Bolton has a problem," he said. "If he can just get the generals to obey him, he can start all the wars he wants. But they don't obey him."

They obey the commander-in-chief. And Trump has a history of hiring war-crazed advisors who end up losing their jobs when they get a bit too bellicose. Former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley comes to mind."

" In Lang's view, anyone who sees Trump as some sort of ideologue is missing the point.

"He's an entrepreneurial businessman who hires consultants for their advice and then gets rid of them when he doesn't want that advice," he said.

So far that advice hasn't been very helpful, at least in the case of Bolton. His big mouth seems to have deep-sixed Trump's chance of a summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. And that failed coup in Venezuela has brought up comparisons to the failed Bay of Pigs invasion during the Kennedy administration." Mulshine

--------------

Well, pilgrims, I worked exclusively on the subject of the Islamic culture continent for the USG from 1972 to 1994 and then in business from 1994 to 2006. I suppose I am still working on the subject. pl

https://www.nj.com/opinion/2019/05/its-time-for-trump-to-stop-john-bolton-and-mike-pompeo-from-sabotaging-his-foreign-policy-mulshine.html

JJackson , 12 May 2019 at 04:11 PM

What is happening with Trump's Syrian troop withdrawal? Someone seems to have spiked that order fairly effectively.
tony , 12 May 2019 at 05:12 PM
I don't get it I suppose. I'd always thought that maybe you wanted highly opinionated Type A personalities in the role of privy council, etc. You know, people who could forcefully advocate positions in closed session meetings and weren't afraid of taking contrary positions. But I always figured you needed to keep the blowhards under cover so they wouldn't stick their feet in their mouths and that the public position jobs should go to the smoothies..You, know, diplomats who were capable of some measure of subtlety.

But these days it's the loudmouths who get these jobs, to our detriment. When will senior govt. leaders understand that just because a person is a success in running for Congress doesn't mean he/she should be sent forth to mingle with the many different personalities and cultures running the rest of the world?

A clod like Bolton should be put aside and assigned the job of preparing position papers and a lout Like Pompeo should be a football coach at RoosterPoot U.

turcopolier -> tony... , 12 May 2019 at 06:55 PM
No. I would like to see highly opinionated Type B personalities like me hold those jobs. Type B does not mean you are passive. It means you are not obsessively competitive.
ex-PFC Chuck said in reply to tony... , 12 May 2019 at 08:06 PM
What do you expect when the boss himself is a loud-mouthed blowhard?
rho , 12 May 2019 at 06:34 PM
"Once he's committed to a war in the Mideast, he's just screwed,"

Not only Trump, at the same time the swamp creatures risk losing control over the Democrat primaries, too. With a new major war in the Mideast, Tulsi Gabbard's core message of non-interventionism will resonate a lot more, and that will lower the chances of the corporate DNC picks. A dangerous gamble.

E Publius , 12 May 2019 at 06:55 PM
Interesting post, thank you sir. Prior to this recent post I had never heard of Paul Mulshine. In fact I went through some of his earlier posts on Trump's foreign policy and I found a fair amount of common sense in them. He strikes me as a paleocon, like Pat Buchanan, Paul Craig Roberts, Michael Scheuer, Doug Bandow, Tucker Carlson and others in that mold.

The other day I was thinking to myself that if Trump decides to dismiss Bolton or Pompeo, especially given how terrible Venezuela, NKorea, and Iran policies have turned out (clearly at odds with his non-interventionist campaign platform), who would he appoint as State Sec and NS adviser? and since Bolton was personally pushed to Trump by Adelson in exchange for campaign donation, would there be a backlash from the Jewish Republican donors and the loss of support? I think in both cases Trump is facing with big dilemmas.

My best hope is that Trump teams up with libertarians and maybe even paleocons to run his foreign policy. So far Trump has not succeeded in draining the Swamp. Bolton, Pompeo and their respective staff "are" indeed the Swamp creatures and they run their own policies that run against Trump's America First policy. Any thoughts?

Rick Merlotti said in reply to E Publius... , 13 May 2019 at 10:17 AM
Tulsi for Sec of State 2020...
jdledell , 13 May 2019 at 09:23 AM
Keeping Bolton and Pompeo on board is consistent with Trump's negotiating style. He is full of bluster and demands to put the other side in a defensive position. I guess it was a successful strategy for him so he continues it. Many years ago I was across the table from Trump negotiating the sale of the land under the Empire State Building which at the time was owned by Prudential even though Trump already had locked up the actual building. I just sat there, impassively, while Trump went on with his fire and fury. When I did not budge, he turned to his Japanese financial partner and said "take care of this" and walked out of the room. Then we were able to talk and negotiate in a logical manner and consumate a deal that was double Trump's negotiating bid. I learned later he was furious with his Japanese partner for failing to "win".

You can still these same traits in the way that Trump thinks about other countries - they can be cajoled or pushed into doing what Trump wants. If the other countries just wait Trump out they can usually get a much better deal. Bolton and Pompeo, as Blusterers, are useful in pursuing the same negotiation style, for better or worse, Trump has used for probably for the last 50 years.

Jack said in reply to jdledell... , 13 May 2019 at 02:14 PM
I have seen this style of negotiations work on occasion. The most important lesson I've learned is the willingness to walk. I'm not sure that Trump's personal style matters that much in complex negotiations among states. There's too many people and far too many details. I see he and his trade team not buckling to the Chinese at least not yet despite the intense pressure from Wall St and the big corporations.

Having the neocons front & center on his foreign policy team I believe has negative consequences for him politically. IMO, he won support from the anti-interventionists due to his strong campaign stance. While they may be a small segment in America in a tight race they could matter.

Additionally as Col. Lang notes the neocons could start a shooting match due to their hubris and that can always escalate and go awry. We can only hope that he's smart enough to recognize that. I remain convinced that our fawning allegiance to Bibi is central to many of our poor strategic decision making.

rho said in reply to jdledell... , 13 May 2019 at 04:33 PM
jdledell

Just out of curiosity: Did the deal go through in the end, despite Trump's ire? Or was Trump so furious with the negotiating result of his Japanese partner that he tore up the draft once it was presented to him?

turcopolier , 13 May 2019 at 11:17 AM
jdledell

I agree that this is Trump's style but what he does not seem to understand is that in using jugheads like these guys on the international scene he may precipitate a war when he really does not want one.

Outrage Beyond , 13 May 2019 at 11:51 AM
Mulshine's article has some good points, but he does include some hilariously ignorant bits which undermine his credibility.

"Jose Gomez Rivera is a Jersey guy who served in the State Department in Venezuela at the time of the coup that brought the current socialist regime to power."

Wrong. Maduro was elected and international observers seem to agree the election was fair.

"Perhaps the biggest lie the mainstream media have tried to get over on the American public is the idea that it is conservatives, that start wars. That's total nonsense of course. Almost all of America's wars in the 20th century were stared by liberal Democrats."

Exceptions are: Korea? (Eisenhower); Grenada? (Reagan); Iraq? (Bush Sr.)

O'Shawnessey , 13 May 2019 at 01:21 PM
So what exactly is Pussy John, then, just a Yosemite Sam-type bureaucrat with no actual portfolio, so to speak? I defer to your vastly greater knowledge of these matters, but at times it sure seems like they are pursuing a rear-guard action as the US Empire shrinks and shudders in its death throes underneath them, and at others it seems like they really have no idea what to do, other than engage in juvenile antics, snort some glue from a paper bag and set fires in the dumpsters behind the Taco Bell before going out into a darkened field somewhere to violate farm animals.

If were Lavrov, what would I think to myself were I to find myself on the other side of a phone call from PJ or the Malignant Manatee?

turcopolier , 13 May 2019 at 01:21 PM
O'Shaunessy - He is an adviser who has no power except over his own little staff. The president has the power, not Bolton.

[May 13, 2019] Pompeo is a real piece of work

There were some reports quoted in Alexander Mercouris has a much rosier view of Trump's intentions that the US military brass are vigorously apposed to the Bolton and Pompeo efforts to provoke war against Iran. The Pentagon has found its niche pounding upon third world countries which can't defend themselves, and that's not Iran.
May 12, 2019 | www.unz.com

Republic , says: May 12, 2019 at 11:37 am GMT

@El Dato

Pompeo is a real piece of work

This thug is Secretary of State. He doesn't do diplomacy, he only issues threats.

follyofwar , says: May 12, 2019 at 12:58 pm GMT
@Republic Seems that Pomp-ass Pompeo is from the Queen Hitlary school of diplomacy.
KA , says: May 12, 2019 at 1:02 pm GMT
@Endgame Napoleon Americans probably don't understand Russia. Americans don't even mostly understand their own history. "

and they inquire why they hate us .

Don Bacon | May 11, 2019 11:56:00 AM | 23

@ ToivoS 16

the US military brass are vigorously apposed to the Bolton and Pompeo efforts to provoke war against Iran.

Yes, for the reasons I noted in my 4 above. The Pentagon has found its niche pounding upon third world countries which can't defend themselves, and that's not Iran. The recent US defeats in Iraq and Syria also sent a message. So the Pentagon is now content with aerial bombing of Afghanistan and Somalia while spending big bucks to (supposedly) contend with Russia and China, which of course is also out of the question when it comes to execution.

The Pentagon materiel acquisition system is riddled with corruption and poor management, the army is handicapped by low recruiting, drugs and obesity, the navy suffers from performance and maintenance problems, and the air force has been decimated by personnel problems and by an overly zealous procurement of useless F-35 prototypes. So bombers dropping bombs on villages in poor countries is as far as the Pentagon can go.

Taffyboy | May 11, 2019 5:07:56 PM | 62

On May 14/2019 Pompeo is to meet Lavrov in Sochi! ..."Pompeo is scheduled to meet with Putin and Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, in Sochi on May 14 to “discuss the full range of bilateral and multilateral challenges.” Before that, he will meet with officials at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow."...

A messenger boy on the errant trip overseas from his handlers. Something to tell in person, mano a mano no less.

..."“On May 13, he will arrive in Russia to meet with his team at U.S. Embassy Moscow before meeting with U.S. business leaders and U.S. exchange alumni. Secretary Pompeo will lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier,” State Department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus said."... That's rich, a nobody faces an unknown.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/443071-pompeo-to-travel-to-russia-meet-with-putin-next-week

Anyway...have a pleasant weekend, sir(B).

[May 12, 2019] Is rabid warmonger, neocon chickenhawk Bolton a swinger? That is a mental picture that s deeply disturbing yet funny at the same time

Highly recommended!
In this case he looks like Bill Clinton impersonalization ;-) That's probably how Adelson controls Bolton ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... Larry Flint had offered a Million dollars to anyone who had proof of republican sexual exploits. He was quickly fingered by someone who attended those clubs. He was forced to accept a temporary position and quietly resigned after a few months so as to avoid facing questions. ..."
May 12, 2019 | www.unz.com

FB , says: Website May 11, 2019 at 4:46 pm GMT

@J. Gutierrez Thanks for putting together this commentary J

Bolton a swinger ? LOL that's a mental picture that's deeply disturbing yet funny at the same time

J. Gutierrez , says: May 11, 2019 at 10:42 pm GMT

@FB Yeah brother, that POS was called out during his confirmation hearings during baby Bush's presidency. Larry Flint had offered a Million dollars to anyone who had proof of republican sexual exploits. He was quickly fingered by someone who attended those clubs. He was forced to accept a temporary position and quietly resigned after a few months so as to avoid facing questions.

Someone said they saw him proposition a teenage girl outside one of the swinger clubs he frequented.

Glad you enjoyed the piece take care brother.

[May 06, 2019] Think of bomb-bomb-bomb as OPEC by other means

Notable quotes:
"... ...The Saudi-led OPEC+ production cut strategy is still in place, but it is partly successful due to the negative repercussions of the sanctions on Iran and Venezuela. The high level of compliance with the agreement (128%) is based on the loss of these particular volumes. At the same time, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Russia, are sticking to their roles, cutting as needed. Optimism about Iraq is based on uncertain assumptions, while Libya's overall situation is highly volatile. ..."
May 06, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

The removal of U.S. waivers for leading oil importers of Iranian oil and gas is putting the Tehran regime under severe pressure. While Trump's target of reducing Iranian production to zero is unrealistic, the impact of the sanctions is undeniable.

...The Saudi-led OPEC+ production cut strategy is still in place, but it is partly successful due to the negative repercussions of the sanctions on Iran and Venezuela. The high level of compliance with the agreement (128%) is based on the loss of these particular volumes. At the same time, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Russia, are sticking to their roles, cutting as needed. Optimism about Iraq is based on uncertain assumptions, while Libya's overall situation is highly volatile.

...In the coming weeks, as analysts focus on production figures, storage volumes and demand, OPEC will be focusing on defusing pressure to increase production, while at the same time the Saudi-led faction will likely confront the Tehran-Venezuela (and possibly Iraqi) axis. Iran has openly threatened to undermine OPEC's stability if no support can be gathered before the June meeting. In several statements to the press, Iran's oil Minister has warned that OPEC is in danger of collapse. Tehran threatens at present to take all necessary measures to block oil and gas flows from OPEC members that are supporting the U.S. sanctions regime. At the same time, Tehran has warned to take measures against countries trying to fill in the supply gap left by Iran. Zanganeh reiterated the latter during a meeting with OPEC secretary general Barkindo in Tehran. Barkindo reacted by saying that OPEC will do its utmost to depoliticize oil and gas policies of the organization. OPEC's SG statements however look very bleak in light of the growing heat in the conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

scraping_by , 4 hours ago link

Much of the shambolic belligerence and pointless aggression of Not-A-Neocon Trump can be seen as cutting down world oil production in service of higher prices for SA's royals and, a very distant second, US shale producers. Venezuela isn't an existential threat to the US, not like Goldman Sachs, but embargoes on oil would keep the price up. Iran's not an existential threat, but oil embargoes... Syria's not an existential threat but putting the oil on the black market...

Think of bomb-bomb-bomb as OPEC by other means.

[May 05, 2019] A sharp spike in oil prices is another danger with which the administration now lands itself. Together, US sanctions against Venezuela and Iran will take roughly 2 million barrels of oil a day out of the market

Notable quotes:
"... First, the new turn in the administration's Iran policy appears to mark a decisive defeat for President Donald Trump in his long-running battle with his foreign policy minders. It is now very unlikely Trump will achieve any of his policy objectives, a number of which represent useful alternatives to the stunningly shambolic strategies advanced by Pompeo, National Security Advisor John Bolton, and other zealots in the administration. ..."
"... Second, this administration's foreign policy has steadily assumed an irrational character that may be unprecedented in U.S. history. This is perilous. The administration's near-paranoiac hostility toward Pyongyang and Moscow are cases in point. So is its evident indifference to alienating longstanding allies across the Atlantic and in Asia. As of this week, however, Pompeo's "down to zero" policy makes Iran the most immediate danger. ..."
"... The question is why this administration's foreign policies are so amateurish and discombobulated. Corollary question: Why is the president surrounded by policy advisers so thoroughly at odds with those of his objectives that are worthwhile? ..."
"... Trump may not have chosen his foreign policy team so much as its members have been imposed upon him. ..."
"... He was self-evidently behind the decision to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and the announcement in March that Washington recognizes Israeli jurisdiction over the Golan Heights. ..."
"... It is unlikely anything is all done in connection with the embassy move and the Golan Heights decision. Both run diametrically counter to international law and both have significantly damaged U.S. credibility in the Middle East. Trump, in short, makes his own miscalculations, and they are as grave as any made by the Pompeo–Bolton axis. There are few wise heads in this administration. ..."
"... You guys fail to see that the notion that Trump and Co genuinely seek to "improve ties" with Russia is a key element of the larger "Russiagate" psyop, a truly laughable idea which is disproved not only by the longer term historical record, but also by the veritable mountain of evidence that has accrued since Trump came into office demonstrating that this administration has only EXACERBATED the empire's long running and profoundly anti-Russian foreign policy agenda. ..."
"... Irrational foreign policy? I wish the United States would just drop the charade and declare itself a global empire. What we see is the foreign policy of empire. Is this rational or isn't it? ..."
"... Current US foreign policy is aligned to impose maximum pressure on countries like Venezuela and Iran in order to pressure those governments and hopefully topple them with sanctions. The entire World is hungry for oil and the demand for oil is expanding at an exponential rate which in turn guides US foreign policy. ..."
The US Moves on Iran's Oil Market as an Expression of an Irrational Foreign Policy by Patrick Lawrence
April 29, 2019 | consortiumnews.com

• 65 Comments

Patrick Lawrence gauges the backfiring potential of Pompeo's withdrawal on Thursday of U.S. sanction waivers from eight major importers.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's announcement last week that no importer of Iranian oil will henceforth be exempt from U.S. sanctions is as risky as it is misguided. The withdrawal of waivers as of this Thursday effectively gives eight importers dependent on Iranian crude -- India, Japan, South Korea, China, Turkey, Taiwan, Italy, and Greece -- 10 days' notice to adjust their petroleum purchases.

This is now a full-court press: The intent is to cut off Iran's access to any oil market anywhere as part of the administration's "maximum pressure" campaign against Tehran. "We are going to zero," Pompeo said as he disclosed the new policy.

Nobody is going to zero. The administration's move will further damage the Iranian economy, certainly, but few outside the administration think it is possible to isolate Iran as comprehensively as Pompeo seems to expect.

  • Turkey immediately rejected "unilateral sanctions and impositions on how to conduct relations with neighbors," as Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavusoglu put it in a Twitter message.
  • China could do the same, if less bluntly.
  • Other oil importers are likely to consider barter deals, local-currency transactions, and similar "workarounds." In the immediate neighborhood, Iraq is so far ignoring U.S. demands that it cease purchasing natural gas and electricity from Iran.

Insights on Overreach

There are a couple of insights to be gleaned from this unusually aggressive case of policy overreach.

First, the new turn in the administration's Iran policy appears to mark a decisive defeat for President Donald Trump in his long-running battle with his foreign policy minders. It is now very unlikely Trump will achieve any of his policy objectives, a number of which represent useful alternatives to the stunningly shambolic strategies advanced by Pompeo, National Security Advisor John Bolton, and other zealots in the administration.

Weakened by relentless "Russia-gate" investigations, for instance, the president has little chance now of improving ties with Moscow or negotiating with adversaries such as Iran and North Korea, as he has long advocated.

In a Face the Nation interview Sunday, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said Tehran would be open to bilateral talks under the right conditions. It was the second time in a week that Zarif made this point. But those around Trump, not least Bolton and Pompeo, are sure to block any such prospect -- or sabotage talks if they do take place, as they did Trump's second summit with Kim Jong-un, North Korea's leader, in late February.

Second, this administration's foreign policy has steadily assumed an irrational character that may be unprecedented in U.S. history. This is perilous. The administration's near-paranoiac hostility toward Pyongyang and Moscow are cases in point. So is its evident indifference to alienating longstanding allies across the Atlantic and in Asia. As of this week, however, Pompeo's "down to zero" policy makes Iran the most immediate danger.

Persian Gulf Chokepoint

Iranian officials, including Zarif, now threaten to close the Strait of Hormuz, chokepoint of the Persian Gulf, if Iranian tankers are prevented from passing through it. This is an indirect warning that the Iranian military could confront the U.S. Fifth Fleet, which operates in the Gulf and adjacent waters.

A sharp spike in oil prices is another danger with which the administration now lands itself. Taken together, U.S. sanctions against Venezuela and Iran are intended to take roughly 2 million barrels of oil a day out of the market.

Saudi Arabia has pledged to make up the lost supply, but many analysts question its ability to sustain an increase in output given the advancing depletion of its long-productive Ghawar field. Spare capacity among producers is already wafer-thin. Do we need to risk another oil crisis, given the flagging global economy?

Trump's foreign policy minders also risk alienating allies -- South Korea, Japan, India, the Europeans -- whose cooperation the U.S. needs on numerous other policy questions. In the case of China, the administration puts progress on a nearly complete trade deal and Beijing's leverage with North Korea in jeopardy.

There are other cases demonstrating the Trump administration's apparently thorough indifference to collateral damage and the animosity of allies. Since the U.S. abandoned the Paris climate pact and the 2015 accord governing Iran's nuclear program, the Europeans have hardly contained their anger; they are openly furious now about the tightened sanctions against Iran. The South Koreans, frustrated with Washington's intransigent stance toward Pyongyang, now search for ways to engage the North despite many layers of UN and U.S–imposed sanctions.

The question is why this administration's foreign policies are so amateurish and discombobulated. Corollary question: Why is the president surrounded by policy advisers so thoroughly at odds with those of his objectives that are worthwhile?

Trump arrived in Washington an outsider: This is where answers to these questions begin. This limited the New York dealmaker to a shallow pool from which to build his administration. His never-ending Russia-gate problem further handicaps him. This administration is among the most opaque in recent history, so certainties as to its internal workings are hard to come by. But Trump may not have chosen his foreign policy team so much as its members have been imposed upon him.

However his advisers arrived in the administration, they are a toxic combination of neoconservatives, many drawn from the Heritage Foundation , and evangelical Christians . Bolton is emblematic of the former, Pompeo of the latter. This is the current complexion of American foreign policy.

Zealots and Crusaders

Both camps are populated with zealots and crusaders; both cultivate irrational world views rooted in extremist ideology and sentiment. Bolton's obsession is the restoration of unchallenged U.S. supremacy. Pompeo is said to view adversaries such as North Korea and Iran as George W. Bush did : The U.S. is in an "end times" war with Gog and Magog, biblical manifestations of the evil abroad in the world.

To be clear, there is more wrong than right in the president's foreign policy thinking. He was self-evidently behind the decision to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and the announcement in March that Washington recognizes Israeli jurisdiction over the Golan Heights.

"This is very important strategically for victory, heights, because you're up high, very important," Trump said over the weekend. "Fifty-two years ago this started [when Israel captured Golan from Syria in the 1967 war] and I did it quickly. Done. It's all done."

It is unlikely anything is all done in connection with the embassy move and the Golan Heights decision. Both run diametrically counter to international law and both have significantly damaged U.S. credibility in the Middle East. Trump, in short, makes his own miscalculations, and they are as grave as any made by the Pompeo–Bolton axis. There are few wise heads in this administration.

At the same time, Trump's desire to negotiate with adversaries -- Russia, Iran, North Korea -- is entirely defensible. But the "down to zero" Iran policy to take effect this week can be read as a signal of the president's failure to counter the foreign policy Manicheans who surround him.

There may be skirmishes to come, but the battle is over. We must now watch as extremist ideologues accelerate America's already evident decline as a global power -- along with its increasing isolation.

Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International Herald Tribune , is a columnist, essayist, author, and lecturer. His most recent book is "Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century" (Yale). Follow him @thefloutist. His web site is www.patricklawrence.us. Support his work via www.patreon.com/thefloutist .

Brian James , May 2, 2019 at 12:23

Apr 30, 2019 A New Mega Cartel Is Emerging In Oil Markets

China and India -- two of the world's largest oil importers and the biggest demand growth centers globally -- are close to setting up an oil buyers' club to have a say in the pricing and sourcing of crude oil amid OPEC's cuts and U.S. sanctions on Iran and Venezuela, Indian outlet livemint reports, citing three officials with knowledge of the talks.

https://youtu.be/lgkGNyd6pR4

vinnieoh , May 3, 2019 at 14:33

Thanks for that link, I'm sure I'll follow this. I feel the same apprehension the narrator's inflection seemed to convey in closing "We'll have to see where this leads." That apprehension is that this will push the war-mongers to accelerate the timetable for an attack on Iran.

Stuart Davies , May 1, 2019 at 09:00

Sorry to see that Consortium News still maintains their commitment to the ludicrous premise that Trump is "pro Russian" at heart:

" the new turn in the administration's Iran policy appears to mark a decisive defeat for President Donald Trump in his long-running battle with his foreign policy minders .Weakened by relentless "Russia-gate" investigations, for instance, the president has little chance now of improving ties with Moscow or negotiating with adversaries such as Iran and North Korea, as he has long advocated."

Utter nonsense. You guys fail to see that the notion that Trump and Co genuinely seek to "improve ties" with Russia is a key element of the larger "Russiagate" psyop, a truly laughable idea which is disproved not only by the longer term historical record, but also by the veritable mountain of evidence that has accrued since Trump came into office demonstrating that this administration has only EXACERBATED the empire's long running and profoundly anti-Russian foreign policy agenda.

O Society , April 30, 2019 at 13:20

Irrational foreign policy? I wish the United States would just drop the charade and declare itself a global empire. What we see is the foreign policy of empire. Is this rational or isn't it?

https://opensociet.org/2019/03/21/the-american-emperor-has-no-clothes/

elmerfudzie , April 30, 2019 at 13:16

Asymmetric warfare with Iran has already begun. Internet based "worms" and economic sanctions have, so far, been successfully coordinated in concert with our rather reluctant Western Occident allies. These attacks have been more or less been kept at bay. The alternative, direct military intervention would prove to be a new "holocaust" and would target roughly seventy separate nuclear research sites and dozens of scattered air force bases. The weapons of choice would be DU-38 munitions and huge bombs. DU has a proven record against fortified concrete and armored structures. It has an infamous reputation for leaving permanent, radioactive "ground shine" wherever used. Lest we all (never) forget the absolutely horribly deformed children born in southern Iraq who suffered prenatal exposure to radiation poisoning! In war, it's always the most vulnerable and innocent to suffer the most for example; Yemeni civilians.

The militant factions of our Pentagon and Congress (found within both sides of the political aisle) will continue to pursue the long range plan I outlined some time ago in a CONSORTIUMNEWS commentary. To recap it, this tug-of-war is not so much about trading in the USD as it is about a global oil glut. I believe it was Bandar bin Sultan who commented that, and I'm paraphrasing him here; there's plenty of relatively easy oil everywhere, the idea to grasp is, what countries will be permitted to extract and sell it? Thus, the global and persistent NeoCon plan seems to be to cap or severely restrict, Libyan, Iranian and Iraqi oil reserves, meanwhile making backroom deals that permit a few SCO, (reluctantly) Russian, Saudi, African and US/Canadian reserves to flourish on the open market. Venezuelan oil will act as the back up resource should, a regional nuclear war in the middle east result in irreversible damage to "friendly" refineries and ready access to them. Again, ground shine due to a deployment of neutron A-weaponry (N-Bombs)..most likely from Israel. Ah!, sweet treachery in times of war eh? Need I remind our CONSORTIUMNEWS readership of Hitlers last minute betrayal of Stalin? The Israelis want a "piece of the oil action" too!

Us , April 30, 2019 at 10:59

So sorry to see the country ripped apart. Hatful , boasting reprobates behind the steering wheel

vinnieoh , April 30, 2019 at 10:05

Thank you Mr. Lawrence for, if nothing else, hypothesizing or postulating why the Trump administration foreign policy is as you say, so amateurish and discombobulated. But I do agree with Drew Hunkins below that for whatever reasons(*), Trump himself has always vilified and mocked Iran. He is nothing if not a scurrilous opportunist, and threatening Iran just fits his personality as a bully. Very few if any of the other kids on the playground have the guts or integrity to come to Iran's defense.

It lightened my spirit just a little bit when you said that the Trump administration "is one of the most opaque in recent history." Why, just yesterday I heard our glorious leader say that his administration is the most transparent ever in American history. I wish that I should live long enough to see the use of such superlatives disappear from our discourse.

I somehow missed Mr. Zarif's several statements concerning a willingness to engage in bilateral talks. That is almost flabbergasting. Which Iranians could possibly believe there is an honest negotiator now anywhere close to the levers of power in DC? But Zarif continues to hold to and operate in the terms of classic diplomacy: do not close any doors forever, and; do not relinquish the high ground of sensibleness and integrity to your opponent. But, surely there aren't ANY Iranians who believe that the US would make any concessions, de-escalate any of our threats, or place a muzzle on our two rabid dog allies.

(*) It is my firm belief that the overwhelming motivation for much of what Trump does goes back directly to the annual DC correspondents dinner where Obama publicly and rightfully humiliated and mocked that fat-assed moron. And well he should have. It didn't miss my notice that Trump once again skipped that event. He will never attend – it was the absolute lowest point of his public life (so far), everybody laughing at him and that horrible skinny n####r twisting the rhetorical knife relentlessly. I'm reminded of a short story of Harlan Ellison's called "Stardust." I'll leave it to the curious to follow that lead. Narcissism as a genetic "addiction."

vinnieoh , April 30, 2019 at 10:17

Right after the 2016 election I posted something to the effect that perhaps we should ask native Americans if they think it is unusual that an unprincipled real estate speculator is now the captain of the state.

Zhu , April 30, 2019 at 01:22

Thanks for confirming that Pompeo is a Dispensationalist, eager for the End of the World.

Roberto , April 30, 2019 at 08:01

The neocons, Bolton and Pompeo, are not going to put an end to the world, because the Greek Islands need nothing from the United States. They only need a little gasoline for their cars and motor scooters. However, the neocons are going to put an end to the petrodollar, because no one on earth can trust the "out of control government" of the United States, any longer.

CitizenOne , April 30, 2019 at 01:06

During the Iraq war there were many calls from conservatives to not stop at the border with Iran. They supported a plan to roll US tanks and other offensive forces until they reached Tehran and obliterated it defeating the rogue nation and securing Iranian oil fields.

The scenario proposed today to strangle resource rich nations by war hawks is similar to the post war imaginings posed by Patton to keep on going until the US armed forces reached Moscow. It is similar to the plans of MacArthur to lay down a nuclear radiation barrier along North Korea's northern border with China to create a lethal ionizing radioactive zone or no mans land to prevent China from sending Chinese troops across the border.

Each one of these proposed but never implemented war strategies in hind sight would have probably netted the US great gains at minimal risk.

On one hand, the current administrations strategy and tactics to wage economic war against US "enemies" which are all rich with oil reserves seems like the right aggressive maneuvers to make easy wins for the USA. On the other hand the World has changed since those times.

Current US foreign policy is aligned to impose maximum pressure on countries like Venezuela and Iran in order to pressure those governments and hopefully topple them with sanctions. The entire World is hungry for oil and the demand for oil is expanding at an exponential rate which in turn guides US foreign policy.

There is thousands of years of history of nations including the US to takeover the riches of nations and profit from the resources.

... ... ...

[May 04, 2019] Pompeo and Pemce chistianity is a joke

Notable quotes:
"... It’s also a white thing or Republican thing (Nikki Haley). But frankly, political Zionism is just as pro-Israel and is pervasive among nearly D.C. establishment politicos. People like Hillary, Samantha Power, Susan Rice are every bit as warmongering for Israel as John Hagee. ..."
"... My only interest in the “State of Israel” is they should keep their hands out of our federal treasury, i.e. our tax dollars, and quit spreading lies that they are “just like us.” They are not. ..."
"... Christian Zionism is a minor problem. The major one is the Zionist fifth column in this country that infests and largely controls the government, the economy, the mass media, etc. ..."
May 04, 2019 | www.unz.com

Pompeo: "My Faith in Jesus Christ Makes a Real Difference"

Pompeo says God may have sent Trump to save Israel from Iran

"As a Christian, I certainly believe that's possible," said Mr Pompeo ."I am confident that the Lord is at work here,"

Pence, a Catholic Evangelical who almost became a priest: "I made a commitment to Christ."

Christians? These Christians support a war on Yemen in which huge numbers of people are dying of mutilation, cholera, and starvation, a war they could stop with a telephone call. They similarly support butchery of Afghans from the air, massive killing in Syria, bombing of Somalis, and torture chambers around the world. Such is their Christianity. They lack even a shred of human decency. But they are Christians.

Rational , says: April 26, 2019 at 5:52 pm GMT

OLD TESTAMENT, THE ROOT OF CHRISTIANITY = PURE EVIL.

Thanks for the article, Fred. You are so right. But when I see the Pope kissing the feet of alien invaders and Pence groveling to Israel, I remember these:

The 18th-century Anglo-American philosopher Thomas Paine wrote in The Age of Reason that “Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible [i.e. the Old Testament] is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the Word of God.” When he says Bible, Paine is referring to the OT.

See: http://www.evilbible.com

“Christianity is the most ridiculous, the most absurd and bloody religion that has ever infected the world.” – VOLTAIRE

See online the book: “Crimes of Christianity” by Foote:

http://www.ftarchives.net/foote/crimes/contents.htm

“There is no text more barbaric than the Old Testament….–books like Deuteronomy and Leviticus and Exodus*. The Quran pales in comparison.”–Jewish author Dr. Samuel Benjamin Harris.

*i.e. Torah, or OT.

Bragadocious , says: April 26, 2019 at 7:29 pm GMT
We have Pompeo, a malignant manatee looking to start wars in which he will not risk his flabby amorphous ass also parading his Christianity

Actually Pompeo served in the military for five years, reaching the rank of captain. Now he’s 55, so yes, he will not be risking his “flabby ass,” only his job.

Fred should really do more research, ‘cuz he just seems lazy.

Whatever Pompeo’s shortcomings, the guy’s resume is top-notch: first in his class at West Point, STEM degree, Harvard law, veteran, successful businessman, yada yada. I do find it odd that someone of his ilk believes in the Rapture; my only guess is that he’s playing to his (former) Kansas electoral base, and he can’t back out now. No way he believes this stuff.

As far as Impressive Humans go, Pompeo > Reed.

Anonymous [388] • Disclaimer , says: April 26, 2019 at 11:20 pm GMT
Protestantism is pseudo-Christianity. It started 1500 years after the Christian Church was founded and now has over 40K different splinter groups (denominations) in the U.S. alone. This Johnny-come-lately of heresies began because of greed and lust, and as usual, a Jewish revolutionary spirit (read E. Michael Jones’ The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit ).

But on Trump’s über-neocon turn E. Michael Jones sums it up well in this Sputnik News interview of March 22, 2019:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/ByB3aT-jF_A?feature=oembed

Patrick , says: April 26, 2019 at 11:40 pm GMT
I am not in favor of christian zionism but the irrational has always played a prominent role in human politics, that being said I am a great fan of Fred Reed.
Anatoly Karlin , says: • Website April 27, 2019 at 1:51 pm GMT
The one nice thing is that Israelophilia amongst young Americans rapidly drops off along with secularization and Europeanization of social attitudes, as well as of course greater diversity (Latinos couldn’t care less about creating Greater Israel). There was a recent survey which showed that even young Republicans are not much more pro-Israel than young Democrats. This Christian Zionism thing is very much a boomer thing.

There’s a good chance that the Trump administration is a last hurrah for the Israel First agenda.

nickels , says: April 27, 2019 at 2:28 pm GMT
Christians didn’t invent hypocrisy, nor are they the only ones who apply it. However, they are the one group that knows and professes to do better, so they are easy target.
Christo , says: April 27, 2019 at 2:47 pm GMT
“Pence -a Catholic Evangelical” mutually exclusive terms . He is a former Catholic, and now, they just did not hold him underwater long enough. LOL
Amerimutt Golem , says: April 27, 2019 at 3:25 pm GMT
The closest to original Christianity is the Eastern Orthodox brand which is less corrupted compared to Romanism with its heavy doses of ‘pagan’ influences.

Christian Zionism is a fraud like most American heresies including those snake-handling ‘churches’, Mormonism, Seventh Day Adventists, Christian Identity, Christian Science, Jehovah Witnesses plus countless Jim Jones-like cults.

In fact Luther, the founder of Protestantism, was initially a ‘Zionist’ till he saw the ‘light’, prompting him to pen On the Jews and Their Lies (Von den Juden und ihren Lügen) . The modern apostate Lutheran church has since been compromised.

Besides the ‘perks’ of being philo-Semitic are terrible. Take the Brits. After they failed to fulfill the fraudulent Balfour Declaration, Zionists turned nasty – terror groups like the Haganah, Irgun and Stern Gang resorted to letter bombs, blowing up hotels and hanging British troops with piano wire.

turtle , says: April 27, 2019 at 7:38 pm GMT
@Bragadocious Reed >> Pompeo
As a cadet @ West Point, Mr. Pompeo swore to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadet_Honor_Code

West Point’s Cadet Honor Code reads simply that

“A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”

In modern times, he brags and laughs about having done all three as director of CIA:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/OifY3sqrmXQ?feature=oembed

By contrast, Mr. Reed is one of these:
https://www.marines.com/who-we-are/our-values.html
DUCTUS EXEMPLO
A Latin term that means “lead by example,”
it’s about behaving in a manner that inspires others.

Don’t know about you, but I am not inspired by a fat body who brags about lying, cheating and stealing, just for starters.
He is also welcome to peddle his crazed religious beliefs somewhere else.
As an agnostic, I really do not give a rat’s ass what happens to the terrorist state of Israel.
Israel’s battles are not my battles, and I resent anyone attempting to tell me they are.
I also do have Iranian friends, but no Iranian enemies.
Notice to Mr. Pence:
Iran is not my enemy.
Israel’s enemies are not my enemies.
I do NOT “stand with Israel.”

The United States of America is a separate country from the State of Israel, with far different values.

I stand with the United States, the country of my birth, so long as it adheres to the principles embodied in its founding documents, the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Lately, it does not appear to be doing much of that, no thanks to shitheads like Mr. Pompeo, and his compadre in crime, Mr. Bolton.

turtle , says: April 27, 2019 at 7:51 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

This Christian Zionism thing is very much a boomer thing.

I disagree. In my opinion, “Christian Zionism” is very much an ignorance thing. Snake handlers and “young earth creationists” are probably its major constituency. I was born in 1949, turned 21 and graduated university in 1970. None of my friends past or present, Christian or not, believe such absolute nonsense. Unfortunately, it appears there are all too many who do.

Bragadocious , says: April 27, 2019 at 10:01 pm GMT
@turtle You’re pretty naive if you think the CIA doesn’t lie. Every intelligence outfit across the world lies. You think MI6 doesn’t lie, like every day of its life?

Since you’re so interested in Israel, you might want to know that Fred Reed is a total Johnny come lately on critiquing Israel. He used to make fun of people e-mailing him about Israel. In 2005, he wrote a hugely embarrassing positive review of a book claiming that Israel was getting a raw deal in the press because Palestinians were orchestrating the coverage. Imagine shilling for a book like that. Fred Reed did.

Anonymous [388] • Disclaimer , says: April 27, 2019 at 11:16 pm GMT
@turtle

In my opinion, “Christian Zionism” is very much an ignorance thing.
Snake handlers and “young earth creationists” are probably its major constituency.

I was born in 1949, turned 21 and graduated university in 1970.
None of my friends past or present, Christian or not, believe such absolute nonsense.
Unfortunately, it appears there are all too many who do.

It’s also a white thing or Republican thing (Nikki Haley). But frankly, political Zionism is just as pro-Israel and is pervasive among nearly D.C. establishment politicos. People like Hillary, Samantha Power, Susan Rice are every bit as warmongering for Israel as John Hagee.

But the rapid demographic shift and the the decline of whites in large metro areas will certainly reduce future support for Israel and the U.S. kowtowing to Israel.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/70-of-school-districts-newest-students-are-immigrants-legal-status-unknown

70 percent of school district’s newest students are immigrants, legal status unknown

Seven of 10 new students in a Baltimore-Washington area school district are immigrants, their legal status unknown and their second language English, according to a series of new media reports about the impact of surging immigration on local communities.

A recent Baltimore Sun report said that of the 5,000 new students jamming Baltimore County schools in the past five years, 3,500 are “recent immigrants or children whose family speak another language.”

That has helped to double the percentage of students who speak English as a second language, part of a national trend.

turtle , says: April 27, 2019 at 11:20 pm GMT
@Bragadocious

You’re pretty naive if you think the CIA doesn’t lie.

I never said that, or believed it either. What I said:

I am not inspired by a fat body who brags about lying, cheating and stealing

Nor is Pompeo the only Pointer known to lie. There was a certain General Powell, for example. Perhaps the USMA should change their motto – truth in advertising, etc. FWIW, I had two close friends in HS who were both USMA, Class of 1970. I know for a fact neither of them would stoop to Mr. Pompeo’s level.

Since you’re so interested in Israel

My only interest in the “State of Israel” is they should keep their hands out of our federal treasury, i.e. our tax dollars, and quit spreading lies that they are “just like us.” They are not.

Jus' Sayin'... , says: April 27, 2019 at 11:53 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin Christian Zionism is a minor problem. The major one is the Zionist fifth column in this country that infests and largely controls the government, the economy, the mass media, etc.
wayfarer , says: April 28, 2019 at 12:11 am GMT
“Michele Bachmann and Alex Jones on Biblical Prophecy”

https://www.youtube.com/embed/lBt-3X0A9OE?feature=oembed

turtle , says: April 28, 2019 at 3:39 am GMT
@Anonymous

People like Hillary, Samantha Power, Susan Rice are every bit as warmongering for Israel as John Hagee.

Yep.

Realist , says: April 28, 2019 at 10:15 am GMT
Religion is used to control people.
Realist , says: April 28, 2019 at 10:26 am GMT
@Bragadocious

Whatever Pompeo’s shortcomings, the guy’s resume is top-notch: first in his class at West Point, STEM degree, Harvard law, veteran, successful businessman, yada yada.

I would not consider a degree in engineering management a STEM degree

Realist , says: April 28, 2019 at 10:39 am GMT
@turtle

Christian Zionism

Here is an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0bU0HBZ7Nk

The Alarmist , says: April 28, 2019 at 11:14 am GMT

“This puts Evangelicals in the curious position of being pro-Israel but anti-Semitic.”

Tuning around Freesat in Europe, particularly the UK, get you get a lot of religious channels, mostly Muslim, but also more than a few Christian. One day I tuned past a Christian guy standing in front of a phone bank and a flag of Israel, asking for money while expressing his solidarity with Israel.

You make a good point Fred: They don’t care so much about the Jews, they just want to get their hands on the Holy Lands, even if it takes every Jewish and Muslim life they can throw at the problem.

The Alarmist , says: April 28, 2019 at 11:43 am GMT
@Bragadocious

“Actually Pompeo served in the military for five years, reaching the rank of captain.”

The top of a Service Academy class only “reaching” the rank of Captain (Railroad Tracks, not Bird) after five years of active service is hardly an accomplishment … it is fulfilling the service requirement in exchange for a free-ride on the taxpayers teat. He conveniently ended his service just before he might have been dragooned into Gulf War 1, and if he did reserve time, it was while at Harvard Law; while many other reserve officers had their civvy careers interrupted by an increasing ops tempo of deployments that followed GW1, Mike did just fine.

Having been given seed money for his business by the Kochs and Bain Capital, he was plucked, like B. Hussein Obama, out of relative obscurity and fast-tracked to greatness. Kind of like a poorer George H.W. Bush.

The Alarmist , says: April 28, 2019 at 11:53 am GMT
@Swede55 There was a Byzantium, but it wasn’t as Chi-Chi as Rome at the time of Christ. Making Rome the centre of the Gurch then would be like making it New York or DC now. I would be hard-pressed to see Christ himself embracing Rome as the seat of Christendom then, but it would not be much of a reach for his followers who wanted to be closer to the cosmopolitan action of the day.
Fran Macadam , says: • Website April 28, 2019 at 12:18 pm GMT
I guess you’d call me one of those detestable fundamentalists, Fred. You see, I take very seriously what Jesus says in the New Testament. The authority of the Son of God makes clear that His interpretations are the ones that those really transformed and following Him would model.

Now people who’ve never directly experienced things for themselves can be misled by others, who will use the disguise of faith. As for love of country, patriotism is also misused to become the first refuge of scoundrels: instead of loving your neighbors, used by them as Mark Twain pointed out to require hating others in countries further away.

But what happens when you find out you’ve been lied to? For me, having had some involvement with the military in the computer industry during the Cold War, it was clear after the Russians abandoned sovietism that the American corporations involved cared not a whit for liberty – war meant profits. Then came the lies justifying the Iraq war and all its cousins, along with the Abu Ghraib tortures approved to the highest levels – which because of my own involvement I knew had to follow the chain of command. Both religious leaders and political leaders approved of these tortures. But although I had believed these folks, the revelations and the excuses made did not jibe with my Savior’s clear speaking in scripture – quite the opposite. This was not the Jesus I know, nor the witness of the Holy Spirit who leads me.

Now these manifestations of political cooperation and human organizations calling themselves Christian, are self identifying. They claim the name Christian, but when they defy Christ’s own example and teaching, they are in fact anti-Christian, either self-deceived or knowingly deceiving others.

All along, there have been those who truly were following His path and taking up His cross, even where weeds choked the Gospel as best they could, and wolves moved among the sheep in disguise. Often those with the power to do so marginalized, persecuted and even tortured and murdered these, while masquerading as Christians while defying His every command.

I am evangelical, in that I would like to see others meet the real Jesus, not substitute false idols like the War Jesus constructed by merely human hands. But I also know that despite billions supposedly Christian, Jesus warned the path is narrow, the road to destruction broad, and that those taking up His cross would ever only be a minority – and that such a minority would be persecuted, even by religious authorities. Such folks cannot be conflated with membership rolls on institutional records, but are known to God.

My orientation of faith is identical to that of the anabaptists who were the Christians persecuted by Catholics and Protestants alike, reformers who refused to take up arms against either. They often rescued their own pursuers, yet were rewarded with burning, drowning, throttling, dismemberment, along with wives and children by those who pretended they were serving Christ by doing so.

So I appreciate your pointing out how wicked it is to do evil things in the name of Christ, but I would like to remind you that just as the counterfeit can’t exist without the genuine, that there are those who won’t participate in these things, because they are determined to follow Christ, the Holy Spirit and the conscience this dictates, regardless of both those who hate Christ and those who worship a false Christ whose actions bear more resemblance to the methods of Satan himself.

Thanks Fred.

Anon [114] • Disclaimer , says: April 28, 2019 at 1:21 pm GMT
@Fran Macadam Nietzsche once wrote that the first, and also last, Christian had been Christ himself.
Thorfinnsson , says: April 28, 2019 at 1:24 pm GMT
@turtle The honor code at West Point was always taken seriously. Like so much else it has deteriorated lately, but it’s still observed.

Unfortunately, once the plebs graduate and become officers they enter the United States Army, in which lying is required to advance your career. The entire officer corps as a result is dishonest, and the higher your rank the greater the lying.

See John T. Reed on this, USMA Class of 1968: https://johntreed.com/blogs/john-t-reed-s-blog-about-military-matters/61085187-is-military-integrity-a-contradiction-in-terms-part-1

John T. Reed refused to sign false reports as a junior officer in Vietnam, the result of which was that he was never promoted (highly irregular) and his commanding officer attempted to get him killed.

Fred Reed was an enlisted Marine, but he has said similar things about officers and especially brass.

Anon [114] • Disclaimer , says: April 28, 2019 at 1:25 pm GMT
@Fran Macadam This comment of yours suggests, to my mind, that Nietzsche was wrong. By a short stretch, but, luckily, still wrong.
Anon [100] • Disclaimer , says: • Website April 28, 2019 at 2:53 pm GMT
They are hypochristians.
turtle , says: April 28, 2019 at 2:58 pm GMT
@Thorfinnsson Thank you for the link to Mr. John T. Reed’s site.
He evidently embodies the sort of integrity we should expect from leaders, but seldom get.
Anon [163] • Disclaimer , says: April 28, 2019 at 3:36 pm GMT
@Thorfinnsson

they enter the United States Army, in which lying is required to advance your career. The entire officer corps as a result is dishonest, and the higher your rank the greater the lying.

That bears an awesome similarity with dating and romance. I wonder how come.

Anonymous [207] • Disclaimer , says: April 28, 2019 at 4:39 pm GMT
@The Anti-Gnostic The pro British Congress Party ruled for 6 decades.

Now look

Also, FYI

Indus Valley had first flush toilets anywhere in world..

FB , says: • Website April 28, 2019 at 9:41 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin As usual Munchhausen Karlin immediately snags the stupidest comment award…without wasting undue time…

Does this dunce really know so fucking little…about just about everything…or is he simply retarded…?

His bear-trap logic relies on ‘a recent survey’…SMFH

FB , says: • Website April 28, 2019 at 10:51 pm GMT
Excellent piece by Mr Reed…he really tore a righteous strip of bacon off that walking side of pork Pompeo…

There are millions of evangelical Christians that fanatically support Israel for the reason of this end times nonsense, as stated in the article…so that is a very large base…and not all of them insist that Jews must convert…that is just one slice of a very wide spectrum…

In fact not all evangelical Christians support Israel…there is a very wide spectrum on the Israel issue…right up to those that see Iran and Russia [especially] in a positive light…which is encouraging…

These American Christians sympathize with Russia’s Christianity and also with the conservatism they see in Russian society, and the sobriety of Russian politics…I have no idea how the numbers stack up for these various slices of the spectrum…but the mainstream is probably along the lines of the Pences and Pompeos of the world…

Thorfinnsson , says: April 28, 2019 at 11:10 pm GMT
@FB …

…

…

……………..?

marylou , says: April 29, 2019 at 1:04 am GMT
@Fran Macadam yep.

Matthew 7:21-23

21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
N

KenH , says: April 29, 2019 at 2:02 am GMT
Christian fundamentalism is full of whack jobs and Dr. Strangeloves and Pompeo and Pence are two shining examples. I just hope they don’t get us all blown to smithereens.

In Fred’s adopted nation a six year old was just caught in the crossfire of drug cartel gunfire in Cancun and has died of his injuries. This is hard to believe as Fred tells us that in addition to being a nation on the cutting edge of technology, it also has the most bookstores per square mile of any nation. So the bookish Mexican people should be reading books and not dealing drugs and shooting people, especially kids:
https://www.breitbart.com/border/2019/04/26/cartel-gunfire-in-cancun-kills-6-year-old-wounds-parents/

Mexico has 33K homicides annually but Fredrico gets peeved if American whites don’t want these problems in America.

Escher , says: April 29, 2019 at 8:28 am GMT
@Anatoly Karlin IMHO, it is very much a $$ thing (as someone said: “all about the Benjamins”)
dearieme , says: April 29, 2019 at 1:04 pm GMT
@Anonymous “the schism of Eastern Orthodoxy” is an odd way to put it; the Roman Catholics flounced out from the old church in the schism of 1054. Or to put it another way, the Pope flounced out from the other Patriarchs.

“Ss. Peter and Paul went to Rome”: Paul yes; he had no choice, being under arrest. Peter: of course he didn’t, that’s just another of those old religious fabrications.

If the earliest Christians had a True Home it was either Jerusalem or Galilee, of course.

dearieme , says: April 29, 2019 at 1:11 pm GMT
@Brabantian “the 3 Abrahamic religions … all founded by the same kind of desert tribals used to life and death battles for control of a single watering hole.

Hardly. It would seem that the earliest Hebrews were probably settled villagers in the hills of Palestine. The earliest Christians were villagers in Galilee.

It’s not at all clear who the earliest Moslems were, since the initial conquerors were referred to as Saracens: the witness statements to their success make no reference to their having a distinct religion or distinct holy book. They do seem to have had a general called Mahomet, though, who had earlier been a merchant. Where they were from is also unclear. There’s a fair chance that they were originally from around Petra, which is on the edge of cultivation, not deep in the Arabian desert.

The Anti-Gnostic , says: • Website April 29, 2019 at 2:44 pm GMT
@Anonymous Congratulations!
The scalpel , says: • Website April 29, 2019 at 3:13 pm GMT
@turtle West Point honor grad here. Also a conscientious objector. It took me a bit to overcome my childhood indoctrination into the cult of imperialism, but before long, I realized that imperialism was in no way defending the people who reside in the USA.

http://thescalpel.net/underpantsl.html

The sad reality of current US culture is that West Point is extremely proud of lying, cheating, and stealing Pompeo, and considers me to be an embarrassment. The true mission of West Point is not “Duty, Honor, Country” as far as I can tell, but to bait idealistic young men and women into attending college there in an attempt to turn them into soulless, self-serving, corporate bag men like they did to Mike Pompeo.

(FWIW, my money is on Pompeo having somewhat cheated his way through West Point. I have seen it with my own eyes, and Pompeo does not seem that intelligent to me)

lysias , says: April 29, 2019 at 7:12 pm GMT
@Brabantian Jesus a desert tribal used to battles? Huh?
turtle , says: April 29, 2019 at 7:38 pm GMT
@The scalpel Good on you, Doctor.
The scalpel , says: • Website April 30, 2019 at 1:29 am GMT
@KenH Christian fundamentalism is also full of con-artists who take the gullible for a ride. Pence seems quite dull. He might really believe that stuff. Pompeo is the wolf in sheep’s clothes. I have enough faith to at least hope that short of complete repentance (as likely as him getting knocked off a horse by God) – short of that, a special hell awaits him
FB , says: • Website April 30, 2019 at 4:57 am GMT
@The scalpel Porker Pompeo on a horse…?…being a horse lover that mental image sends shivers down my spine…

OTOH…a well placed back hoof to the nether regions of the ‘malignant manatee’ [classic coinage right there…thanks Mr Reed]…would be divinely appreciated…let us hope and, dare I say it, pray…

Truth , says: May 1, 2019 at 2:19 am GMT
@The Alarmist

The top of a Service Academy class only “reaching” the rank of Captain (Railroad Tracks, not Bird) after five years of active service is hardly an accomplishment …

You know someone who was a colonel after 5 years?

The scalpel , says: • Website May 1, 2019 at 3:17 am GMT
@Truth Captain after 5 years is the most common result. The rank of Major is used as an incentive to stay in after one’s (typically 5 year) obligation. Looking at Plumpeo, I’d guess one of the reasons he got out was because he couldn’t pass his fitness tests
anon [271] • Disclaimer , says: May 1, 2019 at 12:34 pm GMT
@tex tickles If the Torah isn’t for Christians, why is it quoted 695 times and referenced a total of 4,105 times in the New Testament?

How many times do the writers of the New Testament quote the Old Testament? An index in the Jewish New Testament catalogs 695 separate quotations from the books of the Old Testament in the New (Jewish New Testament Publications, Jerusalem, 1989). There are many other passages where the Old Testament is referred to , as in cases where an Old Testament figure is mentioned, but no specific scripture is quoted. Depending on which scholar’s work you examine, the number of quotations and references in the New Testament to the Old may be as high as 4,105.

The Expositor’s Bible Commentary
Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1979, Vol. I, p. 617

Mick Jagger gathers no Mosque , says: May 1, 2019 at 12:48 pm GMT
The Inquisition: It’s prolly best to begin at the beginning, with Moses, the first, and deadliest, inquisitor.

Moses, the 1st inquisitor ordered killed 23 thousand one day (Exodus 32)

Moses, the 1st Inquisitor, ordered killed 24 thousand one day (Numbers 25).

Forty Seven Thousand ordered killed by The First Inquisitor, Moses, in two days, including women and children.

Non-Catholic historian Edward Peters:, in his work, “Inquisition” (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989, p. 87),

The Spanish Inquisition, in spite of wildly inflated estimates of the numbers of its victims, acted with considerable restraint in inflicting the death penalty, far more restraint than was demonstrated in secular tribunals elsewhere in Europe that dealt with the same kinds of offenses. The best estimate is that around 3000 death sentences were carried out in Spain by Inquisitorial verdict between 1550 and 1800, a far smaller number than that in comparable secular courts.

++++++++++++++

Mr. Reed is an odd individual whose understanding of Christianity suffers from a lack of knowledge.

He seems to think that Christian Catholics have no right to defend themselves and he also suffers from the error of Presentism.

Of course, secular governments were far worse during the era when torture was acceptable and, of course, one must note that heretics were treated then as today’s traitors ought be treated.

If Germany had an Inquisition, wed have never heard of Hitler, but men like Fred hated that which men like Fred have never understood

anon [271] • Disclaimer , says: May 1, 2019 at 1:00 pm GMT
@Anonymous Christianity itself, in all forms, is pseudo-Jewdaism, from the very start of it, even for you ever-kvetching Jew-worshiping Catholics.

• “ To the Jews ‘belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship …’” Catechism of the Catholic Church
• “ We worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews .” John 4:22
• “For it is we [Christians] who are the Circumcision.” Philippians 3:3

anon [271] • Disclaimer , says: May 1, 2019 at 1:08 pm GMT
@Patrick “Christian Zionism” has been woven into the fabric of the Jew-worshiping cult of Christianity, from the very beginning, with Jewish storytellers writing these Zionist principles the Jew Testament:

• Matthew 21:5 “Say to Daughter Zion , ‘See, your king comes to you.”
• John 12:15 “Do not be afraid, Daughter Zion ; see, your king is coming.”
• Romans 9:33 “See, I lay in Zion a stone…”
• Romans 11:26 “The deliverer will come from Zion …”
• Hebrews 12:22 “Mount Zion , to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem.”
• 1 Peter 2:6 “See, I lay a stone in Zion .”
• Revelation 14:1 “Standing on Mount Zion , and with him 144,000.”

anon [271] • Disclaimer , says: May 1, 2019 at 1:13 pm GMT
@Mick Jagger gathers no Mosque The Inquisition started in 12th-century France . The Spanish Inquisition wasn’t the only region of Inquisition. Stop trying to minimize the horrors.
anon [271] • Disclaimer , says: May 1, 2019 at 1:19 pm GMT
@The scalpel Christianity was started by con -artists who take the gullible for a ride. As Hebrews 11:1 says, “Now faith is con fidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.” That sounds exactly like a sales pitch from con fidence man Bernie Madoff, another one of the Hebrews.
The Alarmist , says: May 1, 2019 at 2:05 pm GMT
@Truth No, but if you say Captain to a squid, they get confused.
anon [271] • Disclaimer , says: May 1, 2019 at 2:18 pm GMT
@dearieme The earliest Christians were villagers in Galilee? Bible says Syria; “Christians first in Antioch.” (Acts 11:26) Not surprisingly, it seems Muslims got their start from Syria too; as the Quran was substantially derived from Syriac Christian liturgy. ( Luxenberg, 2007 ) Let’s not forget Christians and Muslims from Syria both like to shout “Aloha Snackbar!”
Mick Jagger gathers no Mosque , says: May 1, 2019 at 6:15 pm GMT
@anon And you did not mention the Roman Inquisition

You also did not mention the Jewish Inquisition in Europe.

I could go on…

Mick Jagger gathers no Mosque , says: May 1, 2019 at 6:17 pm GMT
@anon Jews created Islam

http://www.culturewars.com/2018/Gardinerreview.htm

anon [417] • Disclaimer , says: May 1, 2019 at 7:03 pm GMT
@Mick Jagger gathers no Mosque Teachers refer to that as the “everybody’s doing it” excuse. Stay after class, to explain how those inquisitions too weren’t so awfully bad.
anon [417] • Disclaimer , says: May 1, 2019 at 7:05 pm GMT
@Mick Jagger gathers no Mosque Sadly, none of the three Abrahamic religions were started by Whites, who need their own native religion that better fits their evolutionary biology.
polaco , says: May 1, 2019 at 8:35 pm GMT
@anon Torture has never been anything out of the ordinary throughout history, when the police of the day took you in for questioning they wouldn’t offer treats in exchange for a confession, torture has been standard operating procedure, it was the normal, expected course of any investigation. Why don’t people blame the governments of today for what the countries they rule now used to do in the past?

If you can trust the History channel, there is no proof of an Iron Maiden device ever having been used, rather, it was used as a fear inducing object having a profound psychological impact.

Rich , says: May 1, 2019 at 8:42 pm GMT
@The scalpel Major after 5 years? When, during WW2? The War Between the States? Whether you agree with his politics, or not, being promoted to captain after 5 years in peace time is perfectly normal. The man was an athlete in high school, graduated first in his class at West Point, was an infantry officer then was on the Harvard Law Review before being elected to Congress. And not as a liberal pantywaist. Give him his due, the man’s led a remarkable life.
FB , says: • Website May 1, 2019 at 11:24 pm GMT
@Rich Wow…there’s really such a member [provisional at least] of the human race that actually admires the malignant manatee…?

Pompeo’s only possible use to humanity would be as a source of protein to a starving Yemeni family…[providing they can get over the pork part]…

Rich , says: May 2, 2019 at 1:21 am GMT
@FB Okay, you dislike the guy, doesn’t change his accomplishments. All without Affirmative Action.
The scalpel , says: • Website May 2, 2019 at 3:31 pm GMT
@Rich He found that affirmative action was not as good as lying, cheating, and stealing. I will grant that he is pretty smart, (though I am suspicious that he is not smart enough to have graduated 1st in his West Point class without cheating.)

Take a smart person who wisely uses lying, cheating, and stealing without any remorse as a means to outcompete his friends and enemies alike, and you have someone who, with a little luck and without being caught, can slither their way to the top of some competetive hierarchies. These people are known as psychopaths, or more precisely, antisocial personality disorders.

Do I respect psychopaths? No. They generally are purely takers, and make very few contributions to humanity. Additionally, I would like to believe in things like truth, honor, and justice, and no matter how “successful” these psychopaths are, they are complete and utter failures on criteria I value. Then again, most government officials score very low on those scales. Sadly, it almost seems that they must in order to obtain such positions. We are governed by psychopaths.

Rich , says: May 2, 2019 at 6:16 pm GMT
@The scalpel What evidence do you have that Mr Pompeo is a psychopath? Look, you don’t like the guy’s politics, that’s okay, but why do you guys all of a sudden become Sigmund Freud and start psychoanalyzing people you’ve never met? It’s almost impossible to get through West Point cheating, lying or stealing. If anyone sees you doing anything even slightly dishonorable, they’ll rat you out faster than a Kapo would run to a German guard if he saw someone doing something wrong. The guy is obviously a very intelligent and hard working man who’s looked out at the world and drawn different conclusions than you. Doesn’t make him “evil” or a “psychopath”. Just makes him a powerful guy you don’t agree with.
turtle , says: May 2, 2019 at 8:11 pm GMT
@The scalpel

am suspicious that he is not smart enough to have graduated 1st in his West Point class without cheating.

Maybe not cheating, per se, but at least picking his (academic) battles.
In my experience, it is frequently the case (though not always) that those who major in “management” are those who cannot hack it in a technical discipline, or choose not to work quite that hard.
Evidently Harvard Law places great importance on undergraduate GPA.
Speculation:
An outstanding GPA in a soft major might carry more weight at Harvard than a lower GPA in a more demanding field. I emphasize this is speculation, as I do not actually know.

I do know that I scored 786 out of 800 on LSAT in 1970 and was not admitted to Harvard Law. My undergraduate grades at a small technical school farther down the Charles were only average among my peers.

Endgame Napoleon , says: May 2, 2019 at 10:01 pm GMT
All of the world’s religions can be associated with killings. They are either deeds of evil individuals, policy wrongs that do not involve direct murder, self defense or the defense of an attacked nation. Political policy can be rendered unto Cesar, while murder is accurately blamed on the individuals who do it. Mass murder is particularly evil, spawning military action that can affect innocents in other nations when it gets as heinous as the murdering of 3,000 innocent office workers on 9/11 by Muslims.

Sure, Christians have done some heinous & barbaric things over the centuries. After making a big deal of religion, Henry the Eighth beheaded some of his wives.

But when we get past what happened 500 years ago, we see a succession of evil mass murders committed in the recent past by non-Christian religious zealots, shouting Allah Akbar: the concert and nightclub massacres in France, England and America; the mass shooting of office workers on the American West Coast; the mass shootings & random mass stabbings in American Midwestern malls and in England; the Christmas market massacre in Germany; the mass murder of military personnel in office settings in the American South & the Midwest; the mass murder in Belgium; the bombing of a New England sporting event; the truck-ramming mass murders in France, Sweden and Canada; the mass murder of churchgoers in Sri Lanka, etc., etc, etc.

World wars have been started over only one incident, with much less extensive losses of life.

In some centuries, the beheading and stabbing by radical Islamic terrorists of two innocent, Danish girls, hiking in Morocco, or the beheading of an 85-year-old priest in the middle of mass might have provoked military action.

The murderers who did all of those evil deeds (and others) in the last few years knew that they were taking the chance of a military response that might hurt innocent people in the non-Christian countries that they purport to care about, and yet, they still did it, showing that they regarded potential casualties in Muslim lands as collateral damage.

The cause was the only thing that counted to them, not the people, even when the people were fellow Muslims.

bluedog , says: May 2, 2019 at 11:47 pm GMT
@Rich No they use to rat you out, but like all things that are subject to change they have to,now it wasen’t so long ago that they had the very large cheating affair at west point,and to put it bluntly the man is a lying,cheating,stealing(his words when he worked for the C.I.A.) whore that would do anything to further his cause of hurrying along the rapture, that he and Pence and Bolton dream about.!!!
Rich , says: May 3, 2019 at 1:12 am GMT
@bluedog Do you guys really think men who have risen to the heights Pompeo, Pence, and Bolton have, aren’t realists? Don’t you think that if they wanted to be ministers, they’d have followed a different path? I can’t read other people’s minds, but I sincerely doubt any of the three you mentioned is trying to bring about the “rapture”. That’s just silly. They simply see Israel as a close ally and some of the Islamic nations as enemies as well as seeing various other states as friends or enemies. You have your opinion on how the world should be run, I have mine and they have theirs, that’s just the way it.
FB , says: • Website May 3, 2019 at 2:39 am GMT
@Rich Pence, Pompeo realists…?

Are you living in Disneyland…?

You haven’t figured out yet that the more you are immune to reality, the better your chances in DC…?

Tell me one single thing that Pompeo or Pence has ever said or done that is even remotely connected to reality…

Trump is capable of spurts of realism, I’m convinced of that…but those impulses are quickly blocked and checked by the likes of Pompeo and Pence…

Look at the North Korea debacle…it was Porker Pompeo that torpedoed that last summit…Trump was going to remove him from the DPRK file, but Porker announces to the world that he ‘can’t’ be sidelined…directly contradicting the POTUS…how fucking ‘realistic’ is that…?

So once again the latest Korea initiative is set to sink, despite a president who is a realist…problem is he’s surrounded by complete fantasists like Pompeo…

The scalpel , says: • Website May 3, 2019 at 9:58 am GMT
@Rich “What evidence do you have that Mr Pompeo is a psychopath?”

Well, I have his behavior, which, owing to the fact that he is a public figure is, well, public knowledge. For one, he brags about his ability to lie,cheat, and steal. For two, he does those things without remorse.

Also,I have the DSM IV

https://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/pn.39.1.0025a

Read it yourself and see if you agree.

True, I don’t like his politics BECAUSE he is dangerous – a psycopath

The Scalpel , says: • Website May 3, 2019 at 12:21 pm GMT
@turtle You are correct. I was at West Point the same time as Plumpeo. In those days, there were 2 academic divisions MSE and BSL which stood for Math, Science, and Engineering and Behavioral Sciences and Leadership aka Bullshit and Lies. (Seriously that’s what we called it). For MSE guys like me, when we had to take a BSL course like management, it was usually a breather and a relatively easy “A” versus our MSE courses, so you might have a point there.
turtle , says: May 3, 2019 at 2:15 pm GMT

I was at West Point the same time as Plumpeo.

Do you know the man personally? I do not know size of class at West Point.

Bullshit and Lies. (Seriously that’s what we called it)

Sounds appropriate to me. In my opinion, Benjamin Nutandyahoo is another “piece of work” in the same mold .

Born in 1949
SB (Course IV – Architecture) MIT 1975
SM (Course XV – Management) 1976
Both IV & XV would be considered “soft” majors compared to School of Science or School of Engineering.
Just smart enough to think he can BS the rest of the world. Lives by making a career of deceit. At least one known alias.

No surprise he and Pompous-e-o are best buds.

turtle
Born 1949
SB MIT 1970 (School of Science)*
Graduated in June, turned 21 in September
Junior author of one published scientific paper for undergraduate work.

*I would state my Course #, but prefer to retain a degree of anonymity on this site. There are only a few possibilities, all of which are tougher than Architecture or the Sloan School. Sloanies actually had “coat and tie practice,” in which they were required to play “dress up” and carry a briefcase to class on certain days. Most of the rest of us thought that was rather silly.

Rich , says: May 3, 2019 at 10:26 pm GMT
@The scalpel If that’s what you’re going by, every single national leader throughout history is a psychopath. And maybe that’s true, but who cares? The world is what it is and we have to deal with its realities. You may be a pacifist, another may believe the Israelis are the problem, Pompeo and his fellows disagree with you. I don’t think that makes them any “crazier” than anyone else. And I have to give the man his due, he has done very well for himself.
anon [170] • Disclaimer , says: May 4, 2019 at 4:18 am GMT
@Anonymous

read E. Michael Jones’ The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit

jewish revolutionary spirit = jews stirring up shit in your country

annamaria , says: May 4, 2019 at 4:20 am GMT
@G. Poulin It’s long to overdue to expose this fraud-in-Jesus. If Vatican excommunicates Tony Blair, the profiteer and mega-war criminal, and similar “Christian” arch-enemies of humanity, then your irritation would be vindicated. IF .

[May 01, 2019] Hope everyone saw Blitzer's interview with Pompeo! Pompeo stated that Maduro was getting ready to leave for Cuba; as in FLEE!,

Notable quotes:
"... If Maduro doesn't have iron-clad intelligence, then the Russians better provide significant help in this regard, because I sense heavy black ops (CIA) in the works. ..."
May 01, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Circe , Apr 30, 2019 5:59:33 PM | link

Omg!

Hope everyone saw Blitzer's interview with Pompeo! Pompeo stated that Maduro was getting ready to leave for Cuba; as in FLEE!, and his plane was on the tarmac and Pompeo claimed THE RUSSIANS TALKED HIM OUT OF IT! When asked whether the U.S. could guarantee Maduro safe passage to Cuba; Pompeo EQUIVOCATED! This is CRAZY.

Bolton also answered questions from the press earlier and lies were coming out of both sides of his mouth. Both Pompeo and Bolton refused to answer questions on details relating to U.S. involvement at this time but there were veiled threats all over the place.

If Maduro doesn't have iron-clad intelligence, then the Russians better provide significant help in this regard, because I sense heavy black ops (CIA) in the works.

Sasha , Apr 30, 2019 6:00:20 PM | link

The only similarity of this chapuza coup with "Bay of Pigs" event, is in the quality of organizers, orchestrators and perpetrators of this new intend on coup in Venezuela, outright fascist pigs...

Some out there, of course, are excited, since they have felt nostalgias from their times at "Assault Brigades" and "Hunters Battalions".... Even though they try sometimes to disguise themselves as democrats and constitutionalists, it is in these times when they show all the way their real colors.

To talk about alleged repressions by socialist governments from the US, when they are currently oppressing every nation and peoples in the world who do not pledge to their interests, is not like calling the kettle black, but worst, and exercise of projection of Olympic size.

[May 01, 2019] Are we seeing the end of Pompeo and Bolton approaching after the humiliating failure of the latest coup d tat?

May 01, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Virgile , May 1, 2019 8:59:36 PM | link

Are we seeing the end of Pompeo and Bolton approaching after the humiliating failure of the latest coup d'état? How long can Trump endure looking like à fool with these two incompetent advisors.

Pompeo and Bolton have blown up the North Korea dialog initiated by Trump? With the Venezuela circus, Trump will probably terminate their services .

"What absolute joy it is to picture the faces of the Three Stooges when they realized they had been snookered."

Really? , May 1, 2019 8:23:30 PM | link

Life imitates art: Similar to the two comedians who snookered Abrams and then Macron.

Ha ha ha. The vanity of these marks is so predictable that a pair of comedians can take them in easily and get them to divulge state secrets (there won't be a military invatins of Ven) on the phone! Same dynamic with Bolton & cie is pretty easy to imagine.

The guy is so full of himself and clueless---that kind of fool is easily taken in.

dh-mtl , May 1, 2019 8:16:38 PM | link
B, I fully agree with you that Guaido, and Pompeo, Bolton, Trump, etc., got snookered.

This, however, makes the situation all the more dangerous. People like these don't take public humiliation very well. Added to the frustration of not being able to act at will in their own hemisphere, they are likely to be beside themselves with fury.

Perhaps this is why Trump struck out at Cuba with threats of a total blockade.

They will not give up on Venezuela, and given their level of frustration and humiliation, their next actions could be both irrational and dangerous.

Posted by: telescope | May 1, 2019 7:17:54 PM | 53

Make no mistake, Russia's move to start handing out passports to Donetsk and Luhansk inhabitants is intimately linked to events in Venezuela. And the fate of Ukraine rests on whether the US undertakes direct action vs Caracas or not. The moment Bolton justified possible invasion by the duty to protect US citizens in Venezuela was also the moment Moscow made the final decision to create similar pretext for the dismantling of the Ukraine. Russians had already proven their ability to take quick advantage of American moves against its allies by taking symmetrical action against vulnerable vassals of Washington. Kosovo was reciprocated by Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Takeover of Kiev - by severing of Crimea and Donbass. Invasion of Venezuela will inevitably result in Ukraine losing all of Black Sea coast and becoming completely unviable. And unlike US Special Forces, Russian troops will actually be greeted with flowers and genuine popular support in Kherson and Odessa.

[May 01, 2019] Pompeo is perhaps green with envy, why Boris Johnson should keep the mantle of the most clownish top diplomat of a major state?

May 01, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Piotr Berman , Apr 30, 2019 8:04:39 PM | link

Villains of the day: Random Guy, Pompeo, and nefarious band of willie, barovsky etc.

Pompeo is perhaps green with envy, why Boris Johnson should keep the mantle of the most clownish top diplomat of a major state? He can do better! But once the tall tale was said, it was duly echoed in supine media. NYT made a paragraph, and actually noted how Pompeo explained his alleged knowledge of Maduro preparing for departure: >>Pressed about the source of this information, Mr. Pompeo said it was drawn from "open-source material," and conversations with "scores and scores of people on the ground," including members of the military and opposition leaders. "He was headed for Havana," he said of Mr. Maduro.<< The Guardian made a separate article on the topic, with no notes of caution, damn the torpedoes, copy with full speed!

So "people on the ground" could have reliable, ha ha, info on the conversations between Maduro and "Russians". "Scores of people" were interviewed, hm., seems that the wily Maduro eschew a usual step of information blockade, letting the little golpistas -- and him -- look silly. I actually do not believe in those "scores of interviews", Most generously, there were that many conversations from which his people could "draw" a rumor prepared ahead of time, probably by his own Department.

Finally, the nefarious long linkers. Is it really THAT hard to learn how to make neat links this one ? Join lines and remove all spaces from the text below

[May 01, 2019] India and Europe stopped buying iranian oil. 1 billion $ of iranian oil stays blocked in China, no one wants to touch it. Even Khamenei admitted that Europe left the JCPOA in practise.

Notable quotes:
"... The Empire is not weak, this is poor analysis. India and Europe stopped buying Iranian oil. 1 billion $ of Iranian oil stays blocked in China, no one wants to touch it. Even Khamenei admitted that Europe left the JCPOA in practice. ..."
"... Iran is in deep recession. Venezuela is in deep recession and is surrounded. ..."
"... Iraq? US troops are staying there. Syria? US troops are staying there long term. 1 third of the country containing the biggest oil fields is under US control. There is fuel shortage crisis due to sanctions. Europe is not stopping its sanctions either. ..."
May 01, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Passer by , May 1, 2019 8:19:31 PM | link

"The Empire only appears to be strong. In reality it is weak, confused, clueless"

The Empire is not weak, this is poor analysis. India and Europe stopped buying Iranian oil. 1 billion $ of Iranian oil stays blocked in China, no one wants to touch it. Even Khamenei admitted that Europe left the JCPOA in practice.

Iran is in deep recession. Venezuela is in deep recession and is surrounded. Almost all of Latin America now has pro-US governments. CIA linked Bolsonaro took over in Brazil. Turkey is in deep recession and Erdogan lost the big cities.

India is moving closer to the US. Europe remains a vassal. Russian economic growth is weak. The US won the trade war against China as Andrei Martyanov himself admitted.

Iraq? US troops are staying there. Syria? US troops are staying there long term. 1 third of the country containing the biggest oil fields is under US control. There is fuel shortage crisis due to sanctions. Europe is not stopping its sanctions either.

There is no doubt that they will be weaker in the future, but they will fight hard to stop this and gain time.

[Apr 28, 2019] Trump's Latest Iran Sanctions Show an Unraveling of US Foreign Policy

Apr 28, 2019 | therealnews.com

April 22, 2019

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson says unilateral sanctions against Iran are illegal, and show the ascendancy of John Bolton; they intensify tension with China and threaten our international position

https://www.youtube.com/embed/i0KTa2uSRro?rel=0&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=1

https://widget.spreaker.com/player?episode_id=17723879&theme=light&playlist=false&playlist-continuous=false&autoplay=false&live-autoplay=false&chapters-image=false&episode_image_position=right&hide-logo=true&hide-likes=true&hide-comments=true&hide-sharing=true&hide-download=false

The Trump administration is ramping up its campaign against Iran by announcing it will end waivers allowing eight countries to continue importing Iranian oil -- part of an attempt to drop Iranian oil exports to zero. This follows the Trump administration's categorization of part of Iran's army, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, as a terrorist organization, and unilaterally withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal.

"This administration, for all intents and purposes in my view, is working against the interests of the United States," Colonel Larry Wilkerson told The Real News Network's Marc Steiner. China and Turkey have already said they will not abide by the U.S. ending of the waivers, but India will possibly follow along, all of which could lead to a more profound trade war.

The decision also represents the influence of National Security Advisor John Bolton, who was in favor of these sanctions, while Secretary of State Mike Pompeo wanted the waivers to continue.

Steiner noted that the sanctions violate international law and asked whether this brings the U.S. closer to war with Iran, or if the sanctions are "in lieu of war." Wilkerson explained that John Bolton wants war even if Trump does not, and that regardless, these oil sanctions are "economic warfare" -- an especially risky international gamble.

"We're getting away with it [only] because we are the most powerful country in the world, economically, financially, and militarily," Wilkerson said. "That's not always going to be the case."

Wilkerson suspects that countries such as China, Russia, or India will eventually respond to U.S. sanctions with their own, or make an end-run around them.

"I think we're going to see other nations objecting in ways we can't really calculate right now," Wilkerson said. "And by that I mean we're going to have everything from the Chinese attempting to use other means of exchange than the dollar to the Chinese and the Russians perhaps working together to build an entirely separate and functional financial network that will eventually supplant that of the United States."

He told Steiner that it appears as though the U.S. is "suicidal," lacking any interest in diplomacy, and continuing to distance itself from its allies.

"We just lost badly in Syria, and we lost to a triumvirate of Syria under Bashar al-Assad, Russia, and Iran. Look at what happened, what has happened in Iraq. We lost a lot of men and women there. We shed blood and treasure there for an utterly ill-conceived invasion, but nonetheless we did. Now Iraq is more or less under the influence of Iran. The only ally we have in the region that we can count on at any time is an authoritarian, brutal state under a boy king who's losing one war on one flank and alienated Qatar on the other," Wilkerson said. "It's all falling apart. We're losing everywhere I look in the world, losing badly to that man in Moscow who picks up the pieces and you know, goes to Cuba when Marco Rubio decides he doesn't like Cuba, goes to Venezuela when we decide we might have an option for Venezuela that will include military force. Putin is the strategist in the world right now picking up on every piece we drop -- and we're dropping too many." Story Transcript MARC STEINER Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Marc Steiner. Great to have you all with us. Trump is stepping up his campaign against Iran once again, announcing that he will end waivers that allowed eight countries to continue importing Iranian oil. He wants to drive Iranian oil exports to zero. All this comes on the heels of officially labeling the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization and of course, forcing the U.S. to unilaterally pull out of the Iran Nuclear Deal. Well what course are we on? Are we inching toward a war with Iran? Are these intensified sanctions just an alternative to all-out war? How could the U.S. just unilaterally impose international sanctions? Doesn't that violate international law? Can he do it because the U.S. has a vital role in the international system of finance? Both Turkey and China have already announced they will not abide by Trump's unilateral declaration of sanctions. Does this intensify our trade war with China? We'll see. Joining us here at The Real News once again is Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, who served as Chief-of-staff to U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, retired from U.S. Army, and is now Distinguished Adjunct Professor at the College of William and Mary where he teaches U.S. National Security. I welcome and good to have you back with us here on The Real News.

COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON Good to be back again.

MARC STEINER So before we start, let's run this short piece by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and what he had to say about the intensifying of sanctions.

MIKE POMPEO Today I am announcing that we will no longer grant any exemptions. We're going to zero, going to zero across the board. We will continue to enforce sanctions and monitor compliance. Any nation or entity interacting with Iran should due it's diligence and err on the side of caution. The risks are simply not going to be worth the benefits. We've made our demands very clear to the Ayatollah and his cronies: end your pursuit of nuclear weapons, stop testing and proliferating ballistic missiles, stop sponsoring and committing terrorism, halt the arbitrary detention of U.S. citizens. Our pressure is aimed at fulfilling these demands and others and I will continue to accelerate until Iran is willing to address them at the negotiating table.

MARC STEINER So what's your instant analysis of what we've just seen here, what we're seeing, Larry?

COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON First, the dispute within the administration -- much ballyhooed between Bolton and Pompeo and Brian Hook, Pompeo's main man on Iran -- is apparently over and Bolton won. Pompeo and Brian Hook were not in favor of going all the way on oil sanctions. They were in favor of continuing the waivers for countries like China and India, and so forth. So that means Bolton's won. That's an ominous victory in my mind. More ominous was Bolton and Pompeo and Pompeo in particular's testimony to the Congress about the "connections between al-Qaeda and Iran." I've been there done that. I remember when George Tenet very forcefully and powerfully in late January-early February of 2003, pointed out to Colin Powell who had just said, toss that stuff out of my presentation to the United Nations. It stinks. That stuff being, connections between al-Qaeda and Baghdad over 9/11. Pompeo essentially said to Rand Paul in questioning him in the Senate and elsewhere, that there were connections between al-Qaeda and Iran, and implied that those connections gave the president the right to go to war with Iran without having to go to the Congress of the United States. In other words, the original A.U.M.F. authorization for the use of military force issued after 9/11, pertained some seventeen to eighteen years later to Iran.

MARC STEINER And that's where you skin yourself. Most people who know this arena, know that area, the contradiction of saying Iran and al-Qaeda are one or are working with one another, just on its face doesn't make any sense.

COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON Nonsense just as it was with Saddam Hussein. We all know now, but it was a very powerful thing for Colin Powell to tell the U.N. Security Council and even more powerful for him to tell the American people that. And that's what Trump and Bolton and Pompeo now are trying to duplicate: another specious case for war.

MARC STEINER So do you think -- speaking of that -- are we inching our way towards war with Iran, or do you think what we're seeing, these sanctions, are actually in lieu of war? What do you think the dynamic is here?

COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON I don't think Trump wants war, but I know John Bolton does. So I have to imagine that there is going to be a come to Jesus meeting or some such resolution with Donald Trump if Bolton persists in wanting to use military force and Donald Trump doesn't. On the side of all of this, is Trump's new partner in crime, Bibi Netanyahu. We don't know what Bibi promised Donald Trump when Donald Trump weighed in on Bibi's election. I'm told by people who know these sorts of things in Israel, that had Trump not weighed in heavily for Bibi, that he might not have won, that it might have been a lot closer that it was, and it was pretty close anyway. So I don't know what Bibi promised Trump in return. It might be that he conducts whatever military operation is conducted with respect to Iran. Anything's possible here with these two characters.

MARC STEINER But the whole Bibi question is something we've spent a half-an-hour, hours just talking about what that relationship is, and who's driving whose foreign policy when it comes to Iran especially.

COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON Yes. Gideon Levy in Haaretz was right when he said U.S.-Middle East policy is not made in Washington. It's made, he said Tel Aviv, but now he would say Jerusalem.

MARC STEINER So let me ask you another question. How can the United States just unilaterally impose international sanctions? I thought that's something the Security Council would have to do and people are writing this as a violation of international law. So from your perch when you were the Secretary of State and now, how does that play into all this?

COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON I think it plays very dangerously. We are becoming -- through our manipulation of the Swiss system and other means in the world for financial transactions -- a pariah in the world. Very much despised and even hated in the world and increasingly, by our own friends and allies like Germany, France, Britain, and so forth. This manipulation of this system that we largely set up for tracking terrorist monies and so forth, has been turned into a very sophisticated weapon. It's economic warfare in anybody's book and the only reason we're getting away from it, you just hinted at. We're getting away with it because we are the most powerful country in the world -- economically, financially, and militarily. That's not always going to be the case and I suspect there are going to people like China, like Russia, like India, like other countries in the world, finally getting tired of this and start reciprocating and building other systems to go around ours.

MARC STEINER Stepping up the sanctions against Iran and saying nobody can buy any oil from Iran at all, zeroing them out -- China and Turkey have already said we're not abiding by this. You can't tell us how to run our economy and what we're doing. India is caught between a rock and a hard place. They don't want to go with this. Ten percent of their crude oil comes from Iran, but they're in a tough bind given who finances them as well. So how is this going to play out? This can lead to greater trade wars between China and the U.S. How do you see this all tumbling out, both in terms of Iran and our relationship with those other nations?

COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON I think we're going to see other nations objecting in ways that we can't really calculate right now. By that I mean, we're going to have everything from the Chinese attempting to use other means of exchange than the dollar, to the Chinese and the Russians perhaps working together to build an entirely separate and functional financial network that will eventually supplant that of the United States. So this has enormous potential for backfiring, just like all the enemies we are creating in the world right now and the allies that we're distancing ourselves from. These are not positive moves by the United States. If I were on Mars looking down at the United States right now, and I were some wise Martian statesmen, and I was trying to figure out what the United States -- the current hegemon of the world -- was trying to do, I would think we were trying to commit suicide. It's as if we do not have any means of doing anything diplomatically or otherwise, that doesn't rebound to our discredit. Look at what's happened. We just lost badly in Syria and we lost to a triumvirate of Syria under Bashar al-Assad, Russia, and Iran. Look at what has happened in Iraq. We lost a lot of men and women there. We shed blood and treasure there for an utterly ill-conceived invasion, but nonetheless we did. Now Iraq is more or less under the influence of Iran. The only ally we have in the region that we can count on at any time is an authoritarian, brutal state under a boy-king who's losing one war on one flank, and alienated Qatar on the other. Our latest NATO in the Middle East just lost its most formidable partner, Egypt. It's all falling apart. We're losing everywhere I look in the world and losing badly to that man in Moscow who picks up the pieces and goes to Cuba when Marco Rubio decides he doesn't like Cuba. He goes to Venezuela when we decide we might have an option for Venezuela that would include military force. Putin is the strategist in the world right now, picking up on every piece we drop, and we're dropping too many.

MARC STEINER So very quickly here before we run out of time, one quick question. If you were sitting in the halls of power at this moment, and your job is Chief-of-staff or the Secretary of State, I'm curious what you would be saying to a president that said we have to do this. What would you say is the alternative? What would you be saying at this moment?

COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON Which one do you want to pick? [laughter] Kim Jong-un is going to fire a ballistic missile or he's going to do a nuclear test or both sometime around Christmas.

MARC STEINER Right.

COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON This administration for all intents and purposes, in my view, is working against the interests of the United States. So the first thing I would do is sit down and say, Mr. President, please before I walk out of here and go back to Foggy Bottom and retire from my position because you are going to fire me, I want to know what you think the national interests of the United States are. You said you were going to "make America great again." You are destroying America. You said you were going to bring jobs back. You have only brought the jobs back that the last three years of the Obama administration generated, because no president ever generates them instantly. So you haven't done anything yet that looks like it's in the interest of the United States and you've done a whole load of things that are clearly not in our interest, not the least of which is to drive our allies away and make many enemies whom you said all options are on the table confronting. Please, Mr. President. Tell me what you think our interests are.

MARC STEINER And with that, I want to say thank you once again. Colonel Larry Wilkerson, always a pleasure to have you here at The Real News. And thanks so much for your thoughts and wisdom.

COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON Thank you.

MARC STEINER And I'm Marc Steiner here for The Real News Network. Thank you all for joining us. Take care.

[Apr 24, 2019] Bolton works for CIA.

Apr 24, 2019 | www.unz.com

Oh no its the Illuminati , says: April 23, 2019 at 3:56 pm GMT

ChuckO,

Bolton? NSA? Do you mean NSC? Everything we hear about Bolton lately is ideological labeling as a so-called Neocon, more ambiguous bullshit, or tainting him by association with Israelis. Funny how everybody just forgot what Bolton did at the UN, when Bush shoehorned him in there without congressional consent. Bolton personally constipated the drafting of the Summit Outcome Document to remove awkward mentions of the magic word impunity. The old perv put up 700 amendments to obstruct the process.

Now, who cares that much about impunity? And why would it be such a big deal, unless you had impunity in municipal law but the whole world was committed to ending impunity? Cause if you think about it, that's what the whole world has been doing for 70 years, codifying the Pre-CIA Nuremberg Principles as international criminal law and developing state responsibility for internationally wrongful acts as customary and then conventional international law. Who doesn't want that?

CIA. Impunity is CIA's vital interest. They go to war to keep it all the time.

Bolton works for CIA.

DESERT FOX , says: April 23, 2019 at 4:22 pm GMT
@Oh no its the Illuminati See Col. L. Fletcher Proutys book The Secret Team , the CIA is the zionist chain dogs that rule America!
ChuckOrloski , says: April 23, 2019 at 4:54 pm GMT
@DESERT FOX Wisely, DESERT FOX recalled Colonel Fletcher Prouty, and wrote: " the CIA is the zionist chain dogs that rule America!"

Dear DESERT FOX,

As you know, for some very dramatic time, Attorney Garrison held Clay Shaw's feet-to-the-fire while demonstrating the latter businessman's connection to the Israeli company, Permindex.

So naturally, a reasonable & respectful question arises, for which there is likely no available & conclusive determination.

Are CIA, Mossad, and M16 joined as one (1) ruling and globally unaccountable
"(Western) Zionist chain dog" link? Tough one, D.F., but am confident you can intelligently handle it. Thanks & salud!

DESERT FOX , says: April 23, 2019 at 5:27 pm GMT
@ChuckOrloski From what I have read, MI6 is under zionist control and is the template for the CIA and the Mossad and is the controller of both the CIA and the Mossad and all three are under zionist control.

Another good book is The Committee of 300 by Dr. John Coleman a former officer in MI6 and his videos on youtube.

[Apr 24, 2019] Pompeo Finally Tells The Truth 'We Lie, We Cheat, We Steal'

Apr 24, 2019 | www.youtube.com

Streamed live 14 hours ago

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Advisor John Bolton have vowed to strangle Iran and cut off all oil exports. They claim it's because of Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and missiles and its support for terrorism. In a recent speech at Texas A&M University he finally told the truth about the CIA and the neocons - they lie and cheat and steal. So should we believe him now?

[Apr 24, 2019] Mike Pompeo and Julian Assange - Sealing the Fate of WikiLeaks

Apr 24, 2019 | viableopposition.blogspot.com

April 12, 2019 Back in April 2017, then CIA Director Mike Pompeo delivered a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In this speech, he made some very pointed comments about WikiLeaks and Julian Assange that provide us with a glimpse into the mindset that currently inhabits the Department of State in particular and Washington as a whole and why the events of April 11th, 2019 occurred.
Here are some key quotes from the rather lengthy speech which looked at America's intelligence community. Early in the speech, he makes this comment:
" As a policy, we at CIA do not comment on the accuracy of purported intelligence documents posted online. In keeping with that policy, I will not specifically comment on the authenticity or provenance of recent disclosures.
But the false narratives that increasingly define our public discourse cannot be ignored. There are fictions out there that demean and distort the work and achievements of CIA and of the broader Intelligence Community. And in the absence of a vocal rebuttal, these voices -- ones that proclaim treason to be public advocacy -- gain a gravity they do not deserve." (my bolds)
It is important to note that Mr. Pompeo will not comment on the authenticity of documents that are disclosed by whistleblowers but that, in the next breath, he states that these documents are part of a false narrative that demean and distort the work of America's intelligence community.
He goes on to note that the CIA does admit to making mistakes and that it is accountable to the "free and open society that they help to defend" and that the CIA is willing to make its mistakes public to a degree that other nations cannot match.`
Here's what he has to say about WikiLeaks and Mr. Assange:
" And that is one of the many reasons why we at CIA find the celebration of entities like WikiLeaks to be both perplexing and deeply troubling. Because while we do our best to quietly collect information on those who pose very real threats to our country, individuals such as Julian Assange and Edward Snowden seek to use that information to make a name for themselves. As long as they make a splash, they care nothing about the lives they put at risk or the damage they cause to national security.
WikiLeaks walks like a hostile intelligence service and talks like a hostile intelligence service. It has encouraged its followers to find jobs at CIA in order to obtain intelligence. It directed Chelsea Manning in her theft of specific secret information. And it overwhelmingly focuses on the United States, while seeking support from anti-democratic countries and organizations.
It is time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is – a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia. I n January of this year, our Intelligence Community determined that Russian military intelligence -- the GRU -- had used WikiLeaks to release data of US victims that the GRU had obtained through cyber operations against the Democratic National Committee. And the report also found that Russia's primary propaganda outlet, RT, has actively collaborated with WikiLeaks.
Now, for those of you who read the editorial page of the Washington Post -- and I have a feeling that many of you in this room do -- yesterday you would have seen a piece of sophistry penned by Mr. Assange. You would have read a convoluted mass of words wherein Assange compared himself to Thomas Jefferson, Dwight Eisenhower, and the Pulitzer Prize-winning work of legitimate news organizations such as the New York Times and the Washington Post. One can only imagine the absurd comparisons that the original draft contained.
Assange claims to harbor an overwhelming admiration for both America and the idea of America. But I assure you that this man knows nothing of America and our ideals. He knows nothing of our third President, whose clarion call for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness continue to inspire us and the world. And he knows nothing of our 34th President, a hero from my very own Kansas, who helped to liberate Europe from fascists and guided America through the early years of the Cold War.
No, I am quite confident that had Assange been around in the 1930s and 40s and 50s, he would have found himself on the wrong side of history.
We know this because Assange and his ilk make common cause with dictators today. Yes, they try unsuccessfully to cloak themselves and their actions in the language of liberty and privacy; in reality, however, they champion nothing but their own celebrity. Their currency is clickbait; their moral compass, nonexistent. Their mission: personal self-aggrandizement through the destruction of Western values.
They do not care about the causes and people they claim to represent. If they did, they would focus instead on the autocratic regimes in this world that actually suppress free speech and dissent. Instead, they choose to exploit the legitimate secrets of democratic governments -- which has, so far, proven to be a much safer approach than provoking a tyrant.
Clearly, these individuals are not especially burdened by conscience. We know this, for example, because Assange has been more than cavalier in disclosing the personal information of scores of innocent citizens around the globe. We know this because the damage they have done to the security and safety of the free world is tangible. And the examples are numerous. " (my bolds)
Actually, when it comes to Russia and the "pass" that it has been given by WikiLeaks, Mr. Pompeo could not be more wrong. On September 19, 2017, WikiLeaks published its " Spy Files Russia " documents which provided insight into Russia's surveillance contractors. In the case of Russia, Russias communication providers are required by law to install components for surveillance which is provided by the FSB which are linked to the FSB, Russia's Federal Security Service. And, perhaps we can attribute WikiLeaks ability to release information on America's intelligence community because it is far more prone to leaks than the intelligence communities of other nations.
Mr. Pompeo also provided his audience with a direct link between WikiLeaks and terrorism:
" As for Assange, his actions have attracted a devoted following among some of our most determined enemies. Following a recent WikiLeaks disclosure, an al Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula member posted a comment online thanking WikiLeaks for providing a means to fight America in a way that AQAP had not previously envisioned.
AQAP represents one of the most serious terrorist threats to our country and the world. It is a group that is devoted not only to bringing down civilian passenger planes, but our way of life as well. That Assange is the darling of terrorists is nothing short of reprehensible ." (my bold)
Here is Mr. Pompeo's three part solution to the Assange "problem":
1.) It is high time we called out those who grant a platform to these leakers and so-called transparency activists. We know the danger that Assange and his not-so-merry band of brothers pose to democracies around the world. Ignorance or misplaced idealism is no longer an acceptable excuse for lionizing these demons.
2.) There are steps that we have to take at home -- in fact, this is a process we've already started. We've got to strengthen our own systems; we've got to improve internal mechanisms that help us in our counterintelligence mission. All of us in the Intelligence Community had a wake-up call after Snowden's treachery. Unfortunately, the threat has not abated. I can't go into great detail, but the steps we take can't be static. Our approach to security has to be constantly evolving. We need to be as clever and innovative as the enemies we face. They won't relent, and neither will we.
3.) We have to recognize that we can no longer allow Assange and his colleagues the latitude to use free speech values against us. To give them the space to crush us with misappropriated secrets is a perversion of what our great Constitution stands for. It ends now."
Let's close with two brief items. First, here's what the ACLU has to say about the arrest and potential American prosecution of Julian Assange:

Second, after Assange's arrest, Donald Trump had this to say about WikiLeaks:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/5ztxcRHCHj4
" I know nothing about WikiLeaks. It's not my thing and I know there is something having to do with Julian Assange. I've been seeing what's happened with Assange and that will be a determination I would imagine mostly by the Attorney General who is doing an excellent job."
Here's what the President had to say about WikiLeaks during the 2016 Presidential election cycle:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/xnEoVzLKNPw
While it may have taken a few days less than two years to complete his dream of getting rid of Julian Assange, it is abundantly clear from the CIA Director's speech that Mr. Assange's fate was sealed once Mike Pompeo had direct access Washington's power brokers no matter what Donald Trump had to say about WikiLeaks back in 2016. Fortunately for those of us on the outside that rely on WikiLeaks to learn more about the hidden secrets of governments and the corporate world, the group will continue to exist with or without its founder.
Posted by A Political Junkie at 8:30 AM Labels: Julian Assange , Mike Pompeo , Wikileaks 2 comments:

  1. Nick Ginex April 12, 2019 at 5:19 PM

    Dedicated to revealing facts that allows the public to "see" the truth is Julian Assange, a man of integrity that is lacking in many of our politicians. They say the "truth" hurts but it is the only way to gain wisdom to improve our world.

[Apr 24, 2019] Is case of US Iran sanctions China has a very difficult dilemma

Apr 24, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Schmoe , Apr 24, 2019 7:20:33 PM | link

China has quite a dilemna:

a) violate sanctions and risk severe penalties; or

b) go along with sanctions but if Iran pulls the pin on the world economy, China could very well completely crash economically, to the point that I wonder if there could be a revolution. Also, everyone knows about China's Muslim issues, Iran could say "it would be shame if someone armed those tens of million of Muslims you have".

I don't envy their position.

karlof1 , Apr 24, 2019 7:21:01 PM | link

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif has conducted an interview with Reuters saying Trump didn't want war but could be "lured into one." As usual, Reuters doesn't just provide a transcript of the interview, only publishing what it wants to publish. We'll need to await the official Iranian transcript to note what else was said and what was reported out-of-context.
karlof1 , Apr 24, 2019 7:30:49 PM | link
Schmoe @69--

China will ignore the illegal Outlaw US Empire diktat and carry on as before. If it's challenged, it has the means to defend itself and will. The Empire is beholden to China not the other way-round.

[Apr 24, 2019] The big fish are China and India. Those are the major users of iranian oil, and neither of them is likely to desist

Apr 24, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

nervos belli , Apr 24, 2019 1:17:03 PM | link

@39
Nobody cares what Italy and Greece need. They are good little vassals and will do what told. Turkey is of course a bigger problem, but might just be mostly overlooked and ignored.

The big fish are China and India. Those are the major users of iranian oil, and neither of them is likely to desist. What will the US do with them? Not possiple to financially sanction China.

That's why I think there will be lots of talk, but no action against anyone still buying iranian oil. Especially since Venezuela is not resolved. Nobody, not even the US, intends to march into Venezuela to "liberate" any oil wells any time soon.
While Maduro might some day collapse under his camarilla's corruption and his own incompetence, it will take a long time, probably years. Especially the opposition against him is similary incompetent. My guess is, it will take longer than Trump will be in office.

[Apr 24, 2019] Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Advisor John Bolton have vowed to strangle Iran and cut off all oil exports.

Apr 24, 2019 | www.unz.com

Agent76 , says: April 23, 2019 at 10:26 pm GMT

Apr 23, 2019 Pompeo Finally Tells The Truth: 'We Lie, We Cheat, We Steal'

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Advisor John Bolton have vowed to strangle Iran and cut off all oil exports.

[Apr 24, 2019] Trump: Stop buying Iranian oil or face sanctions

Apr 23, 2019 | www.youtube.com

Oil prices are on the rise after the United States announced a new crackdown on Iran's oil exports aiming to reduce them to zero.
Iran's threatening retaliation by blocking the Strait of Hormuz - the world's lifeline of oil from all Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq.
The move has

K kaye , 10 hours ago

Can we sanction food from Pompeo? Looks like his jacket about to burst open...

noshadova , 11 hours ago

Why would the whole world be afraid of USA ? Ans. Greed and lack of integrity by the leaders !

Randy Pederson , 4 hours ago

The US are the only ones that are currently bombing multiple countries at the same time with no declaration of war.

SA SHA , 11 hours ago

Economic Sanctions === Economic Terrorist Attack Recent terrorist attacks indicate that the United States is using extremist organizations to provoke religious wars. The aim is to split Eurasia and make troubles for Europe. The United States is very afraid of peace in Eurasia, because it will make the United States a third world country.

[Apr 24, 2019] Trump: Stop buying Iranian oil or face sanctions Inside Story

Apr 23, 2019 | www.youtube.com

Oil prices are on the rise after the United States announced a new crackdown on Iran's oil exports aiming to reduce them to zero.
Iran's threatening retaliation by blocking the Strait of Hormuz - the world's lifeline of oil from all Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq.
The move has

[Apr 22, 2019] Our Iran Policy Is Run By Fanatics

Apr 22, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com

The Trump administration won't be issuing any more waivers to importers of Iranian oil:

The Trump administration is poised to tell five nations, including allies Japan, South Korea and Turkey, that they will no longer be exempt from U.S. sanctions if they continue to import oil from Iran.

U.S. officials say Secretary of State Mike Pompeo plans to announce on Monday that the administration will not renew sanctions waivers for the five countries when they expire on May 2.

Refusing to offer new sanctions waivers is the latest sign that Trump is once again giving in to the most extreme Iran hawks. When sanctions on Iran's oil sector went into effect last November, the administration initially granted waivers to the top importers of Iranian oil to avoid a spike in the price of oil, but that is now coming to an end. The economic war that the U.S. has been waging against Iran over the last year is about to expand to include some of the world's biggest economies and some of America's leading trading partners. It is certain to inflict more hardship on the Iranian people, and it will damage relations between the U.S. and other major economic powers, including China and India, but it will have no discernible effect on the Iranian government's behavior and policies. India, China, and Turkey are practically guaranteed to ignore U.S. demands that they eliminate all Iranian oil imports.

Josh Rogin reported on the same story:

The decision to end waivers has implications for world oil markets, which have been eagerly anticipating President Trump's decision on whether to extend waivers. The officials said market disruption should be minimal for two reasons: supply is now greater than demand and Pompeo is also set to announce offsets through commitments from other suppliers such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Trump spoke about the issue Thursday with the UAE's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan.

Between the administration's Venezuela and Iran oil sanctions and increased instability in Libya (also supported by the Trump administration), oil prices are nonetheless likely to rise. Even if they don't, Trump's Iran obsession is causing significant economic dislocation for no good reason as part of a regime change policy that can't and won't succeed. It cannot be emphasized enough that the reimposition of sanctions on Iran is completely unwarranted and represents a betrayal of previous U.S. commitments to Iran and our allies under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. The decision to refuse any new sanctions waivers is a clear sign that the most fanatical members of the Trump administration have prevailed in internal debates and U.S. Iran policy is held hostage to their whims.

liberal, says: April 21, 2019 at 11:44 pm

Maybe Trump will reap the benefits of this if oil prices go up a lot and it torpedos his reelection in 2020.

One thing I'm really not clear on how are these proposed sanctions against third parties (e.g. Japan, etc etc) not a violation of trade agreements? Are there escape clauses in those agreements that allow the US to do these things, or is it merely that these other countries are (usually) not willing to rely on the trade agreements' protections because, at the end of the day, it would mean a trade war with the US, which they're not willing to countenance?

JR , says: April 22, 2019 at 6:27 am
One would be naive to expect any truth from Pompeo. Self satisfied creature considers this funny too. How deep can one sink..

https://www.youtube.com/embed/tsnAR3yqfQ0?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

cosmo , says: April 22, 2019 at 7:19 am
Iran policy ??? What about foreign policy in general ?? Interventionism is NOT what Americans want, or can afford! No more lives & limbs (and dollars) for foreign countries!!
Dry Dock , says: April 22, 2019 at 8:34 am
"Between the administration's Venezuela and Iran oil sanctions and increased instability in Libya (also supported by the Trump administration), oil prices are nonetheless likely to rise. Even if they don't, Trump's Iran obsession is causing significant economic dislocation for no good reason "

But there is a good reason. Forcing up oil prices is a shot in the arm for the Saudi economy. Remember "Israel first, and Saudi Arabia second". That formula explains most of Trump's foreign policy, the rest being a jumble of random impulses and the consequences of infighting among his advisors.

KXB , says: April 22, 2019 at 10:24 am
Gas is already $3.20 in the Chicago suburbs, and we are not into the summer driving season yet. Overseas – India is going to the poll. India imports most of its oil, and Iran is a major supplier. Yes, the Saudis have been trying to get India to switch over to more Saudi imports – but it would look like "strong" Modi is giving in to Trump and MBS.
TheSnark , says: April 22, 2019 at 10:59 am
We are going to sanction China for buying Iranian oil? Does anyone seriously think they are going to submit to that gracefully? Japan and Korea might, they are much smaller and stuck with us. But China?

And I seriously doubt that sanctioning India for buying Iranian oil will advance our strategic alliance with them, either.

[Apr 22, 2019] Mike Pompeo reveals true motto of CIA: 'We lied, we cheated, we stole'

This memorable statement is at 3:53 ;-)
Apr 22, 2019 | www.youtube.com

JR says: April 22, 2019 at 6:27 am

One would be naive to expect any truth from Pompeo. Self satisfied creature considers this funny too. How deep can one sink..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsnAR3yqfQ0

[Apr 19, 2019] Pompeo Appoints Fox News Neocon as Spokesperson by Kurt Nimmo

Apr 04, 2019 | ronpaulinstitute.org
And the neocon-ization of the Trump administration continues. While The Donald is packing away Big Macs and Diet Cokes, his neocon secretary of state is appointing likeminded warmongers.

me title=

From Bezos' propaganda mill, The Washington Post :

Ortagus has been a fixture of the GOP foreign policy establishment for more than a decade. She has served as a press officer at the US Agency for International Development (USAID), a financial intelligence officer at the Treasury Department and an intelligence officer in the US Naval Reserve. She has also worked with several political campaigns, as well as a political action committee, and has experience working on Wall Street and in foreign policy consulting.
In addition to working with spooks and a federal agency that undermines elections and foments coups in foreign lands, Ortagus "served on the boards" at the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), a coven of warmongers run by Kimberly Kagan, wife of notorious neocon Frederick Kagan.

ISW is funded by the death merchants -- Raytheon, General Dynamics, DynCorp, and others -- and it pushes the concept of the indispensable nation engaged in forever war around the world, a conflict promoted in the name of "democracy," which is code for mass murder campaigns waged by the financial elite in its quest for total domination and theft of everything valuable on planet Earth.

Naturally, some folks over on the so-called "New Right" support the appointment of an ardent neocon -- a former pretty face from Fox News -- at the State Department, thus demonstrating they are little different than establishment Republicans, or for that matter Democrats.

[Apr 18, 2019] Ask yourself "Is this creature sane or rational?"

Apr 18, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

Hoarsewhisperer , Apr 18, 2019 4:05:55 AM | link

John Bolton was interviewed on PBS Newshour on March 17. Look it up and watch it and ask yourself "Is this creature sane or rational?"

[Apr 16, 2019] Pompeo Has Lost His Mind - China Hits Back At Latin America Remarks

There should be a new term "Pompeocity" for the style the Secretary of State exhibits.
Apr 15, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
China has come out swinging after Mike Pompeo's three-day Latin America tour in which the Secretary of State publicly called out China for spreading "disorder" in Latin America alongside Russia. Pompeo identified the two countries, both of which have over the past two months condemned US efforts toward regime change in Venezuela, of backing failing investment projects that only fuel corruption and undermine democracy, especially in Venezuela.

China's ambassador to Chile, Xu Bu, quickly lashed out in response to America's top diplomat blaming China for Latin America's economic woes which first came last Friday while standing alongside Chilean President Sebastian Pinera. Ambassador Xu told the Chilean newspaper La Tercera : "Mr Pompeo has lost his mind."

Pompeo had asserted during his tour that Chinese investment and economic intervention in Venezuela, now facing financial and infrastructural collapse amidst political turmoil, had "helped destroy" the country and said Latin American leaders must therefore see who their "true friend" is.

"China's bankrolling of the Maduro regime helped precipitate and prolong the crisis in that country," Pompeo had stated , and further described Maduro as "a power-hungry tyrant who has brought ruin to his country and to his people".

"I think there's a lesson to be learned for all of us: China and others are being hypocritical calling for non-intervention in Venezuela's affairs. Their own financial interventions have helped destroy that country," Pompeo added.

China is Venezuela's biggest foreign creditor has provided up to $62bn in loans since 2007, according to estimates.

The Chinese foreign ministry didn't hold back in its response: "For some time, some US politicians have been carrying the same version, the same script of slandering China all over the world , and fanning the flames and sowing discord everywhere," Ministry spokesman Lu Kang said in a Monday statement .

"The words and deeds are despicable. But lies are lies, even if you say it a thousand times, they are still lies. Mr Pompeo, you can stop, " the spokesman said.

Hinting at Washington's Cold War era record of overthrowing governments in Latin America -- a longstanding tradition that can be traced all the way back to the Cold War, the statement added: "The Latin American countries have good judgment about who is their true friend and who is false, and who is breaking rules and making trouble," Lu said.

The Chinese Ambassador to Chile's remarks had also remotely invoked a continued Monroe Doctrine mentality on the part of US officials, saying "Pompeo's body has entered the 21st century but his mind remains in the 20th century, full of thoughts about hegemony and the cold war ," Amb. Xu told La Tercera .

In addition to being the Maduro government's single largest creditor, China has recently offered to help Venezuela with its failing power grid, after a series of devastating mass outages over the past month has resulted in "medieval" conditions amidst an already collapsing infrastructure. This as Pompeo and Bolton came close to positively celebrating the mass outages as proof of the ineptness of the Maduro regime.

Beijing also recently denied it has deployed troops to Venezuela after media reports a week ago cited online photos which appeared to show a Chinese military transport plane deployed to Caracas.

Given how boldly and directly Chinese officials' Monday statements were, it appears Beijing's patience with Pompeo is running thin, to the point of giving up on a positive avenue with the White House, also amidst a broader trade war. It appears the proverbial gloves are coming off.

AriusArmenian , 3 minutes ago link

China's ambassador Xu Bu is certainly correct that "Mr Pompeo has lost his mind" like the rest of US supremacist elites. Another good example is the demented Nikki Haley. Then there is Bolton that is in a class of his own.

[Apr 13, 2019] China, Russia Spread Disorder And Corruption In Latin America Pompeo

Trump administration still is playing old color revolution game: accusing somebody of corruption is the best way to endure the regime change.
Unfortunately for them the game is well known now, and as such is less effective.
It might succeed this time though, as Venezuela is their backyard, so to speak. But after Libya there will be a fight and it it will cost the USA. .
Looks like they are now trying to bribe China.
Notable quotes:
"... Pompeo and Piñera also generally discussed the U.S.-China trade war and Beijing's "Belt and Road" initiative, with Pompeo suggesting he was optimistic about solving the tariff war with China. But the focus remained finding a US-desired outcome to the Venezuela crisis. ..."
Apr 13, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

Speaking Friday in Chile upon the start of his three-day South American tour, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called out China and Russia for spreading "disorder" in Latin America through failing investment projects that only fuel corruption and undermine democracy , especially in places like Venezuela.

According to Bloomberg , Pompeo specifically listed a failing dam project in Ecuador, police advisory programs in Nicaragua, and Chinese loans to the Maduro government, which goes further back to Chavez.

Pompeo asserted Chinese loans in Latin America "often injects corrosive capital into the economic bloodstream, giving life to corruption, and eroding good governance." Both Beijing and Moscow have ultimately spread their economic tentacles into the region to "spread disorder," he added.

In what appears an effort to sustain momentum toward pressuring regime change in Caracas, America's highest diplomat met Chilean President Sebastian Pinera earlier Friday, and will hit Paraguay, Peru next, and finally on Sunday will travel to a Colombian town on the border with Venezuela.

Pompeo and Piñera also generally discussed the U.S.-China trade war and Beijing's "Belt and Road" initiative, with Pompeo suggesting he was optimistic about solving the tariff war with China. But the focus remained finding a US-desired outcome to the Venezuela crisis.

According to Bloomberg :

As part of the broader pressure campaign on Maduro, Pompeo said the U.S. has revoked visas for 718 people and sanctioned over 150 individuals and entities. On Friday, the U.S. sanctioned four companies it says transport much of the 50,000 barrels of oil that Venezuela provides to Cuba each day.

[Apr 13, 2019] Pompeo repeats Gene Sharp recipes: China, Russia Spread Disorder And Corruption In Latin America

That happened often when a second rate provincial lawyer became the Secretary of State. At least Kerry knows French. Pompeo knows absolution nothing and is capable only of repeating old cliché.
Today's special word is: Projection
Notable quotes:
"... Pompeo should go into advertising. Since the late '50's, we've torn Latin America to shreds, but we're the good guys, eh?!. ..."
"... Doesn't Pompeo also believe in the rapture. ..."
Apr 13, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

idontcare , 2 minutes ago link

Pompeo should go into advertising. Since the late '50's, we've torn Latin America to shreds, but we're the good guys, eh?!.

I luv my country, but I hate my government.

beemasters

This must have been the most transparently crooked administration ever in the US history! Ain't that the pot calling the kettle black!

2willies

Doesn't Pompeo also believe in the rapture.

Idaho potato head

At some point even the most deluded sheep has got to realize he is being lied to. Or is it just as in the Matrix, there is an age limit as to when a mind can be awoken.

After reading CYMS1 below I retract that question.

The political and commercial morals of the United States are not merely food for laughter, they are an entire banquet

Mark Twain

[Apr 12, 2019] John Bolton Took Money From Clinton Foundation Donor, Banks Tied To Cartels, Terrorists, Iran by William Craddick

Notable quotes:
"... On June 12, 2018 The Washington Post ran an overlooked story where they disclosed that National Security Advisor John Bolton had accepted money from the Victor Pinchuk Foundation, Deutsche Bank and HSBC to return for his participation in speeches and panel discussions ..."
"... John Bolton accepted $115,000 from the Victor Pinchuk Foundation to speak at multiple events hosted by the Foundation including one in September 2017 where Bolton assured his audience that President Donald Trump would not radically change US foreign policy despite his explicit campaign promises to do so. ..."
"... More broadly, John Bolton's work for the Victor Pinchuk Foundation, HSBC and Deutsche Bank shows that while he preaches hardline foreign policy approaches towards nations such as Iran and North Korea he has no issue tying himself to those who openly flaunt American sanctions and diplomatic attempts to pressure these states. For an individual who is the President's National Security Advisor to have taken money from banks who provide financial services to terror groups who have murdered thousands of Americans is totally unacceptable. ..."
Apr 10, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

Via Disobedient Media

On June 12, 2018 The Washington Post ran an overlooked story where they disclosed that National Security Advisor John Bolton had accepted money from the Victor Pinchuk Foundation, Deutsche Bank and HSBC to return for his participation in speeches and panel discussions. These three entities have been linked to various kinds of corruption including sanctions evasion for Iran, money laundering on behalf of drug cartels, provision of banking services to backers of Islamic terror organizations and controversial donations to the Clinton Foundation.

The financial ties between Bolton and these institutions highlight serious ethical concerns about his suitability for the position of National Security Advisor.

I. Victor Pinchuk Foundation

John Bolton accepted $115,000 from the Victor Pinchuk Foundation to speak at multiple events hosted by the Foundation including one in September 2017 where Bolton assured his audience that President Donald Trump would not radically change US foreign policy despite his explicit campaign promises to do so.

The Victor Pinchuk Foundation was blasted in 2016 over their donation of $10 to $25 million to the Clinton Foundation between 1994 and 2005. The donations lead to accusations of influence peddling after it emerged that Victor Pinchuk had been invited to Hillary Clinton's home during the final year of her tenure as Secretary of State.

Even more damning was Victor Pinchuk's participation in activities that constituted evasions of sanctions levied against Iran by the American government. A 2015 exposé by Newsweek highlighted the fact that Pinchuk owned Interpipe Group, a Cyprus-incorporated manufacturer of seamless pipes used in oil and gas sectors. A now-removed statement on Interpipe's website showed that they were doing business in Iran despite US sanctions aimed to prevent this kind of activity.

Why John Bolton, a notorious war hawk who has called for a hardline approach to Iran, would take money from an entity who was evading sanctions against the country is not clear. It does however, raise serious questions about whether or not Bolton should be employed by Donald Trump, who made attacks on the Clinton Foundation's questionable donations a cornerstone of his 2016 campaign.

II. HSBC Group

British bank HSBC paid Bolton $46,500 in June and August 2017 to speak at two gatherings of hedge fund managers and investors.

HSBC is notorious for its extensive ties to criminal and terror organizations for whom it has provided illegal financial services. Clients that HSBC have laundered money for include Colombian drug traffickers and Mexican cartels who have terrorized the country and recently raised murder rates to the highest levels in Mexico's history . They have also offered banking services to Chinese individuals who sourced chemicals and other materials used by cartels to produce methamphetamine and heroin that is then sold in the United States. China's Triads have helped open financial markets in Asia to cartels seeking to launder their profits derived from the drug trade.

In 2012, HSBC was blasted by the US Senate for for allowing money from Russian and Latin American criminal networks as well as Middle Eastern terror groups to enter the US. The banking group ultimately agreed to pay a $1.9 billion fine for this misconduct as well as their involvement in processing sanctions-prohibited transactions on behalf of Iran, Libya, Sudan and Burma.

Some of the terror groups assisted by HSBC include the notorious Al Qaeda. During the 2012 scrutiny of HSBC, outlets such as Le Monde , Business Insider and the New York Times revealed that HSBC had maintained ties to Saudi Arabia's Al Rajhi Bank. Al Rajhi Bank was one of Osama Bin Ladin's "Golden Chain" of Al Qaeda's most important financiers. Even though HSBC's own internal compliance offices asked for the bank to terminate their relationship with Al Rajhi Bank, it continued until 2010.

More recently in 2018, reports have claimed that HSBC was used for illicit transactions between Iran and Chinese technology conglomerate Huawei. The US is currently seeking to extradite Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou after bringing charges against Huawei related to sanctions evasion and theft of intellectual property. The company has been described as a "backdoor" for elements of the Chinese government by certain US authorities.

Bolton's decision to accept money from HSBC given their well-known reputation is deeply hypocritical. HSBC's connection to terror organizations such as Al Qaeda in particular is damning for Bolton due to the fact that he formerly served as the chairman of the Gatestone Institute , a New York-based advocacy group that purports to oppose terrorism. These financial ties are absolutely improper for an individual acting as National Security Advisor.

III. Deutsche Bank

John Bolton accepted $72,000 from German Deutsche Bank to speak at an event in May 2017.

Deutsche Bank has for decades engaged in questionable behavior. During World War II, they provided financial services to the Nazi Gestapo and financed construction of the infamous Auschwitz as well as an adjacent plant for chemical company IG Farben.

Like HSBC, Deutsche Bank has provided illicit services to international criminal organizations. In 2014 court filings showed that Deutsche Bank, Citi and Bank of America had all acted as channels for drug money sent to Colombian security currency brokerages suspected of acting on behalf of traffickers. In 2017, Deutsche Bank agreed to pay a $630 million fine after working with a Danish bank in Estonia to launder over $10 billion through London and Moscow on behalf of Russian entities. The UK's financial regulatory watchdog has said that Deutsche Bank is failing to prevent its accounts from being used to launder money, circumvent sanctions and finance terrorism. In November 2018, Deutsche Bank's headquarters was raided by German authorities as part of an investigation sparked by 2016 revelations in the "Panama Papers" leak from Panama's Mossack Fonseca.

Two weeks after the 9/11 terror attacks, the Bush administration signed an executive order linking a company owned by German national Mamoun Darkazanli to Al Qaeda. In 1995, Darkazanli co-signed the opening of a Deutsche Bank account for Mamdouh Mahmud Salim. Salim was identified by the CIA as the chief of bin Laden's computer operations and weapons procurement. He was ultimately arrested in Munich, extradited to the United States and charged with participation in the 1998 US embassy bombings.

In 2017, the Office of the New York State Comptroller opened an investigation into accounts that Deutsche Bank was operating on behalf of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The PFLP is defined by both the United States and the European Union as a terrorist organization. It is ironic that Bolton, who is a past recipient of the "Guardian of Zion Award" would accept money from an entity who provided services to Palestinian groups that Israel considers to be terror related.

IV. Clinton-esque Financial Ties Unbecoming To Trump Administration

Bolton's engagement in paid speeches, in some cases with well-known donors to the Clinton Foundation, paints the Trump administration in a very bad light. Donald Trump criticized Hillary Clinton during his 2016 Presidential campaign for speeches she gave to Goldman Sachs that were labeled by her detractors as "pay to play" behavior. John Bolton's acceptance of money from similar entities, especially the Victor Pinchuk Foundation, are exactly the same kind of activity and are an embarrassment for a President who claims to be against corruption.

More broadly, John Bolton's work for the Victor Pinchuk Foundation, HSBC and Deutsche Bank shows that while he preaches hardline foreign policy approaches towards nations such as Iran and North Korea he has no issue tying himself to those who openly flaunt American sanctions and diplomatic attempts to pressure these states. For an individual who is the President's National Security Advisor to have taken money from banks who provide financial services to terror groups who have murdered thousands of Americans is totally unacceptable.

It is embarrassing enough that Donald Trump hired Bolton in the first place. The next best remedy is to let him go as soon as possible.

[Apr 08, 2019] Apparently Bibi sleeping in Jareds bed wasn't a metaphor but a foreign policy statement! The house of Kushner that Trump built

Apr 08, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

LOL123 , 3 hours ago link

With Jared kushner ( Bibis bff and playing the role of **** Cheney) and Aldonson Trumps private banker ( aka Vegas buddies) what could go wrong in PEACE negotiations?

... ... ...

Apparently Bibi sleeping in Jareds bed wasn't a metephor but a foreign policy statement!💊🐍 the house of Kushner that Trump built.

[Mar 18, 2019] Vesti calls out Pompeo on lying about Russia invading Ukraine by Seraphim Hanisch

[Video]
Mar 18, 2019 | theduran.com

Vesti calls out Pompeo on lying about Russia invading Ukraine [Video]

Secretary Pompeo displayed either stunning ignorance or a mass-attack of propaganda about what must be the most invisible war in history.

After the 2014 Maidan revolution and the subsequent secessions of Lugansk and Donetsk in Ukraine, and after the rejoining of Crimea with its original nation of Russia, the Western media went on a campaign to prove the Russia is (/ was / was about to / had already / might / was thinking about / was planning to etc.) invade Ukraine. For the next year or so, about every two weeks, internet news sources like Yahoo! News showed viewers pictures of tanks, box trucks and convoys to "prove" that the invasion was underway (or any of the other statuses confirming the possibilities above stated.) This information was doubtless provided to US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo.

Apparently, Secretary Pompeo believed this ruse, or is being paid to believe this ruse because in a speech recently, he talked about it as fact:

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called Russia's annexation of Crimea and aggression in eastern Ukraine an attempt to gain access to Ukraine's oil and gas reserves. He stated this at IHS Markit's CERAWeek conference in Houston, the USA, Reuters reports.

Pompeo urged the oil industry to work with the Trump administration to promote U.S. foreign policy interests, especially in Asia and in Europe, and to punish what he called "bad actors" on the world stage.

The United States has imposed harsh sanctions in the past several months on two major world oil producers, Venezuela and Iran.

Pompeo said the U.S. oil-and-gas export boom had given the United States the ability to meet energy demand once satisfied by its geopolitical rivals.

"We don't want our European allies hooked on Russian gas through the Nord Stream 2 project, any more than we ourselves want to be dependent on Venezuelan oil supplies," Pompeo said, referring to a natural gas pipeline expansion from Russia to Central Europe .

Pompeo called Russia's invasion of Ukraine an attempt to gain access to the country's oil and gas reserves.

Although the state-run news agency Vesti News often comes under criticism for rather reckless, or at least, extremely sarcastic propaganda at times, here they rightly nailed Mr. Pompeo's lies to the wall and billboarded it on their program:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/b5uF_svBasA?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

The news anchors even made a wisecrack about one of the political figures, Konstantin Zatulin saying as a joke that Russia plans to invade the United States to get its oil. They further noted that Secretary Pompeo is uneducated about the region and situation, but they offered him the chance to come to Russia and learn the correct information about what is going on.

To wit, Russia has not invaded Ukraine at all. There is no evidence to support such a claim, while there IS evidence to show that the West is actively interfering with Russia through the use of Ukraine as a proxy . While this runs counter to the American narrative, it is simply the truth. Ukraine appears to be the victim of its own ambitions at this point, for while the US tantalizes the leadership of the country and even interferes with the Orthodox Church in the region, the country lurches towards a presidential election with three very poor candidates, most notably the one who is president there now, Petro Poroshenko.

However, the oil and gas side of the anti-Russian propaganda operation by the US is significant. The US wishes for Europe to buy gas from American suppliers, even though this is woefully inconvenient and expensive when Russia is literally at Europe's doorstep with easy supplies. However, the Cold War Party in the United States, which still has a significant hold on US policy making categorizes the sale of Russia gas to powers like NATO ally Germany as a "threat" to European security.

It is interesting that Angela Merkel herself does not hold this line of thinking. It is also interesting and worthy of note, that this is not the only NATO member that is dealing more and more with Russia in terms of business. It underscores the loss of purpose that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization suffers now since there is no Soviet Union to fight.

However, the US remains undaunted. If there is no enemy to fight, the Americans feel that they must create one, and Russia has been the main scapegoat for American power ambitions. More than ever now, this tactic appears to be the one in use for determining the US stance towards other powers in the world.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon! Continue Reading

[Mar 07, 2019] John Bolton Is Exploiting Donald Trump's Weakness - Bloomberg

Mar 07, 2019 | www.bloomberg.com

Just how weak a president has Donald Trump become? For an illustration, see a terrific Washington Post article on the foreign-policy decision-making process since John Bolton became Trump's national security adviser. Or, rather, the absence of anything resembling a process.

As Heather Hurlburt pointed out when Bolton took the job, he's ill-suited for it. Bolton is a policy advocate, not the honest broker that the position calls for. That's a particular problem for Trump. Because the president is inexperienced in national-security matters, he doesn't know whether Bolton is speaking for the experts on a policy question or just advocating for his own preferences. Because Trump knows little about the executive branch, Bolton can use his bureaucratic skills to advance his own agenda -- including impeding Trump's plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria.

This isn't to say that Bolton's policies are necessarily wrong; that's for others to judge. But it creates a real problem for the presidency when top advisers are looking out for their own interests and not the president's.

On this point, Ronald Reagan's administration is instructive. By all accounts, Reagan was more informed about policy than Trump is. He was also a pragmatic politician, capable of compromising or even backing down entirely when it was in his interests. Reagan's weakness, however, was that he could be curiously passive at times, and (like many presidents) too easily swayed by anecdotes. That meant he needed high-level staffers who could serve as honest brokers. His first-term chief of staff, James Baker, allowed him to make good decisions. Baker's replacement, Donald Regan, failed to do so. Partly as a result, Reagan's presidency had almost completely collapsed by the time Regan was fired amid the Iran-Contra scandal.

[Feb 26, 2019] Bolton's financial disclosures show that between September 2015 and April 2018, he received $165,000 from the Counter-Extremism Project (CEP), a group with overlapping staffers, board members, and finances with UANI. According to the Bolton's disclosures, the payments were "consulting fees."

Feb 26, 2019 | www.unz.com

anon [228] Disclaimer , says: February 27, 2019 at 12:43 am GMT

@Thomm Bolton tweeted:

Attempts by Russian gov. to intimidate Amb. Wallace & @UANI are unacceptable. If President Putin is serious about stabilizing the Middle East, confronting terrorism & preventing a nuclear arms race in the region, he should stand with UANI & against Iran.

Why would the national security advisor care what the Russian Foreign Ministry has to say about a New York-based nonprofit's letter writing campaign, especially when those remarks got virtually no notice in the media?

Bolton's personal finances and the president's biggest campaign funder offer a couple clues.

Bolton's financial disclosures show that between September 2015 and April 2018, he received $165,000 from the Counter-Extremism Project (CEP), a group with overlapping staffers, board members, and finances with UANI. According to the Bolton's disclosures, the payments were "consulting fees."

https://lobelog.com/large-payments-to-bolton-might-explain-his-uani-tweet/

[Feb 22, 2019] 'Cheney wants you out,' Bustani recalled Bolton saying, referring to the then-vice president of the United States. 'We can't accept your management style.'

Feb 22, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

AntiSpin , Feb 21, 2019 2:07:11 PM | link

@ Tom | Feb 21, 2019 1:29:28 AM | 84

"He threatened the head of OPCW I believe as well."

Your belief is correct; The one threatened was José Bustani, then --- head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons

"Bolton -- then serving as under secretary of state for Arms Control and International Security Affairs -- arrived in person at the OPCW headquarters in the Hague to issue a warning to the organization's chief. And, according to Bustani, Bolton didn't mince words. 'Cheney wants you out,' Bustani recalled Bolton saying, referring to the then-vice president of the United States. 'We can't accept your management style.'

Bolton continued, according to Bustani's recollections: 'You have 24 hours to leave the organization, and if you don't comply with this decision by Washington, we have ways to retaliate against you.'

There was a pause. 'We know where your kids live. You have two sons in New York'."

https://theintercept.com/2018/03/29/john-bolton-trump-bush-bustani-kids-opcw/

The guy is a murdering thug -- a psychopath.

[Feb 21, 2019] But, scum like Pompeo puts forth hard-line stance against terrorists. What a bunch of vile phonies and hypocrites.

Feb 21, 2019 | www.unz.com

Asagirian , says: Website February 20, 2019 at 9:15 pm GMT

Incredible. US government cooks up lies to invade and wreck Iraq, destroy Libya, and subvert Syria. It pulled off a coup in Ukraine with Neo-Nazis. US and its allies Saudis and Israel gave aid, direct and indirect, to ISIS and Al-Qaida to bring down Assad or turn Syria upside down.

But, scum like Pompeo puts forth hard-line stance against terrorists. What a bunch of vile phonies and hypocrites.

[Feb 06, 2019] Bolton unplugged RT

Feb 06, 2019 | www.rt.com

As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump lambasted America's endless and wasteful wars. But as president, he has surrounded himself with individuals who have made defending and advancing American empire a full-time career. Why did Trump cave and what could be the consequences for him and his presidency?

CrossTalking with George Szamuely, Jeff Deist, and Lee Spieckerman.

That Lee guy demonstrated perfectly why the world should fear the USA. Dangerous stupid.
71 Likes

You are correct!
21 Likes

The danger comes from the arrogance with the stupidity. American exceptionalism at its ugliest, on par with bolton and pompeo for sure.

I don't think tRump really knows what he is saying, as in big disconnect between brain and mouth. More empty bluster than arrogance with his 5th grader stupidity.

23 Likes

The scary part is a lot of Americans are like him

23 Likes
Show 2 more replies

The "Lee" entity encapsulates everything that is wrong with consecutive US governments: arrogant, obnoxious, I'll mannered, undiplomatic, belligerent, misinformed and dangerously stupid.
43 Likes

Thanks for having this Lee Spieckerman on. It proves RT tries to show all sides and is a shocking example of how crazy the far right is.
Keep it real!

37 Likes

Spickerman is living in cuckoo land with his claim US is a force for good and billions are so happy to live under a bunch of mobster's Wrong

22 Likes

Lee Spickerman is a typical Sociopath

18 Likes

Lee Spickerman is mad like the US Governement.!!

The Monroe Doctrine gets evoked yet again. In written form it was "anti-colonial", but in practice it was "imperial anti-colonialism" and used as a declaration of hegemony and a right of unilateral intervention over the Americas.

This is why I feel we need to stop using the term "regime change" which also hides the reality of what are really coup d'etats and imperialist wars. It's not a regime being changed, but a regime trying to do the changing. Like Peter says at the end, it would take a long show to talk about them all.

Do us all a favor and take Mr. Spieckerman off your guest list. He advances our knowledge not a bit. He is merely one of the Bush claque. As for his admired public servant, John Bolton, rarely does this country produce so maniacal a political operator. Giving Bolton a responsible position was Trump's most egregious personnel error.

Lee Spieckerman = jewish neocon

[Feb 05, 2019] John Bolton Insists Iran Likely Harboring Dangerous Terrorist Osama Bin Laden

Feb 05, 2019 | politics.theonion.com

WASHINGTON -- In an impassioned call for preemptive action against the Middle Eastern nation, United States national security advisor John Bolton insisted Thursday that Iran was likely harboring the dangerous terrorist Osama bin Laden. "For the good of our nation, we must act immediately," said Bolton, citing several intelligence reports providing significant evidence that Iran is currently providing sanctuary to the Al-Qaeda leader and mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks.

"We must never rest until this fugitive is brought to justice, and the only way to achieve that is through repeated and prolonged military strikes on Iran.

We have reason to believe that he's living in a compound there where he's training a legion of bloodthirsty Iranian civilians to take up arms as the next generation of terrorists. It is our solemn duty as the international safeguard of freedom to prevent this at all costs."

At press time, Bolton had left the podium to follow up on an important tip that Iranian leaders had hired American nuclear physicist Otto Gunther Octavius.

[Feb 03, 2019] Horrifying, Personal John Bolton Story

Feb 03, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org

AntiSpin , Feb 2, 2019 11:17:05 AM | link

Horrifying, Personal John Bolton Story

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2005/4/15/106909/-

"Mr. Bolton proceeded to chase me through the halls of a Russian hotel -- throwing things at me, shoving threatening letters under my door and, generally, behaving like a madman."

[Jan 30, 2019] The thugs for Wall Street have taken DC. Trump might as well go home

Jan 30, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

NAV 4 hours ago

Jason Raimondo's hopes that the tide slowly was turning against the War Party with Trump's appointment of Tillerson are dashed for good with the appointments of Abrams, Bolton and Pompeo. The thugs for Wall Street have taken DC. Trump might as well go home. Raimondo wrote of Abrams in 2017 in "The End of Globalism":

Excerpt:

Oh yes, the times they are a changin', as Bob Dylan once put it, and here's the evidence :

"Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has ordered his department to redefine its mission and issue a new statement of purpose to the world. The draft statements under review right now are similar to the old mission statement, except for one thing – any mention of promoting democracy is being eliminated."

All the usual suspects are in a tizzy . Elliott Abrams , he of Contra-gate fame , and one of the purest of the neoconservative ideologues , is cited in the Washington Post piece as being quite unhappy: "The only significant difference is the deletion of justice and democracy. We used to want a just and democratic word, and now apparently we don't."

Abrams' contribution to a just and democratic world is well-known : supporting a military dictatorship in El Salvador during the 1980s that slaughtered thousand s, and then testifying before Congress that massive human rights violations by the US-supported regime were Communist "propaganda." US policy, of which he was one of the principal architects, led to the lawlessness that now plagues that country, which has a higher murder rate than Iraq: in Abrams' view, the Reagan policy of supporting a military dictatorship was "a fabulous achievement." The same murderous policy was pursued in Nicaragua while Abrams was Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, as the US tried to overthrow a democratically elected government and provoked a civil war that led to the death of many thousands . In Honduras and Guatemala , Abrams was instrumental in covering up heinous atrocities committed by US-supported regimes.

And it was all done in the name of "promoting democracy." http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2017/08/01/the-end-of-globalism/

And, now, Venezuela. The economic hit man has arrived.

" 'I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National city Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested." -- Smedley Butler

Brazen Heist II, 4 hours ago (Edited)

...The Orange Buffoon might as well open the door to Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Perle. Hell even get Scooter Libby in some cameo. You know, keep them enemies closer and all that.

napper, 4 hours ago (Edited)

He will, if he gets a second term!!!

Abrams' appointment is no accident or mistake. By now even the most casual (but intelligent) observer should have seen through Donald Trump's contemptuous disregard for legal institutions and a criminal propensity for lawlessness.

Brazen Heist II, 4 hours ago(Edited)

And most American sheeple are dumb as a pile of rocks. The few good people left are largely powerless and have to deal with so much BS in all directions. I hope they will get through the coming implosion with their sanity intact.

Glad I left that shithole. I saw it coming. What's coming won't be pretty.

CananTheConrearian1, 3 hours ago

OK, Great Mind, name a populace that is as smart as Americans. Europeans? Chinese? We're glad you left, ********.

[Jan 29, 2019] Abrams is obviously a Bush plant from left over CIA Bushes

Notable quotes:
"... War with Russia will be the agenda just as the left wanted to begin with. The " pick sides" is the warring cry of the old Bush regime of " either you're with us or against us" theme. ..."
"... Radical capitalism on the left and conservative traditional capitalism on right.... Both fighting for the same select few who run the show generation after generation. ..."
"... He's not really attacked by anyone. Its a bipartisan play to distract the gullible from the sick and subhuman policy they enact while you are distracted with the wall or fantasizing bout his tiny mushroom. ..."
"... So Trump jerks a couple of gators from the swamp, but only to make room for the T-Rex. Amazing. And why the hell is Bolton still involved in our government? He penned an article during the bush admin explaining why the posse comitatus doesn't really mean what it really says. Scary sob ..."
"... Trump is Zahpod Beeblebrox. Anyone remember the Hitchhiker's Guide? The role of the galactic president was not to wield power, but to distract attention away from it. Zaphod Beeblebrox was remarkably good at his job. ..."
"... When he bombed Syria in the first weeks of his presidency, giving the MIC, a $100 million of bomb sales ( to a company he had shares in, raytheon) was enough for me that tRump is what he always has been, a bankrupt, loud mouth yankee puppet who the plutocrats chose to continue the usual US empire evil ****. ..."
"... I had my suspicions prior with his choice of vp, mad eyes pence, a protege and smoker of **** cheney. Then pompous pompeo, 150% arsehole bolton and now this official pos. Only a trumptard or patriotard would accept this ****. ..."
"... it's just too much to keep track of it all. My scorecard booklet was all used up about the 1st week in after all the neocons and bankster slime who galloped into the WH on Trump's coattails. ..."
"... After having expressed antagonism towards nation-building during the 2000 campaign, newly elected President George W. Bush appointed Abrams as deputy national security adviser, where Abrams' role was essentially nation builder-in-chief. ..."
Jan 29, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
LOL123 , 33 minutes ago link

Abrams is obviously a Bush plant from left over CIA Bushys.

  • Abrams lied to Congress twice about his role with the Contras. He pleaded guilty to both counts in 1991 but was pardoned by George H.W. Bush just before the latter left office.
  • A decade later, while working as special Middle East adviser to President George Ws Bush, Abrams was an enthusiastic advocate of the disastrous Iraq invasion.
  • Abrams was also in the Bush White House at the time of the abortive coup in 2002 against the late Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez.
  • Abrams helped lead the U.S. effort to stage a coup to overturn the results of the 2006 Palestinian elections, complete with murder and torture.

War with Russia will be the agenda just as the left wanted to begin with. The " pick sides" is the warring cry of the old Bush regime of " either you're with us or against us" theme.

This is the precise crap people were hoping to avoid with Trump, but the left has put Trump administration in a vice by having constant fires to put out and disyractions with FALE RUSSIAN COLLUSION

... It's a psychological ploy to wear down the President and search for legitimate excuse to gain public opinion to go against Russia and they found it. Venezuela is a **** hole from socialism which AOL and dems are embracing now. Of course having sorry liberal advisors like Kushner doesn't help... That is a huge mistake to have the opposition ( democrate Kushner and wife) in the hen house with great pursasive power over an overwhelm Trump... Strategy working.

But politics as it is run mostly out of " The City of London" and old lynn Rothschild wanted puppet Hillary in ( Rothschild's play dirty to get what they want and hold a full house of cards with the financial tools to " persuade people to their way of thinking"... A battle us penny picker uppers must live with.... It's the only change we get.

Radical capitalism on the left and conservative traditional capitalism on right.... Both fighting for the same select few who run the show generation after generation.

Onan_the_Barbarian , 23 minutes ago link

Trump is being attacked from all sides. His only "friends" in Washington are the snakes of the neocon MIC. What did you think would happen?

schroedingersrat , 16 minutes ago link

He's not really attacked by anyone. Its a bipartisan play to distract the gullible from the sick and subhuman policy they enact while you are distracted with the wall or fantasizing bout his tiny mushroom.

Southern Cross , 25 minutes ago link

So Trump jerks a couple of gators from the swamp, but only to make room for the T-Rex. Amazing. And why the hell is Bolton still involved in our government? He penned an article during the bush admin explaining why the posse comitatus doesn't really mean what it really says. Scary sob

snatchpounder , 31 minutes ago link

Abrams was convicted of lying to congress meanwhile congress lies to us all day everyday and what happens to those bastards? They vote themselves raises and sit on their *** all day taking bribes from their paymasters and writing laws and regulations to control their chattel. Yes I hate politicians because they're ******* criminals and all of them and the useless bureaucrats that infest that cesspool in D.C should be out of work permanently.

2handband , 10 minutes ago link

Trump is Zahpod Beeblebrox. Anyone remember the Hitchhiker's Guide? The role of the galactic president was not to wield power, but to distract attention away from it. Zaphod Beeblebrox was remarkably good at his job.

Aristofani , 37 minutes ago link

When he bombed Syria in the first weeks of his presidency, giving the MIC, a $100 million of bomb sales ( to a company he had shares in, raytheon) was enough for me that tRump is what he always has been, a bankrupt, loud mouth yankee puppet who the plutocrats chose to continue the usual US empire evil ****.

I had my suspicions prior with his choice of vp, mad eyes pence, a protege and smoker of **** cheney. Then pompous pompeo, 150% arsehole bolton and now this official pos. Only a trumptard or patriotard would accept this ****.

dogfish , 32 minutes ago link

Trumps first order was a raid in Yemen where an 8 year old little girl was murdered.

Aristofani , 31 minutes ago link

apologies. I forgot that example of US empire evil ****.

Anonymous_Beneficiary , 29 minutes ago link

You're excused...it's just too much to keep track of it all. My scorecard booklet was all used up about the 1st week in after all the neocons and bankster slime who galloped into the WH on Trump's coattails.

Anonymous_Beneficiary , 31 minutes ago link

But at least the swamp is about to be drained.. in Venezuela lol

Aristofani , 24 minutes ago link

:) Funny

Seriously though, it's interesting that ZH has said nothing about the big corruption scandal going on now in Brasil. The guy who won on platform of anti-corruption has been exposed within a month of taking office, surprise...surprise, as part of one of the worst. Talk is vp taking over with the backing of the military. "soft-hard" coup you could say.

TGF Texas , 28 minutes ago link

I too, got very angry about the exact things you mention. However, I perspective is something that keeps me grounded. Remember what was happening in 2016, and what the options were. Remember BLM, march's in like every city, and Cops getting ambushed every few weeks?

Remember, "We came, We saw, he died", from Queen Hillary? Or how about Queen Hillary calling Putin a Thug, and saying we had to stand up to him in Ukraine, and Syria?

PERSPECTIVE!!

Aristofani , 16 minutes ago link

dude, we all know she is part of the same ****. The ******** election is over, the plutocracy chose their puppet. Think of it, sure Killary would have done the same, but she wouldn't have been able to get away with it and the schizoid msm would have had a breakdown trying to sell the same ol, same ol us empire games. People don't like surprises. Repubelicans as aggressive warmongers doesnt surprise. Sadly they think they cant do anything about it. But they can, and not by talking **** on ZH.

See Ralph Nader's, How the Rats Re-Formed the Congress for tips.

Whoa Dammit , 15 minutes ago link

Just because some other people have done worse things does not make what Trump is doing with his personnel selections okay.

pitchforksanonymous , 37 minutes ago link

It's 10 dimensional to the fifth power chess right? Just kidding. It's a big club and you ain't in it. Trump is not going to save you. Did you really think one guy defied the odds and overcame the voter fraud and beat Hillary? Puhleez. All by design. You're watching a movie...

Anonymous_Beneficiary , 28 minutes ago link

Bonus points for you if you can name the first "third party" in American history. Oh **** it, it was the anti-masonic party.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Masonic_Party

HushHushSweet , 55 minutes ago link

Look. At. That. Nose. Trump didn't appoint him; Trump's masters did.

gaasp , 57 minutes ago link

After having expressed antagonism towards nation-building during the 2000 campaign, newly elected President George W. Bush appointed Abrams as deputy national security adviser, where Abrams' role was essentially nation builder-in-chief.

Didn't W run on a 'bring the troops home and world leave us alone' platform in 2000?

Aristofani , 50 minutes ago link

They all have.

g speed , 1 hour ago link

when i think about what Trump did so far I think about that mandatory Obama care tax that I had to pay if I* didn't get Obama care Well it's gone and that was a big deal for me cause I've got four kids that would have to pay it and that would be six thousand out of pocket every year that's for starters with out Trump running interference in the FL house and senate elections we'd have Obama lite new and antique Bill still that makes a huge difference in things like taxes and EPA enforcement in this state I really think he has made the general public more aware of the Mexican invasion cause I see less and less Latinos on the jobs sites around here He has really caused the Dems to lose it Trump did that not any other politician he has exposed election fraud he has exposed the deep state like never before

Yes I'm a Trump supporter a thoughtful one I consider the options and will go with this till it impacts me negatively on an economic personal level not an emotional one brought on by pundits and MSM never Trump ilk

Anonymous_Beneficiary , 44 minutes ago link

Confirmation bias is killing you slowly. Trump is the master of it, even though I think he's the slime of the earth.

g speed , 11 minutes ago link

why don't you ask me if I think he is perfect I think his wife is pretty much ok however I hate that he is from NYC and acts like it his friends are not much to be proud of and his social skills are lacking but I think he showers regularly and has good hygiene and moral habits except for golf but that's just me He's a bossy kind of guy and I might not get along with him He doesn't do things country folks do and wouldn't fit in around here his hair sucks and is a narcissistic affectation for sure but i like his foreign policy so far how am i doing think I'm being killed slowly I liked Ike but he was weak and I liked Buchanan bur preferred Goldwater and on and on they are politicians and deserve the loyalty they give and " that's all I have to say about that"

schroedingersrat , 48 minutes ago link

Trump is a psychopath and he loves to hire even bigger psychopaths. Your whole admin is a swamp of sociopaths, psychopaths and other sick deranged people.

TGF Texas , 42 minutes ago link

When did he hire Hillary?

schroedingersrat , 38 minutes ago link

There is not much difference between Hillary and Pompeo. Pompeo is basically hillary with a **** and a religious twist

TGF Texas , 26 minutes ago link

Did CNN tell you that?

schroedingersrat , 20 minutes ago link

Im European and the only US news i read is ZH & Counterpunch

[Jan 29, 2019] WTF Is Trump Thinking - A Plum Post For A Prominent Opponent

Who is next? Paul Wolfowitz now would be the most logical choice. Id the invasion of Venezuela decided already, like Iraq war under Bush II.
That means that Rump can say goodbye to independents who votes for him because of his anti-foreign wars noises during previous election campaign
Notable quotes:
"... Abrams, who had served in the Reagan State Department, faced multiple felony charges for lying to Congress and defying U.S. law in his role as a mastermind of the Iran-Contra debacle. Abrams' dishonesty almost destroyed Ronald Reagan's presidency and put Reagan in jeopardy of impeachment. Abrams was allowed to plead guilty to two reduced charges and later was pardoned by George H.W. Bush, who feared impeachment because of his own role in Iran-Contra. ..."
"... Abrams was even more consequential as nation-wrecker. He was one of the principal architects of the invasion of Iraq. He is an inveterate advocate of "regime change" against countries whose policies he doesn't like. He has a track record in attempting to overthrow foreign governments both by covert action and outright military invasion. ..."
"... At the beginning of the Trump administration, foreign policy establishment types lobbied clueless Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to accept the convicted criminal Abrams as deputy head of the department - the person running all day-to-day affairs at State. ..."
"... Abrams suddenly appeared deus ex machina at the side of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who said in a news conference that Abrams was appointed, "effective immediately" as special envoy to deal with resolution of the situation in Venezuela in a way that supposedly would advance U.S. interests. ..."
"... Abrams' special envoy post will be far more powerful than that of an ordinary ambassador or assistant secretary of state -- offices that require Senate confirmation. Should the Senate acquiesce in letting Abrams work without Senate confirmation? ..."
"... Abrams is a close friend and constant collaborator of Bill Kristol and Max Boot, both of whom are waging campaigns to impeach Trump or deny him re-election. There are no -- repeat, no -- policy differences between Abrams, Kristol, and Boot. ..."
"... If the appointment is supposed to be a sharp move to "hug your friends close and your enemies closer," then the test of its efficacy would be that Kristol, Boot, Jonah Goldberg, David French et. al., would halt their anti-Trump campaigns. One would think that if the Abrams appointment is one side of a shrewdly calculated transaction, then silencing Team Kristol would be a necessary condition. ..."
"... The Orange Buffoon might as well open the door to Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Perle. Hell even get Scooter Libby in some cameo. You know, keep them enemies closer and all that. ..."
"... Trump loves those Bush criminals. ..."
Jan 29, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
Authored by Joseph Duggan via American Greatness,

On Friday, following the dramatic arrest of a prominent Trump supporter on charges of lying to Congress, President Trump gave one of the nation's most sensitive national security and diplomatic posts to another controversial figure who already had been convicted of lying to Congress.

  • Has the NeverTrump Republican echo chamber gone berserk over this irresponsible appointment?
  • Have Mitt Romney and Marco Rubio taken to the Senate floor to speak out against the president's defiance of honesty in government? Have they demanded hearings and a confirmation vote?
  • Has House Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned that Trump's action is so egregious it might call for an article of impeachment?
  • Has Bill Kristol's "Republicans for the Rule of Law" launched an ad blitz to protest Trump hiring an amoral convict?

Not at all. Turns out, the appointee is one of the president's worst enemies, a man forcefully opposed to almost all of Trump's policies and campaign promises, a man who repeatedly has said Trump is morally unfit for his office. He is Elliott Abrams, the 71-year-old éminence grise of the NeverTrump movement.

Abrams is the pre-eminent prophet and practitioner of hyper-interventionist approaches to destabilize or overthrow governments - of foes and friends alike - that do not pass his democracy-is-the-end-all-and-be-all litmus test. His closest friends and associates, from whom his political positions are indistinguishable, include some of President Trump's most rabid enemies, false-flag "conservatives" Bill Kristol and Max Boot.

Abrams, who had served in the Reagan State Department, faced multiple felony charges for lying to Congress and defying U.S. law in his role as a mastermind of the Iran-Contra debacle. Abrams' dishonesty almost destroyed Ronald Reagan's presidency and put Reagan in jeopardy of impeachment. Abrams was allowed to plead guilty to two reduced charges and later was pardoned by George H.W. Bush, who feared impeachment because of his own role in Iran-Contra.

After having expressed antagonism towards nation-building during the 2000 campaign, newly elected President George W. Bush appointed Abrams as deputy national security adviser, where Abrams' role was essentially nation builder-in-chief. Abrams was even more consequential as nation-wrecker. He was one of the principal architects of the invasion of Iraq. He is an inveterate advocate of "regime change" against countries whose policies he doesn't like. He has a track record in attempting to overthrow foreign governments both by covert action and outright military invasion.

At the beginning of the Trump administration, foreign policy establishment types lobbied clueless Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to accept the convicted criminal Abrams as deputy head of the department - the person running all day-to-day affairs at State. Trump, who would have had to sign off on the nomination, rejected Abrams when he learned of Abrams' background. The truth about Abrams, while not by any means a secret, came to Trump's attention from Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.). Paul, who held a deciding vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he would block Abrams if he were nominated.

Abrams already knew then what Trump took nearly a year to discover, that Tillerson was hopelessly unprepared to serve as the nation's chief diplomat and indeed was, as Trump colorfully put it, "dumb as a rock." Nothing about Abrams, the NeverTrumper who believes Trump cannot govern effectively without him, has changed since then.

Following his rejection by Trump, Abrams wrote a sour-grapes article for Politico , disparaging the president, along with Vice President Pence and Abrams' erstwhile patron Tillerson, for not having international human rights policies identical to Abrams' own views.

Abrams has been outspoken against sensitive Trump international policies right up to the moment of his surprise appointment. He is unapologetic about his role in masterminding the Iraq war. He has opposed Trump concerning American troops in Syria and America's relationship with Saudi Arabia. As recently as January 14, 2019, he published a withering attack on Trump's Middle East policies and diplomacy.

As events in Venezuela last week reached a crisis with rival claimants to the nation's presidency, Abrams suddenly appeared deus ex machina at the side of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who said in a news conference that Abrams was appointed, "effective immediately" as special envoy to deal with resolution of the situation in Venezuela in a way that supposedly would advance U.S. interests.

Immediately? An appointee to a sensitive post needs a background investigation and security clearance. These investigations can take months. If he indeed has a valid clearance, that means his appointment was decided long ago.

Abrams' special envoy post will be far more powerful than that of an ordinary ambassador or assistant secretary of state -- offices that require Senate confirmation. Should the Senate acquiesce in letting Abrams work without Senate confirmation?

What is Pompeo thinking? Has Pompeo read Abrams' anti-Trump articles? In particular, has he read Abrams' January 14 anti-Trump article that mocks Pompeo with a hugely unflattering photo of the secretary of state?

What is going on?

Abrams is a close friend and constant collaborator of Bill Kristol and Max Boot, both of whom are waging campaigns to impeach Trump or deny him re-election. There are no -- repeat, no -- policy differences between Abrams, Kristol, and Boot.

If the appointment is supposed to be a sharp move to "hug your friends close and your enemies closer," then the test of its efficacy would be that Kristol, Boot, Jonah Goldberg, David French et. al., would halt their anti-Trump campaigns. One would think that if the Abrams appointment is one side of a shrewdly calculated transaction, then silencing Team Kristol would be a necessary condition.

So far there are no signs of this.

What did Trump know about the new Abrams appointment, and when did he know it?

Anonymous_Beneficiary , 4 minutes ago link

It's amazing seeing the holdout Trump supporters continually writhe in mental contortions to support his every move..as I've said all along..TDS affects the sheep on both right and left equally.

Brazen Heist II 4 minutes ago (Edited)

... The Orange Buffoon might as well open the door to Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Perle. Hell even get Scooter Libby in some cameo. You know, keep them enemies closer and all that.

uhland62, 5 minutes ago

This guy is just picking up a couple more paychecks. He may think he can whip up Trump for more wars, Trump may think he can control this guy because 'I am President and you are not'. The main thing is that the military can make more wars and destroy more countries.

The-Post, 15 minutes ago

Trump loves those Bush criminals.

readerandthinker

Venezuelan army defectors appeal to Trump for weapons

Caracas, Venezuela (CNN)Venezuelan army defectors are calling on the Trump administration to arm them, in what they call their quest for "freedom."

Former soldiers Carlos Guillen Martinez and Josue Hidalgo Azuaje, who live outside the country, told CNN they want US military assistance to equip others inside the beleaguered nation. They claim to be in contact with hundreds of willing defectors and have called on enlisted Venezuelan soldiers to revolt against the Maduro regime, through television broadcasts.

"As Venezuelan soldiers, we are making a request to the US to support us, in logistical terms, with communication, with weapons, so we can realize Venezuelan freedom," Guillen Martinez told CNN.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/29/americas/venezuela-army-defectors-plea-for-arms/index.html

[Jan 15, 2019] Buchanan Is Bolton Steering Trump Into War With Iran

Jan 15, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

devo , 1 minute ago link

That fact Trump can be "steered into war" is disturbing.

2handband , 2 minutes ago link

This article is asinine. By the book, Bolton takes orders from Trump... not the other way around. Bolton is just being used as an excuse. Trump was never serious about getting the US out of any wars. I confidently predict that US troops will still be in Syria this time next year.

ne-tiger , 4 minutes ago link

"Was he aware of Bolton's request for a menu of targets in Iran for potential U.S. strikes? Did he authorize it? Has he authorized his national security adviser and secretary of state to engage in these hostile actions and bellicose rhetoric aimed at Iran? "

Yes, Yes and Yes, that's why he's an orange fucktard.

Taras Bulba , 12 minutes ago link

Bolton's former deputy, Mira Ricardel, reportedly told a gathering the shelling into the Green Zone was "an act of war" to which the U.S. must respond decisively.

This war mongering harpy fortunately was kicked to the curb by melania trump!

pelican , 13 minutes ago link

How did that psychopath appointed anyway? Another warmonger that hasn't served a day in the military.

MozartIII , 13 minutes ago link

Bolton can run the operation on the ground!

MozartIII , 14 minutes ago link

Send the House, Senate, FBI, CIA, IRS & all others state operatives to fight in Iran. Include the TSA for gods sake. Include the Obamas, Clintons and Bush's. So they can verify that their weapons are all delivered again and work properly. Bring our troops home to defend are border. Include NYT, WaPo and most of our current media in the Iran light brigade, so they can charge with the rest of the parasites. Many problems will be solved in very short order.

punchasocialist , 16 minutes ago link

This is another really infantile, softball article again by Buchanan.

As if Trump is anything more than an actor, and Bolton is anything more than a buffoon who has been laughed off the world stage FOREVER.

As if Trump and Bolton steer each other, instead of TAKING ORDERS from trillionaires.

resistedliving , 58 minutes ago link

You think Bolton is the new Alexander "I'm in charge now" Haig?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qarDtgSVpM

Captain Chlamydia , 22 minutes ago link

Yes he is.

I Am Jack's Macroaggression , 1 hour ago link

Obviously.

And so are Sheldon and Miriam Adelson, and Kushner, and his bankster pals.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YW4CvC5IaFI

Bolton is a traitor and agent of a foreign power. The Mouth of Netanyahu.

But Trump hired him, and Trump hasn't fired him.

Duc888 , 57 minutes ago link

Enjoy the show. Bolton has a half life of about 90 days. Can't you see a pattern when it's laid bare in front of you?

I Am Jack's Macroaggression , 40 minutes ago link

Like not having a wall, appointing neocon swamp creatures, still being in Afghanistan and Syria, and not releasing the FISAgate texts?

Like that pattern?

I... gee, I don't know.

You're right. I should prolly just ' trust the plan' like a good goy.

Thanks, newfriend!

🤨

I Am Jack's Macroaggression , 57 minutes ago link

Remarks by National Security Advisor Ambassador John Bolton to the Zionist Organization of America

JimmyJones , 27 minutes ago link

He also hasn't followed his recommendations. Perhaps he keeps him around so he knows what not to do?

Duc888 , 4 minutes ago link

He's a temporary useful idiot for Trump who will flush him at his convenience. He's handy to have around to encourage the Hawks do a group masturbation.

Seriously, if Ertogen tells Bolton to go **** off, he has no sauce. He's been neutered. Let him act all important and play in the sand box all he wants.

ted41776 , 1 hour ago link

trust the plan. there are white hats in government who have your best interest in mind. you don't need to do anything other than pretend like everything is fine, they'll take care of the rest. go to work and continue accepting continually devalued worthless fiat in exchange for time you spend away from your family and doing things you love. trust the plan, it's all going to be alright

/sarc

I Am Jack's Macroaggression , 47 minutes ago link

+ 1

Four chan , 41 minutes ago link

BOLTON IS MULLERS BUDDY, THATS ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW.

Francis Marx , 42 minutes ago link

I doubt Bolton has that much clout. Trump is no fool.

Haus-Targaryen , 42 minutes ago link

No, because the oil price to follow would blowup the US war machine.

Iran isn't going anywhere.

Erek , 38 minutes ago link

Time for Bolton to lay his **** on the anvil.

I woke up , 24 minutes ago link

Yeah, if Bolton is so enthused about it, send him first

Erek , 17 minutes ago link

And alone!

Duc888 , 3 minutes ago link

...it would be lost amongst the metal filings and swarf.

resistedliving , 16 minutes ago link

Israel uses natgas and coal

Helps their little conflict in the Tamar/Leviathan gas fields.

[Jan 14, 2019] 'A Reckless Advocate of Military Force' Demands for John Bolton's Dismissal After Reports He Asked Pentagon for Options to Str

Notable quotes:
"... By Jessica Corbett, staff writer at Common Dreams. Originally published at Common Dreams ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... Daniel W. Drezner, a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, called the news "a reminder that when it comes to Iran, John Bolton and Mike Pompeo are batshit insane ..."
"... Trita Parsi, founder of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), tweeted, "Make no mistake: Bolton is the greatest threat to the security of the United States!" Parsi, an expert on U.S.-Iranian relations and longtime critic of Bolton, called for his immediate ouster over the request detailed in Journal ..."
"... Bolton: Chickenhawk-in-Chief ..."
"... Great point. None of my fellow comrades who actually participated in firefights (not just drove trucks behind the lines) are eager to be led into battle by National Guard and bone-spur deferrals, much less student deferral draft dodgers. ..."
"... Why did Trump appoint Bolton? ..."
"... I think Bolton is a sop to Sheldon Aldelson. He may be playing a similar role to "The Mooch", I hope. ..."
"... Likewise, Pompeo is the Koch brother's man. Both authoritarian billionaires trying to guarantee their investment in Trump. You see the US is being run like a business, or is that like a feudal fiefdom? ..."
"... Steven Cohen has an interesting editorial in RT, not about directly about Bolton but about the war parties' demand for ongoing M.E. conflict. https://www.rt.com/op-ed/448688-trump-withdrawal-syria-russia/ ..."
"... see what we could do ..."
"... Trump is interested in what is good for Trump. Why he thinks Bolton at his side is good for him is a mystery. Rather a hand grenade with the pin pulled in your pocket than Bolton. Much the same can be said of Pompeo. ..."
"... I agree with author Nicholas Taleb's view of the military interventionists, who include Bolton, that have repeatedly urged that we "intervene in foreign countries -- Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria -- whose governments did not meet their abstract standards of political acceptability." Besides the losses suffered by our troops and economy, as Taleb observed each of those interventions "made conditions significantly worse in the country being 'saved'. Yet the interventionists pay no price themselves for wrecking the lives of millions. Instead they keep appearing on CNN and PBS as 'experts' who should guide us in choosing what country to bomb next." Now, after imposing economic sanctions on Iran, they're evidently again seeking war. ..."
Jan 14, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Posted on January 14, 2019 by Yves Smith Yves here. I am surprised that Bolton has lasted this long. Bolton has two defining personal qualities that are not conducive to long-term survival with Trump: having a huge ego and being way too obvious about not caring about Trump's agenda (even with the difficulties of having it change all the time). Bolton is out for himself in far too obvious a manner.

By Jessica Corbett, staff writer at Common Dreams. Originally published at Common Dreams

Reminding the world that he is, as one critic put it, " a reckless advocate of military force ," the Wall Street Journal revealed on Sunday that President Donald Trump's National Security Adviser John Bolton "asked the Pentagon to provide the White House with military options to strike Iran last year, generating concern at the Pentagon and State Department."

"It definitely rattled people," a former U.S. official said of the request, which Bolton supposedly made after militants aligned with Iran fired mortars into the diplomatic quarter of Baghdad, Iraq that contains the U.S. Embassy in early September. "People were shocked. It was mind-boggling how cavalier they were about hitting Iran."

"The Pentagon complied with the National Security Council's request to develop options for striking Iran," the Journal reported, citing unnamed officials. "But it isn't clear if the proposals were provided to the White House, whether Mr. Trump knew of the request, or whether serious plans for a U.S. strike against Iran took shape at that time."

The Journal 's report, which comes just days after Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivered an "arrogant tirade" of a speech vilifying Iran, sparked immediate alarm among critics of the Trump administration's biggest warmongers -- who, over the past several months, have been accused of fomenting unrest in Iran and laying the groundwork for war.

Daniel W. Drezner, a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, called the news "a reminder that when it comes to Iran, John Bolton and Mike Pompeo are batshit insane."

me title=

Trita Parsi, founder of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), tweeted, "Make no mistake: Bolton is the greatest threat to the security of the United States!" Parsi, an expert on U.S.-Iranian relations and longtime critic of Bolton, called for his immediate ouster over the request detailed in Journal 's report.

me title=

"This administration takes an expansive view of war authorities and is leaning into confrontation with Iran at a time when there are numerous tripwires for conflict across the region," NIAC president Jamal Abdi warned in a statement . "It is imperative that this Congress investigate Bolton's request for war options and pass legislation placing additional legal and political constraints on the administration's ability to start a new war of choice with Iran that could haunt America and the region for generations."

In a series of moves that have elicited concern from members of Congress, political experts, other world leaders, and peace activists, since May the Trump administration has ditched the Iran nuclear deal -- formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) -- and reimposed economic sanctions .

NIAC, in November, urged the new Congress that convened at the beginning of the year to challenge the administration's hawkish moves and restore U.S. standing on the world stage by passing measures to block the sanctions re-imposed in August and November , and reverse Trump's decision to breach the deal -- which European and Iranian diplomats have been trying to salvage .

Iran continues to comply with the terms of JCPOA, according to the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). However, Ali Akbar Salehi, Iran's nuclear chief, told state television on Sunday that "preliminary activities for designing modern 20 percent (enriched uranium) fuel have begun." While Iran has maintained that it is not pursuing nuclear weapons, the nation would still have to withdraw from the deal if it resumed enrichment at the level.

As Iran signals that it is considering withdrawing from the JCPOA, the Journal report has critics worried that Bolton and Pompeo have the administration on a war path -- with Bolton, just last week, insisting without any evidence that Iranian leadership is committed to pursuing nuclear weapons. Some have compared that claim to former Vice President Dick Cheney's infamous lie in 2002, to bolster support for the U.S. invasion, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

me title=

As the Journal noted, "Alongside the requests in regards to Iran, the National Security Council asked the Pentagon to provide the White House with options to respond with strikes in Iraq and Syria as well."

The Rev Kev , January 14, 2019 at 5:55 am

So Bolton wants war with Iran? Pretty tall talk from a man who during the war in 'Nam ducked into the Maryland Army National Guard because he had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy as he considered the war in Vietnam already lost. His words, not mine. The Iranian military will not be the push over the Iraq army was. They are much better equipped and motivated and have a healthy stock of missiles. They even have the Russian-made S-300 anti-aircraft missile system up and running.

Once you start a war, you never know where it will go. Suppose the Iranians consider – probably correctly – that it is Israel's influences that led to the attack and so launch a few missiles at them. What happens next? Will Hezbollah take action against them as well. If the US attacks Iran, then there is no reason whatsoever for Iran not to attack the various US contingents scattered around the Middle East in places like Syria. What if the Russians send in their Aerospace Forces to help stop an attack. Will they be attacked as well? Is the US prepared to lose a carrier?

And how will the war end? The country is mountainous like Afghanistan so cannot be occupied unless the entire complete total of all US forces are shipped over there. This is just lunacy squared and surely even Trump must realize that if the whole thing is another Bay of Pigs, it will be his name all over it in the history books and so sinking his chances for a 2020 re-election. And if the justification for the whole thing is a coupla mortars on a car park, how will he justify any American loses? At this point I am waiting for Bolton to finish each one of his speeches and tweets with the phrase-

"Parthia delenda est!"

Tomonthebeach , January 14, 2019 at 2:17 pm

Bolton: Chickenhawk-in-Chief

Great point. None of my fellow comrades who actually participated in firefights (not just drove trucks behind the lines) are eager to be led into battle by National Guard and bone-spur deferrals, much less student deferral draft dodgers.

Calling Bolton on Pompeo "batshit crazy" cries out for revisions in the APA Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM).

Ignim Brites , January 14, 2019 at 7:36 am

Why did Trump appoint Bolton? A saying of LBJ, I believe attributed to Sam Rayburn, might illuminate. "It is better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in."

Edward , January 14, 2019 at 8:26 am

I think Bolton is a sop to Sheldon Aldelson. He may be playing a similar role to "The Mooch", I hope.

Allegorio , January 14, 2019 at 12:49 pm

Likewise, Pompeo is the Koch brother's man. Both authoritarian billionaires trying to guarantee their investment in Trump. You see the US is being run like a business, or is that like a feudal fiefdom?

Edward , January 14, 2019 at 1:01 pm

I feel like the U.S. is an occupied country, invaded by corporate lobbyists. We have the kind of crap government you get from occupations.

Carolinian , January 14, 2019 at 8:33 am

Why did Trump appoint Bolton?

Not to be a broken record but should we blame the Dems? Arguably Trump's "out there" gestures to the right are because he has to keep the Repubs on his side given the constant threat of impeachment from the other side. Extremes beget extremes. There's also the Adelson factor.

Of course this theory may be incorrect and he and Bolton are ideological soul mates, but Trump's ideology doesn't appear to go much beyond a constant diet of Fox News. He seems quite capable of pragmatic gestures which are then denounced by a horrified press.

Lou Mannheim , January 14, 2019 at 10:11 am

"Not to be a broken record but should we blame the Dems?"

No. Despite Trump's wishes the buck stops with him.

Carolinian , January 14, 2019 at 10:27 am

... the Iran situation could have been solved years earlier by Obama and Hillary making it harder for Trump to stir up trouble.

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/iran-brazil-and-turkey-make-new-nuclear-proposal/

ChiGal in Carolina , January 14, 2019 at 11:25 am

The point might be, sure the Dems as part of the duopoly created the context within which Trump now acts as president. Nonetheless there is a direct linear responsibility for his actions that rests with him.

Unless you consider him so impaired as not to be responsible for his actions ;-)

Carolinian , January 14, 2019 at 1:54 pm

So will the buck stop with Obama/Hillary for destroying Libya, the half million dead in Syria, the covert support for the Saudis in Yemen which started under Obama, the coup in Honduras, the deterioration in US/Russia relations to the point where nuclear war has once again started to become thinkable? By these standards Trump's wrecking ball is quite tiny.

neo-realist , January 14, 2019 at 11:53 am

It's not like the Obama administration and the EU didn't strike a nuclear deal with Iran to freeze nuclear capable production and allow for lifting of sanctions -- how could they have gone further? How could its deal be worse then the saber rattling of Trump/Bolton? Not saying this as a fan of the Obama administration in general.

Bill Smith , January 14, 2019 at 2:03 pm

Pied Piper Memo. It's up in Wikileaks. Clinton campaign laid out a strategy to help Trump along so he would be their opponent. They bet that he was too far out there for the general public to vote him in as president.

Yves Smith Post author , January 14, 2019 at 2:20 pm

...Everyone including Trump was shocked he won. He has made an only partly successful hostile takeover of the Republican party. The fact that he got only at best the second string, and mainly the fourth string, to work in his Administration, Trump's repudiation of international institutions and his trade war with China are all evidence that he was chosen by anyone, much the less a cabal you create out of thin air called "the oligarchy"

As Frank Herbert said in Dune, the most enduring principles in the universe are accident and error. Trump did not want to win. This was a brand-enhancing stunt for him that got out of control.

KLG , January 14, 2019 at 7:46 am

Something for our would be Croesus and his minions: If you go to war with Persia, you will destroy a mighty empire OK, not so mighty, but an empire nevertheless.

Ben Wolf , January 14, 2019 at 8:29 am

Reminiscent of John Kerry and Susan Rice publicly demanding bombing of Syria in 2015 after Obama had taken that option off the table.

Anon , January 14, 2019 at 12:26 pm

Iran is a much more formitable foe than Syria. Bullies love to taunt the weak; Iran is not weak.

Mark James , January 14, 2019 at 8:48 am

The US has previously run multiple conventual war simulations and in all cases the US lost against Iran, only when the US used its nuclear option did the US prevail. The implications of a nuclear strike and how the Russian Federation will react, to having yet another one of its allies attacked is unknown?

Bill Smith , January 14, 2019 at 2:10 pm

Really, in all cases? Seems unlikely. What did these conventional war simulations cover? What was the definition of wining and losing?

Jeremy Grimm , January 14, 2019 at 2:36 pm

Really -- who cares? Any claim of 'all' is difficult to support under the best of circumstances and unwise. Besides, suppose we could 'prevail' in a war with Iran -- why should or would we want to? Are you OK with a little war with Iran if a couple of conventional war simulations suggest we could win?

johnnygl , January 14, 2019 at 9:07 am

Couple of quick points

1) I really hope jim webb gets the def sec job. That would be a strong signal.

2) if the TDS infected bi-partisan consensus wants to impeach. They can build on this. I suspect they won't though.

3) Keep in mind Trump like some trash talk. Pompeo seems here to stay. Not sure about Bolton. But, as we saw with N. Korea, sometimes the crazy gets dialed up to 11, right before things get calmed down.

The Rev Kev , January 14, 2019 at 9:34 am

Because that worked so well in the Balkans and Iraq and Libya, etc, etc etc. The world is not what you think it is. Let us compare Iran as a country with America's loyal ally Saudi Arabia as an example. Would you believe that Iran has a Jewish population that feel safe there and have no interest in moving to Israel? In Saudi Arabia, if you renounce Islam that is a death sentence. Women have careers in Iran and drive cars. Woman have burkas in Saudi Arabia and have very few freedoms. Iran has taken in refugees from the recent wars. Saudi Arabia has taken virtually none from Syria. Iran wants to have their own country and work out their own problems as they are a multicultural country. Saudi Arabia is a medieval monarchy that has been exporting the most extremist view of Islam around the world using their oil money. Ideologically, all those jihadists the past few decades can be traced to Wahhabi teachings. Now tell me that if you had a choice, which country sounds more attractive to live in?

Redlife2013 , January 14, 2019 at 10:46 am

Having been to Iran, it is an amazing place and they are the most welcoming of people. One of the few places I have seen female taxi drivers, too. Women are very self-assured there – they will blow past men to get to what they want to do. Lots of people don't like the Islamic government (and they will note that to you), but as you mentioned, they are NOT medieval.

The government praises science and technology in roadside ads up and down the country. The ads, by the way, are almost always in Farsi and English, as English is the 2nd language of the country. And I'd like to add that they love Americans. It didn't matter what town I was in and we went to some small towns. I literally had people yelling "We love America" and asking for my autograph. And no – I am not famous. They are the most generous, gregarious people I have ever met in my life.

I have odd memories of my trip like being in a taxi going into Tehran listening to a instrument only version of Madonna's La Isla Bonita (they really like Madonna). And going to beautiful mosques which are filled with mirrors and coloured light so it's almost like a disco (mirrors and water are ancient pre-Islamic symbols). And the gardens – in odd places like underpasses that happen to have a bit of opening to light and rain. Where ever they can stick a garden they will do it.

Iran is a hodgepodge of so many thoughts, peoples, and currents. One thing they are though – is fiercely loyal to Iran. Not the government, but to their homeland, to their people. There is no way we would win. Due to geography and due to the losses they would be willing to sustain we would be destroyed. We would lose so badly that it would look like the First Anglo-Afghan War where only one Brit got back after the entire army was destroyed. We tussle with them on their own land at our peril.

Kilgore Trout , January 14, 2019 at 10:52 am

+10

Roger , January 14, 2019 at 11:42 am

Saudi Arabia is America's loyal ally! You mean the SA that financed, planned, and manned the 9/11 attacks? Because SA is a bigger shithole than Iran is no argument. What does need to be faced is that SA has a lock on American politics through its financial control of Washington DC swamp dwellers.

The Balkans is quiet now. Iraq became a mess when Paul Bremer snatched defeat from near total victory. Libya, Syria and Ukraine are the victims of malevolent US meddling (as was Vietnam). I am hoping that President Trump can reverse course and create a foreign policy that puts the interests of people first, particularly the interests of the people of the USA. Forlorn hope perhaps. I would not want to live in either of them.

Keith Howard , January 14, 2019 at 11:02 am

How about we throw the Ayatollah Pence and the rest of his contemptible ilk out of our own government first?

Tony Wright , January 14, 2019 at 2:12 pm

Well said. All religious fundamentalists are dangerous because they believe they are the "chosen ones" and therefore superior to "non-believers", whose lives are less important and therefore expendable if and when they feel so inclined.

pjay , January 14, 2019 at 11:05 am

Re "the Iranian people":

(1) Echoing other responses, I suggest we ask the "Iranian people" if they would like the U.S. to help them into modernity. Given our track record in Iran and other ME nations, I'm not sure they would welcome our assistance, particularly if it involved "a few explosions" or so.

(2) It is "the people" that are always hurt first, and the most, in such interventions, not the government.

I wasn't sure if this was a serious comment or one meant to provoke. It did provoke me to make an earlier response. I thank the moderators for blocking it (sincerely – not being sarcastic).

Adams , January 14, 2019 at 2:05 pm

Bah, who cares about a little collateral damage. The Iranian people obviously don't know what's good for them. We just need to bring back Wolfowitz to make sure they are on hand to lay down palm fronds before the US forces as they enter Baghdad after we nuke it into rubble. Speaking of sociopaths, I am sure Darth Vader would make himself available to advise from Wyoming. Where the hell is Elliot Abrams when you need him. What's Rumsfeld doing these days? How great would it be to get the old gang together again, under the maniacal leadership of Bolton. Maybe Dubya would be willing to do the "mission accomplished" as the smoke clears over the whole MENA region. What a great bunch of guys.

Eureka Springs , January 14, 2019 at 11:54 am

You're a regular humanitarian bomber. Reminds me of "Assad must go" and the fact 'we' never bombed him but all the people, all around the nation of the ilk you pretend to want to help by doing the same thing in Iran.

At best, you are speaking a bunch of hooey without thinking. Oh, and last I heard Iran has not invaded another country for something like 400 years. Look in your mirror.

Edward , January 14, 2019 at 12:28 pm

Are the Iranian people asking us to invade their country? In the U.S. there seems to be this bizarre nonchalance about war, which used to be considered a terrible scourge. After the recent disasters in Libya, Ukraine, and Iraq, "regime change" should be discredited. The U.S. has caused nothing but misery in the third world. We should focus on our own human rights and democracy problems. If we want to do something abroad I favor ending our support for Israeli crimes against Palestinians.

lyman alpha blob , January 14, 2019 at 1:42 pm

Yeah! We can bomb those priests right into the modern world with our own fundamentalist Air Force. Murica #1

https://www.salon.com/2014/09/17/air_forces_mind_boggling_violation_members_forced_to_swear_religious_allegiance/

flora , January 14, 2019 at 9:23 am

re: Bolton asking for war plans

Steven Cohen has an interesting editorial in RT, not about directly about Bolton but about the war parties' demand for ongoing M.E. conflict. https://www.rt.com/op-ed/448688-trump-withdrawal-syria-russia/

Tony Wright , January 14, 2019 at 2:46 pm

Gotta keep the military industrial complex well fed. George Orwell was right, sadly; constant state of military alert and occasionally shifting loose alliances between three competing major military powers. What a waste of human resources.

Off The Street , January 14, 2019 at 9:48 am

IMHO, Bolton serves two roles in the Trump Administration.

  1. As a symbol for the hawkier folks in Congress and the media
  2. As a foil to Trump in a good cop-bad cop, or bad cop-worse cop role, if you prefer

The first provides air cover and the second forestalls ground action. The air cover says see what we could do , and the ground action blusters to draw attention by the media thereby serving to defuse any escalationist tendencies pushed by neo-cons.

Bolton is a price of admission, and will not have much of a purpose as the effects of the Iran sanctions become more evident and that regime becomes more pliable. The people on the ground in Iran seem to want de-escalation and more normal lives, like so many around the world and at home.

John , January 14, 2019 at 10:02 am

Trump is interested in what is good for Trump. Why he thinks Bolton at his side is good for him is a mystery. Rather a hand grenade with the pin pulled in your pocket than Bolton. Much the same can be said of Pompeo.

I have never understood the lust for war with Iran it looks entirely irrational to me. The Iranian government may not be to your taste and pursue policies you dislike in the extreme, but is this a reason to gin up a war. I could never support such a conflict and would do whatever I could to thwart it.

L , January 14, 2019 at 10:31 am

This is not news and while concerning is not fundamental.

Bolton was hired precisely because of his uberhawk obsession with Iran. That is in fact the central credential that he brought to the table and as such there should be zero surprise in this. Indeed the only real shocker is that he asked for plans rather than pulling them out of his own fevered mind as he usually does.

And as others have noted the Pentagon draws up plans like this all the time. This kind of speculative planning is a big part of what the Pentagon does and somewhere no doubt is someone who is paid to prepare for the "inevitable" war in Jamaca.

The question really is whether we will act upon these plans, or some others, and from what I read of this article that is no more likely than it was a few months ago. Scary yes but no scarier than it already was.

Mattski , January 14, 2019 at 1:03 pm

Well, what do they want us to think? Of course this is predictable–even SOP–for Bolton. But someone in the Pentagon is offering some pushback, or wants to suggest there is resistance. Or someone in the CIA. Some of these people prefer wars to quagmires, especially after an exhausting 20 years. And climbing into bed with the Saudis and Israelis to fight Iran may not appeal to everyone.

Some may even see that Iran is a much more promising place for consumer and capital growth, and implementation of bourgeois democracy, than Saudi Arabia. But Mr. Bolton might say that that's the point.

Ashburn , January 14, 2019 at 11:10 am

I think we may be closer to war with Iran than most of us care to think. Trump is under siege from multiple investigations with no room to run, the Democrats now have the House and will only intensify the pressure, Pompeo and Bolton–both Iran hawks–are now in charge of our foreign policy, and a former Boeing executive (with stock options?) is in charge of the Pentagon, Trump is also being pushed into war by Saudi Arabia and Israel–his two closest buddies–and probably the two most malign influences on US policy, and finally, our economy is beginning to look shakey, and the normal functions of government are now in shutdown. Shock doctrine holds that now is the time to act.

ChiGal in Carolina , January 14, 2019 at 11:39 am

I recall a piece by Chris Hedges and Ralph Nader posted by another commenter here that he would likely do so BEFORE the Dems took control of the House. I thought there was a lot of huffing and puffing going on, except for the likelihood of wagging the dog, a tried and true tactic of US presidents.

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/are-we-about-to-face-our-gravest-constitutional-crisis/

Harry , January 14, 2019 at 12:31 pm

Was chatting to a someone who was a junior official in the GWB administration. He suggested the first thing Bolton does when he joins an administration is request these plans. If you didn't, you wouldn't be able to take advantage of any interesting events to bomb Iran. Besides, he hasn't actually implemented them yet!

Amusingly its standard bureaucratic form to ensure you have plans on file. Otherwise when asked to list the options, how would you make sure your plan for covert opps, or democracy subsidizing/subverting payments appeared to be the most reasonable plan on the table?

Bolton is the same paleoconservative he ever was. And in that sense he is refreshing. One gets tired of seeing Israelis and Saudis make proposals for spending American lives on countless critically important projects.

Mattski , January 14, 2019 at 12:55 pm

There's also word that the US and Bolton have been giving quiet encouragement, with the new President in Brazil, for a Venezuela intervention.

I think it's important, though, not to simply characterize these people as monsters but to finger the system behind them. There was word before the election that Ms. Clinton has become chummy with Bolton and some of the other neocons; we might be looking at much the same if she had been elected.

Also, Kissinger bombed Cambodia and set off a genocide. Bolton is awful, but nothing whatsoever will make me yearn for Mr. K. I have a friend who's still unhappy with me because I turned down an invite to dine with him long ago, but I was just too frightened of what I might say in his presence.

Mattski , January 14, 2019 at 2:07 pm

We can take it for granted that they are nuts–but nuttiness is like monstrousness, not always so useful as explanation. They're also operating out of the logic of a contradictory and decaying system. The neocons are the ideological successors of the neoliberals (who liked to follow with the velvet fist rather than lead with it, but hardly eschewed it). . . the culmination of much of the same logic. Egalite and fraternite trail far behind these days.

Chauncey Gardiner , January 14, 2019 at 1:17 pm

I agree with author Nicholas Taleb's view of the military interventionists, who include Bolton, that have repeatedly urged that we "intervene in foreign countries -- Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria -- whose governments did not meet their abstract standards of political acceptability." Besides the losses suffered by our troops and economy, as Taleb observed each of those interventions "made conditions significantly worse in the country being 'saved'. Yet the interventionists pay no price themselves for wrecking the lives of millions. Instead they keep appearing on CNN and PBS as 'experts' who should guide us in choosing what country to bomb next." Now, after imposing economic sanctions on Iran, they're evidently again seeking war.

The National Security Advisor is a senior official in the executive branch. Who placed these people in charge of our nation's foreign policy and to act in our name?

There is no threat to the United States involved here. I don't recall being given the opportunity to vote on them or the policies they represent and push. It's past time these individuals be removed from positions of power and influence and for American soft power and diplomacy to be restored to preeminence. I want this country to stand for peace, freedom, equal opportunity and hope; not war, chaos, fear and death.

[Jan 14, 2019] The Push to Get Rid of Bolton by Daniel Larison

The US foreign policy generally doesn't depend on individual people. It is the Swamp which drive neolib/neocon policy which is driven mostly by the Deep State which means the coalition of MIC, Wall Street and intelligence agencies and their agents of influence within the government.
The most important question is how he managed to get into administration?
bolton is a bully and such people have no friends.
Notable quotes:
"... The National Security Advisor has had a reputation of being an abrasive and obnoxious colleague for a long time, and his attempts to push his aggressive foreign policy agenda have made him even more enemies. ..."
"... If Bolton is "under attack" from within the administration, it is because he has behaved with the same recklessness and incompetence that characterize his preferred policies overseas. He should be attacked, and with any luck he will be defeated and driven from office. Unfortunately, we have been seeing the opposite happen over the last few weeks: more Bolton allies are joining the administration in important positions and at least one major rival has exited. ..."
"... the longer he remains National Security Advisor the worse it will be for U.S. interests. ..."
Jan 14, 2019 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Henry Olsen is very worried that other people in the administration might be out to get Bolton:

Whatever the motive, conservatives who favor more robust U.S. involvement abroad should sit up and take notice. One of their strongest allies within the administration is under attack. Whether Bolton's influence wanes or even whether he remains is crucially important for anyone who worries that the president's impulses that deviate from past American foreign policy will weaken American security.

There have been a number of unflattering reports about Bolton in the last few weeks, but for the most part those stories are just proof that Bolton has no diplomatic skills and does a terrible job of managing the administration's policy process. If Bolton had done a better job of coordinating Syria policy, the administration's Syria policy wouldn't be the confused mess that it is. If he hadn't made such a hash of things with the Turkish government, there would have been no snub by Erdogan for anyone to report. There may be quite a bit of hostile leaking against Bolton, but that is itself a testament to how many other people in the administration loathe him.

The National Security Advisor has had a reputation of being an abrasive and obnoxious colleague for a long time, and his attempts to push his aggressive foreign policy agenda have made him even more enemies.

If Bolton is "under attack" from within the administration, it is because he has behaved with the same recklessness and incompetence that characterize his preferred policies overseas. He should be attacked, and with any luck he will be defeated and driven from office. Unfortunately, we have been seeing the opposite happen over the last few weeks: more Bolton allies are joining the administration in important positions and at least one major rival has exited.

Bolton's influence in the administration is an important indication of what U.S. foreign policy will look like in the months and years to come, and the longer he remains National Security Advisor the worse it will be for U.S. interests.

[Dec 29, 2018] After Syria, Trump Should Clean Out His National Security Bureaucracy by DOUG BANDOW

In any case this was a positive step by Trump. Which was done after several disastrous, typical neocon style actions.
Notable quotes:
"... Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is author of ..."
"... "Trump being Trump?" Seriously? He's proven through his actions and his appointments that he's a full-blown neocon ..."
"... If nothing else, appointing Bolton as national security advisor speaks volumes. Personnel is policy, as they say. ..."
"... Nothing to wonder at, war is the most lucrative racket going, for those who profit mightily from supplying weapons. It's become so important to an otherwise shrunken manufacturing base, that downsizing would affect employment, and there's nowhere domestic to absorb the overseas demobilized. ..."
"... Bolton is a national disgrace. This vile piece of trash is desperate to get the USA into a disastrous war with Iran. The quicker Bolton is removed the better. Any stooge who supported the Iraq invasion should be precluded from consideration. ..."
"... "Before we credit Trump with stumbling on something sensible for once, it might be wise to remember that we're still talking about -- Trump. Who now says that American troops still in Iraq can still raid into Syria as necessary, and by the way, they'll be staying in Iraq. So already it's shaping up as not so much a withdrawal as a reshuffling. After a minor adjustment to the game board, play can continue as necessary, such as whenever Bolton or Fox media whispers into the casino bankrupt's ear. Always always always a swindle, with Trump. It's an iron law." ..."
"... You do know that Trump wants to increase the military budget. Yet you maintain that he wanted to pull us out of foreign wars. Curious. Where would all that extra money go? ..."
"... Only an incompetent imbecile with no experience in leadership or government could be so dim-witted as to appoint people who would willfully defy and disregard his agenda. Surely our country would never put give such an incompetent so much authority. Oh wait sorry, never mind. ..."
"... I took his decision of withdrawal from Syria and seemingly from Afghanistan is his survival strategy for 2020 presidential election to appeal to war weariness American voters because Mr. Cohen's plea deal and the revelation of Trump signature on the license agreement for Moscow Trump Tower project would kill his 2020 chance. It is a good strategy but over the last two days his approval rating has not been improved." ..."
"... Those of us who want to see Bolton gone should first ask why he was chosen in the first place. Clearly Trump had to appease Adelson in order to make that appointment because he depends on his campaign donations. ..."
"... To those who say Trump has no foreign policy vision, you are wrong. His vision is simple, dismantle parts of the Empire, become a little more isolationist, and focus on 'America First'. Trump is not very intelligent, but he has the right instincts. He is up against the War Party, the most influential power center in the US, and that is not easy. Obama is more intelligent than Trump, but the results were very bad add one more destroyed country, Libya to his credit, and almost another, Syria (although thankfully the Russians stopped that). ..."
Dec 27, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

After Syria, Trump Should Clean Out His National Security Bureaucracy They're undermining his positions and pursuing their own agendas. John Bolton should be the first to go.

President Donald Trump has at last rediscovered his core foreign policy beliefs and ordered the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria. Right on cue, official Washington had a collective mental breakdown. Neocons committed to war, progressives targeting Trump, and centrists determined to dominate the world unleashed an orgy of shrieking and caterwauling. The horrifying collective scream, a la artist Edvard Munch, continued for days.

Trump's decision should have surprised no one. As a candidate, he shocked the Republican Party establishment by criticizing George W. Bush's disastrous decision to invade Iraq and urging a quick exit from Afghanistan. As president, he inflamed the bipartisan War Party's fears by denouncing America's costly alliances with wealthy industrialized states. And to almost everyone's consternation, he said he wanted U.S. personnel out of Syria. Once the Islamic State was defeated, he explained, Americans should come home.

How shocking. How naïve. How outrageous.

The president's own appointees, the "adult" foreign policy advisors he surrounded himself with, disagreed with him on almost all of this -- not just micromanaging the Middle East, but subsidizing Europeans in NATO, underwriting South Korea, and negotiating with North Korea. His aides played him at every turn, adding allies, sending more men and materiel to defend foreign states, and expanding commitments in the Middle East.

https://tpc.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-31/html/container.html

Last spring, the president talked of leaving Syria "very soon." But the American military stayed. Indeed, three months ago, National Security Advisor John Bolton announced an entirely new mission: "We're not going to leave as long as Iranian troops are outside Iranian borders and that includes Iranian proxies and militias."

That was chutzpah on a breathtaking scale. It meant effectively that the U.S. was entitled to invade and dismember nations, back aggressive wars begun by others, and scatter bases and deployments around the world. Since Damascus and Tehran have no reason to stop cooperating -- indeed, America's presence makes outside support even more important for the Assad regime -- Bolton was effectively planning a permanent presence, one that could bring American forces into contact with Russian, Syrian, and Turkish forces, as well as Iranians. As the Assad government consolidates its victory in the civil war, it inevitably will push into Kurdish territories in the north. That would have forced the small American garrison there to either yield ground or become a formal combatant in another Middle Eastern civil war.

The latter could have turned into a major confrontation. Damascus is backed by Russia and might be supported by Ankara, which would prefer to see the border controlled by Syrian than Kurdish forces. Moreover, the Kurds, under threat from Turkey, are not likely to divert forces to contain Iranians moving with the permission of the Damascus government. Better to cut a deal with Assad that minimizes the Turks than be Washington's catspaw.

The Pentagon initially appeared reluctant to accept this new objective. At the time, Brigadier General Scott Benedict told the House Armed Services Committee: "In Syria, our role is to defeat ISIS. That's it." However, the State Department envoy on Syria, Jim Jeffrey, began adding Iran to his sales pitch. So did Brian Hook, State's representative handling the undeclared diplomatic war on Iran, who said the goal was "to remove all forces under Iranian control from Syria."

Washington Melts Down Over Trump's Syria Withdrawal Mattis Marks the End of the Global War on Terror

Apparently this direct insubordination came to a head in a phone call between President Trump and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. "Why are you still there?" the latter asked Trump, who turned to Bolton. The national security advisor was on the call, but could offer no satisfactory explanation.

Perhaps at that moment, the president realized that only a direct order could enforce his policy. Otherwise his staffers would continue to pursue their militaristic ends. That determination apparently triggered the long-expected resignation of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, who deserves respect but was a charter member of the hawkish cabal around the president. He dissented from them only on ending the nuclear agreement with Iran.

Still in place is Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who so far has proven to be a bit more malleable though still hostile to the president's agenda. He is an inveterate hawk, including toward Tehran, which he insists must surrender to both the U.S. and Saudi Arabia as part of any negotiation. He's adopted the anti-Iran agenda in Syria as his own. His department offered no new approach to Russia over Ukraine, instead steadily increasing sanctions, without effect, on Moscow. At least Pompeo attempted to pursue discussions with North Korea, though he was certainly reluctant about it.

Most dangerous is Bolton. He publicly advocated war with both Iran and North Korea before his appointment, and his strategy in Syria risked conflict with several nations. He's demonstrated that he has no compunctions about defying the president, crafting policies that contradict the latter's directives. Indeed, Bolton is well-positioned to undermine even obvious successes, such as the peaceful opening with North Korea.

Supporting appointments to State and the National Security Council have been equally problematic. Candidate Trump criticized the bipartisan War Party, thereby appealing to heartland patriots who wonder why their relatives, friends, and neighbors have been dying in endless wars that have begotten nothing but more wars. Yet President Trump has surrounded himself with neocons, inveterate hawks, and ivory tower warriors. With virtually no aides around him who believe in his policies or were even willing to implement them, he looked like a George Bush/Barack Obama retread. The only certainty, beyond his stream of dramatic tweets, appeared to be that Americans would continue dying in wars throughout his presidency.

However, Trump took charge when he insisted on holding the summit with North Korea's Kim Jong-un. Now U.S. forces are set to come home from Syria, and it appears that he may reduce or even eliminate the garrison in Afghanistan, where Americans have been fighting for more than 17 years. Perhaps he also will reconsider U.S. support for the Saudis and Emiratis in Yemen.

Trump should use Secretary Mattis's departure as an opportunity to refashion his national security team. Who is to succeed Mattis at the Pentagon? Deputy Secretary Patrick Shanahan appears to have the inside track. But former Navy secretary and senator Jim Webb deserves consideration. Or perhaps it's time for a second round for former senator Chuck Hagel, who opposed the Gulf war and backed dialog with Iran. Defense needs someone willing to challenge the Pentagon's thinking and practices. Best would be a civilian who won't be captured by the bureaucracy, one who understands that he or she faces a tough fight against advocates of perpetual war.

Next to go should be Bolton. There are many potential replacements who believe in a more restrained role for America. One who has been mentioned as a potential national security advisor in the past is retired Army colonel and respected security analyst Douglas Macgregor.

Equally important, though somewhat less urgent, is finding a new secretary of state. Although Pompeo has not so ostentatiously undermined his boss, he appears to oppose every effort by the president to end a war, drop a security commitment, or ease a conflict. Pompeo's enthusiasm for negotiation with Kim Jong-un and Vladimir Putin is clearly lagging. While the secretary might not engage in open sabotage, his determination to take a confrontational approach everywhere except when explicitly ordered to do otherwise badly undermines Trump's policies.

Who to appoint? Perhaps Tennessee's John Duncan, the last Republican congressman who opposed the Iraq war and who retired this year after decades of patriotic service. There are a handful of active legislators who could serve with distinction as well, though their departures would be a significant loss on Capitol Hill: Senator Rand Paul and Representatives Justin Amash and Walter Jones, for instance.

Once the top officials have been replaced, the process should continue downwards. Those appointed don't need to be thoroughgoing Trumpists, of whom there are few. Rather, the president needs people generally supportive of his vision of a less embattled and entangled America: subordinates, not insubordinates. Then he will be less likely to find himself in embarrassing positions where his appointees create their own aggressive policies contrary to his expressed desires.

Trump has finally insisted on being Trump, but Syria must only be the start. He needs to fill his administration with allies, not adversaries. Only then will his "America First" policy actually put America first.

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire .

Clyde Schechter , December 26, 2018 at 11:47 pm

After two years in office, I am utterly flabbergasted that there are still people out there who take seriously the notion that Trump wants to extricate us from our wars around the globe and refrain from starting new ones. Virtually every foreign policy decision he has made has been contrary to that.

Finally, for once, he decides to pull out of Syria (a mere few weeks after he announced we would stay there indefinitely) and somehow this one, as yet unimplemented decision represents "Trump being Trump?" Seriously? He's proven through his actions and his appointments that he's a full-blown neocon . Maybe I'll rescind the "full-blown" part of that judgment if he actually does withdraw from Syria. But it would still be a pretty tiny exception to his thoroughly neocon actions up to this point.

If nothing else, appointing Bolton as national security advisor speaks volumes. Personnel is policy, as they say. And you'd have have spent the last two decades in a coma living on another planet not to know that Bolton is the biggest warmonger around. He makes most of the neocons look like pacifists by comparison. Even the people who think Trump a complete idiot can't really imagine that Trump didn't know what he was getting when he hired Bolton.

Let's get real here. It'll be great if he withdraws from Syria. It'd be even better if he replaces his national security team along the lines suggested in this article. But don't hold your breath. It would go against nearly everything he has done since taking office.

It's time to come to grips with the non-existence of the tooth fairy.

Fran Macadam , , December 27, 2018 at 6:26 am

"heartland patriots who wonder why their relatives, friends, and neighbors have been dying in endless wars that have begotten nothing but more wars."

Nothing to wonder at, war is the most lucrative racket going, for those who profit mightily from supplying weapons. It's become so important to an otherwise shrunken manufacturing base, that downsizing would affect employment, and there's nowhere domestic to absorb the overseas demobilized.

The downside of this, therefore, is it may only be redirection and consolidation, to be able to concentrate forces on Iran instead. The budget's not getting any smaller, so there's got to be compensatory warmaking somewhere.

Trump got one right , , December 27, 2018 at 8:21 am

Bolton is a national disgrace. This vile piece of trash is desperate to get the USA into a disastrous war with Iran. The quicker Bolton is removed the better. Any stooge who supported the Iraq invasion should be precluded from consideration.

Mark Thomason , , December 27, 2018 at 9:35 am

"Yet President Trump has surrounded himself with neocons, inveterate hawks, and ivory tower warriors."

In fairness to Trump, there just was nobody else. He had nobody lined up to be an administration that believed what he did. Republicans were all hawks. Democrats wouldn't think of helping, and were also all hawks anyway.

Trump's first effort to break out of that with second or third-line people went bust with the likes of Gen. Flynn, and he was left with going back to the very people he'd defeated.

Fred Bowman , , December 27, 2018 at 9:43 am

At this point in time I don't think Trump will be able to win a second term, such is the chaos he's brought about to his Presidency. So that leaves to question which of the men you have suggested to help lead Trump to a less warlike America would choose to serve? Perhaps first, we need an "Adult" as POTUS and maybe then, we can get "men of wisdom" who can help America get out of it's "Military Misadventures" in the Middle East.

pax , , December 27, 2018 at 9:57 am

There is no problem replacing someone who should never have been tapped in the first place. John Bolton. Never too soon to right a wrong. Get rid of neocon Bolton and his types now. Not later. He marches to another drummer not to USA interests. I doubt Trump can even beat Kamila Harris (darling of the illiberal left) in 2020 if he keeps Bolton and Co. around.

Steve Naidamast , , December 27, 2018 at 10:52 am

I wouldn't get overly excited about this. Trump has habitually initiated all levels of chaos throughout his incompetent administration. This is nothing new but more of the same. If anyone believes Trump actually found his brain, they are smoking something

CLW , , December 27, 2018 at 12:19 pm

What a joke. Trump has no "foreign policy vision," just a series of boisterous, bellicose talking points that to his isolationist base and his own desire to be the strongman.

Kurt Gayle , , December 27, 2018 at 12:48 pm

sglover says (Dec 27, 12:12 am):

"Before we credit Trump with stumbling on something sensible for once, it might be wise to remember that we're still talking about -- Trump. Who now says that American troops still in Iraq can still raid into Syria as necessary, and by the way, they'll be staying in Iraq. So already it's shaping up as not so much a withdrawal as a reshuffling. After a minor adjustment to the game board, play can continue as necessary, such as whenever Bolton or Fox media whispers into the casino bankrupt's ear. Always always always a swindle, with Trump. It's an iron law."

However, just 6 days ago sglover said on another thread ("Washington Melts Down Over Trump's Syria Withdrawal" -- Dec 21, 3:26 pm):

"I despise Trump, but if he's managed to stumble on doing something sensible, and actually does it (never a certainty with the casino swindler) -- great! There's no sane reason for us to muck about in Syria. However it comes about, we should welcome a withdrawal there. If the move gives Trump some of the approval that he plainly craves, maybe he'll repeat the performance and end our purposeless wallow in Afghanistan. It doesn't say anything good about the nominal opposition party, the Dems, that half or more of them -- and apparently *all* of their dinosaur 'leadership' -- can't stifle the kneejerking and let him do it. Of course many of them are "troubled" because their Israeli & Saudi owners, er, 'donors' expect it. But some of them seem to have developed a sudden deep attachment to 'our mission in Syria' for no better reason than, Trump is for it, therefore I must shout against it. And then, of course, there's the Russia hysteria. Oh yeah, what a huge win for Moscow if it scores the 'prize' of occupying Syria! If that's Putin's idea of a big score, how exactly does it harm any American to let him have it? I wonder if the Democratic Party will ever be capable of doing anything other than snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?"

FL Transplant , , December 27, 2018 at 1:24 pm

The problem with they article begins with it's first sentence "President Donald Trump has at last rediscovered his core foreign policy beliefs " I can't find any core foreign policy beliefs. What I have seen is a mosh-mosh of sound bites that resound well with his audiences at rallies, and various people attempt to link those together and fill in the white space between with what they WANT his foreign policy beliefs to be. But to go so far as to say he has any consistent beliefs that combine to form a foreign policy is going way too far.

DeusIrae , , December 27, 2018 at 1:47 pm

Replace Bolton with Mike Flynn after all charges are dropped against him. Then have Robert Mueller et al. arrested to be tried and put to death for High Treason. Then liberate Britain, Bomb the Vatican, and put a naval blockade on China.

Bruceb , , December 27, 2018 at 2:21 pm

You do know that Trump wants to increase the military budget. Yet you maintain that he wanted to pull us out of foreign wars. Curious. Where would all that extra money go? I'd look for it at the top of Trump Tower. Certainly not in the pockets of ordinary citizens.

Shawn F , , December 27, 2018 at 3:08 pm

Hmm This article makes it seem like there's these renegades who have somehow held onto power and are charting America's course on their own. But doesn't the President hand pick the members of his cabinet? Wasn't every single one of them given their authority *by Donald Trump*?

Only an incompetent imbecile with no experience in leadership or government could be so dim-witted as to appoint people who would willfully defy and disregard his agenda. Surely our country would never put give such an incompetent so much authority. Oh wait sorry, never mind.

Jeeves , , December 27, 2018 at 3:13 pm

We have a "peaceful opening" with North Korea? How many months ago did Mr. Bandow last read about the NoKos counter-proposal to unconditional nuclear disarmament? And what about all the Trump saber-rattling that preceded this so-called opening? If Trump was "played" by his own advisers on Afghanistan, he was equally duped by the mirage offered by Kim.

WRW , , December 27, 2018 at 3:22 pm

Trump had no lofty notions underpinning this decision. He did it in an impetuous, chaotic manner in which he obtained nothing in return from Russia or Turkey or Iran to address our broader strategic interest in the region, such as ending the war in Yemen. Like everything he does, it reeks of corruption and no doubt will be added to Muellers investigation.

Contrary to Bandows libertarian take, it is an expression of Trumps imperial presidency. The Syrian involvement has strong bipartisan support even if lacking a resolution in support (and the Libertarian Sen. Paul never got anywhere with a resolution against.) Leaving Syria was the correct long term strategic decision.

I'm sure 99% of democrats in Congress supported the action. Only trump, with his narcissistic incompetence could take an action that his opponents would overwhelmingly support if done in a credible manner and turn it into controversy. Trump looks like the servant of Russians and Turks in his conduct. Jan 2021 can't come soon enough.

The Other Sands , , December 27, 2018 at 4:32 pm

I find it interesting that so many people (the author apparently included) are still so slow to understand that Trump can't afford to get rid of people, because he literally can't find new cabinet members.

He started with mostly C-listers, and most of them are gone. He is on to hiring TV hosts, bloggers, professional political grifters, his family, or just being stuck with straight-up vacant posts.

Only the worst sorts would voluntarily work for such an angry, undisciplined, chaotic boss in the smoking shambles of an organization like this administration.

You just go ahead and ask Chuck Hagel if he would join this train wreck.

Hideo Watanabe , , December 27, 2018 at 9:19 pm

I blogged on December 22 when I read a similar article like this;

"Every time I read such article as this about Mr. Trump's decisions of any sort, I always wonder if the authors believe that he has solid political philosophy or consolidated policy agenda.

I took his decision of withdrawal from Syria and seemingly from Afghanistan is his survival strategy for 2020 presidential election to appeal to war weariness American voters because Mr. Cohen's plea deal and the revelation of Trump signature on the license agreement for Moscow Trump Tower project would kill his 2020 chance. It is a good strategy but over the last two days his approval rating has not been improved."

Mr. Trump seems to have delivered a speech in Iraq saying that the withdrawal from Syria would not give any adverse effect on Israel security because the US government gives more than $45 billion every year according to a local newspaper of Middle East.

This is another tactic to appeal to AIPAC to make sure his own security for 2020 candidacy, isn't it?

usmc0846 , , December 27, 2018 at 9:52 pm

First 2000 troops is not much more than a reinforced battalion the USMC shuffles that many warriors and more around the Mediterranean every six months. I think the issue with Trump is, as it's always been, his gut seat of his pants way of handling virtually everything he does. There's no control or consideration apparent in any action other than to pitch chum at his largely illiterate followers.

In this case he's handed a huge victory to Putin (my my what a surprise that is) and essentially screwed the Kurds. If nothing else those 2000 troops were at least keeping a cap on things to some small degree. That's out the door now and I can't help but think that ISIS (aka the enemy here) will have a vote on what happens next.

Trump Voter , , December 27, 2018 at 10:43 pm

"President Donald Trump has at last rediscovered his core foreign policy beliefs and ordered the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria. "

Too hopeful, at this point, I think. But I hope so, too.

Cloak And Dagger , , December 27, 2018 at 11:27 pm

Those of us who want to see Bolton gone should first ask why he was chosen in the first place. Clearly Trump had to appease Adelson in order to make that appointment because he depends on his campaign donations. What makes anyone think that the situation has changed in such a way as to permit Trump more autonomy in his choice of his cabinet?

NEexpert , , December 28, 2018 at 1:54 am

"Or perhaps it's time for a second round for former senator Chuck Hagel, who opposed the Gulf war and backed dialog with Iran."

I think it is an excellent idea to bring back Senator Hagel. He is a man of integrity. But most importantly, he hasn't sold out his soul to Israel.

SteveK9 , , December 28, 2018 at 12:00 pm

To those who say Trump has no foreign policy vision, you are wrong. His vision is simple, dismantle parts of the Empire, become a little more isolationist, and focus on 'America First'. Trump is not very intelligent, but he has the right instincts. He is up against the War Party, the most influential power center in the US, and that is not easy. Obama is more intelligent than Trump, but the results were very bad add one more destroyed country, Libya to his credit, and almost another, Syria (although thankfully the Russians stopped that).

What is mysterious is the following from the article:

'Yet President Trump has surrounded himself with neocons, inveterate hawks, and ivory tower warriors. With virtually no aides around him who believe in his policies or were even willing to implement them, he looked like a George Bush/Barack Obama retread.'

Why he does this, I don't know.

Pulling out of Syria will be a good thing for everyone. The reason is largely nonsense, as it was Russia/Syria that destroyed Isis (we did manage to destroy another city, Raqqa), but I don't care, and neither will the American Public, who understand nothing of Syria.

The Kurds will make an arrangement for limited autonomy with Damascus (already happening as they just asked for protection from Turkey in Manbij). Turkey will not invade Syria as long as they feel Damascus can control the border. Syria, Russia, and maybe even the Kurds will wipe out the last of Isis and those militants in Idlib that would rather die than give up the fight (the fanatics), will be killed.

Then, the reconstruction of Syria can begin in earnest, and it is to be hoped that the Chinese will get off their butt and provide some assistance.

Israel is probably unhappy, which pleases me no end, and I hope this is an indication that there is some limit to the number of people we are willing to murder on their behalf.

Guy St Hilaire , , December 28, 2018 at 2:55 pm

@ NEexpert.Integrity is a quality severely lacking in many politicians in the US.Not being American , but watching closely, if Senator hagel is such a man , it would do American politics much good ,not only for the US but the US standing in the world .Gods speed in chnaging the likes of Bolton and Pompeo to begin with.

sglover , , December 28, 2018 at 5:03 pm

@ Kurt Gayle -- I don't think you'll find any contradiction between my two remarks.

All I'm saying is that in all the ways that really matter the sudden "withdrawal" from Syria is already shaping up to be a typical Trump bait-and-switch. Sure, troops won't be bivouacing in Syria. Instead, they'll be stationed next door in Iraq, so they can continue to muck around in Syria. And Trump emphasized that as far as he's concerned we'll be staying in Iraq.

(Of course, that "strategic doctrine" is only valid until his next Fox media wallow in front of the idiot box. I.e., maybe until tomorrow afternoon)

[Dec 24, 2018] What Is the Point of Pompeo's Cairo Speech by Daniel Larison

Notable quotes:
"... "Regional clients are happy to "stand with" the Trump administration so long as they aren't required to do very much" ..."
"... Yes. And that tells you how much of a threat they think Iran really poses. ..."
"... Their attitude is like this: "Well, if you want to threaten Iran in order to keep Israel and Saudi Arabia happy, go ahead. You can even attack Iran. We're okay with it. Just don't expect us to do any fighting, dying, or paying. And if you make a mess, don't expect us to help you clean it up. In fact, if you make a mess, we're going to jack up our foreign aid request. And we're not taking any of your goddamn refugees this time." ..."
Dec 19, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Then-Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-KS, speaking at a rally in 2013. He faces a senate grilling for his secretary of state nomination today. Mark Taylor/Creative Commons Nahal Toosi reports on an upcoming Pompeo speech planned for his visit to Egypt next month:

Pompeo's speech will likely focus heavily on Iran, as have many of his past public remarks. The chief U.S. diplomat is likely to try to rally Arab capitals to stand with the United States and thwart Iran's use of proxy forces, support for terrorism and other activities in the region.

The Trump administration has made a regular habit of denouncing Iran in speeches by top officials, and the administration's Iran policy has no more international support today than it did a year ago. It's not clear what purpose another high-profile Iran-bashing session serves. The administration's talking points are tediously familiar by now, and Pompeo's brusque and overbearing manner is the opposite of persuasive.

Regional clients are happy to "stand with" the Trump administration so long as they aren't required to do very much, and every attempt to get these clients to do more has so far produced no results. The administration's ill-conceived, so-called Middle East Strategic Alliance (MESA) has stalled, thanks to the broader anti-Saudi backlash in Washington and the lack of interest on the part of many of its would-be members. The administration's Iran policy of regime change in all but name isn't working as planned and isn't going to work, and there is not much else for Pompeo to talk about that reflects well on the administration. He and the president have gone out of their way to thwart Congressional opposition to the war on Yemen, and they have bent over backwards to make excuses for Saudi crimes.

Pompeo won't admit it in his speech, but the current U.S. role in the region is a destabilizing one that involves aiding and abetting war crimes and helping to cause mass starvation.

about:blank

they've seen it before December 19, 2018 at 10:30 pm

"Regional clients are happy to "stand with" the Trump administration so long as they aren't required to do very much"

Yes. And that tells you how much of a threat they think Iran really poses.

Their attitude is like this: "Well, if you want to threaten Iran in order to keep Israel and Saudi Arabia happy, go ahead. You can even attack Iran. We're okay with it. Just don't expect us to do any fighting, dying, or paying. And if you make a mess, don't expect us to help you clean it up. In fact, if you make a mess, we're going to jack up our foreign aid request. And we're not taking any of your goddamn refugees this time."

Zebesian , says: December 20, 2018 at 6:04 pm
Pompeo wants another expensive, bloody war that will wreck another nation and result in more refugees...

[Dec 19, 2018] Trump's Iran Policy Has Already Failed by Daniel Larison •

Dec 19, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

December 17, 208, 2:42 PM

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?app_id=347697165243043&channel=https%3A%2F%2Fstaticxx.facebook.com%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter%2Fr%2Fj-GHT1gpo6-.js%3Fversion%3D43%23cb%3Df64680387c7c77%26domain%3Dwww.theamericanconservative.com%26origin%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%252Ff537f7994198f1%26relation%3Dparent.parent&container_width=0&font=lucida%20grande&href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Flarison%2Ftrumps-iran-policy-has-already-failed%2F&layout=button_count&locale=en_US&sdk=joey&send=true&show_faces=false&width=125

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.d30011b0f5ce05b98f24b01d3331b3c1.en.html#dnt=false&id=twitter-widget-1&lang=en&original_referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Flarison%2Ftrumps-iran-policy-has-already-failed%2F&related=amconmag&size=m&text=Trump%E2%80%99s%20Iran%20Policy%20Has%20Already%20Failed%20%7C%20The%20American%20Conservative&time=1545208054724&type=share&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Flarison%2Ftrumps-iran-policy-has-already-failed%2F&via=amconmag

https://apis.google.com/se/0/_/+1/fastbutton?usegapi=1&size=medium&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com%2Flarison%2Ftrumps-iran-policy-has-already-failed%2F&gsrc=3p&ic=1&jsh=m%3B%2F_%2Fscs%2Fapps-static%2F_%2Fjs%2Fk%3Doz.gapi.en_US.MO5vxMCzvvQ.O%2Fam%3DQQ%2Frt%3Dj%2Fd%3D1%2Frs%3DAGLTcCPq335D5ksg3qOXO4x5vCykSDofgA%2Fm%3D__features__#_methods=onPlusOne%2C_ready%2C_close%2C_open%2C_resizeMe%2C_renderstart%2Concircled%2Cdrefresh%2Cerefresh&id=I0_1545208054245&_gfid=I0_1545208054245&parent=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theamericanconservative.com&pfname=&rpctoken=62766058

Christopher Halloran / Shutterstock.com , European External Action Service/Flickr Reimposed sanctions on Iran are cruel and unnecessary, and they are also ineffective :

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif on Saturday said US sanctions will have no impact on the policies of the Islamic republic at home or abroad.

"It is obvious that we are facing pressure by the US sanctions. But will that lead to a change in policy? I can assure you it won't," Zarif told the Doha Forum policy conference in Qatar.

"If there is an art we have perfected in Iran and can teach to others for a price, it is the art of evading sanctions," he added.

Sanctions typically fail to change regime behavior, and they are even more likely to fail if there is no practical way for the targeted regime to get out from under sanctions short of surrender. The more importance that a regime places on the policies that the outside government wants to change, the greater the likelihood of failure will be. When the outside government's goals threaten the regime's security or even its very survival, there is no question of making a deal.

Because the Trump administration is pursuing regime change in all but name, there is no chance that Iran will yield to U.S. pressure. The administration's demands are so ambitious and excessive that no self-respecting state could agree to them without giving up its sovereignty and independence. It should be clear by now that pressure and coercion inspire defiance and intransigence. If the U.S. wants to see changes in Iranian international behavior, it would need to provide assurances and incentives that make taking that risk worth their while. Since this administration has made a point of reneging on commitments already made to Iran, there are no assurances that it could make that the Iranian government could trust, and the administration is allergic to offering any incentives to its negotiating partners for fear of appearing "weak."

[Dec 14, 2018] Whataboutism proclaim that each asserted truth stands on its own, and has no essential relation to any other past, present, or future asserted truth

Like the term "conspiracy theory "whataboutism" is a nasty and dirty propaganda trick. Truth can be understood only in historical context.
Notable quotes:
"... The detail of b's analysis that stands out to me as especially significant and brilliant is his demolition of the Guardian's reuse of the Merkel "quote." ..."
"... Related to the above, consider the nature of the recently christened thought-crime, "whataboutism." The crime may be defined as follows: ..."
"... "Whataboutism" is the attempt to understand a truth asserted by propaganda by way of relation to other truths it has asserted contemporaneous with or prior to this one. It is to ask, "What about this *other* truth? Does this *other* truth affect our understanding of *this* truth? And if so, how does it?" ..."
"... Whataboutism seems to proclaim that each asserted truth stands on its own, and has no essential relation to any other past, present, or future asserted truth. ..."
May 04, 2018 | moonofalabama.org
XXX | 12

The detail of b's analysis that stands out to me as especially significant and brilliant is his demolition of the Guardian's reuse of the Merkel "quote."

This one detail tells us so much about how propaganda works, and about how it can be defeated. Successful propaganda both depends upon and seeks to accelerate the erasure of historical memory. This is because its truths are always changing to suit the immediate needs of the state. None of its truths can be understood historically. b makes the connection between the documented but forgotten past "truth" of Merkel's quote and its present reincarnation in the Guardian, and this is really all he *needs* to do.

What b points out is something quite simple; yet the ability to do this very simple thing is becoming increasingly rare and its exercise increasingly difficult to achieve. It is for me the virtue that makes b's analysis uniquely indispensable.

Related to the above, consider the nature of the recently christened thought-crime, "whataboutism." The crime may be defined as follows:

"Whataboutism" is the attempt to understand a truth asserted by propaganda by way of relation to other truths it has asserted contemporaneous with or prior to this one. It is to ask, "What about this *other* truth? Does this *other* truth affect our understanding of *this* truth? And if so, how does it?"

Whataboutism seems to proclaim that each asserted truth stands on its own, and has no essential relation to any other past, present, or future asserted truth.

[Dec 12, 2018] US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo gives speech in Brussels

This is a typical neocon speech. Could be delivered by Hillary Clinton (if we removed some Tea Party frosting). Attacked both Russia and China. Such a freashly minted US diplomat ;-)
The fact that he is mentioned Skripal poisoning suggests that his IQ is overrated... Or many be that's his CIA past...
Trump want to pursue "might makes right" policy but times changed and it remains to be seen how successful he will be.
Dec 12, 2018 | www.youtube.com

Jessica Wylde , 6 days ago

Could you imagine if someone stood up and called out all the US crimes... 3 million prisoners, war crimes in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan ect. Poverty disproportionate to the wealth of the nation. On and on

landlogger , 1 day ago

It doesn't get any clearer than this. A group of people, with no conscience and therefore no shame, no empathy, no emotion, no love, hold the reins of power on planet earth. They do not distinguish between Afghani, Iraqi, European, African or American. We are all fodder for their demented psychopathic agenda. It's time to wake up, because it's coming to your doorstep.

ThePositiveKRP , 13 hours ago (edited)

Suddenly Mike Pompeo seems like a calm and reasonable man, when not long ago he was threatening North Korea with military action.

[Dec 12, 2018] Save the INF Treaty

Notable quotes:
"... The treaty is one of the most advantageous agreements to the U.S. that our government has ever negotiated, so it is extremely difficult to see how leaving the treaty benefits the U.S. ..."
Dec 12, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

about:blank

calls on the Trump administration not to kill the INF Treaty:

Losing patience with Russia's refusal to address legitimate concerns over its violation of the treaty is understandable, but the way Pompeo framed the problem says a great deal about how poorly the Trump administration is managing this sensitive issue. Pompeo told NATO, "the burden falls on Russia to make the necessary changes. Only they can save this treaty." Having built a rare instance of NATO unity, which for the first time has unanimously stated that it believes Russia is in violation of the INF Treaty, U.S. President Donald Trump's team seems more intent on using it as an opportunity to berate Russia than to save a valuable treaty that benefits European and global security. While Russia is to blame for its own violations, the United States will suffer just as much as Russia does if the treaty fails, and even more so if the collapse produces more discord than unity within the NATO alliance. By going the extra mile to save the treaty, instead of issuing ultimatums, the Trump administration might even pull out a win for once. Excuse me if I don't hold my breath.

The INF Treaty is very much worth saving, and quitting it over a Russian violation is as short-sighted and self-defeating as can be. If the U.S. withdraws, there will be no chance of negotiating a replacement. Not only will the U.S. be held as the one most responsible for killing the treaty, but by ending it the Trump administration will be opening the door to an arms race that no one should want.

The treaty is one of the most advantageous agreements to the U.S. that our government has ever negotiated, so it is extremely difficult to see how leaving the treaty benefits the U.S.

Quitting the INF Treaty unfortunately fits the administration's pattern of reneging on and abandoning agreements without giving any thought to the consequences of withdrawal. It makes no sense to give up on a treaty that has proven its worth to the U.S. and our European allies for more than thirty years.

The Trump administration has made the absolute minimum effort to resolve the dispute with Russia before quitting the treaty, and that makes it clear that they are just looking for an excuse to abandon it. If the U.S. gave up so easily on every agreement whenever there was a violation, it would not keep any of its agreements for very long. The bigger problem is that the administration's determination to leave the treaty is driven more by Bolton's ideological hostility to all arms control agreements than it is by any concern about any violations. The administration is seizing on Russian violations to withdraw from this treaty, but it also has no desire to keep New START alive, either. Letting New START die would be even more dangerous, but the administration isn't interested in extending a treaty that Russia has complied with for almost eight years.

[Dec 10, 2018] The American Melting Pot Can Turn Into A Volatile Mixture At The Top by Wayne Madsen

Melania slap of Bolton face might be a good sobering measure. But neocons can't probably recover from their addition
Notable quotes:
"... Ricardel is a longtime friend and associate of national security adviser John Bolton, who brought her into the National Security Council from the Department of Commerce, where she served as Undersecretary for Export Administration. Ricardel reportedly angered Ms. Trump over seating arrangements on a flight by Ms. Trump to Africa two weeks ago. Ricardel, who was to accompany the First Lady, did not make the trip. Ms. Trump, in an interview conducted with ABC News during the trip, said there were people in the White House she did not trust. Apparently, Ricardel was one of them. ..."
"... Perhaps no one in recent memory brought such a degree of ethnic baggage to her job like Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Albright's Czech roots and the Yugoslav warrant issued for the arrest of her professor-diplomat father, Joseph Korbel, for the post-World War II theft of art from Prague, brought forth extreme anti-Serbian policies by the woman who would represent the United States at the United Nations and then serve as America's chief diplomat. Albright's hatred for Serbia was not much different than Zbigniew Brzezinski's Polish heritage evoking an almost-pathological hatred of Russia, while he served as Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser. ..."
"... In 1981, Ronald Reagan appointed Valdas Adamkus as the regional administrator for the US Environmental Protection Agency, responsible for the Mid-West states. Retiring from the US government after 29 years of service, Adamkus was elected to two terms as President of Lithuania. ..."
"... One might ask whether Ilves and Adamkus were kept on the US government payroll merely to support them until they could return to their countries in top leadership positions to help lead the Baltic nations into NATO membership. ..."
"... From 1993 to 1997, Army General John Shalikashvili served as Chairman of the Joint Chefs of Staff. Shalikashvili was born in Warsaw, Poland to a Georgian and Polish mother. During World War II, his father served in the Georgian Legion, a special unit incorporated into the Nazi German "SS-Waffengruppe Georgien." General Shalikashvili served as commander of all US military forces during a time of NATO expansion into Eastern Europe. It was no surprise that he was an avid cheerleader for NATO's expansion to the East. ..."
Nov 25, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Wayne Madsen via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

America has always fancied itself as a "melting pot" of ethnicities and religions that form a perfect union. The Latin phrase, E Pluribus Unum, "out of many, one," is even found on the Great Seal of the United States.

However, as seen in a recent blow-up between First Lady Melania Trump and now-former Deputy National Security Adviser Mira Ricardel, old feuds from beyond the borders of the United States can result in major rifts at the highest echelons of the US government.

On November 13, Ms. Trump's communications director, Stephanie Grisham, fired off a tweet that read: "it is the position of the Office of the First Lady that she [Ricardel] no longer deserves the honor of serving in this White House." The White House announced Ricardel's departure the next day, November 14.

Ricardel is a longtime friend and associate of national security adviser John Bolton, who brought her into the National Security Council from the Department of Commerce, where she served as Undersecretary for Export Administration. Ricardel reportedly angered Ms. Trump over seating arrangements on a flight by Ms. Trump to Africa two weeks ago. Ricardel, who was to accompany the First Lady, did not make the trip. Ms. Trump, in an interview conducted with ABC News during the trip, said there were people in the White House she did not trust. Apparently, Ricardel was one of them.

The bitter feud between Melania Trump and Mira Ricardel likely has its roots in their backgrounds in the former Yugoslavia. Ricardel was born Mira P. Radielović, the daughter of Peter Radielovich, a native of Breza, Bosnia-Herzegovina in the former Yugoslavia. Ricardel speaks fluent Croatian and was a member of the Croatian Catholic Church. Melania Trump was born Melanija Knavs [pronounced Knaus] in Novo Mesto in Slovenia, also in the former Yugoslavia. Villagers in the village of Sevnica, where Ms. Trump was raised, claim she and her Communist Party parents were officially atheists. Ms. Trump later converted to Roman Catholicism. She and her son by Mr. Trump, Barron Trump, speak fluent Slovenian. The Yugoslav Civil War, which began in earnest in 1991, pitted the nation's ethnic groups against one another. There are ample reasons, political, ethnic, and religious, for bad blood between the Slovenian-born First Lady and a first-generation Croatian-American. The "battle royale" between Ms. Trump and Ricardel is but one example of a constant problem in the United States when individuals with foreign ties bring age-old inter-ethnic and inter-religious squabbles to governance.

Perhaps no one in recent memory brought such a degree of ethnic baggage to her job like Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Albright's Czech roots and the Yugoslav warrant issued for the arrest of her professor-diplomat father, Joseph Korbel, for the post-World War II theft of art from Prague, brought forth extreme anti-Serbian policies by the woman who would represent the United States at the United Nations and then serve as America's chief diplomat. Albright's hatred for Serbia was not much different than Zbigniew Brzezinski's Polish heritage evoking an almost-pathological hatred of Russia, while he served as Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser.

Albright's bias against Serbia saw her influence US policy in casting a blind eye toward the terrorism carried out by the Kosovo Liberation Army and its terrorist leader Hashim Thaci. That policy resulted in Washington backing an independent Kosovo, a state beholden to organized criminal syndicates protected by one of the largest US military bases in Europe, Camp Bondsteel.

Ties by US foreign policy officials to their countries of origin continued to plagued administrations after Carter. For example, Kateryna Chumachenko served in the Reagan White House and State and Treasury Departments and later worked for KPMG as "Katherine" Chumachenko. She also worked in the White House Public Liaison Office, where she conducted outreach to various right-wing and anti-communist exile groups in the United States, including the Friends of Afghanistan, on whose board Afghan refugee and later George W. Bush pro-consul in Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, sat. Khalilzad, like Chumachenko, worked in the Reagan State Department. Chumachenko was married to Ukrainian "Orange Revolution" President Viktor Yushchenko, and, thusly, became the First Lady of Ukraine. Khalilzad became the Bush 43 ambassador to the UN, where he often was at loggerheads with Iran, Libya, Syria, and other Muslim states. As was the case with Albright and her anti-Serb underpinnings, it was difficult to ascertain whose agenda Khalilzad was serving.

After being fired from the White House, there were reports that Ricardel was offered the post of ambassador to Estonia. That Baltic country was no stranger to hauling foreign baggage into the US government. Former Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves, a bow-tie wearing former Estonian language broadcaster for the Central Intelligence Agency-funded Radio Free Europe ; long time resident of Leonia, New Jersey; could have just as easily ended up in a senior State Department position rather than President of Estonia. Such is the nature of divided loyalties among senior US government officials of both major political parties.

In 1981, Ronald Reagan appointed Valdas Adamkus as the regional administrator for the US Environmental Protection Agency, responsible for the Mid-West states. Retiring from the US government after 29 years of service, Adamkus was elected to two terms as President of Lithuania.

One might ask whether Ilves and Adamkus were kept on the US government payroll merely to support them until they could return to their countries in top leadership positions to help lead the Baltic nations into NATO membership.

From 1993 to 1997, Army General John Shalikashvili served as Chairman of the Joint Chefs of Staff. Shalikashvili was born in Warsaw, Poland to a Georgian and Polish mother. During World War II, his father served in the Georgian Legion, a special unit incorporated into the Nazi German "SS-Waffengruppe Georgien." General Shalikashvili served as commander of all US military forces during a time of NATO expansion into Eastern Europe. It was no surprise that he was an avid cheerleader for NATO's expansion to the East.

Natalie Jaresko served in positions with the State Department, the Departments of Commerce, Treasury, the US Trade Representative, and Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). In 2014, she became the Finance Minister for Ukraine. Earlier, she served as a financial adviser to Yushchenko. The United States is not the only "melting pot" in North America that suffers from officials burdened by ethnic dual loyalties. Halyna Chomiak, the Ukrainian-born émigré mother of Canada's Foreign Minister, Chrystia Freeland, weighs heavily on Freeland's ability to advance Canada's interests over those of the nation of her mother's birth.

Trump's entire White House Middle East police team is composed of individuals who place Israel's interests ahead of the United States. Trump takes his Middle East advice from principally his son-in-law Jared Kushner, a contributor to and member of the board of the "Friends of the IDF," an American non-profit that raises funds for the Israeli armed forces. Kushner was named by Trump as a "special envoy" to the Middle East, while Jason Greenblatt, a former attorney with the Trump Organization, was named as special envoy in charge of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Although the two positions appear to overlap, Kushner and Greenblatt, both Orthodox Jews who have little time for Palestinians, are on the same page when it comes to advancing the West Bank land grabbing policies of the Binyamin Netanyahu government in Israel. Trump thoroughly Zionized his administration's Middle East policy with the appointment of another Israel supporter, David M. Friedman, as US ambassador to Israel. Friedman had been a bankruptcy lawyer with the Trump Organization's primary law firm, Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman.

Trump has nominated as US ambassador to South Africa, handbag designer Lana Marks, who was born in South Africa. Marks, who is known only to Trump from her membership in his Mar-a-Lago, Florida "billionaires club," left South Africa in 1975, when the country was under the apartheid regime. Marks claims to speak Afrikaans, the language preferred by the apartheid regime, and Xhosa, the ethnic language of the late President Nelson Mandela. Because Marks embellished her professional tennis career by claiming, without proof, participation in the French Open and Wimbledon in the 1970s, her mastery of Xhosa can be taken with a grain of salt. So, too, can her ability to deal with the current African National Congress government led by President Cyril Ramaphosa, who had just been released from prison when Marks left the country in 1975. The claims and politics of Marks and every official and would-be US official who failed to shed their biases from their native and ancestral homelands, can all be taken with a metric ton of salt.

Melting pots are fine, so long as they truly blend together. However, that is not the situation in the United States as high government officials have difficulty in consigning the bigotry inherent in family folklore and beliefs to the family scrapbooks.

[Dec 09, 2018] Pax Americana: Pompeo tells UN, WTO, ICC to bow and comply with US-led world order

Notable quotes:
"... The senior member of the Donald Trump administration said a multilateral approach is failing to produce a world of unrestricted capitalism, so the US should rule supreme – sorry, assume a leadership role – to ensure that countries like China didn't try to offer an alternative way. ..."
"... The UN is a vehicle for regional powers to "collude" and vote in bad actors into the Human Rights Council. "Bad actors" are of course not Saudi Arabia. The World Bank and the International Monetary fund are in the way of private lenders. The EU is good, but Brexit should be a wake-up call for its bureaucracy, which doesn't know how good nationalism actually is. The International Criminal Court is "rogue" because it attempts to hold Americans accountable for crimes in Afghanistan. ..."
"... But what organization was a good boy and doesn't deserve a piece of coal from Uncle Sam? SWIFT was. The banking communications organization caved in to Washington and cut off Iranians from its system, so it has a place in the bright new world of US leadership. ..."
"... "new liberal order" ..."
Dec 09, 2018 | www.rt.com

The US will lead a new liberal world order, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared. Organizations and treaties not fitting this picture must be scrapped or reformed, so that non-compliers could not use them against America. The vision of the bold new and prosperous (for the US and its supporters) world was delivered by Pompeo in a keynote speech to the German Marshall Fund on Tuesday.

The senior member of the Donald Trump administration said a multilateral approach is failing to produce a world of unrestricted capitalism, so the US should rule supreme – sorry, assume a leadership role – to ensure that countries like China didn't try to offer an alternative way.

China, as well as Russia, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela and other nations on the US grudge list got their share of bashing in the speech, but its focus was more on international institutions, which Pompeo claimed to be incompatible with his grand vision.

The UN is a vehicle for regional powers to "collude" and vote in bad actors into the Human Rights Council. "Bad actors" are of course not Saudi Arabia. The World Bank and the International Monetary fund are in the way of private lenders. The EU is good, but Brexit should be a wake-up call for its bureaucracy, which doesn't know how good nationalism actually is. The International Criminal Court is "rogue" because it attempts to hold Americans accountable for crimes in Afghanistan.

Also on rt.com 'Surrealism': Iran blasts US claim its missile test violated UN resolution on nuclear deal

The Paris Agreement on climate change was bad for America, so it left. NAFTA was bad for America, so it forced a renegotiation. The nuclear deal with Iran didn't make Tehran complacent, so it had to go.

But what organization was a good boy and doesn't deserve a piece of coal from Uncle Sam? SWIFT was. The banking communications organization caved in to Washington and cut off Iranians from its system, so it has a place in the bright new world of US leadership.

Watch Murad Gazdiev's report about Pompeo's "new liberal order" to find out more.

[Dec 09, 2018] Pompeo is a Deep State Israel-firster with a nasty neocon agenda

Trump lost control of foreign policy, when he appointed Pompeo. US voters might elect Hillary with the same effect on foreign policy as Pompeo.
Notable quotes:
"... It is to Trump's disgrace that he chose Pompeo and the abominable Bolton. At least Trump admits the ME invasions are really about Israel. ..."
"... Energy dominance, lebensraum for Israel and destroying the current Iran are all objectives that fit into one neat package. Those plans look to be coming apart at the moment so it remains to be seen how fanatical Trump is on Israel and MAGA. MAGA as US was at the collapse of the Soviet Union. ..."
"... As for pulling out of the Middle East Bibi must have had a good laugh. Remember when he said he wanted out of Syria. My money is on the US to be in Yemen before too long to protect them from the Saudis (humanitarian) and Iranian backed Houthis, while in reality it will be to secure the enormous oil fields in the North. ..."
"... The importance of oil is not to supply US markets its to deny it to enemies and control oil prices in order to feed international finance/IMF. ..."
Nov 30, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

jim slim | Nov 29, 2018 4:04:44 AM | 24

Pompeo is a Deep State Israel-firster with a nasty neocon agenda. It is to Trump's disgrace that he chose Pompeo and the abominable Bolton. At least Trump admits the ME invasions are really about Israel.

Peter AU 1 , Nov 28, 2018 9:44:50 PM | link

Pompeo is a Deep State Israel-firster with a nasty neocon agenda. It is to Trump's disgrace that he chose Pompeo and the abominable Bolton. At least Trump admits the ME invasions are really about Israel.

Trump, Israel and the Sawdi's. US no longer needs middle east oil for strategic supply. Trump is doing away with the petro-dollar as that scam has run its course and maintenance is higher than returns. Saudi and other middle east oil is required for global energy dominance.

Energy dominance, lebensraum for Israel and destroying the current Iran are all objectives that fit into one neat package. Those plans look to be coming apart at the moment so it remains to be seen how fanatical Trump is on Israel and MAGA. MAGA as US was at the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Pft , Nov 29, 2018 1:15:05 AM | link

As for pulling out of the Middle East Bibi must have had a good laugh. Remember when he said he wanted out of Syria. My money is on the US to be in Yemen before too long to protect them from the Saudis (humanitarian) and Iranian backed Houthis, while in reality it will be to secure the enormous oil fields in the North.

Perhaps this was what the Khashoggi trap was all about. The importance of oil is not to supply US markets its to deny it to enemies and control oil prices in order to feed international finance/IMF.

[Dec 05, 2018] The Ignorant and the Arrogant How Pompeo and Bolton Bring Us Closer to War in the Middle East

Dec 05, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

Armed conflict between the US and Iran is becoming more probable by the day as super-hawks replace hawks in the Trump administration. The new National Security Adviser, John Bolton, has called for the US to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal of 2015 and advocated immediate regime change in Tehran. The new Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, has said the agreement, which Trump may withdraw from on 12 May, is "a disaster". Trump has told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that he will not accept a deal with "cosmetic changes" as advocated by European states, according to Israeli reporters. If this is so, then the deal is effectively dead.

... ... ...

The new line-up in Washington is being described as "a war cabinet" and it may turn out to be just that. But looking at ignorant, arrogant men like Bolton and Pompeo, it is difficult to avoid the feeling that it will all end in disaster.

[Dec 01, 2018] In a separate interview, a retired four-star general, who has advised the Bush and Obama Administrations on national-security issues, said that he had been privately briefed in 2005 about the training of Iranians associated with the M.E.K. in Nevada

Dec 01, 2018 | discussion.theguardian.com

RobGehrke -> MonaHol , 30 Aug 2012 06:12

"What do you mean by claiming Hersh "cozys up" to MIC ppl? And what would be a specific example of a story he broke after doing that?"

Our Men in Iran?

"We did train them here, and washed them through the Energy Department because the D.O.E. owns all this land in southern Nevada," a former senior American intelligence official told me. ... In a separate interview, a retired four-star general, who has advised the Bush and Obama Administrations on national-security issues, said that he had been privately briefed in 2005 about the training of Iranians associated with the M.E.K. in Nevada

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/04/mek.html

His conversations with Lieutenant Calley are apparently what allowed him to break the My Lai massacre story as well, even though members of the military had already spoken out about it, and there had been already been charges brought. It just revealed the story to the general public, which prompted a fuller investigation and courts martial. I'm sure there are others.

So, obviously Hersh's "cozying up" (surely not the right term for it, though) is in the interests of raising public awareness of nefarious deeds, and is not scared of painting these organizations in a bad light, whereas Mazzetti's goal here seems to be to maintain his privileged access by providing favors - totally different motivations. It's rather easy to contrast the two, which "smartypants54" has even stated here.

Whatever the case, it's true that elements of the NYT have been mouthpieces more or less for government and corporate power for a long time. While I agree with Glenn about the faux cynicism perpetuating this kind of activity - "don't be naive, this is done all the time" - I can understand that it exists.

Such cynicism on the part of the public, rather than being an acknowledgment of acceptance and approval of such practices, can also be seen as part of a more radical critique of the corporate media in general, and the NYT particularly, in that such organizations - not that I totally agree with this - , by their very nature, can't be reformed and can never be totally effective checks on power because of the way they're structured, and who they answer to.

That's definitely not a reason to stop pointing it out, though.

[Nov 30, 2018] Pompeo's Perverse Yemen Rhetoric by Daniel Larison

Notable quotes:
"... The Senate didn't go for Pompeo and Mattis' sales pitch for the war on Yemen on Wednesday. That's because it was filled with dishonest nonsense ..."
"... The absurdity of Pompeo's position becomes clear when we remember that Yemen would not be suffering from the world's worst humanitarian crisis were it not for the Saudi coalition's intervention, blockade, and interference in Yemen's economy. ..."
Nov 30, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

The Senate didn't go for Pompeo and Mattis' sales pitch for the war on Yemen on Wednesday. That's because it was filled with dishonest nonsense like this:

Secretary Pompeo

* @SecPompeo

Iran's regime has no interest in easing Yemeni suffering; the
mullahs don't even care for ordinary Iranians. Saudi Arabia has
invested billions to relieve suffering in #Yemen. Iran has
invested zero.

C10.8K 11:02 AM-Nov 28, 2018 в

The truth is that Saudi Arabia and the UAE have used their donations as another weapon of war while doing everything in their power to worsen the humanitarian crisis that their policies created. Saudi "aid" efforts have been denounced by humanitarian organizations as a "war tactic," and the Saudi government has used its donations to buy good publicity from aid agencies and silence criticism. The "investments" that the Saudi coalition governments have made are little more than poorly-concealed bribes to relieve international pressure, and these same governments have used their donations as leverage to blackmail the U.N. in the past.

The absurdity of Pompeo's position becomes clear when we remember that Yemen would not be suffering from the world's worst humanitarian crisis were it not for the Saudi coalition's intervention, blockade, and interference in Yemen's economy. The governments responsible for causing the displacement of millions of people and creating famine conditions potentially affecting up to 14 million do not merit praise for throwing a little money at the catastrophe they have unleashed. Iran's interest in assisting suffering Yemenis or lack thereof is truly beside the point when it is the Saudi coalition backed by the U.S. that has caused so much of that suffering. War criminals do not get credit when they throw some cash at the wreckage of the country they have destroyed, and Pompeo's attempt to give Saudi Arabia credit for "relieving" suffering in Yemen is as perverse and disgusting as it gets.

about:blank

TomG November 30, 2018 at 11:07 am

If only Pompeo could taste the excrement coming out of his mouth. May he go to Yemen and live off the great Saudi relief.

Daniel Larison for Secretary of State!

Sid Finster , says: November 30, 2018 at 12:23 pm
Bravo, TomG!

TomG for Senate Foreign Relations Committee or something!

Taras 77 , says: November 30, 2018 at 1:21 pm
Pompeo's statements about saudi support is absolutely astonishing in a very bad way.

Does he actually believe such nonsense? Is he being fed these gross distortions of reality by his Iran working group led by Hook?

At some point,these lies go beyond the absurd, they go beyond propaganda, they become for the world to see a war monger's mantra and justification for an attack on Iran.

Pompeo and bolton have gained world wide recognition as being mindless war mongers with much power but to continue with absurd twisting of facts on the ground really does this country a huge disservice-meanwhile the population in yemen starve.

Where is the justice, where is the humanity amongst these lies?

[Nov 21, 2018] Who Says Economic Sanctions Work by Scott Ritter

Looks like the recent oil price drop was engineered like in 2014 by the USA adminsitration...
" Concerns that strict sanctioning of Iranian oil would result in a spike in global oil prices prompted Trump to grant waivers to eight of Iran's largest purchasers of oil, creating a situation where Iran's oil-based income will increase following the implementation of sanctions. The bottom line is that the current round of U.S. sanctions targeting Iran will not achieve anything. "
Notable quotes:
"... With Iran, the issue of nuclear non-proliferation was an additional justification for sanctions. Here, disarmament concerns eventually trumped regime change desires, to the extent that when the U.S. was confronted by the reality that sanctions would not achieve the change in behavior desired by Tehran, and the cost of war with Iran being prohibitively high, both politically and militarily, it capitulated. It agreed to lift the sanctions in exchange for Iran agreeing to enhanced monitoring of a nuclear program that was fundamentally unaltered by the resulting agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Program of Action, or JCPOA. ..."
"... When Trump withdrew from the JCPOA, he did so in an environment that was radically different than the one that was in play when President Barack Obama embraced that agreement in July 2015. Today, the U.S. stands alone in implementing sanctions, while Iran enjoys the support of the rest of the world (support that will continue so long as Iran complies with the provisions set forth in the JCPOA.) Moreover, Iran is working with its new-found partners in Europe, Russia, and China to develop work-arounds to the U.S. sanctions. ..."
"... The coalition of support that the U.S. has assembled to confront Iran, built around Israel and Saudi Arabia, is not as solid as had been hoped -- Israel is tied down in Gaza, while Saudi Arabia struggles in Yemen, and is reeling from the fallout surrounding the murder of Jamal Khashoggi ..."
Nov 21, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
The imposition of new, more stringent sanctions targeting Iranian oil sales by the Trump administration has once again raised the question: is this even a viable policy?

The Council on Foreign Relations defines sanctions as "a lower-cost, lower-risk, middle course of action between diplomacy and war." In short, sanctions do not represent policy per se, but rather the absence of policy, little more than a stop-gap measure to be used while other options are considered and/or developed.

Not surprising, sanctions have rarely -- if ever -- succeeded in obtaining their desired results. The poster child for successful sanctions as a vehicle for change -- divestment in South Africa during the 1980s in opposition to the Apartheid regime -- is in reality a red herring. The South Africa sanctions were in fact counterproductive , in so far as they prompted even harsher policies from the South African government. The demise of Apartheid came about largely because the Soviet Union collapsed, meaning the South African government was no longer needed in the fight against communism.

Another myth that has arisen around sanctions is their utility in addressing nonproliferation issues. Since 1994, the U.S. has promulgated non-proliferation sanctions under the guise of executive orders signed by the president or statutes passed by Congress. But there is no evidence that sanctions implemented under these authorities have meaningfully altered the behaviors that they target. Better known are the various sanctions regimes authorized under UN Security Council resolutions backed by the United States, specifically those targeting Iraq, North Korea, and Iran.

The Iraq sanctions were, by intent, a stop-gap measure implemented four days after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and intended to buy time until a military response could be authorized, organized, and executed. The nature of the Iraq sanctions regime was fundamentally altered after Operation Desert Storm, when the objective transitioned away from the liberation of Kuwait, which was achieved by force of arms, to the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, which was never the intent of the sanctions to begin with. The potential for sanctions to alter Iraqi behavior was real -- Iraq had made the lifting of sanctions its top priority, and thanks to aggressive UN weapons inspections, was effectively disarmed by 1995.

This potential, however, was never realized in large part to the unspoken yet very real policy on part of the U.S. that sanctions would not be lifted on Iraq, regardless of its level of disarmament, until which time its president, Saddam Hussein, was removed from power. Since the sanctions were not designed, intended, or capable of achieving regime change, their very existence became a policy trap -- as the sanctions crumbled due to a lack of support and enforcement, the U.S. was compelled to either back away from its regime change policy, which was politically impossible, or seek regime change through military engagement. In short, American sanctions policy vis-à-vis Iraq was one of the major causal factors behind the 2003 decision to invade Iraq.

One of the flawed lessons that emerged from the Iraq sanctions experience was that sanctions could contribute to regime change, in so far as they weakened the targeted nation to the point that a military option became attractive. This is a fundamentally flawed conclusion, however, predicated on the mistaken belief that Iraq's military weakness was the direct byproduct of sanctions. Iraq's military weakness was because its military had been effectively destroyed during the 1991 Gulf War. Sanctions contributed significantly to Iraq being unable to reconstitute a meaningful military capability, but they were not the cause of the underlying systemic problems that led to the rapid defeat of the Iraqi military in 2003.

The "success" of the Iraq sanctions regime helped guide U.S. policy regarding North Korea in the 1990s and 2000s. Stringent sanctions, backed by Security Council resolutions, were implemented to curtail North Korea's development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missile delivery systems. Simple cause-effect analysis shows the impotence of this effort -- North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile capability continued unabated, culminating in nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching U.S. soil being tested and deployed. The notion that sanctions could undermine the legitimacy of the North Korean regime and facilitate its collapse was not matched by reality. If anything, support for the regime grew as it demonstrated its willingness to stand up to the U.S. and proceed with its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs.

The Victims of Iran Sanctions Iran Deserves Credit for the Ruin of ISIS

The Trump administration labors under the fiction that it was the U.S. policy of "maximum pressure" through sanctions that compelled North Korea to agree to denuclearization. The reality, however, is that it is North Korea, backed by China and Russia, that has dictated the timing of the diplomatic breakthrough with the U.S. ( the so-called "Peace Olympics" ), and the pace of associated disarmament. Moreover, North Korea's insistence that any denuclearization be conducted parallel to the lifting of economic sanctions demonstrates that it is in full control of its policy, and that the promise of the lifting of economic sanctions has not, to date, prompted any change in Pyongyang's stance. While President Donald Trump maintains that the U.S. will not budge from its position that sanctions will remain in place until North Korea disarms, the fact of the matter is that the sanctions regime is already collapsing, with China opening its border, Russia selling gasoline and oil, and South Korea engaged in discussions about potential unification.

The U.S. has lost control of the process, if indeed it was ever in control. It is doubtful that the rest of the world will allow the progress made to date with North Korea to be undone, leaving the U.S. increasingly isolated. Insisting on the maintenance of a sanctions regime that has proven ineffective and counterproductive is not sustainable policy. As with Iraq, U.S. sanctions have proven to be the problem, not the solution. Unlike Iraq, North Korea maintains a robust military capability, fundamentally altering the stakes involved in any military solution the U.S. might consider as an alternative -- in short, there is no military solution. One can expect the U.S. to alter its position on sanctions before North Korea budges on denuclearization.

Iran represents a far more complex, and dangerous, problem set. The United States has maintained sanctions against Iran that date back to the 1979 Iranian Revolution that overthrew the Shah, and the seizure of the U.S. embassy and resultant holding of its staff hostage for 444 days. The U.S. policy vis-à-vis Iran has been one where the demise of the ruling theocracy has been a real, if unstated, objective, and every sanctions regime implemented since that time has had that outcome in mind. This is the reverse of the Iraqi case, where regime change was an afterthought to sanctions. With Iran, the issue of nuclear non-proliferation was an additional justification for sanctions. Here, disarmament concerns eventually trumped regime change desires, to the extent that when the U.S. was confronted by the reality that sanctions would not achieve the change in behavior desired by Tehran, and the cost of war with Iran being prohibitively high, both politically and militarily, it capitulated. It agreed to lift the sanctions in exchange for Iran agreeing to enhanced monitoring of a nuclear program that was fundamentally unaltered by the resulting agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Program of Action, or JCPOA.

When Trump withdrew from the JCPOA, he did so in an environment that was radically different than the one that was in play when President Barack Obama embraced that agreement in July 2015. Today, the U.S. stands alone in implementing sanctions, while Iran enjoys the support of the rest of the world (support that will continue so long as Iran complies with the provisions set forth in the JCPOA.) Moreover, Iran is working with its new-found partners in Europe, Russia, and China to develop work-arounds to the U.S. sanctions.

The coalition of support that the U.S. has assembled to confront Iran, built around Israel and Saudi Arabia, is not as solid as had been hoped -- Israel is tied down in Gaza, while Saudi Arabia struggles in Yemen, and is reeling from the fallout surrounding the murder of Jamal Khashoggi .

Concerns that strict sanctioning of Iranian oil would result in a spike in global oil prices prompted Trump to grant waivers to eight of Iran's largest purchasers of oil, creating a situation where Iran's oil-based income will increase following the implementation of sanctions. The bottom line is that the current round of U.S. sanctions targeting Iran will not achieve anything.

For the meantime, Iran will avoid confrontation, operating on the hope that it will be able to cobble an effective counter to U.S. sanctions. However, unlike Iraq, Iran has a very capable military. Unlike Korea, however, this military is not equipped with a nuclear deterrent.

If history has taught us anything, it is that the U.S. tends to default to military intervention when sanctions have failed to achieve the policy goal of regime change. Trump, operating as he is under the influence of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Advisor John Bolton, is not immune to this trap. The question is whether Iran can defeat the sanctions through workarounds before they become too crippling and the regime is forced to lash out in its own defense. This is one race where the world would do well to bet on Iran, because the consequences of failure are dire.

Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of Dealbreaker: Donald Trump and the Unmaking of the Iran Nuclear Deal (2018) by Clarity Press.

[Nov 15, 2018] Bolton's Met His Match Melania! - Antiwar.com Original

Nov 15, 2018 | original.antiwar.com

Bolton's Met His Match – Melania!

by Justin Raimondo Posted on November 15, 2018 November 14, 2018 We don't really hear all that much about Melania Trump in the media except occasional digs at her immigration status and a few daring photos. That's because the FLOTUS is one of the few unreservedly good things about this administration, and of course the media doesn't want to go there. Her grace, her reserve, her remarkable calm at the epicenter of a tumultuous White House, and, strikingly, her sense of style (and I don't just mean her clothes) puts her on a different plane from the Washington circus that surrounds her.

She had managed to keep her distance from the cutthroat politics of the Beltway, that is, until her collision with Mira Ricardel, National Security Advisor John Bolton's top aide and enforcer. Ricardel apparently disparaged the First Lady to other members of the White House staff, and tried to withhold resources from her on her recent trip to Africa. Whatever personal interactions of an unpleasant nature may have passed between these women, it's hard to imagine what provoked the office of the FLOTUS to issue the following statement :

"It is the position of the Office of the First Lady that she no longer deserves the honor of serving in this White House."

Ricardel is described by those who know her as abrasive, a bureaucratic in-fighter, and one "who doesn't suffer fools lightly." Having mistaken the First Lady for a fool, Ms. Ricardel is the one who will suffer – along with Bolton, who has protected her since her appointment from a chorus of critics, but who cannot stand against Melania.

So Team Bolton is on the outs, which means the America Firsters within the administration who oppose our foreign policy of globalism and perpetual war are on the rise. Which leads us to contemplate the meaning of this incident. The War Party's ranks are not filled with Mr. Nice Guys. They are nearly all of them pushy self-serving aggressive SOBs, with about as much personal charm as a rattlesnake.

I'm reminded of an essay by the conservative philosopher Claes Ryn, professor of politics at Catholic University, in which he describes the obnoxious behavior of the children of our political class in a local MacDonald's just inside one of the Beltway's more prestigious neighborhoods:

"Deference to grown-ups seems unknown. I used to take offense, but the children have only taken their cue from their parents, who took their cue from their parents. The adults, for their part, talk in loud, penetrating voices, some on cell phones, as if no other conversations mattered. The scene exudes self-absorption and lack of self-discipline.

"Yes, this picture has everything to do with U.S. foreign policy. This is the emerging American ruling class, which is made up increasingly of persons used to having the world cater to them. If others challenge their will, they throw a temper tantrum. Call this the imperialistic personality – if 'spoilt brat' sounds too crude."

The Imperialistic Personality, indeed! It seems Ms. Ricardel had one too many temper tantrums so that even in the permissive atmosphere of Washington, D.C., it was too much. There are a lot of imperialistic personalities in that particular location, it seems, for one reason or another. But things are different in Donald Trump's Washington, and even if we have to take down the Ricardels one by one, just think of the numbers we can rack up in the next six years.

A NOTE TO MY READERS : My apologies for the short column: I have some medical issues to take care off this week and I'm a bit pressed for time.

NOTES IN THE MARGIN

You can check out my Twitter feed by going here . But please note that my tweets are sometimes deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out loud.

I've written a couple of books, which you might want to peruse. Here is the link for buying the second edition of my 1993 book, Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement , with an Introduction by Prof. George W. Carey , a Foreword by Patrick J. Buchanan, and critical essays by Scott Richert and David Gordon ( ISI Books , 2008).

You can buy An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard (Prometheus Books, 2000), my biography of the great libertarian thinker, here .

[Nov 14, 2018] Bolton Vows to 'Squeeze' Iran, Escalating Sanctions - News From by Jason Ditz

If this is Trump policy, then Trump is 100% pure neocon. It took just three months for the Deep state to turn him.
Notable quotes:
"... Bolton shrugged off the reality that Iran is still doing business internationally, saying that he believes Iran is "under real pressure" from the sanctions, and that he's determined to see it keep getting worse. ..."
Nov 13, 2018 | news.antiwar.com

Says Europe will be forced to accept US demands

With the newly reimposed US sanctions against Iran having little to no perceivable economic impact, national security adviser John Bolton is talking up his plans to continue to escalate the sanctions track, saying he will " squeeze Iran until the pips squeak ."

Bolton shrugged off the reality that Iran is still doing business internationally, saying that he believes Iran is "under real pressure" from the sanctions, and that he's determined to see it keep getting worse.

Bolton went on to predict that the European efforts to keep trading with Iran would ultimately fail. He said the Europeans are going through the six stages of grief , and would ultimately led to European acceptance of the US demands.

Either way, Bolton's position is that the US strategy will continue to be imposing new sanctions on Iran going forward. It's not clear what the end game is, beyond just damaging Iran.

[Nov 12, 2018] Bolton's Favorite Deranged Cult

Notable quotes:
"... You can always tell just how deep our understanding is of a country by the opposition we choose to support. ..."
Nov 12, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Sid Finster November 9, 2018 at 10:07 am

Sort of like how Bolton and his merry band of neocons seized upon Ahmad Chalabi and his merry men as some sort of Authentic Voice of Resistance to teh Evil Saddam. Does anyone else remember that?

Bolton et al. know better. As long as this gets them the regime change that they and their owners in Jerusalem and Riyadh demand, they do not care.

rayray , says: November 9, 2018 at 11:07 am
You can always tell just how deep our understanding is of a country by the opposition we choose to support.

As @Sid Finster pointed out, the fraudulent Chalabi was a good bellwether of our true understanding of Iraq, and the MEK shows just how equally deep we understand Iran.

SDS , says: November 9, 2018 at 11:13 am
Can't say if Bolton is just a nut; but Giuliani, et. al are probably just being paid; like any other prostitute. IF the $$ stop; they will then say "who knew?" .
AS with Trump; S.A. would have no problem paying enough for them to perform any act demanded.
b. , says: November 9, 2018 at 12:14 pm
So Obama sees a "Responsibility to Protect" MEK war criminals and the business interests of Dean, Bolton, Guiliani et.al, but is perfectly happy to let the Saudis "cross the blood red line" for years to save himself some headaches on JCOPA – an "agreement" that was not worth the paper it was written on without Congress actually binding itself by ratification.

But his minions did consider designating the Houthi "terrorists".

The intended Clinton-Obama "transition" had all the marks of a protection racket, all governance transient and passing and resting on the edifice of unconstitutionally expansive claims of executive power.

Clyde Schechter , says: November 9, 2018 at 5:23 pm
" Whatever else it may claim to be, the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK) is still a deranged totalitarian cult steeped in the blood of many innocent people. "

So true. So, why, Mr. Larison, are you perplexed by the fact that deranged totalitarians like Bolton support MEK?

Sid Finster , says: November 9, 2018 at 5:38 pm
@rayray, thank you for the kind words, but my position is more accurately stated as follows:

I suspect that in 2003, Bolton knew and knew full well that Chalabi was an opportunist at best. A fraudster, a monster, a sociopath, delusional, to put it more bluntly. That his support in Iraq was nil, and that Chalabi would be rejected immediately and rightfully, as an American puppet. Bolton may even have known that Chalabi was in the pay of Iran.

Like the MEK now, as long Bolton gets the war he so craves, he doesn't care about any of that.

[Nov 11, 2018] Trump's Iran Policy Cannot Succeed Without Allies The National Interest by James Clapper & Thomas Pickering

Highly recommended!
It's interesting that Clapper is against abandoned by Trump Iran deal.
Tramp administration is acting more like Israeli marionette here, because while there a strategic advantage in crushing the Iranian regime for the USA and making a county another Us vassal in the middle East, the cost for the country might be way to high (especially if we count in the cost of additional antagonizing Russia and China). Trump might jump into the second Afghanistan, which would really brake the back of US military -- crushing Iran military is one thing, but occupying such a county is a very costly task. And that might well doom Israel in the long run as settlers policies now created really antagonized, unrecognizable minority with a high birth rate.
Vanishing one-by-one of partners are given due to collapse of neoliberalism as an ideology. Nobody believes that neoliberalism is the future, like many believed in 80th and early 90th. This looks more and more like a repetion of the path of the USSR after 1945, when communist ideology was discredited and communist elite slowly fossilized. In 46 years from its victory in WWII the USSR was dissolved. The same might happen with the USA in 50 years after winning the Cold War.
Notable quotes:
"... a vanishing one by one of American partners who were previously supportive of U.S. leadership in curbing Iran, particularly its nuclear program. ..."
"... The United States risks losing the cooperation of historic and proven allies in the pursuit of other U.S. national security interests around the world, far beyond Iran. ..."
Nov 09, 2018 | nationalinterest.org

Only well calibrated multilateral political, economic and diplomatic pressure brought to bear on Iran with many and diverse partners will produce the results we seek.

"Then there were none" was Agatha Christie's most memorable mystery about a house party in which each guest was killed off one by one. Donald Trump's policy toward Iran has resulted in much the same: a vanishing one by one of American partners who were previously supportive of U.S. leadership in curbing Iran, particularly its nuclear program.

Dozens of states, painstakingly cultivated over decades of American leadership in blocking Iran's nuclear capability, are now simply gone. One of America's three remaining allies on these issues, Saudi Arabia, has become a central player in American strategy throughout the Middle East region. But the Saudis, because of the Jamal Khashoggi killing and other reasons, may have cut itself out of the action. The United Arab Emirates, so close to the Saudis, may also fall away.

Such paucity of international support has left the Trump administration dangerously isolated. "America First" should not mean America alone. The United States risks losing the cooperation of historic and proven allies in the pursuit of other U.S. national security interests around the world, far beyond Iran.

... ... ...

European allies share many of our concerns about Iran's regional activities, but they strongly oppose U.S. reinstitution of secondary sanctions against them. They see the Trump administration's new sanctions as a violation of the nuclear agreement and UN Security Council resolutions and as undermining efforts to influence Iranian behavior. The new sanctions and those applied on November 5 only sap European interest in cooperating to stop Iran.

... ... ...

The United States cannot provoke regime change in Iran any more than it has successfully in other nations in the region. And, drawing on strategies used to topple governments in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States should be wary of launching or trying to spur a military invasion of Iran.

Lt. Gen. James Clapper (USAF, ret.) is the former Director of National Intelligence. Thomas R. Pickering is a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Russia and India.

[Nov 07, 2018] Why oil prices fall when Iran production also falls?

That suggest oil price manipilation...
The event remind preparation to Iraq war.
Also if administration really wants war, Iran is not Ieaq and will fight more efficiently, while the US army despite technological supreiority is demoralized. nobody believe into the the building of global neoliberal empire any longer.
Notable quotes:
"... The administration's policy seems sure to fail on its own terms, and it is also the wrong thing to do. ..."
"... If a foreign power waged an economic war against your country, would you be likely to respond to that foreign coercion by effectively taking their side against your own government? Of course not. The idea that Iranians will do the work of their country's enemies by rising up and toppling the regime has always been far-fetched, but it is particularly absurd to think that Iranians would do this after they have just seen their economy be destroyed by the actions of a foreign government. ..."
"... People normally do not respond to economic hardship and diminishing prospects by risking their lives by starting a rebellion against the state. ..."
"... Making Iranians poorer and more miserable isn't going to encourage them to be more politically active, much less rebellious, but will instead force them to focus on getting by. That is likely to depress turnout at future elections, and that is more likely to be good news for hard-line candidates in the years to come. ..."
"... Iran hawks typically don't understand the country that they obsess over, so perhaps it is not surprising that they haven't thought any of this through, but their most glaring failure is not taking into account the importance of nationalism. ..."
Nov 07, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Originally from: The Futility of Trump's Iran Policy By Daniel Larison November 6, 2018, 10:54 AM • The administration's policy seems sure to fail on its own terms, and it is also the wrong thing to do.

The Trump administration's plan to throttle the Iranian economy is as poorly-conceived as it is cruel:

"For ordinary people, sanctions mean unemployment, sanctions mean becoming poor, sanctions mean the scarcity of medicine, the rising price of dollar," said Akbar Shamsodini, an Iranian businessman in the oil and gas sector who lost his job six months ago as European companies started to pull out of Iran in fear of US sanctions.

" By imposing these sanctions, they want to force Iranians to rise up in revolt against their government but in practice, they will only make them flee their country [bold mine-DL]," he said, adding that ironically it would be Europe that would have to bear the burden of such a mass migration.

"We're being squashed here as an Iranian youth who studied here, worked here, the only thing I'm thinking about now is how to flee my country and go to Europe."

If a foreign power waged an economic war against your country, would you be likely to respond to that foreign coercion by effectively taking their side against your own government? Of course not. The idea that Iranians will do the work of their country's enemies by rising up and toppling the regime has always been far-fetched, but it is particularly absurd to think that Iranians would do this after they have just seen their economy be destroyed by the actions of a foreign government.

People normally do not respond to economic hardship and diminishing prospects by risking their lives by starting a rebellion against the state. As Mr. Shamsodini says above, it is much more likely that they will leave to find a way to make a living elsewhere. All that strangling Iran's economy will manage to do is push young and ambitious Iranians to go abroad while inflicting cruel collective punishment on everyone that remains behind. Making Iranians poorer and more miserable isn't going to encourage them to be more politically active, much less rebellious, but will instead force them to focus on getting by. That is likely to depress turnout at future elections, and that is more likely to be good news for hard-line candidates in the years to come.

Iran hawks typically don't understand the country that they obsess over, so perhaps it is not surprising that they haven't thought any of this through, but their most glaring failure is not taking into account the importance of nationalism. When a foreign power tries dictating terms to another nation on pain of economic punishment, this is bound to provoke resentment and resistance. Like any other self-respecting nation, Iranians aren't going to accept being told what to do by a foreign government, and they are much more likely to band together in solidarity rather than start an uprising against their own government. The stronger the nationalist tradition there is in a country, the more likely it is that the reaction to foreign threats will be one of defiance and unity. It simply makes no sense to think that the U.S. can pressure a proud nation to capitulate like this.

The administration's policy seems sure to fail on its own terms, and it is also the wrong thing to do. President Washington exhorted his countrymen in his Farewell Address : "Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all." The administration's Iran policy represents the total rejection of that advice. If the U.S. followed Washington's recommendations, it would not be abrogating an agreement that it had just negotiated a few years earlier, and it would not be punishing an entire country for the wrongs of a few. Instead, the U.S. would have built on the success of the earlier negotiations and would have sought to reestablish normal relations with them.

Sid Finster November 6, 2018 at 11:56 am

The Administration's Iran policy is identical to the Iraq policy from 1990 – 2003, in that is it is designed to provide an excuse for a war.

[Nov 06, 2018] The economic sanctions on Iran will be much tighter, beyond what they were, before the nuclear agreement was signed. "Hit them in their pockets", Netanyahu advised Trump: "if you hit them in their pockets, they will choke; and when they choke, they will throw out the ayatollahs"".

Nov 06, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

mauisurfer , Nov 5, 2018 1:07:05 PM | link

Alastair Crooke (former UK dip and MI6) knows more about ME than any other white man. He describes how Jared Kushner became Trump's stovepipe of disinformation on behalf of Netanyahu and MBS.

The economic sanctions on Iran will be much tighter, beyond what they were, before the nuclear agreement was signed. "Hit them in their pockets", Netanyahu advised Trump: "if you hit them in their pockets, they will choke; and when they choke, they will throw out the ayatollahs"".

This was another bit of 'stovepiped' advice passed directly to the US President. His officials might have warned him that it was fantasy. There is no example of sanctions alone having toppled a state; and whilst the US can use its claim of judicial hegemony as an enforcement mechanism, the US has effectively isolated itself in sanctioning Iran: Europe wants no further insecurity. It wants no more refugees heading to Europe.

real full article here

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/11/05/unraveling-netanyahu-project-for-middle-east.html

[Nov 05, 2018] Will US Sanctions Sway Iran to Enter Oil Deal with Russia

Nov 05, 2018 | russia-insider.com

However, the primary problem would not even be the doubtful profitability, but rather logistics. Iran's oil fields are in the south. To reach Russia, the oil would have to make its way to Caspian ports in the north. Iran has no main pipelines connecting its southern oil fields with northern ports. These ports do have the infrastructure for oil, but they were built to receive oil from swap deals with Kazakhstan, Russia and Azerbaijan. They were never meant to export oil.

Consequently, before any exports could begin, Moscow and Tehran would have to invest in creating the necessary storage and loading infrastructure at the Iranian ports. Iran would also need to upgrade its transport infrastructure to deliver oil from the south to the Caspian seashore -- that would also present a challenge.

Finally, Russia and Iran would have to substantially increase their tanker fleets in the landlocked Caspian Sea to exchange large quantities of oil, as the local geography does not allow for the use of large tankers. In this situation, a planned railroad connection between Russia and Iran via Azerbaijan could increase the volume of oil moved from Iran to Russia, but this project has not been completed.

Under these circumstances, Russian officials are demonstrating far greater interest in resuming the so-called oil-for-products program, under which Russia would broker Iranian oil abroad in exchange for Iran buying Russian industrial machinery and providing investment opportunities to Moscow.

Russia and Iran have discussed an oil-for-products initiative for years. Initially, it was supposed to help Tehran evade the oil trade embargo imposed by the United States, European Union (EU) and their partners. When those sanctions were lifted as part of the 2015 nuclear deal, the initiative was expected to compensate for Iran's lack of financial reserves, which kept Tehran from paying for imports of Russian equipment in hard currency. However, after US President Donald Trump withdrew from the deal in 2018 and began reimposing sanctions, the oil-for-products deal again gained importance as a way to evade sanctions.

In November 2017, Moscow received 1 million barrels from Iran as payment for railroad equipment imported from Russia, and arrangements were in the works for Russia to buy an additional 5 million tons of oil in 2018. Indeed, in January and February there were reports of some oil dispatches transferred from Iran to Russian companies. Yet, by March, they stopped . Moscow still plans to revive the deal in 2019, though it might never happen.

On the one hand, Russia has had problems finding buyers for Iranian oil. Concerned about the US sanctions, potential clients refused to purchase it. On the other hand, Iran's main hopes for sanctions relief are more connected to the EU than Russia. There is a strong belief in Tehran that Europeans will be able to offset the negative influence of US economic pressure on Iran. The EU wants to salvage as much of the nuclear deal as possible. Yet the strength of Tehran's belief is hard to explain: Large EU companies have already pulled out of Iran. The EU officials Al-Monitor interviewed openly said that Tehran should not expect a lot from Brussels.

Though Russian and Iranian officials have an on-again, off-again marriage of convenience, Iran's general public and its elite strongly oppose any substantial deals with Moscow. Russia is not trusted or welcomed by Iranians and the countries have a long history of differences . A well-informed and respected Iranian expert on Tehran's foreign policy told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity that a Russian oil-for-products initiative would be difficult to implement.

"A large part of Iranian society believes that giving our oil to Russia -- especially at the discounted prices -- is no better than agreeing to Trump's demands," he said.

[Nov 05, 2018] New Iran Sanctions Risk Long-Term US Isolation

Nov 05, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Patrick Lawrence via ConsortiumNews.com,

The U.S. is going for the jugular with new Iran sanctions intended to punish those who trade with Teheran. But the U.S. may have a fight on its hands in a possible post- WWII turning-point...

The next step in the Trump administration's "maximum pressure" campaign against Iran has begun, with the most severe sanctions being re-imposed on the Islamic Republic. Crucially, they apply not only to Iran but to anyone who continues to do business with it.

It's not yet clear how disruptive this move will be. While the U.S. intention is to isolate Iran, it is the U.S. that could wind up being more isolated. It depends on the rest of the world's reaction, and especially Europe's.

The issue is so fraught that disputes over how to apply the new sanctions have even divided Trump administration officials.

The administration is going for the jugular this time. It wants to force Iranian exports of oil and petrochemical products down to as close to zero as possible. As the measures are now written, they also exclude Iran from the global interbank system known as SWIFT.

It is hard to say which of these sanctions is more severe. Iran's oil exports have already started falling. They peaked at 2.7 million barrels a day last May -- just before Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out of the six-nation accord governing Iran's nuclear programs. By early September oil exports were averaging a million barrels a day less .

In August the U.S. barred Iran's purchases of U.S.-dollar denominated American and foreign company aircraft and auto parts. Since then the Iranian rial has crashed to record lows and inflation has risen above 30 percent.

Revoking Iran's SWIFT privileges will effectively cut the nation out of the dollar-denominated global economy. But there are moves afoot, especially by China and Russia, to move away from a dollar-based economy.

The SWIFT issue has caused i nfighting in the administration between Treasury Secretary Mnuchin and John Bolton, Trump's national security adviser who is among the most vigorous Iran hawks in the White House. Mnuchin might win a temporary delay or exclusions for a few Iranian financial institutions, but probably not much more.

On Sunday, the second round of sanctions kicked in since Trump withdrew the U.S. from the 2015 Obama administration-backed, nuclear agreement, which lifted sanctions on Iran in exchange for stringent controls on its nuclear program. The International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly certified that the deal is working and the other signatories -- Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia have not pulled out and have resumed trading with Iran. China and Russia have already said they will ignore American threats to sanction it for continuing economic relations with Iran. The key question is what will America's European allies do?

Europeans React

Europe has been unsettled since Trump withdrew in May from the nuclear accord. The European Union is developing a trading mechanism to get around U.S. sanctions. Known as a Special Purpose Vehicle , it would allow European companies to use a barter system similar to how Western Europe traded with the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Juncker: Wants Euro-denominated trading

EU officials have also been lobbying to preserve Iran's access to global interbank operations by excluding the revocation of SWIFT privileges from Trump's list of sanctions. They count Mnuchin,who is eager to preserve U.S. influence in the global trading system, among their allies. Some European officials, including Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission, propose making the euro a global trading currency to compete with the dollar.

Except for Charles de Gaulle briefly pulling France out of NATO in 1967 and Germany and France voting on the UN Security Council against the U.S. invading Iraq in 2003, European nations have been subordinate to the U.S. since the end of the Second World War.

The big European oil companies, unwilling to risk the threat of U.S. sanctions, have already signaled they intend to ignore the EU's new trade mechanism. Total SA, the French petroleum company and one of Europe's biggest, pulled out of its Iran operations several months ago.

Earlier this month a U.S. official confidently predicted there would be little demand among European corporations for the proposed barter mechanism.

Whether Europe succeeds in efforts to defy the U.S. on Iran is nearly beside the point from a long-term perspective. Trans-Atlantic damage has already been done. A rift that began to widen during the Obama administration seems about to get wider still.

Asia Reacts

Asian nations are also exhibiting resistance to the impending U.S. sanctions. It is unlikely they could absorb all the exports Iran will lose after Nov. 4, but they could make a significant difference. China, India, and South Korea are the first, second, and third-largest importers of Iranian crude; Japan is sixth. Asian nations may also try to work around the U.S. sanctions regime after Nov. 4.

India is considering purchases of Iranian crude via a barter system or denominating transactions in rupees. China, having already said it would ignore the U.S. threat, would like nothing better than to expand yuan-denominated oil trading, and this is not a hard call: It is in a protracted trade war with the U.S., and an oil-futures market launched in Shanghai last spring already claims roughly 14 percent of the global market for "front-month" futures -- contracts covering shipments closest to delivery.

Trump: Unwittingly playing with U.S. long-term future

As with most of the Trump administration's foreign policies, we won't know how the new sanctions will work until they are introduced. There could be waivers for nations such as India; Japan is on record asking for one. The E.U.'s Special Purpose Vehicle could prove at least a modest success at best, but this remains uncertain. Nobody is sure who will win the administration's internal argument over SWIFT.

Long-term Consequences for the U.S.

The de-dollarization of the global economy is gradually gathering momentum. The orthodox wisdom in the markets has long been that competition with the dollar from other currencies will eventually prove a reality, but it will not be one to arrive in our lifetimes. But with European and Asian reactions to the imminent sanctions against Iran it could come sooner than previously thought.

The coalescing of emerging powers into a non-Western alliance -- most significantly China, Russia, India, and Iran -- starts to look like another medium-term reality. This is driven by practical rather than ideological considerations, and the U.S. could not do more to encourage this if it tried. When Washington withdrew from the Iran accord, Moscow and Beijing immediately pledged to support Tehran by staying with its terms.If the U.S. meets significant resistance, especially from its allies, it could be a turning-point in post-Word War II U.S. dominance.

Supposedly Intended for New Talks

All this is intended to force Iran back to the negotiating table for a rewrite of what Trump often calls "the worst deal ever." Tehran has made it clear countless times it has no intention of reopening the pact, given that it has consistently adhered to its terms and that the other signatories to the deal are still abiding by it.

The U.S. may be drastically overplaying its hand and could pay the price with additional international isolation that has worsened since Trump took office.

Washington has been on a sanctions binge for years. Those about to take effect seem recklessly broad. This time, the U.S. risks lasting alienation even from those allies that have traditionally been its closest.

[Oct 27, 2018] The EU Russia China Plan to Avert Iran Oil Sanctions by F. William Engdahl

Notable quotes:
"... The fact that the US dollar remains the overwhelming dominant currency for international trade and financial transactions gives Washington extraordinary power over banks and companies in the rest of the world. That's the financial equivalent of a neutron bomb. That might be about to change, though it's by no means a done deal yet. ..."
"... German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas told Handelsblatt, a leading German business daily, "Europe should not allow the U.S. to act over our heads and at our expense. For that reason, it's essential that we strengthen European autonomy by establishing payment channels that are independent of the US, creating a European Monetary Fund and building up an independent SWIFT system ." ..."
"... In addition to the recent statements from the German Foreign Minister, France is discussing expanding the Iran SPV to create a means of insulating the EU economies from illegal extraterritorial sanctions like the secondary sanctions that punish EU companies doing business in Iran by preventing them from using the dollar or doing business in the USA. ..."
"... F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook." https://journal-neo.org/2018/10/23/the-eu-russia-china-plan-to-avert-iran-oil-sanctions/ ..."
Oct 27, 2018 | journal-neo.org

It may well be that the unilateral wrecking ball politics of the Trump Administration are bringing about a result just opposite from that intended. Washington's decision to abandon the Iran nuclear agreement and impose severe sanctions on companies trading Iran oil as of 4 November, is creating new channels of cooperation between the EU, Russia, China and Iran and potentially others. The recent declaration by Brussels officials of creation of an unspecified Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) to legally avoid US dollar oil trade and thereby US sanctions, might potentially spell the beginning of the end of the Dollar System domination of the world economy.

According to reports from the last bilateral German-Iran talks in Teheran on October 17, the mechanisms of a so-called Special Purpose Vehicle that would allow Iran to continue to earn from its oil exports, will begin implementation in the next days. At end of September EU Foreign Policy chief Federica Mogherini confirmed plans to create such an independent trade channel, noting, "no sovereign country or organization can accept that somebody else decides with whom you are allowed to do trade with ."

The SPV plan is reportedly modelled on the Soviet barter system used during the cold war to avert US trade sanctions, where Iran oil would be in some manner exchanged for goods without money. The SPV agreement would reportedly involve the European Union, Iran, China and Russia.

According to various reports out of the EU the new SPV plan involves a sophisticated barter system that can avoid US Treasury sanctions. As an example, Iran could ship crude oil to a French firm, accrue credit via the SPV, much like a bank. That could then be used to pay an Italian manufacturer for goods shipped the other way, without any funds traversing through Iranian hands or the normal banking system.A multinational European state-backed financial intermediary would be set up to handle deals with companies interested in Iran transactions and with Iranian counter-parties. Any transactions would not be transparent to the US, and would involve euros and sterling rather than dollars.

It's an extraordinary response to what Washington has called a policy of all-out financial war against Iran, that includes threats to sanction European central banks and the Brussels-based SWIFT interbank payments network if they maintain ties to Iran after November 4. In the post-1945 relations between Western Europe and Washington such aggressive measures have not been seen before.It's forcing some major rethinking from leading EU policy circles.

New Banking Architecture

The background to the mysterious initiative was presented in June in a report titled, Europe, Iran and Economic Sovereignty: New Banking Architecture in Response to US Sanctions. The report was authored by Iranian economist Esfandyar Batmanghelidj and Axel Hellman, a Policy Fellow at the European Leadership Network (ELN), a London-based policy think tank .

The report proposes its new architecture should have two key elements. First it will be based on "gateway banks" designated to act as intermediaries between Iranian and EU commercial banks tied to the Special Purpose Vehicle. The second element is that it would be overseen by an EU-Office of Foreign Asset Controls or EU-OFAC, modeled on the same at the US Treasury, but used for facilitating legal EU-Iran trade, not for blocking it. Their proposed EU-OFAC among other functions would undertake creating certification mechanisms for due diligence on the companies doing such trade and "strengthen EU legal protections for entities engaged in Iran trade and investment ."

The SPV reportedly is based on this plan using designated Gateway Banks, banks in the EU unaffected by Washington "secondary sanctions," as they do not do business in the US and focus on business with Iran. They might include select state-owned German Landesbanks, certain Swiss private banks such as the Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank (EIH), a European bank established specifically to engage in trade finance with Iran. In addition, select Iran banks with offices in the EU could be brought in.

Whatever the final result, it is clear that the bellicose actions of the Trump Administration against trade with Iran is forcing major countries into cooperation that ultimately could spell the demise of the dollar hegemony that has allowed a debt-bloated US Government to finance a de facto global tyranny at the expense of others.

EU-Russia-China

During the recent UN General Assembly in New York, Federica Mogherini said the SPV was designed to facilitate payments related to Iran's exports – including oil –so long as the firms involved were carrying out legitimate business under EU law. China and Russia are also involved in the SPV. Potentially Turkey, India and other countries could later join.

Immediately, as expected, Washington has reacted. At the UN US Secretary of State and former CIA head Mike Pompeo declared to an Iran opposition meeting that he was "disturbed and indeed deeply disappointed" by the EU plan. Notably he said ""This is one of the of the most counterproductive measures imaginable for regional and global peace and security." Presumably the Washington plan for economic war against Iranis designed to foster regional and global peace and security?

Non-US SWIFT?

One of the most brutal weapons in the US Treasury financial warfare battery is the ability to force the Brussels-based SWIFT private interbank clearing system to cut Iran off from using it. That was done with devastating effect in 2012 when Washington pressured the EU to get SWIFT compliance, a grave precedent that sent alarm bells off around the world.

The fact that the US dollar remains the overwhelming dominant currency for international trade and financial transactions gives Washington extraordinary power over banks and companies in the rest of the world. That's the financial equivalent of a neutron bomb. That might be about to change, though it's by no means a done deal yet.

In 2015 China unveiled its CIPS or China International Payments System. CIPS was originally viewed as a future China-based alternative to SWIFT. It would offer clearing and settlement services for its participants in cross-border RMB payments and trade. Unfortunately, a Chinese stock market crisis forced Beijing to downscale their plans, though a skeleton of infrastructure is there.

In another area, since late 2017 Russia and China have discussed possible linking their bilateral payments systems bypassing the dollar. China's Unionpay system and Russia's domestic payment system, known as Karta Mir, would be linked directly .

More recently leading EU policy circles have echoed such ideas, unprecedented in the post-1944 era. In August, referring to the unilateral US actions to block oil and other trade with Iran, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas told Handelsblatt, a leading German business daily, "Europe should not allow the U.S. to act over our heads and at our expense. For that reason, it's essential that we strengthen European autonomy by establishing payment channels that are independent of the US, creating a European Monetary Fund and building up an independent SWIFT system ."

A Crack in the Dollar Edifice

How far the EU is willing to defy Washington on the issue of trade with Iran is not yet clear. Most probably Washington via NSA and other means can uncover the trades of the EU-Iran-Russia-China SPV.

In addition to the recent statements from the German Foreign Minister, France is discussing expanding the Iran SPV to create a means of insulating the EU economies from illegal extraterritorial sanctions like the secondary sanctions that punish EU companies doing business in Iran by preventing them from using the dollar or doing business in the USA. French Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Agnes Von der Muhll, stated that in addition to enabling companies to continue to trade with Iran, that the SPV would, "create an economic sovereignty tool for the European Union beyond this one case. It is therefore a long-term plan that will protect European companies in the future from the effect of illegal extraterritorial sanctions ."

If this will be the case with the emerging EU Special Purpose Vehicle, it will create a gaping crack in the dollar edifice. Referring to the SPV and its implications, Jarrett Blanc, former Obama State Department official involved in negotiating the Iran nuclear agreement noted that, "The payment mechanism move opens the door to a longer-term degradation of US sanctions power."

At present the EU has displayed effusive rhetoric and loud grumbling against unilateral US economic warfare and extraterritorial imposition of sanctions such as those against Russia. Their resolve to potently move to create a genuine alternative to date has been absent. So too is the case so far in other respects for China and Russia. Will the incredibly crass US sanctions war on Iran finally spell the beginning of the end of the dollar domination of the world economy it has held since Bretton Woods in 1945?

My own feeling is that unless the SPV in whatever form utilizes the remarkable technological advantages of certain of the blockchain or ledger technologies similar to the US-based XRP or Ripple, that would enable routing payments across borders in a secure and almost instantaneous way globally, it won't amount to much. It's not that European IT programmers lack the expertise to develop such, and certainly not the Russians. After all one of the leading blockchain companies was created by a Russian-born Canadian named Vitalik Buterin. The Russian Duma is working on new legislation regarding digital currencies, though the Bank of Russia still seems staunchly opposed. The Peoples' Bank of China is rapidly developing and testing a national cryptocurrency, ChinaCoin. Blockchain technologies are widely misunderstood, even in government circles such as the Russian Central Bank that ought to see it is far more than a new "South Sea bubble." The ability of a state-supervised payments system to move value across borders, totally encrypted and secure is the only plausible short-term answer to unilateral sanctions and financial wars until a more civilized order among nations is possible.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook."
https://journal-neo.org/2018/10/23/the-eu-russia-china-plan-to-avert-iran-oil-sanctions/

[Oct 26, 2018] Mike Pompeo mentored by Papal Advisor Harvard Law Professor Mary Ann Glendon

Notable quotes:
"... Another reason to hate the Catholic Church: The Catholic Church= Mike Pompeo mentored by Papal Advisor Harvard Law Professor Mary Ann Glendon ..."
Oct 19, 2018 | unz.com

War for Blair Mountain , says: October 19, 2018 at 2:18 pm GMT

Another reason to hate the Catholic Church: The Catholic Church= Mike Pompeo mentored by Papal Advisor Harvard Law Professor Mary Ann Glendon .

Pompeo the Cockroach .as it .(Mike Pompeo is an it, as is that other well known BLATARIA .Hillary Clinton) .is known to the residents of Satan's filthy stinking reeking toilet bowl waaaaaaaaay down in putrid HELL!!!!!!!

Don't mind the split infinitive they are really quite alright .only a girly boy grammar NAZI!!! would shriek about it ..

[Oct 25, 2018] Putin jokes with Bolton: Did the eagle eaten all the olives

Highly recommended!
John Bolton suffers a crippling shortage of olives.
Notable quotes:
"... "As far as I remember, the US coat of arms features a bald eagle that holds 13 arrows in one talon and an olive branch in another, which is a symbol of a peace-loving policy," ..."
"... "Looks like your eagle has already eaten all the olives; are the arrows all that is left?" ..."
Oct 25, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Meeting with US national security adviser John Bolton in Moscow, Russian President Vladimir Putin made a comment about Washington's hostility that went right over the hawkish diplomat's head. "As far as I remember, the US coat of arms features a bald eagle that holds 13 arrows in one talon and an olive branch in another, which is a symbol of a peace-loving policy," Putin said in a meeting with Bolton in Moscow on Tuesday.

"I have a question," the Russian president added. "Looks like your eagle has already eaten all the olives; are the arrows all that is left?"

boz , October 23, 2018 at 3:49 pm

The Saker has the transcript of Putin's comments at a recent plenary in Sochi, small snippets of which have already appeared in the media.

http://thesaker.is/president-putin-meeting-of-the-valdai-international-discussion-club-2/

About 15-20 minutes to get through (the facilitator seems like a bit of a wet blanket), but fascinating to read, if like me, most of what you hear about Putin has been filtered through the MSM.

A couple of reflections:

Putin does detail. He is courteous and patient. He is highly pragmatic and appears to be widely (and, for my money, effectively) briefed.

Olga , October 23, 2018 at 5:33 pm

For those of us lucky enough to follow VVP in his native language – it is indeed a delight. (And – mind you – it was only after I took the time to follow him in his native language that I was able to appreciate this person and his leadership abilities. If one follows him through NYT – no chance that would give one an accurate picture.)
He is erudite, informed, and has a wicked sense of humour, as shown in this clip:
https://www.rt.com/news/442068-putin-olives-eagle-bolton/

[Oct 22, 2018] Ben Norton on Pompeo

Oct 22, 2018 | friendsofsyria.wordpress.com

Ben Norton responded on Facebook post :

"Satire has lost all meaning: The former director of the CIA (which has for decades trained and armed far-right terrorist death squads), who is now US secretary of state, called Iran "the greatest sponsor of terrorism in the world" while he was meeting with regime officials in Saudi Arabia, an extremist Wahhabi absolute monarchy that supported ISIS and al-Qaeda."

[Oct 21, 2018] Bolton is a certified retard if he thinks he will bankrupt Russia with an arms race

Oct 21, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com

kirill October 19, 2018 at 2:40 pm

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10-19/bolton-pushes-trump-drop-1987-treaty-after-russia-unveils-advanced-nukes

Bolton pushes for the US to break out of the 1987 INF Treaty. Not surprising considering that all those ABM components they are deploying around Russia are dual use and violate the INF. The INF is also a joke (showing us what a comprador Gorby was) since it allows the US to deploy unlimited range nuclear missiles in its Naval assets. So Russia cannot have any land based intermediate range nukes, but the US can park its ships in EU harbours and deploy unlimited amounts of the "banned" class of missiles.

I say let the US break the INF. The INF helps the USA and its NATzO minions more than it helps Russia.

Patient Observer October 20, 2018 at 9:05 am
There may be several motivations for Bolton
– an attempt to force Russia into a ruinously expensive arms race;
– to create a regional Cold War to reverse the nascent rapprochement between Western Europe and Russia;
– an attempt to limit war to the European/Russian region as much as possible if a war against Russia is needed by the US.

Bolton is an idiot carrying out a moron's strategy. What could go wrong?

kirill October 20, 2018 at 2:46 pm
Bolton is a certified retard if he thinks he will bankrupt Russia with an arms race.

1) I find the theory that the USSR couldn't afford the 1970-80s arms race and went bankrupt to be of zero credibility. The USSR was a command economy and various estimates of how much it allegedly spent on the economy to be ridiculous western attempts to impose their capitalist accounting on a command economy.

The USSR collapsed due to internal political rot and not some "budget deficit" which was meaningless in command economics and never exiting in reality anyway. The only valid metrics of deficits in command economies if there are labour shortages in various industries.

The USSR had more than enough engineers, researchers, workers and material resources to keep up with the arms race.

This is why command economics is vastly superior to capitalist profiteering. Capitalism only triumphs because humans are genetically deficient to live optimally under a command economy since they need all sorts of superfluous incentives and feel-good junk.

2) Nuclear weapons are the cheapest option out of all military costs. Tanks, ships and armed troops are much more expensive. In the current rocket era, these expensive options are outdated and much less potent. Russia can neutralize any US move by deploying appropriately designed missiles and warheads.

[Oct 16, 2018] Pompeo's North Korea Fantasy

Oct 16, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

SteveM, October 16, 2018 at 12:17 pm

Pompeo puts on his Global Cop Gorilla suit again making absolute demands as a condition for even continuing negotiations.

However the big question is how much North and South Korea move ahead in spite of the ham-fisted United States. Then the revealed scenario will be much more stark. I.e., it's not what the Korea's want that matters, it's what the Gorilla wants.

The play then will be driven by China and Russia. They don't want North Korea with nuclear weapons either because it's bad for business. As they work with the Korea's toward a settlement, the question then becomes it what way will the U.S. subvert any settlement in which it alone does not define the outcome.

P.S. like with the Russia led Minsk agreement and the Astana talks in which the U.S. has been shut out, the U.S. cares little about attaining the fundamental peace objectives in Korea, only that it calls the tune in every regard.

SteveM , says: October 16, 2018 at 1:04 pm
Re: Correction:

the question then becomes it what way will the U.S. subvert any settlement in which it alone does not define the outcome?

Note that this lack of total control by the U.S. in Korea and other venues may eventually induce a pathologically dangerous response on several fronts when the Washington Nomenklatura becomes fully aware of its asymmetric weaknesses. I.e., When a War Machine hammer is all you got, everything else is a nail.

Sid Finster , says: October 16, 2018 at 3:51 pm
Pompeo's demands are intended to be something that no sovereign government can agree to, like Austria-Hungary's ultimatum to Serbia in august 1914.

[Sep 29, 2018] US forced to evacuate consulate in Iraq

Sep 29, 2018 | caucus99percent.com

span y gjohnsit on Fri, 09/28/2018 - 9:16pm Last week the Trump Administration ranted against OPEC because the Iranian sanctions are driving up oil prices .
That's called blowback.
Today we see the next level of blowback.

The State Department says the U.S. consulate in the southern Iraqi city of Basra is being evacuated following attacks blamed on Iran-backed militias. The U.S. embassy in Baghdad will provide full consular services for Basra and the surrounding area, the State Department said.

What's most notable is the reaction by US secretary of state Mike Pompeo.

US secretary of state Mike Pompeo directly threatened retaliation against Iran on Friday, after accusing Iranian forces of repeatedly directing attacks against US diplomatic facilities in Iraq.

"Iran should understand that the United States will respond promptly and appropriately to any such attacks," Mr Pompeo said in a statement, adding both the US consulate general in Basrah and the US embassy in Baghdad had been targeted.

Recently, #Iran -supported militias in Iraq launched rocket attacks against the U.S. embassy in Baghdad and our consulate in Basra. We'll hold #Iran 's regime accountable for any attack on our personnel or facilities, and respond swiftly and decisively in defense of American lives. pic.twitter.com/nqbmogbeCA

-- Secretary Pompeo (@SecPompeo) September 25, 2018

What is happening in Iraq could lead directly to a proxy war with Iran in Iraq.
The Pentagon says U.S. forces will stay in Iraq "as long as needed". There are about 5,200 U.S. troops in Iraq, versus about 100,000 Shia militiamen.

Pompeo is working with Saudi Arabia to form an anti-Iran coalition known as the Middle East Strategic Alliance.
As recently as April, the U.S. was telling those Shia militias were welcome in Iraq.
Last month those Shia militias threatened to attack foreign troops in Iraq if they didn't leave.

span y Amanda Matthews on Fri, 09/28/2018 - 9:59pm
The irony! It burnzzzzz

" Has the regime in #Iran lived together with other nations in peace? Has it been a good neighbor? Look around the world and you'll see the answer is a deafening "no."

span y jim p on Fri, 09/28/2018 - 10:55pm
Paging Mr Orwell...

"Iran-backed militias." That would be Iraqis, no? Is the ultimate plan then to, um, eliminate Iraq's Shia? I expect to hear, soon, that Iraqi Shia test their chemical weapons on children.

span y snoopydawg on Fri, 09/28/2018 - 11:24pm
Hypocrisy at its finest
The UN Charter calls for nations to "live together in peace with one another as good neighbors." Has the regime in #Iran lived together with other nations in peace? Has it been a good neighbor? Look around the world and you'll see the answer is a deafening "no."

Why the leaders of the rest of the world didn't walk out on Trump when he threatened other countries is beyond my comprehension. How much longer will they waste their citizen's lives and their money just because we told them to jump?

Remember when Obama said that "no country should have to tolerate bombs dropping on them from outside their borders?

[Sep 29, 2018] EU, UK, Russia, China Join Together To Dodge US Sanctions On Iran

I think those measure have implicit blessing from Washington, which realized how dangerous withdrawal of Iraq oil from the market can be for the USA economy
Sep 29, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
Authored by Peter Korzun via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

The UN General Assembly (UNGA) in New York is a place where world leaders are able to hold important meetings behind closed doors. Russia, China, the UK, Germany, France, and the EU seized that opportunity on Sept. 24 to achieve a real milestone.

The EU, Russia, China, and Iran will create a special purpose vehicle (SPV), a "financially independent sovereign channel," to bypass US sanctions against Tehran and breathe life into the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) , which is in jeopardy. "Mindful of the urgency and the need for tangible results, the participants welcomed practical proposals to maintain and develop payment channels, notably the initiative to establish a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) to facilitate payments related to Iran's exports, including oil," they announced in a joint statement. The countries are still working out the technical details. If their plan succeeds, this will deliver a blow to the dollar and a boost to the euro.

The move is being made in order to save the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. According to Federica Mogherini , High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the SPV will facilitate payments for Iran's exports, such as oil, and imports so that companies can do business with Tehran as usual. The vehicle will be available not just to EU firms but to others as well. A round of US sanctions aimed at ending Iranian oil exports is to take effect on November 5. Iran is the world's seventh-largest oil producer. Its oil sector accounts for 70% of the country's exports. Tehran has warned the EU that it should find new ways of trading with Iran prior to that date, in order to preserve the JCPOA.

The SPV proposes to set up a multinational, European, state-backed financial intermediary to work with companies interested in trading with Iran. Payments will be made in currencies other than the dollar and remain outside the reach of those global money-transfer systems under US control. In August, the EU passed a blocking statute to guarantee the immunity of European companies from American punitive measures. It empowers EU firms to seek compensation from the United States Treasury for its attempts to impose extra-territorial sanctions. No doubt the move will further damage the already strained US-EU relationship. It might be helpful to create a special EU company for oil exports from Iran.

Just hours after the joint statement on the SPV, US President Trump defended his unilateral action against Iran in his UNGA address . US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo condemned the EU initiative , stating:

"This is one of the most counterproductive measures imaginable for regional global peace and security."

To wit, the EU, Russia, and China have banded together in open defiance against unilateral steps taken by the US. Moscow and Beijing are in talks on how to combine their efforts to fend off the negative impacts of US trade tariffs and sanctions. A planned Sept 24-25 visit by Chinese Vice-Premier Liu, who was coming to the United States for trade talks, was cancelled as a result of the discord and President Trump added more fuel to the fire on Sept. 24 by imposing 10% tariffs on almost half of all goods the US imports from China. "We have far more bullets," the president said before the Chinese official's planned visit. "We're going to go US$200 billion and 25 per cent Chinese made goods. And we will come back with more." The US has recently imposed sanctions on China to punish it for the purchase of Russian S-400 air-defense systems and combat planes. Beijing refused to back down. It is also adamant in its desire to continue buying Iran's oil.

It is true, the plan to skirt the sanctions might fall short of expectations. It could fail as US pressure mounts. A number of economic giants, including Total, Peugeot, Allianz, Renault, Siemens, Daimler, Volvo, and Vitol Group have already left Iran as its economy plummets, with the rial losing two-thirds of its value since the first American sanctions took effect in May. The Iranian currency dropped to a record low against the US dollar this September.

What really matters is the fact that the leading nations of the EU have joined the global heavyweights -- Russia and China -- in open defiance of the United States.

This is a milestone event.

It's hard to underestimate its importance. Certainly, it's too early to say that the UK and other EU member states are doing a sharp pivot toward the countries that oppose the US globally, but this is a start - a first step down that path. This would all have seemed unimaginable just a couple of years ago - the West and the East in the same boat, trying to stand up to the American bully!

[Sep 25, 2018] Bolton Hates the Nuclear Deal Because It Proves Diplomacy Works

Notable quotes:
"... Earlier today, John Bolton and Mike Pompeo spoke to the hard-line, misleadingly-named pressure group, United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), and delivered their usual attacks on and threats against Iran. ..."
"... An agreement that eliminates any pretext for preventive war, imposes no costs on America, and succeeds through cooperation with multiple governments is anathema to someone like Bolton, because it is proof that diplomacy works and can achieve things that coercive and punitive policies never could. ..."
"... UANI audience members react this way to bad economic news from Iran because they desire the destabilization and overthrow of the government. The fact that the Secretary of State and National Security Advisor headlined their event this week confirms for us that this is the administration's goal as well. ..."
Sep 25, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Earlier today, John Bolton and Mike Pompeo spoke to the hard-line, misleadingly-named pressure group, United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), and delivered their usual attacks on and threats against Iran. One line from Bolton's speech stood out for being as delusional as it was representative of the Iran hawk worldview:

The Iran Deal was the worst diplomatic debacle in American history [bold mine-DL]. It did nothing to address the regime's destabilizing activities or its ballistic missile development and proliferation. Worst of all, the deal failed in its fundamental objective: permanently denying Iran all paths to a nuclear bomb.

Bolton loathes diplomacy. That is the key thing to understand about him, and it helps explain almost everything he has done in his career. He regards any successful diplomatic agreement as something of a debacle because it involves striking a compromise with another government, usually an adversary or rival, and because it means that the other side wasn't forced to give in to our every demand. When he denounces the JCPOA as "the worst diplomatic debacle in American history," he is simply expressing the intensity of his hatred for the government with which the agreement was made. His previous and ongoing support for the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK) shouldn't be forgotten when we try to make sense of this fanatical rhetoric.

If Bolton considers something to be the "worst diplomatic debacle" of our entire history, that tells us that the agreement required very little of the U.S., that it reinforced habits of multilateral cooperation, and that it successfully resolved an outstanding dispute that Bolton wished to resolve through regime change and war. An agreement that eliminates any pretext for preventive war, imposes no costs on America, and succeeds through cooperation with multiple governments is anathema to someone like Bolton, because it is proof that diplomacy works and can achieve things that coercive and punitive policies never could.

The venue for Bolton and Pompeo's speeches was no accident. It was an audience of hard-liners that detest Iran being addressed by like-minded speakers. UANI intensely opposed the nuclear deal and recited the usual false claims about it. Their vehement hostility to the most important and successful nonproliferation agreement of its kind is a testament to how little they care about actually restricting Iran's nuclear program. Like other Iran hawks, UANI is simply against Iran, and therefore they hate anything that might relieve international pressure on Iran. The group celebrates Trump administration sanctions and its members laugh about the deteriorating economic conditions inside Iran:

UANI audience members react this way to bad economic news from Iran because they desire the destabilization and overthrow of the government. The fact that the Secretary of State and National Security Advisor headlined their event this week confirms for us that this is the administration's goal as well.

Whine Merchant September 25, 2018 at 6:44 pm

Well, more evidence that the three stooges still drink Bibi's kool-aid. Perhaps AIPAC has promised to arrange for the Pompeo-Haley GOP Ticket to succeed Trump, with Bolton as Sec of State and Defence all-in-one.

[Sep 19, 2018] There is no spare capacity from Iran

Sep 19, 2018 | peakoilbarrel.com

Guym x Ignored says: 09/14/2018 at 7:44 pm

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Iran-There-Is-No-Spare-Oil-Capacity.html

There is no spare capacity from Iran.

Boomer II x Ignored says: 09/14/2018 at 8:07 pm
So what does Trump do before the midterms? Live with higher prices? Quietly drop the sanctions ? Find a way to get Iranian oil on the market while pretending there are sanctions? Accept the high prices and blame Obama?
Hightrekker x Ignored says: 09/14/2018 at 9:03 pm
Well, he is not the brightest porch light on the block -- -
Survivalist x Ignored says: 09/14/2018 at 11:04 pm
I had read a couple months ago that Trump was nattering about tapping the SPR around the time of the mid terms.
Guym x Ignored says: 09/15/2018 at 4:49 pm
Oil price can rise some, now. It's only a month and a half to go. Gasoline stocks are high, so it will take some trickle down time. Raiding the SPR is overkill.
Dennis coyne x Ignored says: 09/15/2018 at 8:39 am
Boomer,

Trump will blame Saudis for not increasing output, Saudis will then raise output in Sept to tamp prices down before midterms.

Ron Patterson x Ignored says: 09/15/2018 at 9:30 am
I'm betting they don't. Saudi production in September is more likely to be down than up. But if it is up it will only by a tiny amount, not near enough to affect prices. Saudi Arabis is just not interested in increasing production by any significant amount. They would like to keep production steady .if possible.
Dennis coyne x Ignored says: 09/16/2018 at 1:00 pm
Ron,

You may be right, but Trump may try to get Saudis to raise output and he may slow down aggressive action on Iranian sanctions until after midterms.

Hightrekker x Ignored says: 09/16/2018 at 1:25 pm
Seems Iran always has the trump cards.
Now if they could just get rid of religious oppression, and have a better functioning government–
Ron Patterson x Ignored says: 09/16/2018 at 2:19 pm
Trump already tried that. Here is his tweet.

Trump asks Saudi Arabia to increase oil production

"Just spoke to King Salman of Saudi Arabia and explained to him that, because of the turmoil & disfunction in Iran and Venezuela, I am asking that Saudi Arabia increase oil production, maybe up to 2,000,000 barrels, to make up the difference Prices to high! He has agreed!" the tweet read.

And of course, after the King hung up the phone he probably said: "We are not going to do any of that shit." The Saudis, just like Trump's staff, know he is an idiot.

TechGuy x Ignored says: 09/18/2018 at 1:54 am
"And of course, after the King hung up the phone he probably said: "We are not going to do any of that shit."

I doubt that happened but I don't have any inside contacts in the WH to confirm. My guess is that Trump has turned up the heat on Iran because of requests from KSA & Israel.

The USA has been helping MbS with is Yemen war, as well as proxy war in Syria. If KSA want the US to economically crush Iran, than KSA will need to help but increasing its Oil exports. Perhaps KSA as some oil stashed in storage that it could release for a short period. My guess KSA would delay using its storage reserves until there is a price spike that might force the US to back off on Iran.

Ron Patterson x Ignored says: 09/18/2018 at 3:54 am
I doubt that happened but I don't have any inside contacts in the WH to confirm.

You doubt what happened? The quote was a tweet directly from the President. He sent it out to the world, you don't need an inside contact to the White House. Trump's tweets go out to the public.

Yes, it did happen. Of course, the part about what the King did afterward was just speculation on my part. But he did not increase oil production as Trump requested. That much we do know.

TechGuy x Ignored says: 09/18/2018 at 2:54 pm
Hi Ron,

Not arguing the tweet Trumpet made, but your reasoning that the MbS will ignore the request.

I am reasonably sure MbS wants the USA to go after Iran, and thus has a motive to try to comply with Trumpet's request for more Oil. That said, I very much doubt KSA can increase production, but they may have 50 to 150 mmbl in storage they could release if Oil prices spike.

FYI:
"Why The U.S. Is Suddenly Buying A Lot More Saudi Oil"

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Why-The-US-Is-Suddenly-Buying-A-Lot-More-Saudi-Oil.html

" the Saudis are responding to the demands of their staunch ally U.S. President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly slammed OPEC for the high gasoline prices, urging the cartel in early July to "REDUCE PRICING NOW!""

"Saudi Arabia Boosts Oil Supply To Asia As Iran Sanctions Return"
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Saudi-Arabia-Boosts-Oil-Supply-To-Asia-As-Iran-Sanctions-Return.html

"Saudi Arabia cut last week its official selling price (OSP) for its flagship Arab Light grade for October to Asia by US$0.10 a barrel to US$1.10 a barrel premium to the Dubai/Oman average"

So it appears that KSA is trying to comply with Trumpet's request. At least by trying to lower the oil prices via selling their oil at a discount.

** Note: Not trying to be a PITA, just providing an alternative viewpoint. I do value what you post. Hope you understand.

[Sep 12, 2018] Trump Sanctions on Iran May Already Be Backfiring as Tehran's Oil Revenues Soar by Whitney Webb

Notable quotes:
"... Further oil price increases could trigger a slowdown in domestic or global economic growth, which could further complicate the U.S.' Iran policy and Trump's domestic political situation. ..."
Sep 12, 2018 | www.mintpressnews.com

Further oil price increases could trigger a slowdown in domestic or global economic growth, which could further complicate the U.S.' Iran policy and Trump's domestic political situation. September 12th, 2018

Despite the Trump administration's " maximum pressure " campaign targeting the Iranian economy, Iran's crude oil and oil product revenues jumped a surprising 60 percent from March 21 to July 23. In addition, figures provided by Iran's Central Bank show that Iran's revenues from oil sales soared by 84.2 percent over that same period, setting a new record.

The increased revenues seem to have resulted from a jump in oil prices this year as well as Iran's high oil export volume during part of that period. Notably, the increased revenues were reported despite the United States' announcement in May that it would sanction those purchasing Iranian oil starting in early November, with the ultimate goal of reducing Iranian oil sales to zero in order to place pressure on the Iranian government.

The U.S.' efforts have had some noticeable effects on Iranian oil exports, as the country's exports for the month of August were significantly lower than those of July. However, the drop has only seen exports fall to near March 2016 levels , when the U.S. was not pursuing a sanctions policy against Iran and the Iran nuclear deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), was in effect.

Further dashing U.S. hopes of crushing Iranian oil exports have been recent announcements from Iran's top two customers, China and India , that they would continue to import Iranian crude despite the looming threat of U.S. sanctions. India, along with some other countries, has sought " waivers " from Washington that would allow them to continue to import Iranian oil and avoid retaliation from the U.S. for a certain period of time.

In addition, the European Union, which had previously joined the U.S. in targeting Iranian oil exports in 2012, has shown its unwillingness to follow Washington's lead this time around, openly vowing to rebel against the U.S. sanctions regimen and increasing the likelihood that Europe will continue to buy some Iranian oil despite U.S. threats.

Risks for U.S. and global economies

Another indication that efforts to curb Iranian oil exports are backfiring for the Trump administration is the jump in oil prices that has resulted from concerns about the U.S. sanctions on Iran's oil exports. The increase in oil prices is likely to be felt domestically in the U.S., the world's largest consumer of oil, potentially posing a political risk to Trump and his fellow Republicans ahead of the November 6 midterm elections. In addition, further oil price increases could trigger a slowdown in domestic or global economic growth, which could further complicate the U.S.' Iran policy and Trump's domestic political situation.

Such concerns have prompted U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry to meet his Saudi and Russian counterparts in an effort to convince those two countries to keep oil output high in order to offset a reduction in future Iranian oil exports. While Saudi Arabia has already stated it would increase output, Russia is unlikely to comply, given its relationship with Iran and Washington's threat to impose new sanctions on Moscow. The U.S., Saudi Arabia and Russia are currently the world's three largest oil producers, accounting for about a third of global crude oil output.

While the Trump administration may have assumed that U.S. oil producers – and the U.S. economy in general -- would benefit from the elimination of Iranian oil exports, the growing rejection of the impending U.S. sanctions by other countries shows that these nations are unwilling to pay for more expensive American oil or even Saudi oil, preferring less expensive Iranian oil despite potential future consequences. Furthermore, efforts to increase U.S. crude production have fallen short of government expectations, further complicating the U.S.' efforts to offset an increase in oil prices resulting from Iranian oil sanctions.

Whitney Webb is a staff writer for MintPress News and a contributor to Ben Swann's Truth in Media. Her work has appeared on Global Research, the Ron Paul Institute and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has also made radio and TV appearances on RT and Sputnik. She currently lives with her family in southern Chile.

[Sep 02, 2018] An Israeli campaign against Iranian nuclear sites is going to involve F-15 and F-16 jets loaded to the gills with big-arse bombs. Those will be unable to dogfight even a relic like an F-5 unless they drop that ordinance.

Sep 02, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Yeah, Right , Sep 2, 2018 1:27:48 AM | link

@82 There is some logic to the Iranians fielding a jet fighter of any sort, even if it is based on a relic of the 1970s.

An Israeli campaign against Iranian nuclear sites is going to involve F-15 and F-16 jets loaded to the gills with big-arse bombs. Those will be unable to dogfight even a relic like an F-5 unless they drop that ordinance.

If that is all those Iranians do that then they will have achieved their purpose.

Alternatively, the Israelis could use fighter escorts but then you have to consider that each escort represents one less bomb-laden F-16 (or, put another way, twice as many sorties).

Simply put: Absent any Iranian jet fighters then the Israelis can commit ALL of their jets to the task of bombing Iranian targets, and do so from the very beginning. But once Iranian fighters are in the mix then the job becomes much harder: the Israelis either have to take out those jets first before committing to a bombing campaign, or they have to commit half their force to escort duties from the very start.

Sure, SU-35s would be much better, but an F-5 is still way better than nothing.

partizan , Sep 2, 2018 3:40:55 AM | link

@Yeah, Right | Sep 2, 2018 1:27:48 AM | 144

the Iranian defense budget is one of lowest in that part of the world. even tiny Dubai has higher one.

upgrading an old fighter jet (not only jet) is sometime more costly than developing a new one.

su-35 flanker-e 4++ costs about $85 million a piece. i simply refuse to believe they cannot afford that.

[Aug 31, 2018] John Bolton is, I believe, the scariest character in Trump's administration

Aug 31, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Jessika , August 31, 2018 at 9:55 pm

John Bolton is, I believe, the scariest character in Trump's administration. How did Trump pick him? It makes no sense, but this whole mess literally makes none. There has got to be a way to get him out of there. Sheldon Adelson's money is the connection between Trump, Haley, Bolton. Bolton wants war with Iran, has been intent on it since Bush 2 administration. He is quite dangerous, and has connections to Netanyahu and even Meir Dagan of Mossad. I can't copy this link to Gareth Porter's article but maybe Joe or someone can, it's cited below. Everyone should read it. The facts in the article are quite alarming about Bolton. With all the political drama going on from the Mueller probe, there are possibilities of dreadful consequences, and I think Bolton could bring disaster. He may be the origin as well as the mouthpiece of this latest provocative threat about Assad using chemicals. Here is the article:

"The Untold Story of John Bolton's Campaign for War with Iran", by Gareth Porter, in The American Conservative, March 22, 2018.

[Aug 26, 2018] US ready to drive Iranian oil exports to zero, says US national security adviser

Notable quotes:
"... The US is run by a somewhat unstable president being advised by nuts like Bolton whose main focus is following Israeli diktats, therefore i would not expect them to be looking out for US interests. ..."
Aug 26, 2018 | peakoilbarrel.com

Ron Patterson

Ignored says: 08/22/2018 AT 3:47 PM

US ready to drive Iranian oil exports to zero, says US national security adviser

The US is prepared to use sanctions to drive Iranian oil exports down to zero, the US national security adviser, John Bolton, has said.
"Regime change in Iran is not American policy, but what we want is massive change in the regime's behaviour," Bolton said on a visit to Israel, as he claimed current sanctions had been more effective than predicted.
Donald Trump took the US out of Iran's nuclear deal with the west in May and is imposing escalating sanctions, both to force Iran to renegotiate the deal and to end Tehran's perceived interference in Yemen, Syria and Lebanon.
Complete removal of Iranian oil from world markets would cut oil supply by more than 4% probably forcing up prices in the absence of any new supplies.
SNIP
Fuller US sanctions, including actions against countries that trade in Iranian oil are due to come into force on 5 November, 180 days after the initial Trump announcement to withdraw.
The measures against Iranian oil importers, and banks that continue to trade with the Central Bank of Iran, will ratchet the pressure to a higher level.
Pompeo has set up an Iran Action group inside the US State Department to coordinate US leverage on companies and countries that cannot show that their trade, including in oil, has fallen significantly by November.
Measures may also be taken against firms that insure ships carrying Iranian crude.
It is expected some of the major Iranian oil importers, such as Russia, China and Turkey, will either ignore the threat of US sanctions, or, possibly in the case of Iraq, Japan and South Korea, seek exemptions.
China takes a quarter of all Iran's oil exports, and with Chinese banks little exposed to the US it can avoid the impact of Trump's sanctions. REPLY

Dennis Coyne

Ignored says: 08/22/2018 AT 4:13 PM

I wonder if China could just take all of Iran's oil? I imagine at the right price they would be happy to do so. China imports about 8 Mb/d, Iran exports about 2.5 Mb/d of oil, seems possible.

Also note that if this does occur and there is no drop in Iranian output, the impact of the Iranian sanctions on the World Oil market will be effectively zero.

Survivalist

Ignored says: 08/22/2018 AT 4:34 PM

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-iran-oil-shipping/exclusive-china-shifts-to-iranian-tankers-to-keep-oil-flowing-amid-us-sanctions-sources-idUSKCN1L50RZ

I wonder what the capacity is of the Chinese and Iranian oil tanker fleet is? If nobody else will buy it or ship it then the tanker fleet will have to be owned/insured by either Iran or China.

Watcher

Ignored says: 08/22/2018 AT 10:07 PM

Previously posted.

The big issue is the insurance. A US seized cargo triggers insurance on either party, Iran or China. No way that doesn't escalate to violence.

Survivalist

Ignored says: 08/23/2018 AT 2:08 PM

I'm interested in knowing if Chinese oil tankers are even capable of hauling 2.5 million barrels a day home from Iran. It seems doubtful that anybody else will be doing it for them. I can't find much info on the size of the Chinese owned tanker fleet and it's capabilities.

While US forces have been known to seize North Korean oil tankers hauling Libyan oil, I find it doubtful that they will seize Chinese ones, for the reason you mentioned; China punches back. Nothing spells the end of hegemony like getting your ass kicked.

Fernando Leanme

Ignored says: 08/25/2018 AT 8:26 AM

One would assume its easy for the chinese to buy used oil tankers if they offer a bit over current market prices. This is a very long term conflict, and they could buy tankers, reregister them Chinese or Iranian or say Russian and start moving that oil.

The US is run by a somewhat unstable president being advised by nuts like Bolton whose main focus is following Israeli diktats, therefore i would not expect them to be looking out for US interests.

[Aug 14, 2018] Mismanagement hits Iran more than US sanctions Iran's supreme leader -- RT World News

Notable quotes:
"... "It is not that the sanctions do not play a role; but a major part of the situation is the result of [government's own] actions," ..."
"... "better and stronger" ..."
"... "The Ayatollah has needed to explain who is to blame for the current situation, to prop up his regime," ..."
"... "the opponents of the conservatives," ..."
"... "mother of all wars," ..."
"... "consequences the likes of which few have ever suffered before." ..."
"... Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! ..."
Aug 13, 2018 | www.rt.com
Get short URL Mismanagement hits Iran more than US sanctions – Iran's supreme leader FILE PHOTO: Iranian Parliament © Islamic Consultative Assembly News Agency / AFP In a rare statement Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has lashed out at the country's authorities, accusing them of poorly handling internal issues. The mismanagement is even worse than US sanctions, he said. "It is not that the sanctions do not play a role; but a major part of the situation is the result of [government's own] actions," Khamenei said, according to Irna, as he was addressing thousands of Iranians in Tehran on Monday.

The supreme leader added that if Tehran acted "better and stronger" itself US sanctions would have not been so harmful.

Read more Iran's President Hassan Rouhani © Lisi Niesner Rouhani blasts Trump's 'psychological warfare' as Iran braces for US sanctions

Analysts told RT that what Khamenei said is not really surprising given the worsening economic situation inside the country after the relations with the US went on a downward spiral. The supreme leader has been trying to keep Iranian society balanced by taking a neutral position between the liberal and conservative parts of the establishment. Now the former, including President Hassan Rouhani, are finding themselves in a weaker position, according to Irina Fedorova from the Russian Academy of Sciences' Center for Middle Eastern Studies.

"The Ayatollah has needed to explain who is to blame for the current situation, to prop up his regime," Fedorova told RT. She said that "the opponents of the conservatives," and Rouhani in particular, who supported the JCPOA, will fall victims of this approach. But it will not lead to his resignation, the researcher noted. However, this means the conservatives' positions, such as those of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, are to strengthen significantly.

The statement may also mean a reshuffling of the political elite as well as some economic changes, Jamal Wakeem, professor of history and international relations at Lebanese University in Beirut, told RT. He said that "reformists" and those who pressed for the deals with the West are to be targeted, while the leadership is going to seek alternatives to the West, including a partnership with Russia and China.

The US reinstated certain economic sanctions against Iran last week, with President Trump promising more to come in November. The restrictive measures had been lifted under the historic Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), but Washington unilaterally withdrew from the landmark deal despite international condemnation, including from its EU allies. The 2015 agreement placed tight controls on Tehran's nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of international sanctions. Iran's commitment has been confirmed by the IAEA since then.

READ MORE: US can't force trade rules on others, Germany must invest more in Iran – economy minister

Tehran has repeatedly blasted the US for the move, vowing to restart its nuclear program in retaliation against any foreign restrictions. While the US has been pressing its allies to completely refuse Iranian oil imports, the Islamic Republic has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, effectively blocking all the oil shipments from the Persian Gulf, should they accede to American demands.

The row between the US and Iran escalated last month, when their respective leadership exchanged a barrage of threats. Back then, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said that a conflict with Iran would be "mother of all wars," provoking Trump's harsh response when he promised "consequences the likes of which few have ever suffered before."

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

[Aug 14, 2018] France must be kicking themselves for listening to the US. At this rate, China/Russia will take all the Iran oil business

Aug 14, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Ian , Aug 12, 2018 8:55:07 PM | 23

Likklemore @17:

France must be kicking themselves for listening to the US. At this rate, China/Russia will take all the oil business, leaving Western companies sitting on the sidelines. On the other hand, I wonder if US O&G companies are waiting for other Western competitors to go bankrupt.


Uncoy @22:

US sanctions have already failed. Other nations will give lip service, then turn around to continue on whatever they were doing.

Likklemore , Aug 12, 2018 10:28:02 PM | 24
Ian @ 24

Come November we are spectators of the comeuppance.

Imho, US "prosperity" built on debt and avoiding the knock on the door. The Bailiff cometh. How does one go bankrupt? Slowly, then all at once.

We will see if Germany is turning east.
RT Link
US can't force trade rules on others, Germany must invest more in Iran

Washington cannot dictate trade rules to others, Germany's economy minister said, adding that his country should be more assertive and defy American sanctions – particularly by investing more in Iran.

"We don't let Washington dictate [their will] on trade relations with other countries," German Economy Minister Peter Altmaier told Bild newspaper on Saturday. He said the US sanctions on Iran are one instance in which America's neglect of its partners are clearly shown.[.]

Pft , Aug 12, 2018 11:40:17 PM | 27
Likklemore@25

Only 1/3 of US debt is owed to foreigners and that is denominated in their own currency. They just print whatever is due.

A country with the land and natural resources the US has to go along with with its agricultural, human and military capital can never go bankrupt, especially when they control the debt collectors

As for Germany they are an occupied country, as are many countries. Between the military bases and CIA controlled NGO's they dance to whatever musuc is played. Some squawking is permitted for appearances sake so people can maintain their illusions of nationalist control.

I dont rule out a major financial adverse event in the US (and global) soon so the elite can profit off the collapse and shrink the wealth of the bottom 90%, but that wont affect much at all and much of the world will suffer in much the same way

When one looks at the major financial disasters over the last century, many seem to come in the 8th-9th year of the decade. After the elections we should see a great fall as bubbles are burst and the 17 trillion dollar + investment firms that maintain liquidity will swoop in and buy low. This time around the banks wont need a government bail out as the laws have authorized them to seize deposits like what was done in Greece.

[Aug 13, 2018] The Perils of Trump's Iran Obsession by Daniel Larison

Aug 13, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Trump speaks at Washington rally against the Iran deal back in September 2015. Credit: Olivier Douliery/Sipa USA/Newscom Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson chide Trump for his dangerous Iran obsession:

The United States' treatment of Iran as a serious strategic competitor is deeply illogical. Iran imperils no core U.S. interests.

Trump's Iran obsession is probably the most conventional part of his foreign policy and it is also the most irrational. The president's reflexive hostility to Iran is one of the few constants in his view of the world, and it is one that aligns him most closely with his party's hawks and parts of the foreign policy establishment. This has been clear for several years ever since Trump declared his opposition to the nuclear deal and surrounded himself with hard-liners . The Iran obsession is among the worst aspects of Trump's presidency, but it is also one of the least surprising. Over the last eighteen months, Trump's Iran obsession has become more of a derangement , and it is putting the U.S. and Iran on a collision course at the expense of our relations with many other states and our own economic interests. The risk of unnecessary war continues to rise because the president and his allies insist on making maximalist demands of Iran while imposing stringent sanctions on the country without justification.

As Simon and Stevenson capably explain, there is no valid reason to view Iran as a major threat to the U.S. Contrary to the fevered warnings about Iranian "expansionism," Iranian military power in the region is quite limited:

Yet Iran's foreign policy has evolved essentially on the basis of opportunistic realism rather than especially aggressive revisionism, and, as noted, it has a sparse military presence in the region.

There is certainly no reason for our government to treat Iran as if it were a major competitor. Our government's fixation on Iran as the source of all the region's problems exaggerates Iran's influence and puts the U.S. at odds with a regional power whose interests are sometimes aligned with our own. The obsession simply makes no sense:

Casting Iran as a major strategic rival simply doesn't make sense in terms of traditional international relations considerations such as threat- and power-balancing.

The authors list a number of causes for the unwarranted obsession with Iran, including "pro-Israel" influence and the influence of the Saudis and Emiratis in Washington, and I agree with them. Our political leaders' enthusiasm for engaging in threat inflation and credulously accepting the threat inflation of others would has to figure prominently in any explanation as well. Obsessing over a non-existent Iranian threat to U.S. interests obviously has nothing to do with American security, and it represents an unhealthy subordination of American interests to those of its reckless regional clients. Indulging those clients in their paranoia about Iran will only stoke more regional conflicts and ensure that the U.S. becomes more deeply involved in those wars, and the result will be greater costs for the U.S. and greater turmoil, instability, and loss of life throughout the region.

b. August 13, 2018 at 3:08 pm

Obama's Yemen obsession is probably the most conventional part of his foreign policy and it is also the most irrational.

Cluster bombs, drone strikes, covert kill teams and, most importantly, the backing for Saudi Arabia and the UAE to cross the blood-red line and commence an aggressive illegal bombing campaign, invasion and occupation of Yemeni territory did not start with Trump.

Direct participation of US military logistics personnel and US military assets in this military aggression – while other US forces operate in the same territory under the "separate but equal" Authorization To Use Military Force – did not start with Trump.

Trump might apply his Reverse Midas Touch to this aspect of Obama's legacy as well, but just because Obama manufactured another transient executive "achievement" in JCOPA does not mean that his policy with respect to Yemen was any more irrational than Trump's policy towards Iran, or that Obama's willingness to hire out US military forces to support Saudi aggression for 100 billion dollars in blood money is any less venal, corrupt and despicable than Trump's willingness to do the same.

Mattis didn't become fixated on Iran when he joined the Trump administration either, although he might just be blaming – in the absence of conclusive evidence – Iran today for the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing targeting Reagan's negligent use of the Marine Corps. That is even less of a defensible foundation for foreign policy and military aggression that profiteering.

b. , says: August 13, 2018 at 3:18 pm
It is not just Trump, either, and not even just neolibcons, but also the basement crusaders:

'In 2017, US Vice President Mike Pence called the bombings "the opening salvo in a war that we have waged ever since – the global war on terror".'

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-administration-says-war-terror-began-911-hezbollah-attack-us-troops-691653
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombings

It is a good guess that Obama's obsession with Yemen was rooted in printer cartridges, shoe bombs, and the fear to have any terrorist attack "succeed". For Obama & Co. the fear of the Next Big Blowback led them to Yemen. It would appear that Pence has supplied the Trump administration with a Grand Unified Theory that all campaigns in the Great War On Terror ultimately lead to Tehran – or the Trump administration made him their willing mouthpiece.

Christian Chuba , says: August 13, 2018 at 3:47 pm
Pence is so desperate to connect terrorism to Iran that he has to reach back almost 40yrs to pin an at best Hezbollah pre-cursor organization on them. Isn't it more telling that Hezbollah has avoided attacking U.S. troops during their entire existence? Pence doesn't seem alarmed about the 3,000+ Americans who died on U.S. soil in NYC that we can attribute to the Saudis and their cohorts.

BTW the Khobar tower bombings was Al Qaeda. The Saudis extracted confessions in their torture chambers. There was no corroborating evidence that it was a branch of Hezbollah.

[Aug 08, 2018] In past wars, civilian oil tankers did not sail through the straits

Aug 08, 2018 | www.unz.com

Carlton Meyer , • Website August 4, 2018 at 6:03 am GMT

Four key points:

1. Iraq is run by a pro-Iran Shite government that tolerates the US occupation due to the money provided. Before the USA attacks Iran, it should remove all its 10,000 troops and 10,000 civilians and close its massive embassy there and write that country off. Otherwise, we'll have thousands of American POWs. Meanwhile, the Kurds will get crushed as the Turks and Iraqis use the chaos to destroy them.

2. The oil-rich British puppet state of Kuwait is hated by all Iraqis and Iranians. If the USA attacks Iran, one should expect Iranian and maybe Iraqi units crossing the border, while Kuwait's army flees as expected. The USA keeps an army brigade there, but that may not be enough to fend off an invasion, even with air superiority.

3. In past wars, civilian oil tankers did not sail through the straits. The insurers (mostly Lloyds of London) and others announced they would not cover losses, and unionize ship crews refused to enter the war zone. So even if the USA keeps the straits open, all that oil will not flow forth.

4. Iran has a fortified island in the Gulf whose guns cannot be silenced with just air power. A major amphibious landing is required to clear that island, and it will be bloody. Note the ship channels in the map. Supertankers are huge, so while the Straits of Hormuz are large, these big ships can only pass thru these two narrow channels, which are easily blocked. Iran could park its own tankers in these channels to block them and hope the USA foolishly sinks them, thus really blocking the entire channel.

These four issues are of more importance than air battles over Iran.

[Aug 07, 2018] OIL and only OIL should guide the policy making considerations of the American Empire in the Middle East

Aug 07, 2018 | www.unz.com

Renoman , August 3, 2018 at 9:21 am GMT

War with Iran? I can not imagine a more foolish thing to do.
Of course they will rally with their own Countrymen, everyone hates the USA.
The World economy will be in a complete tailspin, the US will likely finally go broke over it and chances are pretty good that Israel will be flattened and paved [one positive thing].
You fight Iran you fight China, you don't go messing with their road. Likely not bombs and guns either most likely money, something America has not much of.

The faster America dumps this crazy fascination with the Jews the faster it will get it's act together and become a Country again.

Sally Snyder , August 3, 2018 at 11:29 am GMT
As shown in this article, the U.S. Secretary of State is trying to manipulate Iranian Americans into supporting regime change in Iran:

https://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2018/07/manipulating-iranian-americans-laying.html

Washington is working overtime to lay the groundwork for a war in Iran.

bob sykes , August 3, 2018 at 12:19 pm GMT
"ultimately prevail"

What can that possibly mean? We can bomb Iran back into the Stone Age, but Iran does not need a modern economy or military to close Hormuz. All they need do is fire a few land-based artillery and anti-ship missiles at a defenseless freighter or tanker. The insurance companies would do the rest–remove all commercial shipping from the Persian and Oman Gulf regions. That eliminates 20% of the World's oil supply, and it would collapse the World's economy, including our own.

Asymmetric warfare would engulf the entire Middle East, including Israel, with its large native Arab population and its occupation of large Arab populations in Gaza and the West Bank.

Iran has the upper hand here. We need to be very careful.

nickels , August 3, 2018 at 12:23 pm GMT
Let's face it-when we impose sanctions on Iran, we are already at war with them. Just like we are already at war with Russia. Imbeciles, all who run this country.
WorkingClass , August 3, 2018 at 1:13 pm GMT
Paranoid thug Bibi to Trump: Destroy Iran for me or I will feed you to your domestic enemies.
Charles Pewitt , August 3, 2018 at 3:07 pm GMT

Oil is the vital strategic Western interest in the Persian Gulf. Yet a war with Iran would imperil, not secure, that interest.

The American Empire's only strategic three letter word interest in the Middle East is O -- I –L.

The WASP/JEW ruling class of the American Empire and the Jew-controlled Neo-Conservative faction in the Republican Party wants to elevate the three letter word J -- E –W to paramount importance in the Middle East.

OIL and only OIL should guide the policy making considerations of the American Empire in the Middle East.

[Aug 06, 2018] Bolton Blocking Strait of Hormuz will be Iran's 'worst mistake' instead it must 'come to table'

Notable quotes:
"... "They could take up the president's offer to negotiate with them, to give up their ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programs fully and really verifiably not under the onerous terms of the Iran nuclear deal, which really are not satisfactory," ..."
"... "If Iran were really serious they'd come to the table. We'll find out whether they are or not," ..."
"... "matter of respecting international agreements and a matter of international security." ..."
"... "behaves like a normal country." ..."
"... "require enormous change" ..."
"... "increase pressure on the Iranian regime by reducing to zero its revenue from crude oil sales." ..."
"... "the mother of all wars." ..."
"... "confronting possible threats." ..."
"... "The hours of our negotiations with America were perhaps unprecedented in history; then Trump signs something and say all [those negotiations] are void; can you negotiate with this person? Is this [negotiations offer] anything but a publicity stunt?" ..."
Aug 06, 2018 | www.rt.com

Closing the Strait of Hormuz would be the biggest mistake Iran has ever made, the US president's national security advisor John Bolton said. He urged Tehran to sit down for talks on its nuclear and missile programs with the US. Dismissing Tehran's threats to block the strait if its oil exports are stopped, Bolton on Monday said the Iranians were "bluffing." He then quickly changed his tone saying that Iran should actually engage in a dialog with the US instead of issuing threats.

"They could take up the president's offer to negotiate with them, to give up their ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programs fully and really verifiably not under the onerous terms of the Iran nuclear deal, which really are not satisfactory," Bolton told Fox News, referring to the US President Donald Trump's demands to "re-negotiate" the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

"If Iran were really serious they'd come to the table. We'll find out whether they are or not," Bolton added. The White House national security advisor's remarks came less than a day before the first round of renewed US sanctions take effect on Tuesday after midnight US Eastern time. The harshest restrictions are expected to be re-imposed by early November.

Washington decided to reinstate the penalties following Trump's decision to unilaterally withdraw from the JCPOA in May. Shortly after exiting the agreement, the US penned a 12-point ultimatum to Iran, which, among other things, demanded that Tehran end its ballistic missile program, a condition it has repeatedly rejected. The move was then widely condemned by the EU and other signatories of the deal, including Russia and China, which still consider the agreement to be an effective means of non-proliferation and have vowed to keep their part of the deal.

Earlier on Monday, the EU said that starting August, it is enforcing its so-called Blocking Statute aimed at protecting the European companies doing business in Iran from the extraterritorial effects of US sanctions. The bloc said that maintaining the nuclear deal with Iran is a "matter of respecting international agreements and a matter of international security."

Meanwhile, the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo vowed to "rigorously" enforce the sanctions on Iran until it "behaves like a normal country." He added that it would "require enormous change" on Iran's part for the US to review its increasingly hostile approach to Tehran.

In July, Brian Hook, the US State Department's director of policy planning, said that Washington's goal is to "increase pressure on the Iranian regime by reducing to zero its revenue from crude oil sales."

Iranian leaders repeatedly threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz and stop the Persian Gulf oil exports if its own oil exports are blocked. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani also cautioned Washington against launching a war against Tehran by saying that it would be "the mother of all wars." Iran's Revolutionary Guards have recently admitted that its warships took part in a naval exercise in the Persian Gulf to hone skills in "confronting possible threats."

Earlier, the Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif has slammed Donald Trump's recent proposal to enter into talks with Iran by calling it nothing but a PR stunt. "The hours of our negotiations with America were perhaps unprecedented in history; then Trump signs something and say all [those negotiations] are void; can you negotiate with this person? Is this [negotiations offer] anything but a publicity stunt?" he said.

The Trump administration has reportedly requested a meeting with Rouhani eight times, but the Iranian side refused to participate.

Read more

[Aug 06, 2018] US sanctions forcing creation of work arounds

Aug 06, 2018 | www.veteranstoday.com

As Iran is preparing for the first wave of returning US sanctions that could largely hamper its foreign trade, the country's banks appear to have already created a mechanism for imports of essential goods from Russia .

Bank Saderat Iran (BSI) announced in a statement on Sunday that it had sealed a deal with the Moscow offshoot of Bank Melli Iran (BMI) over a re-financing scheme that envisaged providing €10 million to fund imports of essential commodities, medicines, medical equipment and the raw materials for industrial units.

[Aug 06, 2018] Iran Scrambles to Ready Economy for US Sanctions by Jason Ditz

Sanctions might hit Iran oil industry hard.
Aug 06, 2018 | news.antiwar.com

New restrictions aim to protect currency from further falls

With US sanctions against Iran officially going back into place on August 6, the Iranian government is scrambling to take some last minute measures to shore up their economy, and particularly their currency, before the sanctions start to hit.

Trying to protect the rial is a high priority, with a former central bank deputy governor and a number of foreign exchange dealers arrested amid the rial plummeting to all-time lows. On Monday, a rash of strict new measures are to be imposed on foreign currency access to try to limit any further falls.

Iran wants to make sure that what foreign currency does flow overseas is strictly allocated to a handful of important industries. The fall of prices for the rial has been heavy related to the surge in the price of gold, as economic uncertainty has many Iranians running to precious metals, and gold imports surged in recent weeks.

US sanctions aim to limit, if not totally eliminate, Iran's access to foreign markets. That also has Iran trying to make some last-minute purchases while they know they still can. Five new planes were purchased from ATR for the state airline. It's far short of the new fleet of airliners Iran initially sought, but the best they can do with the US blocking Boeing and Airbus from fulfilling contracts.

Since the August 6 date has been known for months, it's likely much of the market reaction to the sanctions is already factored in to Iran's currency pricing. China's refusal to comply with US sanctions, likewise, is a sign that Iran won't be totally cutoff from world markets. Still, it will take awhile before the full extent of the US attempt, and its effectiveness, is known.

[Aug 01, 2018] Let Mikey do it Maybe not.

Aug 01, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

IMO Mikey Pompeo suffers from Smart Guy Syndrome. My wife calls it Great Man Syndrome. In both of these a delusion of centrality sets in based on a belief in one's own superiority. This rots the mind. Mikey has always been the smartest kid in the room. You know his resumé. And, pilgrims, he has a smiley face welded onto his real sharkey face. These attributes have carried him far but he has a weakness or two. He really does think he is a being above the ken of mortal men AND he is a hyper-nationialist neocon ideologue through and through and in many ways immune to appeals to reason. He surely think thatTrump is a dolt. Look at the picture. He has contradicted the president several times. This is a very dangerous thing to do. Trump is a reality based self-centered hustler who is used to dealing with supercilious p---ks who want to manipulate him.

Now Mikey has John-John Bolton as ally and playmate. Bolton is, IMO, more than a little crazy. Bolton loves his place in an NSC made over into extensions of his neocon craziness. He thinks that he has the Iranians right where he wants them. He believes that we could fight a maritime campaign in the Gulf with next to no losses and that if necessary we can bomb the Iranian people into unleashing their economic deprivation wrath against the mullahs.

Pompeo agrees with him. He is trying to keep the president buttered up while pursuing his shared goals with Bolton both cleverly and surreptitiously. Well, folks, Trump is a master of the art of BS detection. Those who try to fool him are taking a great risk.

Off to one side in this drama, stand the inbred caste of generals and admirals. Trump professes to admire them, but Mattis, Dunford and CENTCOM are steadily losing real power in the contest for the president's attention. IMO there will be a unifying deal between Damascus and the YPG Kurds and Trump knows all about progress toward that goal. Do the generals want that? No. They have their own desired foreign policy. They want to make the casualties of the last 15 years meaningful through victory somewhere, anywhere would do. They also want revenge against Iran for men lost in Iraq. They listen to the Israelis far too much.

IMO Trump has a private line of communication to Russia. This is perfectly legal and probably is conducted over CIA communications links or through the ambassador in Moscow, Jon Huntsman or both.

Pompeo may or may not know what is being said in those channels. pl

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/399597-pompeo-sets-conditions-for-iran-meeting-after-trump-says-hell-meet

Larry Kart , 20 hours ago

if Trump is such a reality-based hustler who knows how to deal with supercilious p--cks" like Pompeo and Bolton, why the heck does he keep bringing those p--cks on board and then waste so much time and energy on dealing with them? Are there no prospective officials around who are not of that stripe? Or is it that Trump is unable to detect them and/or unwilling for some reason to bring them in and put them to work?

I'm reminded of a point made throughout Vol. 1 of Michael Broers' brilliant new biography of Napoleon -- that Napoleon, who despised the talk-talk-talk of parliaments and liked best to work with and through committees, had a near-infallible gift for detecting the best and the brightest, whether or not they had impressive credentials or even if they had opposed or still opposed some of his policies. In these committees, which dealt with both political and military matters, all were expected to speak freely, while Napoleon listened like a hawk. For him the key test, aside from the committee members' intelligence and energy, was whether they were men of honor -- by which he meant that when agreements had been reached after all had had their fair say and Napoleon had put his stamp on them, they would abide by what had been thoroughly vetted and agreed to. An autocrat, for sure, and yet...

Pat Lang Mod -> Larry Kart , 19 hours ago
He hired people recommended to him by their cronies like Rosenstein, Wray, Pruitt, Coates. There have been many mistakes.like that. He could not appoint the kind of people he had eaten well-done steaks with in NY while hustling them in a deal. He also relies too much on his gut reaction to people he meets.
Larry Kart -> Pat Lang , 19 hours ago
Yes but, if he is that susceptible to dubious advice, isn't that something of a flashing-red-light character flaw -- just as Napoleon deserves blame for taking the advice of the treacherous Josephine on several disastrous occasions (i.e. the decision to invade Haiti)?
Pat Lang Mod -> Larry Kart , 18 hours ago
"You see," as Auda Abu Tayi said of Lawrence in the movie, "He is not perfect."
unmitigatedaudacity -> Pat Lang , 4 hours ago
No, he is not. We all lament The Boltens and Pompeos. However, where is he to find "good people"? The American political class is reflectively myopic and partisan. Find some more Jon Huntsman types (where? IDK) who can serve American interests without all the Sturm und Drang of today's hyperbolic, puerile political warfare.
EEngineer , a day ago
I would wager that Trump sees both of them as dangerous but useful idiots that willingly play their role in his "good-cop, bad cop" negotiating tactics. They will be gone with the next tacking.
Pat Lang Mod -> EEngineer , a day ago
Yup. Ready about! Ah, they went over the side.
EEngineer -> Pat Lang , 19 hours ago
I envisioned something closer to being forced to walk the plank.
Charles Pettibone , 11 hours ago
I was pleasantly surprised at Bolton's behavior in Russia and in his comment that getting rid of Assad was no longer the goal of the US. To be sure, time will tell, but it's clear that at this point Trump is driving foreign policy and is far more self-confident than he was in 2017.

Whatever Pompeo says doesn't matter- if he tries to throw up walls to a summit, Trump will tell him to go to hell. It's a core principle of Trump's that meeting is not a "concession." He knows that "legitimacy" is an utterly meaningless concept, not something that can be granted or withdrawn by the US president. If Iran offers Trump a meeting, he'll meet. No questions asked.

chris chuba , a day ago
"Well, folks, Trump is a master of the art of BS detection. Those who try to fool him are taking a great risk."

I completely agree with you Col. I hear people call Trump a moron or a genius, I think that what makes him so vexing is that he is both at the same time. He is probably very good at making certain nobody gets the better of him, especially his subordinates.

NathalieM , a day ago
Except for the belief on Trump´s masterliness on anything, I never would had thought I will be agreeing with you all the way till the last line....of this concrete post....What I most agree with you in is in Pompeo´s overestimating his own capabilities...and I conclude also along with you that is a very dangerous situation...But, if you see it so clear, and we all too, could you provide a convincing explanation on why Trump, being such a master on personal management and business administration, elected Pompeo and Bolton for office in the first place?

Thanks in advance, in case you answer my question and do not find something outrageous enough for your sensibility in my comment so as to delete it.

EEngineer -> NathalieM , 2 hours ago
It frames Trump as the moderate. He uses them to move the Overton Window. Nothing more.

[Jul 11, 2018] Pompeo's Breathtaking Arrogance by Daniel Larison

Notable quotes:
"... Iran has better – and legal – cause to be in Syria than Victoria Nuland had to meddle in the Ukraine. Impunitivism – do as we tell you, not as we do. ..."
"... I'm not sure which is more worrisome, if Pompeo knew how absurd that is but said it anyway, or if he really doesn't even know ..."
"... What do you not get about us being the ONE INDISPENSABLE NATION (OIN)? The OIN determines and enforces the New World Order! "Rights" don't apply to us. Does God Almighty worry about whether He has the right to do something? No! We have become as Him. ..."
"... It's sort of an interesting concept, and a very new one. I can't recall American saying that Country X can have no dealings with Country Y. I don't think much will come of it. Even assuming that the statement was serious, which there is really no way of knowing, given the Trump/Pompeo propensity to lie, the Iranians must assume that Trump and Pompeo are too ignorant and incompetent to do anything effective about it. ..."
"... No one has any idea when or why to take these people seriously. They say all this blood-curdling stuff one day and a few days later appear to have forgotten it completely and fixated on some other stupid notion. ..."
Jul 11, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Mike Pompeo gave an interview to Sky News Arabia this week in which he made some remarkable statements:

Well, Iran needs to get out of Syria. They have no business there. There's no reason for them to be there. There's been Iranian influence there for a long time. Iranian forces, Iranian militias must leave the country.

If Iran has no business in Syria, the U.S. certainly doesn't have any business keeping troops there. Leave aside the absurdity of the statement that the ally of a government has no business supporting that government in a war, and just consider the breathtaking hypocrisy of this statement coming from a U.S. official.

The U.S. is engaged in hostilities in at least a half dozen countries around the world and attacks other governments at will. Our government has been actively supporting the Saudi-led attack on Yemen for more than three years, and we have had U.S. force operating illegally in Syrian territory and airspace for almost four. It is the height of arrogance and folly to issue this ultimatum. The U.S. has no right or authority to make such a demand, and the administration should be focused instead on withdrawing our forces from wars that we have no business fighting or supporting.

b. July 11, 2018 at 1:40 pm

Iran has better – and legal – cause to be in Syria than Victoria Nuland had to meddle in the Ukraine. Impunitivism – do as we tell you, not as we do.
Mark Thomason , says: July 11, 2018 at 2:34 pm
I'm not sure which is more worrisome, if Pompeo knew how absurd that is but said it anyway, or if he really doesn't even know.
Kent , says: July 11, 2018 at 2:58 pm
Larison,

What do you not get about us being the ONE INDISPENSABLE NATION (OIN)? The OIN determines and enforces the New World Order! "Rights" don't apply to us. Does God Almighty worry about whether He has the right to do something? No! We have become as Him.

watching in wonder , says: July 11, 2018 at 3:11 pm
It's sort of an interesting concept, and a very new one. I can't recall American saying that Country X can have no dealings with Country Y. I don't think much will come of it. Even assuming that the statement was serious, which there is really no way of knowing, given the Trump/Pompeo propensity to lie, the Iranians must assume that Trump and Pompeo are too ignorant and incompetent to do anything effective about it.

No one has any idea when or why to take these people seriously. They say all this blood-curdling stuff one day and a few days later appear to have forgotten it completely and fixated on some other stupid notion.

[Jul 11, 2018] Why Trump's Iran Isolation Plan May Backfire by Ron Paul

Notable quotes:
"... President Trump's demand last week that OPEC "reduce prices now" or US military protection of OPEC countries may not continue almost sounded desperate. But if anything, Trump's bluntness is refreshing: if, as he suggests, the purpose of the US military – with a yearly total budget of a trillion dollars – is to protect OPEC members in exchange for "cheap oil," how cheap is that oil? ..."
"... Exactly how traditional 'US Mideast policies' benefit the average American however remains a mystery. Many of these questionable policies are never critically examined in the open – at least not the big ones involving that 'special relationship' with you-know-who. Never. ..."
"... Iran's crime? That nation's alleged 'sponsorship of terrorism' in support of the Palestinian struggle against Zionist occupation, as well as other anti-Zionist resistance movements in Lebanon, Syria and beyond. ..."
"... Yet it is Israel that is foremost occupying power in that region and it is Israel that is the expanding nuclear power. Meanwhile, the Zionist-lead BDS campaign against Iran is nothing less than a full-blown economic war. At the same time, Israel benefits from unconditional and continuous US subsidies. ..."
"... In no small way, Israel sees its mission to dominate the region and expand its borders as a religious duty. Destiny. This puts Israel in a class by itself. And unlike its neighbors (including Iran) Israel has nuclear WMD. ..."
Jul 11, 2018 | www.unz.com

... ... ...

President Trump is finding that his threats and heated rhetoric do not always have the effect he wishes. As his Administration warns countries to stop buying Iranian oil by November or risk punishment by the United States, a nervous international oil market is pushing prices ever higher, threatening the economic prosperity he claims credit for. President Trump's response has been to demand that OPEC boost its oil production by two million barrels per day to calm markets and bring prices down.

Perhaps no one told him that Iran was a founding member of OPEC?

When President Trump Tweeted last week that Saudi Arabia agreed to begin pumping additional oil to make up for the removal of Iran from the international markets, the Saudis very quickly corrected him, saying that while they could increase capacity if needed, no promise to do so had been made.

The truth is, if the rest of the world followed Trump's demands and returned to sanctions and boycotting Iranian oil, some 2.7 million barrels per day currently supplied by Iran would be very difficult to make up elsewhere. Venezuela, which has enormous reserves but is also suffering under, among other problems, crippling US sanctions, is shrinking out of the world oil market.

Iraq has not recovered its oil production capacity since its "liberation" by the US in 2003 and the al-Qaeda and ISIS insurgencies that followed it.

Last week, Bloomberg reported that "a complete shutdown of Iranian sales could push oil prices above $120 a barrel if Saudi Arabia can't keep up." Would that crash the US economy? Perhaps. Is Trump willing to risk it?

President Trump's demand last week that OPEC "reduce prices now" or US military protection of OPEC countries may not continue almost sounded desperate. But if anything, Trump's bluntness is refreshing: if, as he suggests, the purpose of the US military – with a yearly total budget of a trillion dollars – is to protect OPEC members in exchange for "cheap oil," how cheap is that oil?

At the end, China, Russia, and others are not only unlikely to follow Trump's demands that Iran again be isolated: they in fact stand to benefit from Trump's bellicosity toward Iran. One Chinese refiner has just announced that it would cancel orders of US crude and instead turn to Iran for supplies. How many others might follow and what might it mean?

Ironically, President Trump's "get tough" approach to Iran may end up benefitting Washington's named adversaries Russia and China – perhaps even Iran. The wisest approach is unfortunately the least likely at this point: back off from regime change, back off from war-footing, back off from sanctions. Trump may eventually find that the cost of ignoring this advice may be higher than he imagined.

Vidi , July 10, 2018 at 6:05 am GMT

Trump may eventually find that the cost of ignoring [the advice to back off from Iran] may be higher than he imagined.

Perhaps he's counting on not being President by then. Another case of IBGYBG (I'll be gone, you'll be gone), an attitude that seems to be infecting bankers, Wall Street, and the rest of the U.S. élite lately. A cataclysm is coming, and they can see it.

mark green , July 10, 2018 at 7:01 am GMT
Why is Zio-America treating Iran with such hostility?

Iran and Israel are locked in a vicious cold war. Their animosities date back to mythical antiquity. One alleged episode is even celebrated in the Jewish celebration of 'Purim'.

Take a look at the breathtaking insight that Gilad Atzmon has to offer about Purim:

https://www.counterpunch.org/2007/03/03/from-esther-to-aipac/

In any case, Iran and Israel's antipathies for one another shouldn't concern superpower America. Except that it does.

Like American television, Washington happens to be Israeli-held territory. Haven't you heard?

This is why Zio-Washington invariably sides with Israel in all of its disputes, even when 1) Israel is the aggressor, 2) even when Israel is slaughtering powerless civilians who are protesting their subjugation, and 3) even when US interests are not at stake or even in play. And this uniform deference from Washington is thoroughly bipartisan. It is 'business as usual'. It's basically unanimous. Both Parties. No dissent.

Many just call it 'US Mideast policy'. Ironclad. 'Unshakable'. But don't laugh or smirk. Doing so might be seen as 'anti-Semitic'.

Exactly how traditional 'US Mideast policies' benefit the average American however remains a mystery. Many of these questionable policies are never critically examined in the open – at least not the big ones involving that 'special relationship' with you-know-who. Never.

These rigid policies help explain how Crypto-Israelis in America – using Washington as their proxy – have successfully brought the US into Israel's cold war against Iran.

Zionist operatives have not only orchestrated the decades-long freeze of billions of dollars in Iranian assets that belong to the Iranian people, but they have launched a global (and crypto-Zionist) 'Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions' campaign against the relatively peaceful nation of Iran.

Iran's crime? That nation's alleged 'sponsorship of terrorism' in support of the Palestinian struggle against Zionist occupation, as well as other anti-Zionist resistance movements in Lebanon, Syria and beyond.

Yet it is Israel that is foremost occupying power in that region and it is Israel that is the expanding nuclear power. Meanwhile, the Zionist-lead BDS campaign against Iran is nothing less than a full-blown economic war. At the same time, Israel benefits from unconditional and continuous US subsidies.

Politicians who dare question this phenomena – or who wander off the Zionist plantation in Washington – tend to disappear. Rapidly. Journalists, too.

In no small way, Israel sees its mission to dominate the region and expand its borders as a religious duty. Destiny. This puts Israel in a class by itself. And unlike its neighbors (including Iran) Israel has nuclear WMD.

Due to Israeli influence here, Americans are not only actively supporting various Zionist war efforts, but they are also paying billions more for their gasoline since Zionists have managed to prohibit the purchase Iranian oil throughout the West. These economic 'choices' are what Americans unwittingly make – even though the 'average Joe' remains totally unaware of them.

Indeed, even though Iran wants to be a trading partner with America and bring its oil onto the world market, Zio-Washington says 'NO!' US consumers be damned. The Iranian people be damned.

This is not the first time that US economic interests have taken a back seat to Israel's. Please recall the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, Zio-Washington's intervention on behalf of Israel during that conflict, the ensuing Arab oil embargo, and the disastrous recession that followed.

But Zio-America never turned it back on Israel, even though American citizens never had the opportunity to determine their allies or policies one way or another. US support of Israel is mandatory. It's been this way since LBJ.

Today, Israel is maneuvering Zio-Washington to do to Iran what it did to Iraq, Libya and Syria; namely, spread destabilization and impose 'creative destruction' upon all nations that pose any long-term threat to the Zionist State.

[Jul 09, 2018] Chinese Refiner Halts US Oil Purchases, May Use Iran Oil Instead

Jul 08, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
With the US and China contemplating their next moves in what is now officially a trade war, a parallel narrative is developing in the world of energy where Asian oil refiners are racing to secure crude supplies in anticipation of an escalating trade war between the US and China, even as Trump demands all US allies cut Iran oil exports to zero by November 4 following sanctions aimed at shutting the country out of oil markets.

Concerned that the situation will deteriorate before it gets better, Asian refiners are moving swiftly to secure supplies with South Korea leading the way. Under pressure from Washington, Seoul has already halted all orders of Iranian oil, according to sources, even as it braces from spillover effects from the U.S.-China tit-for-tat on trade.

"As South Korea's economy heavily relies on trade, it won't be good for South Korea if the global economic slowdown happens because of a trade dispute between U.S and China," said Lee Dal-seok, senior researcher at the Korea Energy Economic Institute (KEEI).

Meanwhile, Chinese state media has unleashed a full-on propaganda blitzkrieg , slamming Trump's government as a "gang of hoodlums", with officials vowing retaliation, while the chairman of Sinochem just become China's official leader of the anti-Trump resistance, quoting Michelle Obama's famous slogan " when they go low, we go high. " Standing in the line of fire are U.S. crude supplies to China, which have surged from virtually zero before 2017 to 400,000 barrels per day (bpd) in July.

Representing a modest 5% of China's overall crude imports, these supplies are worth $1 billion a month at current prices - a figure that seems certain to fall should a duty be implemented . While U.S. crude oil is not on the list of 545 products the Chinese government has said it would immediately retaliate with in response to American duties, China has threatened a 25% duty on imports of U.S. crude which is listed as a U.S. product that will receive an import tariff at an unspecified later date.

And amid an escalating tit-for-tat war between Trump and Xi in which neither leader is even remotely close to crying uncle, industry participants expect the tariff to be levied, a move which would make future purchases of US oil uneconomical for Chinese importers.

"The Chinese have to do the tit-for-tat, they have to retaliate ," said John Driscoll, director of consultancy JTD Energy, adding that cutting U.S. crude imports was a means "of retaliating (against) the U.S. in a very substantial way".

In an alarming sign for Washington, and a welcome development for Iran, some locals have decided not to see which way the dice may fall.

According to Japan Times , in a harbinger of what's to come, an executive from China's Dongming Petrochemical Group, an independent refiner from Shandong province, said his refinery had already cancelled U.S. crude orders .

"We expect the Chinese government to impose tariffs on (U.S.) crude," the unnamed executive said. " We will switch to either Middle East or West African supplies ," he said.

Driscoll said China may even replace American oil with crude from Iran. " They (Chinese importers) are not going to be intimidated, or swayed by U.S. sanctions."

Oil consultancy FGE agrees, noting that China is unlikely to heed President Trump's warning to stop buying oil from Iran. While as much as 2.3 million barrels a day of crude from the Persian Gulf state at risk per Trump's sanctions, the White House has yet to get responses from China, while India or Turkey have already hinted they would defy Trump and keep importing Iranian oil. Together three three nations make up about 60 percent of the Persian Gulf state's exports.

... ... ...

beemasters -> divingengineer Sun, 07/08/2018 - 19:50 Permalink

"Meanwhile, Chinese state media has unleashed a full-on propaganda blitzkrieg, slamming Trump's government as a "gang of hoodlums""

And how's that a propaganda?
Oh, Trump was just following Bibi's order on Iran issue. Got it.

DingleBarryObummer -> 2banana Sun, 07/08/2018 - 20:11 Permalink

Did you even READ the article?

Yes it looks like he did.

Under pressure from Washington, Seoul has already halted all orders of Iranian oil, according to sources, even as it braces from spillover effects from the U.S.-China tit-for-tat on trade.

[Jul 06, 2018] Iran Threatens To Close the Strait of Hormuz naked capitalism

Notable quotes:
"... On the Psychology of Military Incompetence ..."
Jul 06, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

The Rev Kev , July 5, 2018 at 2:13 am

I think that the potential threat of what happens if there is a hot war are more extensive than just having the Strait of Hormuz being closed. If you look at that map you can see that Saudi Arabia is just across the Strait. And as luck would have it, Saudi Arabia's oil fields are mostly in the east which means that they are within close missile range of Iran. Nice oil fields you have there Saudi Arabia. Shame if something happened to it. The United Arab Emirates are also within missile range as well. If both countries think that Patriot batteries will protect them then they must have been disillusioned to find that those Patriots couldn't even defend against wonky Houthi missiles.
Then there is the fact that Iran shares a border with Pakistan and Afghanistan. Remember how the CIA shipped all those anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM) and ManPads to the Syrian Jihadists via countries like Saudi Arabia? Be a real shame if captured stock got passed on to the Taliban via all those borders and started targeted US/Coalition forces in Afghanistan. Just these two possibilities show how Iran has a whole range of options to use if it came to a military confrontation. And it should be remembered. If a US/Coalition could not successfully occupy Iraq with a population of 37 million, then how can Iran with a population of 80 million be occupied?
Another factor is that even if a US/Coalition managed to somehow suppress all those missiles the Iranians are using to guard those Straits, you would never be sure that you got them all. Who really want to risk their oil tankers going down those Straits and wanting to risk that bottleneck beig turned into a flaming sea? The trouble there is no way that there would be a quick campaign possible with everybody home by Christmas. This has the potential of still being fought during the 2020 US elections and I do not think that the US establishment wants to risk that one. What they do want is to strangle Iran economically and turn the place into one of grinding poverty but if pushed too far may go the Sampson option.

jCandlish , July 5, 2018 at 3:31 am

Mines.

The straight could be mined, and probably already is.

Colonel Smithers , July 5, 2018 at 4:30 am

Thank you.

Local kids could also be trained to fire rockets across the water. The straits are not straight and cut into Iran, so there's a good vantage point for Iran.

Steve H. , July 5, 2018 at 7:28 am

> probably already is.
>> China is still officially stating that it will not end its Iranian oil imports and operations.

China's investment of billions into the deep port of Gwadar should not be discounted. While China has ceded the ocean surface to the US navy, the wei qi way is to surround and not engage directly. By now the Gulf of Oman should be a sensory organ for information critical to Iran, and passive systems are much harder to detect & destroy.

We're now three years out from Qiao Liang saying China "thinks that Washington will not fight Beijing for the next ten years". China doesn't want the fight (and I mean high explosives, not 'fighting for') yet, but they've been preparing. And let us not forget the rooster tails on the American fleet fleeing the Persian Gulf in October 2015 when Russia launched cruise missiles at Syria. That was three months after the 'One Belt, One Road' speech.

While the Saud's are working out their family disputes they cannot afford to have the petrodollar disabled. But the US is materially capable of weathering energy disruptions better than the EU, which would become even more dependent on Russia. Long term, the petrodollar is gone and climate migrations are coming, so the when of Fortess America could depend on relative and not absolute 'cui bono, ciu malo'.

tldr: the fight is inevitable, there's more than two in the ring, and there's no referee.

rd , July 5, 2018 at 12:04 pm

I doubt if it is mined at this time, but mines would be a logical way to quickly shut the Strait down. A couple of small fast ships dropping mines at night could shut it down very quickly. They could drop mines along the far shore which would force ships towards the Iran side where they would be vulnerable to shore-based anti-ship missiles.

BTW, the standing NATO minesweeping group is three ships (two Lithuanian and one British). Historically minesweeping is one of the roles carried out by other countries that the US is currently working hard to alienate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_NATO_Mine_Countermeasures_Group_1

The US Navy has minesweeping ships stationed in Bahrain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avenger-class_mine_countermeasures_ship

Mine sweeping ships generally are not heavily armored to avoid magnetic and acoustic signatures that can trigger mines. So they can struggle in contested waters and would be very vulnerable to anti-ship missiles.

"Rouhani, considered by European politicians to be a reformist, appears to be showing a hardline streak that is nearer the strategy of the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. "

Everybody becomes a hardliner when faced with an existential threat, which Trump's threats are now creating for Iran.

Antifa , July 5, 2018 at 12:59 pm

There's no need to sink any oil tankers to stop all oil shipping. Those tankers don't sail without full insurance for the cargo, and no maritime insurer will back shipping through the Strait of Hormuz while the Iranians are on the warpath. Hence, no oil tanker.

rd , July 5, 2018 at 2:03 pm

That is why a few mines would be very effective. All oil shipping would cease immediately. Because mines can be redeployed very easily, including by air or fishing boats, insurers would probably not be assuaged by naval assurances that mines have been swept.

Lambert Strether , July 5, 2018 at 3:31 pm

"What's mined is minded, and what's yours is negotiable."

Bill Smith , July 5, 2018 at 5:22 pm

In the 1980's when the Iranians mined the Straits the tankers still moved. What was the insurance deal then? Did it the US pick it up for that part of the trip?

Redlife 2017 , July 5, 2018 at 4:11 am

"If a US/Coalition could not successfully occupy Iraq with a population of 37 million, then how can Iran with a population of 80 million be occupied?"

Iran is also mostly Persian. Yes, there are Arabs, Armenians, Baluchis, etc., but the vast majority are Persian and are proud to be Persian. Unlike Iraq, where you have a country with 3 groups you can play off each other.

I visited Iran over 5 years ago and was able to speak to some regular Iranians (English is not uncommon amongst men and women). They will fight to the last man, woman, and child if anyone came into their country. And that's what the secular ones who hate their government say.

Every town has lamppost flags showing the pictures of all the young men who died in the Iran-Iraq War. It was humbling to see the generational devastation wrought on that country. Even the youth view that war as a world war, since people from over 25 countries were found to be fighting on the Iraq side ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War – Remember the Soviet Union was ALSO on Iraq's side!). They faced destruction and survived. They view themselves as an ancient, sophisticated people as well as the greatest survivors in the world (all with good reason as they are an amazing people with a rubbish government).

I do not see this ending well if the US thinks they can put the Iranians into a corner and get compliance. It is an amazingly ahistorical understanding of the geopolitics of Iran. These are the people we should be allying with not Saudi Arabia. But this is the same group who think blundering into Iraq or Syria was a good idea, so I really can't be surprised.

Colonel Smithers , July 5, 2018 at 4:27 am

Thank you, Kev.

Just to add that the people living above the main Saudi oil fields, Eastern Province, are mainly Shiites. Shiites are also to be found in the south along the ill defined border with Yemen. Both communities are disaffected and have been for decades, although the BBC, which advertises its "unparalled global expertise" (sic) between news bulletins and other programmes, reckons the Arab Spring caused the restiveness in Saudi Arabia.

This said, the Saudis and their Pakistani poodles can foment (Sunni) Arab and Baluch disorder in Khuzestan and Sistan / Iranian Baluchistan.

The Rev Kev , July 5, 2018 at 4:51 am

Oh my. I forgot all about the Shiites of the Eastern Provinces. Thanks for correcting that omission.

ex-PFC Chuck , July 5, 2018 at 7:53 am

And Bahrain is also predominantly Shiite, although ruthlessly ruled by Sunnis. And they're restive Shiites at that.

Clive , July 5, 2018 at 7:27 am

I always wonder to myself when, on the BBC News Channel, they pan across the alleged newsroom in New Broadcasting House and you see all those desks -- rows upon rows of them -- where people are sat, or, occasionally, get up and have a wander around, what the heck are they doing there? It can't be producing news reports because you see the same half a dozen so-called news "stories" stripped endlessly across the schedule throughout the day.

Every so often we get "business" news, which is someone from a spread betting company piffling on about some rot or other then "a look at the markets", not, unfortunately, a view of Covenant Garden or something, that would be more interesting, but rather some mysterious figures from world indices and forex rates splayed across the screen like some inscrutable hieroglyphs.

Then a bit of sport, with a dash of added jingoism.

Finally, some rally round the flag update on "the forces" with some top brass on the poop deck of an aircraft carrier looking for an F35 ("F35 coming real soon"). Maybe Sophie Rayworth in a tank.

Or alternatively it's Jenny Hill from Berlin with something about sausages and Merkel with stock footage of people drinking beer from unfeasibly large glasses wraps it all up apart from a sky diving granny then the weather.

Is it some kind of comedy, I ask at this point ?

The Rev Kev , July 5, 2018 at 8:08 am

It could be worse. We all could work in one of these places. It would not matter how great a story you found, it would all have to get through the editors who report directly to their owners like with the Murdoch press. The stuff you talk about is just the stuff that gets the editorial nod i.e. pure pap.
Some of the stuff that I have seen on Australian TV, however, is nothing less than out and out propaganda. I watch some of this stuff and I compare it with what I read on this site or what a commentator chips in with and I wonder what these newsreaders actually are thinking as they read some of these stories. Probably their steady pay packets.

Clive , July 5, 2018 at 8:20 am

I briefly watched ABC a couple of months ago. I thought I'd tuned into The War Channel. How on earth did that happen?

The Rev Kev , July 5, 2018 at 8:58 am

I wish to god I knew. I have seen this creeping in the past decade or more. I suspect that a lot of bad practices are imported from overseas. There are international conferences for conservative political parties so you would have American Republicans, British Conservatives, Australian Coalition, etc. all mixing together and swapping idea and techniques. They even work together when there is an election in their country.
Just the other day I heard one Coalition member describe another as a "patriot" which you NEVER hear in Oz. Kinda like a Republican describing another Republican as a good Communist. You just never hear it. We even have an ex-Prime Minister that sounds like he could be a good buddy to Mark Rubio running around trying to blow up his own party (currently in power) saying that we should build as many coal power stations as possible because climate change is not real.
Historically our governments have been ruled by pragmatism and past US governments have labelled us as "socialist" due to adopting such things as single-payer health. The past few years I am noting more and more ideologues going into politics who want to drag the country into their way of thinking whether it is to pick fights with China (our major trade partner) or send the Australian military to the ends of the earth as if they were Mercenaries-r-us. The times they are a changing.

ambrit , July 5, 2018 at 10:48 am

It all reminds me of C S Lewis' description of H -- as a giant bureaucracy. "The Screwtape Letters" were written at the end of WW-2 and still come across as 'fresh.'

upstater , July 5, 2018 at 9:41 am

Supposedly the KSA funded development of the Pakistani bomb. There probably is some agreement to hand some over (if it hasn't already been done) for "existential threats" This could turn very bad very fast.

PlutoniumKun , July 5, 2018 at 5:02 am

Iran has lots of options. Their Navy wouldn't last very long in a hot war but they have lots of asymetric options. They have reverse engineered Russian torpedoes and these could be launched from land or from mini-subs in shallow waters (where they are far harder to detect), making life very difficult for opponents, let alone tankers. They can strike the UAE and much of Saudi Arabia using a wide variety of ballistic missiles. To prevent this, the US would have to strike Iranian territory, and this would cause a massive escalation. In almost any scenario, the Straits would be shut down for many months, and this would be catastrophic for the world economy. Asia would come off worse as they are most dependent on LNG and oil from that region.

As you say, the great 'unsaid' is the Taliban. If Iran decided it was in their interest to supply them with a few dozen trained operators with a few thousand anti-tank missiles and manpads, then its goodbye Kabul.

Felix_47 , July 5, 2018 at 11:02 am

The Iranians hate the Taliban and Al Quaeda and ISIS a lot more than we do since we are on Saudi Arabia's side. They also seem to follow their principles. Don't forget our allies and proxies in Syria are the headcutters and madmen ..all Sunnis ..although our government does not want to admit it. They would be a lot smarter to trigger a Shiite uprising in Saudi Arabia and shut the country down. The Shiites in Saudi are downtrodden and abused.

Synoia , July 5, 2018 at 12:20 pm

One tanker sunk would eliminate the carriage of oil.

The maritime insurers would not insure the tankers in a war zone.

I believe the insurance term is "Force Majeure"

Bill Smith , July 5, 2018 at 5:42 pm

What is the pipeline capacity to get around the straits? Much there?

Synoia , July 5, 2018 at 9:18 pm

What pipeline? There are pipeline from Iraq to the Mediterranean coast. I don't believe there are any from Saudi Arabia to the Mediterranean.

One has to remember:

Mechanical Engineers build weapons
Civil Engineers build Targets

To escalate a carrier sinking to nuclear war is, I believe a lose/lose proposition. Let say the Iranians sunk a carrier and the US Nuked Tehran.

The Iranians would not be in a forgiving mood at that point, and it would do little to remove the somewhat irritated Iranians along the northern side of the Persian Gulf. The irritated Iranians would initiate incidents over the impact of irradiated Iranians.

The US could nuke the Iranian Coast along the Persian Gulf, but, the gulf is not wide, and the result would be poor prospects for the US allies on the South side of the Gulf. In addition one does not know if nuking Shea would provoke a Sunni backlash against "the infidels, the Christian US."

One could argue that Christians and Nukes cannot be mentioned in the same sentence.

Ape , July 5, 2018 at 6:02 am

If you want to successfully occupy a society, they must believe you are willing and capable of genocide.

JIm Thomson , July 5, 2018 at 11:25 am

The Prologue of Robert Baer's "Sleeping With the Devil" outlines a potential scenario of a Shiite attack on the eastern Saudi oil fields. The sub-title is The Doomsday Scenario.
The book is about the US-Saudi relationship by a retired CIA officer. A very good read and part of trying to understand this entire mess.

TimmyB , July 5, 2018 at 3:12 pm

Exactly right. Logic dictates that if Iran is attacked, Iranian missiles will soon thereafter attempt to destroy all of the oil producing capacity selling to Europe, Japan and the US within range of its missiles. This means ships, oil fields, pipeline, ect. Oil prices would skyrocket, plunging the US, Japan and Europe into a deep economic downturn.

Why people ignore the outcome you provided is beyond me. If I were Iran, I'd do the same if Israel attacked too.

Bill Smith , July 5, 2018 at 5:56 pm

Your guess is that nobody will attack the Iranians after they attack the shipping to close the straits?

In the 1987 Iran attacked about 91 ships in the Gulf. The oil still flowed. On April 18, 1988 the US attacked and severely damaged a number of Iranian ships and bases. After that things started winding down. Then on July 3, 1988 the US shot down that Iranian airliner. Then things really quieted down.

What are the differences now? Iran: ballistic missiles and subs?

kimyo , July 5, 2018 at 3:45 am

which general should be put in charge of the u.s. military response to iran's threat?

the one who won the war in afghanistan? iraq? vietnam? syria?

surely we have somebody who is up to the task? a 'best of the best', 'with honors' kinda guy?

Antifa , July 5, 2018 at 8:17 am

There's Lt. General Riper, who played the Iranian side in the 2002 Millennium Challenge war games, "killing" 20,000 Navy personnel and "sinking" 16 American warships on the first day, so he knows better than to even start such a bottlenecked battle.

There's always General Farnsworth, the great grandson of Colonel Armstrong Custer. Farnsworth has worked for two decades in the Purchasing & Planning wing of the Pentagon -- three levels below daylight -- but his confidence in an immediate American victory Over There is indubitable.

Colonel Smithers , July 5, 2018 at 10:07 am

Thank you.

Custer's spawn? Super!

In similar vein, MI5's Eliza Manningham Buller is a descendant of Redvers Buller, British commander in the second Boer War, but much more of a realist and moderate.

The Rev Kev , July 5, 2018 at 10:48 am

Redvers Buller? Seriously? I have read a lot about his role in the Zulu War of 1879. Intriguing character being hard-fighting and hard-drinking and yet refused to wear his 1860 China medal on the grounds that it was an unnecessary war. And a descendant of his is head of MI5?

blennylips , July 5, 2018 at 2:54 pm

Here's a little character sketch of Redvers Buller, from " On the Psychology of Military Incompetence ", by Norman Dixon:

The leading character was the commander-in-chief, General Sir Redvers Buller. According to a contemporary description there could be no finer choice for our South African adventure: 'There is no stronger commander in the British Army than this remote, almost grimly resolute, completely independent, utterly fearless, steadfast and vigorous man. Big-boned, square-jawed, strong-minded, strong-headed Smartness sagacity administrative capacity He was born to be a soldier of the very best English type, needless to say the best type of all.
Unfortunately this assessment was at variance with the facts in all but two particulars. Firstly, he was indeed big. Secondly, though sadly lacking in moral courage, he was undoubtedly brave when it came to physical danger. In this respect, as in many others, he was not unlike Raglan of the Crimean War, and indeed some other commanders of subsequent years.
Of Sir 'Reverse' Buller, as he came to be known by his troops, Rayne Kruger writes: 'At the risk of marring [the] contemporary description it should be mentioned that his big bones were particularly well covered, especially in the region of the stomach, and that his square jaw was not especially apparent above a double chin. He had entered the army with no disadvantage, his mother being a Howard and niece of the Duke of Norfolk, and he was very wealthy, which was fortunate in view of his preference for a diet of ample good food and champagne.

Such examples of the Peter Principle, wherein people are raised to their own level of inefficiency, was never better illustrated than in the case of Sir Redvers Buller, who has been described as 'a superb major, a mediocre colonel and an abysmal general'. In this case, high-level military incompetence must be laid at the door of heroic leadership, for this was the quality which eventually put him where he could do the most damage to his own side.

The Rev Kev , July 5, 2018 at 9:07 am

I think that we found our best of the best-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXRi28W-ENY

Synoia , July 5, 2018 at 9:22 pm

Eggzactly

Expat , July 5, 2018 at 5:38 am

The US response will be that this unprovoked aggression is an act of war, etc. This ignores our own unprovoked act of aggression, the embargo.
In case any has forgotten, those dastardly Imperialist Japanese launched an "unprovoked" attack on Pearl Harbor because the US put Japan under an embargo.
Embargoes themselves are not acts of war, but blockades are. But this is all technical blather. The US is attempting to strangle Iran. Iran will attempt to strangle the Gulf Arabs and the US. If Iran starts firing missiles or blockading the straits, the US will attack Iran. Iran will in turn launch attacks on the Gulf states. This could drive oil over $200, perhaps higher.
If Iran were clever, they would institute some sort of quarantine or inspection in their territorial waters. Indeed, they should claim jurisdiction over the entire strait in the interest of international security (they could certainly find some US document somewhere and just change the names). Then they could stop every ship going in and out and spend a week or so inspecting each one for contraband, disease, etc. This would not be an act of war but would certainly provoke the US into striking first anyway.

vlade , July 5, 2018 at 6:38 am

Iran has already extended its territorial waters to 12 miles, as did Oman. Given that the strait is 29 miles at the narrowest, and that to deal with the amount of shipping, pretty much all of it passes through either Omani or Iranian territorial waters. Technically, Iran/Oman has right to stop any non "innocent" (read unarmed) shipping trough it territorial waters. Not sure what is Omani relationship with the US/Saudis at the moment, wasn't paying much attention to the Gulf.

Colonel Smithers , July 5, 2018 at 10:04 am

Thank you, Vlade.

The Omanis would stay out.

The variation of Islam practiced there is very different to Saudi Wahhabism.

Also, many foreigners there, not just Muslims, have Omani nationality.

Bill Smith , July 5, 2018 at 7:48 pm

Sounds like there are 4 miles in the center? The marked shipping lanes are all on the Oman side of the half way point.

JohnnySacks , July 5, 2018 at 9:35 am

Once the US decides to strike first, we're going to be on our own. The Saudis will be completely useless as they always were, understandably not wanting to be cannon fodder for US interests. And with most of Europe and Asia relying on gulf oil, our 'coalition of the willing' is going to be a bit shy of members.
But $200 a barrel and the US a solid producer? Seems to be some win-win money to be made for both Raytheon and Exxon-Mobil.

Felix_47 , July 5, 2018 at 11:04 am

No Saudi just like no rich American will give his life for his country .in the military. Life is just too good for them .why fight in the desert when you can cool it at a cafe in Munich ..why are all the Syrian men of fighting age in Munich and Hamburg? They don't want to fight for their country.

sierra7 , July 5, 2018 at 5:32 pm

Isn't that what the Kuwaiti leaders did during the "First Persian Gulf War"? They fled to Monaco .

EoinW , July 5, 2018 at 7:45 am

Considering the restraint Iran has shown regarding Israeli attacks in Syria, it's safe to assume they want to avoid war at all cost. Don't expect any acts of aggression from them. Talk of closing the strait is trying to see if there is any spark of independence left in Europe's political elite. Unfortunately the Europeans only care about money – what they get personally from the US to run their countries and what their corporations get from doing business with America. There just isn't enough business between Iran and Europe to offset that. Now the more unreasonable Washington becomes the more uncomfortable its allies become, however they will still hold their noses and answer the call to duty. I'm afraid Iran's courting Europe will produce little to help them. Luckily China and Russia, even Turkey and India, are far more important.

The nice thing for Iran's hardliners – assuming the MSM narrative that they are nasty terrorists always looking to cause trouble – is that they don't need to take aggressive action to start a war. They've got America/Israel and that's the cause of every war in the 21st century. That pairing will decide if and when there is to be a war. Russia and China might have the ability to provoke caution but Iran doesn't.

Do not expect any actions from the Iranians to provoke a war. It's a war they cannot win and they know it. it's also a war they can't lose but the price they could pay by surviving might be really horrific. I'm not sure they'd close the strait even in a shooting war because that would risk further escalation. The moment America starts bombing Iran the law of diminishing return kicks in. The US will be looking for any excuse to go nuclear. Therefore I doubt Iranian resistance will be more than defensive. Hopefully Russia is providing them with air defences to be able to shoot down some US planes. Just lay low and ride out the storm. That's been the philosophy of US/Israeli opponents in the Middle East this decade. It's why the Russians take so much crap and keep turning the other cheek. They understand that either they lose such a war or, if they are winning they risk the US going nuclear. Iran can't win a war with America. Iran, however, can inflict unacceptable casualties but then they run the same risk of Washington going nuclear in retaliation. In Asian capitals you have rational players who understand that a nuclear war must be avoided if possible. Thus they avoid any aggressive actions which they fear could lead to such a war. The problem humanity has is that we're not sure if there are any rational players in Washington or Tel Aviv.

Kilgore Trout , July 5, 2018 at 9:53 am

"The problem humanity has is that we're not sure if there are any rational players in Washington or Tel Aviv."
+1
Given our belief in being an "exceptional nation" hasn't this been humanity's problem since the end of WW2?

Synoia , July 5, 2018 at 9:23 pm

hasn't this been humanity's problem since the end of WW2?

No. Ask the Indians.

Ignacio , July 5, 2018 at 8:01 am

Will the sanctions pull Iran enough to such an escalation? Would other countries (apart from Turkey) thing that this is troubling enough to risk US sanctions and disobey? There has been an escalation in language between the UE and US regarding Iran sanctions but it is still too soon to know what will be the EU position. We migth know after tomorrow's meeting in Vienna. I don't know what could happen but be sure the US is running out of "natural allies" by stepping up too much it's support for Saudi Arab. Trump is inaugurating a new era and it doesn't look pretty.

Tom Stone , July 5, 2018 at 9:20 am

Always bet on stupid.

Edward , July 5, 2018 at 9:38 am

Iran is now working with Russia. I wonder what discussions are occurring between these countries on this subject?

Bobby Gladd , July 5, 2018 at 12:22 pm

I have a relation who is a Marine Corps Major and Osprey pilot. His take on a serious major military conflict: "We are SO not ready."

blennylips , July 5, 2018 at 4:17 pm

Snafu agrees, in spades:

The Army might be in trouble but the Marine Corps WILL BE IN A HURT LOCKER FROM HELL if its ever called on to face Russian forces if they follow thru with published planning.

https://www.snafu-solomon.com/2018/07/dr-phillip-karber-on-russian-way-of-war.html

Bill Smith , July 5, 2018 at 7:55 pm

Lots of hype there – The Russians had a plan to invade the Ukraine! Shocking! Only 1 plan?

[Jul 06, 2018] Trump's Iran Gambit Won't Pay Off by Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich

Notable quotes:
"... Offshore Technology ..."
"... * Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich ..."
Mar 07, 2018 | www.opednews.com
By Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich

It is as clear as day that President Trump is obsessed with regime change in Iran. What is not made clear is how much his gambit is damaging to Americans and American interests.

Without cause or justification, Mr. Trump pulled out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action (JCPOA), striking a hard blow to America's European allies – and its own credibility. Moreover, he threatened European countries with secondary sanctions should they continue to trade with Iran.

To top it all, in his latest move, he has called for all Iranian oil exports to be cut off by November. Or in practical terms, he is imposing an economic blockade on Iran. This is a similar scenario that was played out by the British in 1951 against Iran and Dr. Mossadegh – who was later overthrown in the 1953 British-US coup. But today, the IR of Iran is not the Iran of 1953, and the brunt of American demands and actions will not be borne by Iran alone.

Demanding that no country purchase oil from Iran is in fact an economic blockade. It is an illegitimate use of power to force a sovereign nation to surrender. It must be made clear however, that it is not just Iran that is the target here. The Trump administration's demands arean offensiveexercise of extraterritorial authority with no regard for sovereign equality between states. All states involved in trade with Iran will either have to cower to his demands or be punished.

But there is more than state sovereignty and indignation that is involved. These actions will have a dire effect on the economy of allies, and they will hit Americans in the wallet – hard. If Mr. Trump is giving a November deadline, he hopes to postpone the impact this will have on the November elections. He wants total rule over America before totally bankrupting it.

To fully appreciate how Mr. Trump intends to make 'America great again' where his policy regarding Iranian oil is concerned, one must take a look at some numbers and empirical evidence.

The oil strikes leading up to the toppling of Iran's Shah were felt around the world. During the 1978-79 revolution, Iranian oil production dropped 3.8 million barrels per day for 3 months. Although outside production increased by 1.8 million barrels to make up for the loss, the net loss to the world was 150 million barrels of oil. However, the compounding results of the production loss were significant around the globe.

Many Americans may recall the lines at the fuel pumps, but that was just what met the eyes. The increase in oil prices impacted farming, production, transportation of goods and services, and so on. At that time, China, currently the second biggest oil consumer behind America, was a net exporter of oil. The loss to U.S. economy was estimated at many billions of dollars in 1979 and 1980 (Deese and Nye 308-309) [i] .

Read also: When Netanyahu slept at the Kushners - media tales of Trump's Jewish confidants

More recent studies show that Iranian oil has a major impact on the U.S. economy even though America does not import a single barrel of oil from Iran. In 2008, economists Dean DeRosa and Gary Hufbauer presented a paper in which they claimed that if the United States lifted sanctions on Iran, the world price of oil could fall by 10 percent which would translate into an annual savings of $38-76 billion for the United States [ii] .

But sanctions alone were not responsible for oil price hikes in 2008 and beyond. In July 2008, oil had reached a peak of $142.05/bbl (see chart HERE ). This price hike came on the heels of some important events. In May, President Bush sent a ' warning message' to Iran on the same day that additional aircraft carriers with guided-missile destroyers were sent to the Persian Gulf.

In June of the same year, the New York Times reported that: "Israel carried out a major military exercise earlier this month that American officials say appeared to be a rehearsal for a potential bombing attack on Iran's nuclear facilities."

In July, then presidential candidate Barak Obama asked for tougher sanctions to be imposed on Iran.

It was not until September 2008 when President Bush declined to help Israel attack Iran that oil prices started to relax. They hit a low of just over $53 /bbl in December 2008.

Oil prices continued to rise again under Obama's sanctions and reached well past the $100 mark. The prices climbed down once again during the JCPOA negotiations reaching an all time low of $30.24/bbl in January 2016 – after the signing of the JCPOA.

Today, oil prices stands at $74.30/bbl. A fact not lost on any American who has filled up his/her gas tank lately– and paid for groceries. The deadline for Iran oil cut off is yet months away, but the impact has started.

Given that other countries may step in to compensate for some of the Iranian oil loss, other factors which effect prices must be considered – the most important of which is the security of the Strait of Hormuz. As mentioned previously, the British oil blockade scenario of 1951 will have far different consequences in 2018 should America impose an economic blockade or oil embargo.

Read also: 'Infamous liar': Iran blasts Netanyahu for claims Tehran had nuclear weapons program

In the 1950's, Iran did not have the military might to retaliate to the oil embargo and the naval blockade was aimed at crushing the economy in order to bring about regime change. This economic blockade, should it be allowed to happen, would crush the economy of much of the world.

As it stands, 35% of seaborne oil goes through the Strait of Hormuz 85% of which goes to Asian markets. As the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) has stated: "The blockage of the Strait of Hormuz, even temporarily, could lead to substantial increases in total energy costs."Today, Iran not only has the military might to block the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation, but it also has the legal right.

The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) stipulates that vessels can exercise the right of innocent passage, and coastal states should not impede their passage. Under UNCLOS framework of international law, a coastal state can block ships from entering its territorial waters if the passage of the ships harms "peace, good order or security" of said state, as the passage of such ships would no longer be deemed "innocent" [iii] . Saudi Arabia and the UAE export oil through Iran's territorial waters. Should they help America choke Iran's economy, their passage is not deemed 'innocent'.

Even if Iran simply chooses to merely delay the passage of tankers by exercising its right to inspect every hostile oil tanker that passes through the Strait of Hormuz, such inspections and subsequent delays would contribute to higher oil prices.

No doubt, the Iranian navy is no match for the formidable US navy. However, the shallow, narrow waters of Hormuz do not allow for the maneuvering of US battleships. The very presence of warships can lead to incidents. At its narrowest point, the Strait of Hormuz is 21 miles wide – hardly wide enough for a naval battle to take place and allow the passage of oil tankers at the same time. In recent years (2012), the USS Porter, a US navy destroyer, collided with an oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz. The collision left a big whole in the navy destroyer.

American officials and oil companies have attempted to assuage the concern of over oil shortages by stating that America is one of the top oil producers. Some fact checking is in order.

According to EIA's latest available data, America's total exports in 2018 (thousands of barrels/month) was 7,730 bblin April. The same governmental body stated that total imports for the same month was 310,295. According to the EIA: "In 2017, the United States producedabout 15.4 million barrels of petroleum per day (MMb/d), and it consumed about 19.9 MMb/d. Imports from other countries help to supply demand for petroleum." (Click HERE for explanation of imports and exports).

Read also: After Greece and Cyprus, they prepare to attack Italy

These facts do not stop the spread of such news. As recently as June 4, 2018, Offshore Technology announced America is marching toward being the biggest oil producer. Important factors to bear in mind are that 1. America is the largest oil consumer and continues to have a deficit, and 2. Shale oil production is up thanks to higher oil prices.

While environmentalists objected to shale oil production, oil companies halted the extraction of oil when prices dropped. Anything above $50/bbl makes shale oil production feasible – which also makes it more expensive of the consumer. Although Mr. Trump and his administration have no regard for the environment, many states and countries have banned shale oil production (see LINK for list as of December 2017).

So the American people (and much of the rest of the world) is left with a stark choice. Either cave in to Mr. Trump's demands, accept loss of business, pay much higher oil prices at the pump and for consumer goods, prepare for a potential war, and sacrifice the environment – especially water, and mortgage the future of the earth more than we already have, or, don't heed Trump's demands – even if means a short term loss.

Either way, messing with Iran's oil exports is not an alternative that the world can afford. It may well be that Mr. Trumpis beholden to Mr. Netanyahu. He may well feel comfortable enough to subject the American people – and their allies to financial hardship; but the question is will Americans and the rest of the world sacrifice themselves at the Trump-Netanyahu altar?

* Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is an independent researcher and writer with a focus on U.S. foreign policy and the role of lobby groups in influencing US foreign policy.

[Jul 03, 2018] Oil will continue to flow from Iran, there simply isn't a significant supply stemming from the Saudi-Russia alliance or US shale to fill the gap

Notable quotes:
"... The Iranians will lose marketspace, sure, but the inevitable increase of the price of oil will somewhat soften the blow. And anything over $100 per barrel, along with a stronger dollar, is proven to be detrimental to energy importing countries. It will be painful to keep the economy rolling. ..."
Jul 03, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

never mind , Jul 1, 2018 4:46:05 PM | 12

Oil will continue to flow from Iran, there simply isn't a significant supply stemming from the Saudi-Russia alliance or US shale to fill the gap.

The Iranians will lose marketspace, sure, but the inevitable increase of the price of oil will somewhat soften the blow. And anything over $100 per barrel, along with a stronger dollar, is proven to be detrimental to energy importing countries. It will be painful to keep the economy rolling.

And when there's less appetite for oil; the price of oil crashes resulting in another big financial crash (due to bad dept) followed by another round of austerity measures which spells political turmoil in a number of countries. And the landscape gradually changes.

Because we've been there before.

Likklemore , Jul 1, 2018 6:05:34 PM | 16

So Trump asked the Saudis to pump 2 million more barrels per day to offset Iranian exports?

Daffy!. Saudis do not have a spare barrel, let alone 2 million. Ask Simmons. Oh wait, he has been offed:


LONDON(Reuters) - The leader of Saudi Arabia has assured U.S. President Donald Trump that the Kingdom can raise oil production if needed and the country has 2 million barrels per day of spare capacity that could be deployed to help cool down oil prices to compensate for falling output in Venezuela and Iran.

In a tweet on Saturday, Trump said Saudi Arabia had agreed to increase output by up to this amount, although a subsequent statement from the White House rowed back on this assertion.

Either way, the kingdom, OPEC's biggest member, can barely raise output by 1 million bpd to 11 million bpd and even that would be difficult, according to industry analysts who forecast a further oil price rally due to a lack of new supply.

Below are comments from some leading OPEC analysts:

[ED: one of several cited below]

"The Saudis do not have 2 million bpd of spare capacity as it would imply production of 12 million bpd. They can likely produce a maximum of 11 million and even that will be running their system at stress levels," said Ross.

He added that with a potential output fall of up to 1.5 million bpd in Iran and further outages in Venezuela and Libya, the world could be short of 2 million bpd of oil output without an increase in Saudi output by the end of the year."

[.]

Reuters

Get ready to shell out at the pump.

Peter AU 1 , Jul 1, 2018 8:50:52 PM | 20
Pepe declares US shale to be a myth, but then says KSA and Russia have teamed up to fight. Us production figures also left out. Disappointing piece from Pepe, especially this glaring contradiction where KSA and Russia has to team up to fight what he calls a myth.
karlof1 , Jul 1, 2018 9:13:17 PM | 22
Pepe's referring to the assumed longevity of shale which is proven to be a gross lie. I can provide documentation about that but it will have to wait until I have more time to work.
Peter AU 1 , Jul 1, 2018 9:22:31 PM | 24
karlof1
Ok so according to Pepe Russia and KSA are joining forces to fight this gross lie.
either shale is a real and major threat, or Russia and KSA are not joining forces. That is the glaring contradiction in Pepes piece. the other option is that both Russia and KSA both of which have some knowledge of oil are mistaken about US shale.
Julian , Jul 1, 2018 10:59:24 PM | 26
Re: Posted by: PutinToTrump | Jul 1, 2018 1:32:09 PM | 6
Re: Posted by: Šabaniri | Jul 1, 2018 2:02:23 PM | 7
Re:

Already have Syria? Not really. Heard of the SDF occupying the North-Eastern third of Syria. If Trump & Putin can't come to an agreement on Iran what's the bet Trump decides to pump money, weapons and US troops into North-Eastern Syria to fully support the Kurds?

NordStream II? Sure, it will be built, but Trump can sanction Germany and German industry - ie automakers - heavily if he so wishes. He might do. He can blame NordStream II. He's certainly been talking about it.

There are certainly ways and means Trump can create huge trouble for Germany/Russia in regards to NordStream II even if it is built.

Crimea? Yeah, Russia has it but it is also used as the bludgeon to impose sanctions on Russia. Perhaps recognising Crimea as part of Russia and dropping all sanctions on Russia will be offered to Putin in return for Russia staying out of any conflict regarding Iran in 2019.

I'd hardly say Trump has nothing to bargain.

Besides, why would Putin select Medvedev as Prime Minister again despite Medvedev being obviously a Euro-Atlanticist?

I'd also add - who do you think Russia fears in the future decades.

Is it a decaying Europe/EU who nevertheless can buy lots of Russian goods including oil & gas obviously?

Or do Russia fear a rising China that always has one eye on the Russian Far East as a possible place for expansion to take care of their oil & gas & mineral needs?

I suspect - and you can look to the history of Russia/China relations for this - that Russia retains a more existential fear of China than anyone else.

Russia always clearly seeks to balance Europe/EU/US/Atlantic against China and others.

Where does Iran fit in all this? If Iran is taken out who benefits? Doesn't Iran being taken out strengthen Russia's hand vis-a-vis China in terms of oil & gas? I'd say it does. Certainly. Without Iranian oil & gas China becomes more dependent on who? RUSSIA!

So I bet Russian thought would tend to say to China. Look, we are not going to put ourselves on the line to defend Iran. But hey, if you want to do that we'll support you doing so, afterall, Iran is of a more of a vital strategic interest to you than us.

We defended Syria, we can't defend anyone and you can't expect us to defend everyone. If you want a country to retain its independence you have to step up to the plate every now and then rather than just relying on the Russian military.

And look - we defended Syria - what did you do in Syria's defence?

Just to finish this comment.

In case you haven't noticed the US has put a date of November 4 on stopping the export/import of Iranian oil. Which is? It is 2 days before the November 6 Mid-Terms...

It's a clear set-up for 2019.

My prediction.

There will be military action against Iran in the first half of 2019.

I suspect March-April-May being the most likely.

At that time you also have Brexit, European Elections (dominated by populists), Ukrainian Presidential Elections, South African Elections, Indian Elections... It's a big few months.

My advice? Buy oil & gas in the second half of this year - it's value is likely to skyrocket in 2019.

What will Iran's response be? I'd say if you are in any of Saudi Gulf Coast, UAE (Dubai & Abu Dhabi), Kuwait or Bahrain - get out before New Year's!!!

Julian , Jul 1, 2018 11:34:55 PM | 31
Re: Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Jul 1, 2018 11:14:41 PM | 27

I'm not judging one way or another on what Putin will necessarily do, but clearly Trump's gambit is to wean Iran off Russian support.

Will it work? Who knows. But Iran clearly has less strategic importance to Russia than Syria.

Let me ask you a question. Do you think Russia prefers Iranian-Qatari oil & gas pipelines through Iraq-Syria-Turkey to Europe or would Russia prefer Saudi-UAE-Qatari oil & gas pipelines to Europe??

Answer: Neither of course.

Bob , Jul 1, 2018 11:53:00 PM | 32
Any effort to understand US foreign policy from actual US interests is a futile exercise in frustration. US foreign policy is driven by two things:

1. The interests of international financiers (heavily Jewish)
2. The Israeli government.

At consideration for actual US interests is secondary if such things considered at all. That should be obvious enough to everyone by now.

The one thing that Russia and/or China could do that would do more to avoid another major power war, is to loudly, clearly and publicly inform the Israelis (the people as well as the government) that any attack upon Russia, China, or their forces by the US or NATO will be treated as a direct attack upon Russia/China by the state of Israel and the Jewish people and these will be utterly destroyed in the first salvo of the Russian/Chinese response.

The second thing that could/should be done, is for Russia to implement a covert campaign of targeted assassinations of Jewish figures who are actively engaged in efforts to undermine Russian interests. This would include people like Sheldon Adelson, Haim Saban, key players in international finance, etc. No Jew anywhere in the world should feel that they are beyond the reach of Russian retaliation. This is precisely how the Israelis conduct their foreign policy and Russians should not shirk from engaging fire with fire.

Alexander P , Jul 2, 2018 2:09:24 AM | 33
@Julian
I think you underestimate the long term benefit of a stable and prosperous Iran in the greater Eurasian gambit (Infrastructure Node, stability for the region) vs the short term gains Russia may achieve from a destroyed and fractured Iran that is in disarray. Russia doesn't just export energy after all. Exploding oil prices will end up hurting consumer nations, which in turn affects the global economy and by extension oil producers, there is always a delayed feedback loop.

Just because someone competes with you in the energy realm doesn't automatically mean you want that actor weak or destroyed. If that was the case, then why does Russia maintain good relationships with Azerbaijan, a direct competitor to Russian Gas? Similarly Central Asian countries are competitors in the gas market for China, yet Russia would never allow these to be subverted by radical Islamists without acting.

[Jun 28, 2018] What is John Bolton s role in Trump s ME drama?

With Mueller Trump is on a very short leash indeed, so I doubt that he has great freedom of maneuver.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump has a free hand from his base to negotiate peaceful coexistence with Russia, but he nevertheless must successfully deal with the passion of the neocon wing of the Borg (foreign policy establishment). They still swoon at the thought of the ongoing renewal of the Cold War. ..."
"... John Bolton is an arch-neocon, a neocon's neocon. Trump has sent him to Moscow to arrange an agenda, date and location for a meeting with Vladimir Putin. IMO this is a stroke of genius. What it does is put an enemy of good US-Russia relations in charge of arranging the schedule for discussions to improve US-Russia relations. In LBJ's vulgarism, Bolton is going to be inside the tent peeing out rather than outside peeing in. Having arranged the meeting, he will be personally invested in its success. How sweet that is! ..."
"... People want to believe so badly. I also want to believe, but I live in the real world. What happened the last time Trump made noises about leaving Syria to its own devices, most recently in April? Instant false flag, that's what. With Trump, it's worked twice already, I see no reason that it will not work a third or fourth time, or as often as needed. ..."
"... Without Russia as a selected enemy the US Army, with its expanding budget and end-strength has no important raison d'être , and what will the Borg do about that? First we can expect a large increase in the "Russia-bad" propaganda, similar to that on Iran (the greatest state sponsor of this and that). So I suppose Bolton is busy on his back-channel, etc. ..."
"... Between the end of Peace of Vienna and the start of Peace of Yalta there was a 50-year interval - filled with 2 world wars. Let us hope it be different this time. ..."
"... My biggest concern remains that Bibi's support itself will not guarantee acquiescence from the ultra-nationalist elements in Israel and their supporters elsewhere, who want to drag the US into the war. If the folks that carried out Khan Sheikhoun & other false flag CW attacks can be controlled, peace may have a chance. Otherwise, Trump's hand could still be forced. ..."
"... A stroke of genius. Bolton either demonstrates his obedience or is sacked, along with most of other neocons, for trying to spike the upcoming Putin summit. ..."
Jun 28, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

(editorial)

On a gestalt basis it seems to me from all the bits and pieces of information and rumor that DJT is attempting "The Deal of the Century!" (an episode or two of his soon to be award winning series on the subject of "The Greatest President.")

Russian cooperation in this is clearly needed. Trump is blessedly lacking in ideological fervor. His Deplorable base is also a bit short on ideology being focused on wages, prices, taxes and other everyday living issues. Their patriotism expresses itself in devotion to the flag and the anthem and a willingness to serve in the armed forces, something increasingly absent in the "resistance."

Trump has a free hand from his base to negotiate peaceful coexistence with Russia, but he nevertheless must successfully deal with the passion of the neocon wing of the Borg (foreign policy establishment). They still swoon at the thought of the ongoing renewal of the Cold War.

John Bolton is an arch-neocon, a neocon's neocon. Trump has sent him to Moscow to arrange an agenda, date and location for a meeting with Vladimir Putin. IMO this is a stroke of genius. What it does is put an enemy of good US-Russia relations in charge of arranging the schedule for discussions to improve US-Russia relations. In LBJ's vulgarism, Bolton is going to be inside the tent peeing out rather than outside peeing in. Having arranged the meeting, he will be personally invested in its success. How sweet that is!

Trumps is IMO trying for a grand ME bargain to be achieved with Russian help:

  1. Peace in Syria in the context of abandonment of regime change. Trump the pragmatist recognizes that the R+6 forces have won the civil war and, therefore he wishes to accept the sunk costs of previous American ineptitude in Syria and to walk away. US Embassy Amman has signaled to the FSA rebels in SW Syria that they should not expect the US to defend them. This is a traditional American stab in the back for guerrilla allies but the warning indicates to me that some group in the US Government (probably the CIA) has enough conscience to want to give warning. As soon as that warning was issued the rate of surrenders to the SAA rose.
  2. The US has thus made it clear that the SAA and Russian forces in Syria have a free hand in the SW and it seems that Israeli air and missile attacks are unlikely against the SW offensive. This has been insured through a Russian mandate that Hizbullah and IRGC dominated Shia militias stay out of the fight in Deraa and Quneitra Provinces.
  3. The Egyptians have been talking to Hamas about their willingness to enter into a hudna (religiously sanctioned truce) with Israel. Hamas has frequently offered this before. Such truces are renewable and are often for 10 years. Kushner's team thinks it has attained Natanyahhu's support for this. The deal would supposedly include; a Gaza-Egyptian industrial zone in the area of Raffa, an airport, a seaport. In return Hamas would be expected to police the truce from their side of the border. People on SST who have deep access in Israel doubt the sincerity of apparent Israeli assent, but there is little doubt I think that DJT considers this part of the Grand Bargain he is attempting to forge.

Nowhere in any of this is anything concerning Iran and I assume that regime change remains the policy. Nor is there anything about Saudi Arabia and the UAE's mercenary manned war in Yemen. Ah, well, pilgrims, everything in its time. pl

Sid Finster , 9 hours ago

People want to believe so badly. I also want to believe, but I live in the real world. What happened the last time Trump made noises about leaving Syria to its own devices, most recently in April? Instant false flag, that's what. With Trump, it's worked twice already, I see no reason that it will not work a third or fourth time, or as often as needed.
Don Bacon , 9 hours ago
Without Russia as a selected enemy the US Army, with its expanding budget and end-strength has no important raison d'être , and what will the Borg do about that? First we can expect a large increase in the "Russia-bad" propaganda, similar to that on Iran (the greatest state sponsor of this and that). So I suppose Bolton is busy on his back-channel, etc.
Pat Lang Mod -> Don Bacon , 9 hours ago
I suppose you mean the US Armed Forces, not the US Army.
Don Bacon -> Pat Lang , 6 hours ago
No, I mean the Army is especially invested in Europe and has been. I attended C&GSC at the peak of Vietnam and in exercises they were still mostly concerned with the Fulda Gap, division trains, etc. Big Army. Similar to how Army is going now, back to their roots so to speak. Even when they claimed they were short of funds, they found a way to send forces to Europe based on the claims that after Crimea, Russia was (and is) a threat to. . .the U.S.?

Peace with Russia would be a severe blow to Army especially with the shift to Indo-Pacific which involves Navy and Marines, and Army not much. I know Army was greatly involved with island operations in WWII, but China is not Japan regarding imperialism, IMO, and anyhow island invasions are not popular in Army.

So I look for a beefed up "Russia threat" campaign to counter Trump, and insider Bolton to be a big part of it.

Terra Cotta Woolpuller -> Pat Lang , 4 hours ago
Good analysis of the political implications of having Bolton establishing a summit as it worked with Pompeo. Always keep your friends close and your enemies closer good way to clean up the nest of venomous asps.
Michael Stojanovic , 9 hours ago
Qatar/Turkey may be an impediment/wild card, given it's Muslim brotherhood connections and leanings and strong backing for Hamas.
Pat Lang Mod -> Michael Stojanovic , 8 hours ago
It seems that Hamas has agreed.
Michael Stojanovic -> Pat Lang , 6 hours ago
Gen Sisi must have made an offer too good to resist. We know the House of Saud will finance it. Are they going to political legitimatize Hamas, turn Gaza in a statelet ? Perhaps Hamas sees, or is being threaten with the money spigot being turned off ? The only way to get money will be their share of offshore Natural Gas ? All for Hamas perhaps ? Nothing buys peace faster then lining a whole lot of pockets. With more money and Airports and a Shipping port, opens dangerous doors. Is Israel ready for that ? How will that be monitored ? So many damn questions. This may prove more problematic then the status quo, in the long run. Something does have to be done, the conditions in Gaza are unacceptable.
smoothieX12 . , 10 hours ago
Excellent analysis. In related news, a week or so ago semi-official Russian Vzglyad made a first media shot across the bow for Iran in which it stressed that the manner of Iran's "presence" in Syria is a complicating factor.
Babak Makkinejad -> smoothieX12 . , 9 hours ago
Russia cannot dislodge Iran out of Syria. And why should she try? And to what purpose?

Is there a new ABM Treaty in the works? Another SALT? Another Peace of Yalta?

smoothieX12 . -> Babak Makkinejad , 8 hours ago
Russia doesn't want to "dislodge" Iran from Syria but she needs Iran out of the border area with Israel. This is the key to a new arrangement, including, in the long run, Iran's security.

Is there a new ABM Treaty in the works? Another SALT? Another Peace of Yalta?

First two are important but are not clear and present danger for Russia for a number of reasons. Militarization of space is more important now. The last point, however, is extremely important because either there will be some kind of new geopolitical arrangement or we will see probability of a global military conflict grow exponentially.

Babak Makkinejad -> smoothieX12 . , 7 hours ago
Iranians do not need to be at the border area. All they need is to deploy their true and tested method of arming Syria with tens of thousands of precision rockets aimed at Haifa and Tel-Aviv. It worked for North Koreans.

No global peace is in the works.

Between the end of Peace of Vienna and the start of Peace of Yalta there was a 50-year interval - filled with 2 world wars. Let us hope it be different this time.

smoothieX12 . -> Babak Makkinejad , 5 hours ago
Between the end of Peace of Vienna and the start of Peace of Yalta there
was a 50-year interval - filled with 2 world wars. Let us hope it be
different this time.

It must be different, plus I disagree with historic parallel--two entirely different paradigms both in warfare, geopolitical balance and media.

Barbara Ann , 10 hours ago
Well I certainly wish The Greatest President luck. Who knows, I'm done underestimating the guy.

My biggest concern remains that Bibi's support itself will not guarantee acquiescence from the ultra-nationalist elements in Israel and their supporters elsewhere, who want to drag the US into the war. If the folks that carried out Khan Sheikhoun & other false flag CW attacks can be controlled, peace may have a chance. Otherwise, Trump's hand could still be forced.

The point of maximum danger appears to be at hand, given your characterization of the Daraa op as "betting the farm". Today's grant of new powers to the OPCW to apportion blame (designed to side-step the Russian veto at the UNSC) now means this body can effectively determine casus belli . Let us pray the OPCW will not have reason to exercise its new powers in Syria.

Tony , 11 hours ago
Let the hand wringing begin...
https://www.bbc.com/news/wo...
EEngineer , 12 hours ago
A stroke of genius. Bolton either demonstrates his obedience or is sacked, along with most of other neocons, for trying to spike the upcoming Putin summit.

On topic #2. If the SAA isn't feeling it's oats by now, forcing them fight a major battle that culminates a campaign by themselves would seem to be the ideal way to exorcise any remaining self doubts and engender a lasting esprit de corps. Stupid is what stupid does... Once these guys finish up in the SW and head east enforce it'll be show time.

[Jun 28, 2018] Well, Iran sanctions explains why oil prices are up right now.

Jun 28, 2018 | peakoilbarrel.com

Energy News x Ignored says: 06/26/2018 at 10:19 am

2018-06-26 (Rudaw) When US sanctions were placed on Iran in 2012, the four Asian countries were given a waiver, requiring them to reduce their business with Iran by 20 percent each six months rather than halt trade immediately.

The Asian oil buyers are less likely to receive a similar waiver from the Trump administration Iran may need to resort to a bartering system to continue selling its oil. Under the 2012 US sanctions, India imported $10.5 billion worth of goods, mainly crude oil, and exported commodities worth $2.4 billion.

The barter system will be inefficient, as Iran's oil sales are greater than the value of what it imports from these countries. It also cannot use the currencies of these countries for international business transactions.
http://www.rudaw.net/english/business/250620181

Energy News x Ignored says: 06/26/2018 at 10:29 am
2018-06-26 (Bloomberg) U.S. presses allies to cut Iran oil imports to *zero* by November
* U.S. isn't granting waivers on Iranian oil imports ban
(State Department Official)

added link https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-26/u-s-is-said-to-press-allies-to-end-iran-oil-imports-by-nov-4

Kolbeinh x Ignored says: 06/26/2018 at 10:49 am
Well, maybe that explains why oil prices are up right now.
Hightrekker x Ignored says: 06/26/2018 at 10:59 am
"The global economy looks like the Titanic right now. The iceberg is the incoming oil price spike and the complacent investment community won't even know what hits them. "
-Baby Domer
Guym x Ignored says: 06/26/2018 at 7:13 am
So, an important question for this board is, could we have reached peak oil production this year? The Permian will increase substantially into 2020. However, that will be partially offset by the Venezuelan drop. Add in other declines, and the drop could easily offset any US production. At some point, OPEC will see that extra production will never meet demand, and not just waste what they have.
Eulenspiegel x Ignored says: 06/26/2018 at 7:28 am
It depends totally on political scenarios, not technical and not financial.

There's still a lot of growth potential to offset the declines:
– Permian
– Other US shales to a degree
– Kanada with it's vast heavy oil ressources
– Venezuela
– Russia
– Iraq
– Iran
– SA (nobody knows), at least they can call to their spare capacity
– Kuwait
– UAE
-Brasil

That's 10 locations, some are politically knocked out ( Ven, Iran partly) from growth.

The more important thing for world economy is: How long can they support the consumption growth, additional to the decline of all other countries.

I think peak oil is somewhat more melodramatic: When Ghawar finally dries up, we have reached peak oil. It will dry fast, due to all these horizontal tapping keeping the oil flowing until the last feed of oil column. And replacing these 5 mb/d will require an additional fully developed Permian – something not in sight at the moment.

Energy News x Ignored says: 06/26/2018 at 2:17 am
Libya's Tripoli-based NOC Says Exports from Benghazi-based NOC in the east are "illegal"

2018-05-26 BENGHAZI, Libya/TUNIS (Reuters) – Eastern Libyan commander Khalifa Haftar's forces have handed control of oil ports to a National Oil Corporation (NOC) based in the east, a spokesman said on Monday, a move the internationally recognized NOC in Tripoli dismissed as illegal.
If implemented, the transfer of control would create uncertainty for buyers of Libyan oil who normally go through NOC Tripoli.
In comments later confirmed to Reuters, Ahmed Mismari, spokesman of Haftar's Libya National Army (LNA), said on television that no tanker would be allowed to dock at eastern ports without permission from an NOC entity based in the main eastern city, Benghazi.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-oil/east-libyan-forces-say-oil-ports-handed-to-eastern-based-noc-idUSKBN1JL2DQ
Tripoli-based NOC https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DgkrEMeXUAADLGS.jpg

Kolbeinh x Ignored says: 06/26/2018 at 4:22 am
Some kind of summary with some details from Libya (from comments section in HFIR article above – Game Over – Oil Prices Are Going Higher).

Nigeria and Libya are also becoming disruption hotspots. Three of Nigeria's main crude streams (Forcados, Bonny Light and Qua Iboe) are either halted or severely disrupted, but violence in Libya grabbed the recent headlines. Militias led by Ibrahim al Jathran, former head of the local Petroleum Facilities Guard, attacked and briefly seized the 0.35 mb/d Es Sider and 0.22 mb/d Ras Lanuf terminals from Khalifa Haftar's Libyan National Army (LNA). Although the LNA are back in control, Libyan oil output has collapsed from 0.95 mb/d to around 0.55-0.60 mb/d because of the fighting and NOC has declared force majeure at the two ports (along with apparently unrelated technical issues undermining production at AGOCO-run fields in the east).
After around 10 days of fighting, the extent of the damage at the two terminals remains unclear. There is currently no information about the status of Es Sider, which exported around 0.30 mb/d in the previous three months. The destruction of two storage tanks at Ras Lanuf, which was exporting around 0.10 mb/d before the clashes, has reduced storage capacity from 0.95 mb to 0.55 mb. Seven tanks at the terminal had already been damaged in previous clashes and the destruction of another two leaves only four tanks capable of operating. Once the fighting is over (and there is a considerable risk of further clashes over the next few weeks), it will take several days to evaluate the status of Es Sider and Ras Lanuf. This would be followed by emergency repairs, which could take a week or two, with export capacity recovering only gradually. Consequently, we expect output to remain at 0.55-0.60 mb/d until early/mid-July, even as NOC studies options to bypass Ras Lanuf and possibly divert exports to the Zueitina terminals.

In conclusion: Libya is good for no more than 0.8 Mb/d, but likely less than that in 2018.

Kolbeinh x Ignored says: 06/26/2018 at 5:02 am
Regarding the Iran discussion.

The debate seems to be around what effect the risk of secondary sanctions from US government for international companies will have. Some argue that the US allies and their companies will not pick a fight over this with the US right now. In either case, it certainly is not good for the Iranian economy which contracted after the last round of sanctions and boomed when they were lifted afterwards. Also the Iranians want western equipment and competence to develop their oil and gas fields (some of their oilfields are somewhat complicated to develop), and it is not certain Lukoil and russian service companies can be a good enough replacement.

There are some hurdles with switching customers for large oil volumes. Tanker freight and insurance services now done by western companies afraid of sanctions will have to be replaced or the obstacles overcome somehow. But I agree with you that China, while also having a futures market trading in yuan, will look to Iran when shortage arrives. However the perception of shortage has still not arrived in oil markets today. Some reduction of export from Iran is likely both initially and for some time further. Hard to say how much, some argue that it takes 6-12 months to see the full effects of US sanctions. And once sanctions now are in place, even if it was untimely given the supply situation in the oil market, it will not be practical and too confusing as a political move to see them lifted soon (less than 1 year).

[Jun 27, 2018] Iranian condensate will most likely replace US condensate to China as much as possible.

Jun 27, 2018 | peakoilbarrel.com

Kolbeinh x Ignored says: 06/27/2018 at 4:57 am

From the Bloomberg article: "The U.S. plans to speak with the governments of Turkey, India and China, all of which import Iranian oil, about finding other supplies."

Iranian condensate will most likely replace US condensate to China as much as possible. China is the key to if/when this harsh "embargo" of Iran will ease. They have the strength to stand up against the US and then others will follow suit (e.g. India). A barter system (goods vs. goods trade) or payment in yuan could probably be a good enough way to avoid american banking sanctions. But if China wants to stand up against US at this point is uncertain. If this strangling of Iran is highly successful, it is hard to see the rewards. A high oil price that will be the tipping point for the global economy in the wrong direction or indirectly (hopefully not directly – who needs another war now?) overthrow the Iranian government and thus the creation of new political problems in the country; a repeat of the Iraq experience almost. I almost forgot that there is the nuclear issue there as well, maybe that is also a driver

  1. Boomer II 06/26/2018 at 10:16 pm Reply

[Jun 27, 2018] Unnamed "Senior State Department Official" says the USA "expects all countries to reduce their Iranian oil imports to zero or face US sanctions

Jun 27, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

jayc | Jun 26, 2018 7:25:46 PM | 17

Unnamed "Senior State Department Official" says the USA "expects all countries to reduce their Iranian oil imports to zero or face US sanctions."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/26/politics/us-iran-oil-imports/index.html

"We have a lot of diplomatic muscle memory for urging, cajoling, negotiating with our partners to reduce their investments to zero," the official added.

(This official infers that EU countries will soon capitulate to US demands, but does he believe that, say, India will agree to this? The CNN reporters don't ask.)

[Jun 21, 2018] China's Oil Trade Retaliation Is Iran's Gain by Tom Luongo

Jun 21, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

China's Oil Trade Retaliation Is Iran's Gain

by Tyler Durden Wed, 06/20/2018 - 23:05 13 SHARES Authored by Tom Luongo,

I've told you that once you start down the Trade War path forever it will dominate your destiny.

Well here we are. Trump slaps big tariffs on aluminum and steel in a bid to leverage Gary Cohn's ICE Wall plan to control the metals and oils futures markets . I'm not sure how much of this stuff I believe but it is clear that the futures price for most strategically important commodities are divorced from the real world.

Alistair Crooke also noted the importance of Trump's 'energy dominance' policy recently , which I suggest strongly you read.

But today's edition of "As the Trade War Churns" is about China and their willingness to shift their energy purchases away from U.S. producers. Irina Slav at Oilprice.com has the good bits.

The latest escalation in the tariff exchange, however, is a little bit different than all the others so far. It's different because it came after Beijing said it intends to slap tariffs on U.S. oil, gas, and coal imports.

China's was a retaliatory move to impose tariffs on US$50 billion worth of U.S. goods, which followed Trump's earlier announcement that another US$50 billion in goods would be subjected to a 25-percent tariff starting July 6.

It's unclear as to what form this will take but there's also this report from the New York Times which talks about the China/U.S. energy trade.

Things could get worse if the United States and China ratchet up their actions [counter-tariffs] . Mr. Trump has already promised more tariffs in response to China's retaliation. China, in turn, is likely to back away from an agreement to buy $70 billion worth of American agricultural and energy products -- a deal that was conditional on the United States lifting its threat of tariffs.

"China's proportionate and targeted tariffs on U.S. imports are meant to send a strong signal that it will not capitulate to U.S. demands," said Eswar Prasad, a professor of international trade at Cornell University. "It will be challenging for both sides to find a way to de-escalate these tensions."

But as Ms. Slav points out, China has enjoyed taking advantage of the glut of U.S. oil as shale drillers flood the market with cheap oil. The West Texas Intermediate/Brent Spread has widened out to more than $10 at times.

By slapping counter tariffs on U.S. oil, that would more than overcome the current WTI/Brent spread and send Chinese refiners looking for new markets.

Hey, do you know whose oil is sold at a discount to Brent on a regular basis?

Iran's. That's whose.

And you know what else? Iran is selling tons, literally, of its oil via the new Shanghai petroyuan futures market.

Now, these aren't exact substitutes, because the Shanghai contract is for medium-sour crude and West Texas shale oil is generally light-sweet but the point remains that the incentives would now exist for Chinese buyers to shift their buying away from the U.S. and towards producers offering substitutes at better prices.

This undermines and undercuts Trump's 'energy dominance' plans while also strengthening Iran's ability to withstand new U.S. sanctions by creating more customers for its oil.

Trade wars always escalate. They are no different than any other government policy restricting trade. The market response is to always respond to new incentives. Capital always flows to where it is treated best.

It doesn't matter if its domestic farm subsidies 'protecting' farmers from the business cycle or domestic metals producers getting protection via tariffs.

By raising the price above the market it shifts capital and investment away from those protected industries or producers and towards either innovation or foreign suppliers.

Trump obviously never read anything from Mises, Rothbard or Hayek at Wharton. Because if he did he would have come across the idea that every government intervention requires an ever-greater one to 'fix' the problems created by the first intervention.

The net result is that if there is a market for Iran's oil, which there most certainly is, then humans will find a way to buy it. If Trump tries to raise the price too high then it will have other knock-on effects of a less-efficient oil and gas market which will create worse problems in the future for everyone, especially the very Americans he thinks he's defending.

* * *

Please support the production of independent and alternative political and financial commentary by joining my Patreon and subscribing to the Gold Goats 'n Guns Investment Newsletter for just $12/month.

[Jun 06, 2018] >John Bolton is now part of the Cambridge Analytica scandal

Notable quotes:
"... There is no indication that Bolton was aware that Cambridge Analytica was exploiting the personal data of tens of millions of Facebook users -- but he was certainly aware that it was using an extensive trove of personal data to target voters ..."
"... What Bolton was paying Cambridge Analytica to do is, perhaps, more damning than his use of the shady data firm. "The Bolton PAC was obsessed with how America was becoming limp wristed and spineless and it wanted research and messaging for national security issues," Wylie told the Times . "That really meant making people more militaristic in their worldview," he added. ..."
"... "That's what they said they wanted, anyway." Cambridge Analytica produced fear-mongering advertisements aimed at drumming up support for Bolton and other hawkish Republicans. The relationship between the firm and the Super PAC grew "so close that the firm was writing up talking points" for Bolton after only a few months of collaboration. ..."
Jun 06, 2018 | newrepublic.com

Speaking at CPAC in 2017, John Bolton boasted that his Super PAC's implementation of "advanced psychographic data" would help elect "filibuster majorities" in 2018. According to a New York Times report published on Friday, Bolton's Super PAC paid $1.2 million to Cambridge Analytica, the British firm that has come under scrutiny for its misuse of Facebook data to influence voters. Bolton's Super PAC, moreover, was heavily funded by the Mercer family, who gave millions to Cambridge Analytica during the 2016 presidential campaign.

There is no indication that Bolton was aware that Cambridge Analytica was exploiting the personal data of tens of millions of Facebook users -- but he was certainly aware that it was using an extensive trove of personal data to target voters. "The data and modeling Bolton's PAC received was derived from the Facebook data," Christopher Wylie, the co-founder of Cambridge Analytica turned whistleblower, told the Times . "We definitely told them about how we were doing it. We talked about it in conference calls, in meetings."

What Bolton was paying Cambridge Analytica to do is, perhaps, more damning than his use of the shady data firm. "The Bolton PAC was obsessed with how America was becoming limp wristed and spineless and it wanted research and messaging for national security issues," Wylie told the Times . "That really meant making people more militaristic in their worldview," he added.

"That's what they said they wanted, anyway." Cambridge Analytica produced fear-mongering advertisements aimed at drumming up support for Bolton and other hawkish Republicans. The relationship between the firm and the Super PAC grew "so close that the firm was writing up talking points" for Bolton after only a few months of collaboration.

[May 13, 2018] Possibility of a new war in Middle East the shoot the oil prices to $200 frighten Germany

Notable quotes:
"... Several years ago Putin made a speech at the UN in favor of upholding International Law I thought at the time this "diplomatic statesmanship" was going to be Putin's way of bring Russia back into equal power with the Europeans and the US. Some have wondered and been asking about Putin not being as aggressive as he could be in defending Syria and Iran. Putin's holding off on tough talk/action could be amassing more power in the end. Putin comes off as the voice of sanity..exactly what the Europeans want to hear and see. ..."
May 13, 2018 | www.unz.com

renfro , May 12, 2018 at 6:05 am GMT

Several years ago Putin made a speech at the UN in favor of upholding International Law I thought at the time this "diplomatic statesmanship" was going to be Putin's way of bring Russia back into equal power with the Europeans and the US. Some have wondered and been asking about Putin not being as aggressive as he could be in defending Syria and Iran. Putin's holding off on tough talk/action could be amassing more power in the end. Putin comes off as the voice of sanity..exactly what the Europeans want to hear and see.

As Europe turns away from the US they turn to Putin.

If anyone remembers all the Jew rags making fun of "old Europe" during the Iraq war run up and urging that the US break with them as outdated relics no longer needed in the new modern age -- this is what it was all about -- separating the US from its traditional allies who were not as subservient to Israel as the US. So .now we are down to the Jew plan Europe and sanity vr the US Orange Clown and his allies of midget Nazi Israel, Saudi and the UAE.

http://theduran.com/germany-begs-russia-to-pick-up-the-torch-that-us-has-dropped/

Germany begs Russia to pick up the torch that US has dropped

"Germany's Foreign Minister, Heiko Maas, who has a history of expressing anti Russian rhetoric relevant to Russia's presence in Syria as well as an alleged cyber attack on the German Foreign Ministry which Maas says that he 'has to assume stemmed from Russia', has turned an about face. He has traveled, for the first time, to Moscow to discuss international diplomacy, the Iran nuclear deal, peace talks on Ukraine, and Syria.

Maas met with his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, where he encouraged Russia to leverage its influence with Iran to help spur the Middle Eastern state in remaining committed to the nuclear deal, which Trump abandoned earlier in the week.

Germany's Foreign Minister, Heiko Maas, who has a history of expressing anti Russian rhetoric relevant to Russia's presence in Syria as well as an alleged cyber attack on the German Foreign Ministry which Maas says that he 'has to assume stemmed from Russia', has turned an about face. He has traveled, for the first time, to Moscow to discuss international diplomacy, the Iran nuclear deal, peace talks on Ukraine, and Syria.

Maas met with his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, where he encouraged Russia to leverage its influence with Iran to help spur the Middle Eastern state in remaining committed to the nuclear deal, which Trump abandoned earlier in the week.

Maas then declared that Germany was interested in bringing back the peace talks on the Ukraine, together with other European partners. Maas also pointed out that the Syrian conflict can't be settled without Russia, before contributing a wreath to the tomb of the unknown soldier, which is a dedication to Russian soliders who died fighting the Germans in WW2.

Deutsche Welle reports:

Germany's top diplomat Heiko Maas and his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov both called for the nuclear deal with Iran to be upheld on Thursday, during Maas' first official visit to Russia. The appeal marks a rare moment of unity between Moscow and Berlin just days after US walked out on the 2015 accord.

In Moscow, Maas urged Russia to influence Tehran and make it stick to the deal, which aims to limit Iran's alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons. The German foreign minister also said he was seeking details from the US on its plans for future sanctions against Iran
US President Donald Trump has shrugged off pressure from allies to keep the deal in place and called the accord "defective at its core." However, leaders of the UK, France, and Germany all contacted Iranian President Hasan Rouhani in the attempt to salvage the accord.

Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel called Rouhani on Thursday to reaffirm Germany's commitment to the deal "as long as Iran continues to fulfil its obligations," said Merkel's spokesman Steffen Seibert. Merkel also said she was ready to negotiate about Iran's ballistic missiles and involvement in Syria and Yemen.

Angela Merkel is also set to visit Russia next week.

Visiting Moscow on Thursday, Germany's top diplomat Maas suggested reviving the peace talks between Germany, France, Ukraine and Russia on the conflict in eastern Ukraine. Lavrov responded by saying Russia was "ready to consider" this offer.

Maas also called for "honest dialogue" with Moscow and for Russia to be included in global diplomacy, despite its differences with Berlin. Maas admitted that the conflict in Syria "cannot be solved without Russia."

The German diplomat also laid a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Moscow, which is dedicated to the Soviet soldiers killed during World War II.

Also in a bid to get Russia to assume a leadership position relative to preserving the nuclear deal, and by extension, the European economy, Merkel got on the phone with Russian President Vladimir Putin, where he mutually voiced his concern over Trump's action, and where Merkel also came forward about the situation in Syria.

TASS reports:

BERLIN, May 11. /TASS/. Federal Minister for Economic Affairs and Energy Peter Altmaier has confirmed that he will visit Moscow at the beginning of the next week, he said in an interview with German radio station Deutschlandfunk released on Friday.

"I will follow my colleague [German Foreign Minister Heiko] Maas, who attended negotiations in Moscow yesterday. I will be there on Monday and Tuesday, and Chancellor [Angela Merkel will visit Sochi -- TASS] during the week," Altmaier said.

continued,,,,,,

[May 12, 2018] Bolton diplomacy: "We know where your kids live. You have two sons in New York." by B

Notable quotes:
"... John Bolton is a ruthless man : ..."
"... In early 2002, a year before the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration was putting intense pressure on [José] Bustani to quit as director-general of the [Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons]. ..."
"... Bolton continued, according to Bustani's recollections: "You have 24 hours to leave the organization, and if you don't comply with this decision by Washington, we have ways to retaliate against you." ..."
"... John Bolton was also behind a campaign against the IAEA and its chief Mohamed ElBaradei. ElBaradei's phone was tapped and rumors were launched against him to oust him from his office. ..."
May 12, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Originally from: MoA - Countdown To War On Iran

John Bolton is a ruthless man :

In early 2002, a year before the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration was putting intense pressure on [José] Bustani to quit as director-general of the [Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons].
...
Bolton -- then serving as under secretary of state for Arms Control and International Security Affairs -- arrived in person at the OPCW headquarters in the Hague to issue a warning to the organization's chief. And, according to Bustani, Bolton didn't mince words. "Cheney wants you out," Bustani recalled Bolton saying, referring to the then-vice president of the United States. "We can't accept your management style."

Bolton continued, according to Bustani's recollections: "You have 24 hours to leave the organization, and if you don't comply with this decision by Washington, we have ways to retaliate against you."

There was a pause.

"We know where your kids live. You have two sons in New York."

José Bustani successfully negotiated to get OPCW inspectors back into Iraq. They would have found nothing. That would have contradicted the U.S. propaganda campaign to wage war on Iraq. When Bustani did not leave voluntarily, the U.S. threatened to cut the OPCW's budget and "convinced" other countries in the executive council to kick him out .

John Bolton was also behind a campaign against the IAEA and its chief Mohamed ElBaradei. ElBaradei's phone was tapped and rumors were launched against him to oust him from his office.

The U.S. administration, the neoconservatives and the media are running a remake (recommended) of the propaganda campaign they had launched to wage war on Iraq. This time the target is Iran:

As with Iraq, it's easier for Bolton and Netanyahu to achieve that goal if they discredit the current system of international inspections. Bolton has called the inspection efforts established by the Iran nuclear deal "fatally inadequate" and declared that "the International Atomic Energy Agency" is "likely missing significant Iranian [nuclear] facilities." In his 2015 speech to Congress attacking the Iran deal, Netanyahu insisted that "Iran not only defies inspectors, it also plays a pretty good game of hide-and-cheat with them."

Anyone who counters their propaganda must go. Bolton, who demands to bomb Iran , is back in charge. One of his natural targets is the IAEA which certifies that Iran sticks to the nuclear deal. It seems that Bolton succeeds with his machinations:

The chief of inspections at the U.N. nuclear watchdog has resigned suddenly, the agency said on Friday without giving a reason.

The departure of Tero Varjoranta comes at a sensitive time, three days after the United States announced it was quitting world powers' nuclear accord with Iran, raising questions as to whether Tehran will continue to comply with it.

Varjoranta, a Finn, had been a deputy director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency and head of its Department of Safeguards, which verifies countries' compliance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, since October 2013.

Another casualty is the State Department bureaucrat who certified Iran's compliance with the nuclear deal:

One of the State Department's top experts on nuclear proliferation resigned this week after President Donald Trump announced the U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, in what officials and analysts say is part of a worrying brain drain from public service generally over the past 18 months.

Richard Johnson, a career civil servant who served as acting assistant coordinator in State's Office of Iran Nuclear Implementation, had been involved in talks with countries that sought to salvage the deal in recent weeks, including Britain, France, and Germany -- an effort that ultimately failed.
...
The office Johnson led has gone from seven full-time staffers to none since Trump's inauguration.

The man who launched the war on Iraq now gets awards . Netanyahoo is agitating for war on Iran just like he agitated for war on Iraq. Shady groups of nutty "experts" peddle policy papers for 'regime change'. U.S. "allies" are put under pressure. With their willingness to "compromise" they actually further the prospect of war . When they insist on sticking to international rules malign actors prepare measures to break their resistance. All that is still just a "shaping operation", a preparation of the battlefield of public opinion. This buildup towards the war will likely take a year or two.

What is still needed is an event that pushes the U.S. public into war fever. The U.S. typically uses false-flag incidents - the Tonkin incident, the sinking of the Maine, the Anthrax murders - to create a psychological pseudo-rationale for war. An Israel lobbyist begs for one to launch war on Iran.

One wonders when and how a new 9/11 like incident, or another Anthrax scare, will take place. It will be the surest sign that the countdown to war on Iran has started.

Posted by b on May 12, 2018 at 06:35 AM | Permalink

glitch , May 12, 2018 7:15:41 PM | 132

John Bolton's a man? Does a coward who instigated others to fight get to be called a man? Likewise Cheney Bush Clinton Obama Trump Bibi etc etc etc.
Easy to be ruthless when others take the risks and pay the costs.
fairleft , May 12, 2018 7:12:43 AM | 4
isn't the same unity throughout the powers that be, particularly in the mainstream media, that there was when Bush was President. Trump through the hatred he generates theoughout the 'upper crust', makes it hard for many deep staters to get on board a war drive he would lead.

And as you said, b, Trump needs a real or false flag, one with many casualties, and something that won't fall apart from lack of evidence and a few days of rational scrutiny. Sounds like a job for the Saudi mercenaries, Al Qaeda or ISIS.

Peter AU 1 , May 12, 2018 7:14:53 AM | 5
People in high places are leaving due to team Trump threats.
Receiving mail from team trump employed black cube is no small thing. Kudos to you b for sticking with it.
Two thoughts on US going to war with Iran. 10 It will destroy the US or certainly the US empire and hegemony. 2) Iran needs plenty of help and respect during and after as they will destroy the US. Not physically, but they will destroy US power.
Gesine Hammerling , May 12, 2018 8:04:24 AM | 6
What do those ziocons have in their hands that lets them get away with it over and over again?
john wilson , May 12, 2018 8:06:41 AM | 7
The question we all want to know is, did Trump appoint lunatic Bolton entirely of his own volition, or was he forced to appoint this psychopath? The reach of the US deep state seems to be limitless. A curious thing happened the other day when someone in the US administration announced that America would no longer be funding the white helmets propaganda outfit. Over here in the UK parliament an opposition member of parliament was practically foaming at the mouth with rage and demanded of prime minister Mrs May that the UK would be continuing to fund the white helmets. When she assured him that the UK was fully behind the white helmets and that funding would remain in place, there was a cheer from around the house. I'm amazed that Bolton allowed the administration to cut off funding when even the UK idiots in parliament want to fund the propaganda arm of the head choppers.
somebody , May 12, 2018 8:16:55 AM | 8
Iran is quite safe. Regime change is possible in the US.
Jen , May 12, 2018 8:24:06 AM | 9
I am just curious to know how much influence John Bolton can exercise as National Security Advisor: is his position part of the President's Executive Office and does he (Bolton, that is) have a department to answer to him and a budget? Is his position any more secure than, say, Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State?
Ian , May 12, 2018 8:44:16 AM | 10
Gesine Hammerling @6:

Mementos from Epstein Island.

ralphieboy , May 12, 2018 8:52:43 AM | 11
The more that Trump is pushed into a corner by investigations of various scandals, the more he needs something to distract from them. A war in a far-off country would be the perfect thing to get people rallying around the President.
Ian , May 12, 2018 8:53:49 AM | 12
Jen @9:
From what I understand, Pompeo is much higher on the food chain. The SoS is in the line of succession; advisors are not. I believe the position is just a single individual with closer access to the POTUS.
Harry , May 12, 2018 8:59:01 AM | 13
I said it many times before, and I can safely repeat it again, there wont be a hot war with Iran. Entire NATO couldnt defeat Iran, and US would go alone (maybe Israel would piggyback few shots). It would end as catastrophe for US and de-facto end as the main superpower. Pentagon (and even CIA) are many things, but suicidally stupid isnt one of them, neither is Trump, or even Nutjobyahoo.

What we will see is more sanctions (to try to create civil unrest) and another "color revolution" endeavor, and it will fail too.

Anon , May 12, 2018 9:05:51 AM | 14
Harry

Top 3 nato countries could take out Iran military within a day, but nato cannot invade, occupy it in my opinion.

john , May 12, 2018 9:11:27 AM | 15
Gesine Hammerling says:

What do those ziocons have in their hands that lets them get away with it over and over again

notwithstanding your ziocons , you got an hour and a half ?

Jen says:

I am just curious to know how much influence John Bolton can exercise as National Security Advisor

maybe you should ask Condoleezza Rice?

somebody , May 12, 2018 9:12:09 AM | 16
14 " take out " ?
A P , May 12, 2018 9:12:42 AM | 17
Trump coopted by the neo-cons? Exactly what lever would they have on Trumpty Dumbdy that isn't already public knowledge? Misogyny, Philandering?... already tried that pussy-grabbing Stormy front. Financial improprieties? That Trump Inc. was/is a serial bankrupt corporation, even screwing low-income students and any building contractor it could?... Old news. That Trumpty Dumbdy is too stupid to read the full documentation presented to him, that he can't write/deliver a coherent, logical line of thought?... obvious from well before the day he officially declared his candidacy.

Trump (and his real estate "empire") was and is a product of the Rothschild cabal, and he was deliberately foisted on the US electorate to be the only one in the country Killary could beat... OOPS!

So we are now seeing Plan-B, where Trumpty is manipulated and browbeaten to shed the few shreds of intelligence and decency he still possessed. All the Deep State/Rothschild-enablers have to do is appeal to Trumpty's fragile ego, or Melania's emotional jags, and they are in control.

But even Bolton's ilk must know Russia and China will not stand by while FUKUS/Nutty/MBS openly attack Iran. Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya show the likely course of events where the Zionists are allowed to carry on with the Yinon Plan. Syria is the line in the sand, despite Erdogan trying to play the US off Russia for historical gotcha gains. Don't forget, Erdogan owes his life to Putin, who ensured the US coup failed by targeting the rogue Turk jets tasked with shooting Erdogan's plane down... I'd bet the Turk pilots were told that if they even turned on their targeting systems, they would be shot down... self preservation is a strong deterrent.

Israel/Saudi on their own cannot withstand even Syria, Hizbolla and Iran directly, even if the russian military only backstopped the Syrian alliance. Ahe US public won't tolerate another Iraq debacle, as zero body bags landing at Edwards AFB is the limit. Let alone that Iran would be Iraq on steroids especially for the several 1,000 in the western Syria caldron. It's a big caldron right now, but with Russian-manned mobile S-400's/etc. protecting all Syrian, Iranian and possibly Iraqi airspace, those soldiers/mercenaries are sitting ducks after the first bomb lands in Iran.

Harry , May 12, 2018 9:13:12 AM | 18
@ Anon, first look up what type of strategy Iran has against US invasion, its literally impossible to take it out in 10 years, let alone in one day :)
morongobill , May 12, 2018 9:15:41 AM | 19
@14:"Top 3 nato countries could take out Iran military within a day"- highly doubt that.

Ian- agree but don't forget Kissinger and Nixon.

Robert Snefjella , May 12, 2018 9:18:08 AM | 20
Apologies if following musings are a bit disjointed.

American chronic hostility towards Iran, and long standing American economic and informational and low-level war gainst Iran, has an insane, out-of-touch with reality, ideological/mythological tinge/component to it. I won't try a broad psycho-analysis, or assemble many possible reasons why that might be.

But among those possible components there is a long standing implacable totalitarian bent to US power wielders, reflected in their ordained geo-political communications in the United States. The American economic sanctions and continuously variously hostile policy towards Cuba over more than half a century is an example. The former 'brothel dof the Caribbean' was apparently fine for the US, and the death squad ridden countries of Central America are quite acceptable, but Cuba out of the capitalist orbit? Cuba as attempting a different ideology, and approach: terrible recalcitrant. The very demon of the hemisphere.

In his revelatory book The Praetorian Guard, former CIA John Stockwell noted that as he was growing up, basically nobody questioned the prevailing American ideology and system. Real searching basic debate was absent. Within the context of a culture where freedom of speech is technically prioritized, lauded as an ideal, somehow self-censorship and discussion is limited to within-the-box of convention, thus discussion as scripted theatre, propaganda, dominated overwhelmingly.

No real debate, but what was repeated ad infinitum were messianic messages'we swear allegiance to the flag', we're number one, we're the free world, we're the good guys.

After the JFK coup d'etat, basically everything in American media became an exercise in controlling all political discourse and trying like crazy to make sure pretense prevailed. This was if anything accentuated after the 9/11 false flag treasonous mind-f**k.

There was also a deadly military doctrine adopted by the US after WW2, when segments of US power decided to go for global military domination, basically permanent war and war preparation. The cliche is that the first casualty of war is truth, but in the case of the United States, doubly so, as that train had already left the station.

The United States is a kind of astonishingly cautionary historical example of the deranged trajectory that dishonesty, pretense and censorship as normalized and dominant will ensure. So many natural advantages, but the external manifestation of the US became mass murder and subterfuge; internal problems of the US are festering, metastisizing, and tens of millions of Americans are deeply demoralized, anxiety ridden, emotion-related drug-medication-dependent.

Back to Iran. A few years ago while driving in the evening I turned on the car radio and the first words I heard from a (Jewish) talk show host on a Toronto station was the question: Do you think the Americans have the balls to nuke Iran? Really bizzarre sick question that apparently could be sent out glibly and sefely into the Canadian political discussion universe as an intellectual feat. And on numerous occasions for many years it has been commonplace in Canadian mass media to depict Iran in a hostile, negative light. And as German writer Udo Ulfkotte bravely told us before his untimely death, the CIA also influences and controls and thus contaminates much of European mass media communication.

So the American insanity and dishonesty and war mongering is playing itself out on a broad stage, (witness the truly crazy pathetic British government's behaviour of late) and crazy people do crazy things, so yah, Iran is still in the crosshairs. But there is a kind of desperate, fading, dated quality to the American obsession with 'evil Iran', and lies and make-believe and insanity cannot escape colliding with reality. The collision can make a helluva a mess, but at some point hopefully the pendulum swings towards a reassertion of sanity and decency and honesty.

How many times will Americans shoot themselves in the foot for Israel and fairy tales?

somebody , May 12, 2018 9:21:32 AM | 21
11 Yep, Reagan and Thatcher were there before. Reagan "was strong" in Grenada and Thatcher in the Falklands.

At present Pompeo seems to try to snatch North Korea from Russia and China .

Bolton seems to plan for war there, too .

I guess the US will have to get clear about their priorities.

ken , May 12, 2018 9:29:33 AM | 22
@ somebody.

"But even Bolton's ilk must know Russia and China will not stand by while FUKUS/Nutty/MBS openly attack Iran"

It appears Putin and Russia have decided to sit all this out. While Putin was enjoying the Victory Parade with Netanyahu,,, Netanyahu was bombing his ally Syria. Putin was all smiles and so far all we hear is crickets.

Putin will sell his S-400 systems to anyone that wants them EXCEPT Syria and all they want is the S-300.

I don't know what's going on but as far as Russia is concerned I wouldn't bank on their helping Iran.

China? China can be purchased like cloths on a rack.

No,,, I think it's pretty open right now for the US to attack Iran. Whether it can survive a war with Iran is doubtful,,, but that's never stopped them before.

Anon , May 12, 2018 9:31:07 AM | 23
somebody

Harry

Yes "take out" as I defined not through occupation/invasion but fighter jet strikes and/or from sea. That wont take more than 1 day for 3 top Nato nations.

Nev , May 12, 2018 9:37:59 AM | 24
I wonder what is going through the minds of Kim and the South Korean leadership. It is obvious that the US is not agreement capable. What sort of guarantees can the US provide. Even if China and Russia provide guarantees it may not be enough. Kim sees that if a deal is made, then the crippling sanctions could be reimposed or remain. Kim and his sister are not stupid.
Pft , May 12, 2018 9:56:51 AM | 25
Neocons and Bolton are Trotskyites. Permanent Revolutionists

The ruling elite never really knew how dumb people were until the internet and social media. With the help of Trumps supporter and Facebook investor Thiel and his company Palintir and Facebook to help them figure out all the data they collected, they know they can make the cattle believe anything without making it believable to anyone with an IQ under 120

The few that figure it out without being members of the cult are isolated and inconsequential.

Plato told us what he hoped would happen. Leo Straus who is the godfather of the neocons emphasized Platos Noble Lie which is behind all of todays fake news/history . Plato was heavily influenced by Irans Zoroastrianism

I believe elements behind the reformation in the 16th century and Sabbateans from the 17th century, Frankists , Freemasons and Jesuits from the 18 th century and Zionists , and Martinists and Marxists from the 19th century joined forces to create a NWO that is a Luciferian cult of Global Synachrists

The neocons are the latest manifestation of the Synarchists, and unfortunately for the world this means global terror much like the Rothschild back Trotsky hoped to accomplish in
the 20th century before being thwarted by Stalin. It also means the end of Religion as Neocons corrupt Protestant Christianity, in US and Across the Atlantic while CIA controlled Jesuit Pope Francis destroys Catholicism. Zionism and the Holocaust wiped out Torah believers and the GWOT and neocons are proceeding to destroy Islam after corrupting it with Islamism with help from the Saudi Arabias corrupt Wahhabism which has spread Islamic extremism along with US and Israel

For those who believe the US can be destroyed, you are in denial. There is no stopping the US/Israel//British/EU alliance. The only hope is that once the perpetual revolution is over that the philosopher kings described by Plato will be merciful. Unfortunately, given many of them are neo-malthusians who think most of humanity are worthless consumers of Gaias precious resources, i am not optimistic

Kalen , May 12, 2018 9:59:21 AM | 26
However you would define war US (Israel) and Iran is at war footing for decades, nothing new here, so I would not panic here that Bolton would do something.

It cannot be more clear that as much as Trump is a flaccid clown of ignorance and belligerence to cover up his tax evasion crimes from Muller, Bolton plays role of barking poodle that all, did not get anything done what global oligarchic interests tell him or he will be put down.

And Please do not compare Iran to Iraq especially after two Iraqi wars, Iran is in position to cause major damage to global oligarchic interests and hence there will be no escalation despite fire and fury rhetoric as it was in NK case, it is all about reintegration of Iranian oligarchy to global oligarchic country club and what we witness is negotiating of condition of selling out Iranians to neoliberal globalists and by that advance a step in isolating Russia to achieve the same purpose, surrender to globalism.

Also I do not see Netanyahu welcoming hundreds of Iranian missiles landing in Tel Aviv as Saddam only shot few Soviet museum item at Israel and back then all hit their however random targets. There would be no random targets this time so there would be death and vital damage, not to mention that Israel could loose Golan Height in the process. Also there is no way in hell for US to invade Iran, or gather 600k troops as it was in 1991 for one quarter Iran size Iraq.

I know that spreading fear brings clicks but here on this blog we know better than that.

Hoarsewhisperer , May 12, 2018 9:59:52 AM | 27
Don't underestimate Trump. He came to office on an audacious promise to drain The Swamp. It's a very specialized task. It was never going to be easy and I'm quite certain that he went in knowing that his first misjudgment would probably be his last. I don't know how to drain The Swamp but if Trump thinks he can then I do too. I've been pleasantly surprised at his ability to engage with senior officials on the World Stage and appear Presidential. Compared with bumbling fools like Ronny Raygun, Jimmy Carter and Dubya, Trump leaves them for dead in the "100% on the ball" stakes. Whilst I'm waiting, with fingers crossed, I console myself with the following thoughts:

1. Hillary would have been worse.
2. The non-people he wants to neutralise are the worst bunch of scum and arseholes on the planet.
3. Since he's the only person with a Swamp plan, we shouldn't be too picky about his timing and tactics.
4. Trump is an extremely clever individual.

james , May 12, 2018 10:04:17 AM | 28
thanks b... and thanks for the Atlantic article from peter beinart... i thought it was a good article.. here's a quote from it "More than 60 percent of Republicans, according to a March Pew Research Poll, think the United States was right to invade Iraq. George W. Bush's approval rating among Republicans, according to a January CNN poll, is 76 percent." and "It's rare to see non-Americans on political talk shows. That matters because non-Americans overwhelmingly think pulling out of the Iran deal is nuts. And non-Americans are more likely to raise fundamental questions about American nuclear policy -- like why America isn't pushing for inspections of Israel's nuclear program, and why America keeps demanding that other nations denuclearize while building ever more nuclear weapons of its own."

then you can read @20 Robert Snefjella post - thanks robert - and note the radio interview from toronto..

sorry to say, but this 'neo-con' term is a quick term to describe so much of what looks like the koolaid american citizens drink regularly.. and there is plenty of it to go around in canada too..

americans by and large look like a nation of idiots, spoon fed everything they know..

i tend to agree with harrys view @13... colour revolution will continue.. but unlike harry, i do believe the bombs will fall and we will enter some type of ww3 scenario.. the usa-israel are too much led by the neo con koolaid to step away from any of their ongoing insanity.. i just can't see the insanity stopping with rational, reasonable people having a say.. so, maybe i don't fully agree with harry other then in the short term..

ralphieboy , May 12, 2018 10:16:15 AM | 29
@ Hoarsewhisperer #11

I agree with your assessment that Trump is a very clever individual - when it comes to manipulating the media and distracting from his words and actions, but I disagree with every other assertion you have made and find that he has filled his administration with grifters and con artists that rival the days of Grant or Harding.

And if you have grown up in America under DACA and are about to be deported or are losing your health insurance coverage because key provisions of ACA have been overturned, just try reciting "Hillary would have been worse!"

Menschmaschine , May 12, 2018 10:17:56 AM | 30
Utter nonsense. The US and Israel are coward bullies. They will pounce when the odds are good, but they are quite rational about when they are not. There have been endless threats and sabre rattling by the US and Israel against Iran for decades, but they never followed through. They will most certainly not do so now, when the relative military position of Iran is better than ever. And this "crying wolf" article will join the the countless others written before on the junkpile of historical falsification...
Eric , May 12, 2018 10:28:56 AM | 31
There is a strong delusion that maintains its satanic grip on the "leadership" in DC.
The depiction of Mordor in Tolkien's "Fellowship of the Rings" series is very fitting in describing the present pure evil and absolute darkness of those who plan for war and destruction in the secret chambers in the upper echelons of our society.

What will stop the madness, death, and destruction that has rained down and continues to rain down on so many millions of hapless men, women, and children in the Middle East and abroad? Will it take a few US cities completely destroyed and hundreds of thousands of Americans vaporized before the insanity of US Empire is stopped?

I pray for peace for the sake of my children and grandchildren. I pray for a "great awakening" amongst the nations of the world to demand an end to the evil US/Zionist madness before it is too late.

Ian , May 12, 2018 10:31:16 AM | 32
Well, Bolton may be up to his usual tricks again. U.N. nuclear watchdog's inspections chief quits suddenly
Red Ryder , May 12, 2018 10:39:41 AM | 33
Any US attack on Iran will be by air, not ground. Though special ops will be inserted in the Afghan border provinces (where the last protests were the largest, fertile ground for insurgents).

Missiles of all kinds will fall on the regime, the military, the Quds, the militias.

And it will be huge, maybe the largest, heaviest attack ever. Once the air defenses are down, bombers will cover the major infrastructure sites with the heaviest bombing since Belgrade and Nam.

Only when the UNSC convenes, probably, no sooner than five or six days, will the attack slow or cease.

Iran will have been set back a few decades. That is the soft goal. The harder goal will be the insurgency and destabilization of the regime and final regime change.

It will take nothing special for this attack to happen. Trump has already made up his mind.

When it will happen is when the US and Israel feel they can suppress the Hezbollah missile threat. Until they have a workable plan for that, not much can happen on a large scale.

But it will come. Small or large, a missile attack will come to Iran. The regime is in the sights of the Hegemon.

Ghost Ship , May 12, 2018 10:44:28 AM | 34
>>>> Anon | May 12, 2018 9:05:51 AM | 14
Top 3 nato countries could take out Iran military within a day, but nato cannot invade, occupy it in my opinion.

Rubbish.

I assume you're referring to countries other than the United States. In which case, you do know that Germany has about half-a-dozen airworthy attack aircraft, the Royal Navy and France's aircraft carriers would require just about every ship in the other European navies to protect them and part of the reason the British and French begged the United States to intervene in Libya was because they'd run out of PGMs.

Give the European NATO countries a couple of years to build up their forces and force projection skills and European NATO might be in a position to bomb Iran, but as soon as they started building up their forces in the Gulf States, Iran could go to the UNSC to demand that this obvious aggression should be stopped and when FUKUS veto any resolution, Iran has carte blanche to launch preemptive strikes across the Persian Gulf. End of European NATO's war on Iran

And after the Iraq fiasco, I suspect the only country that would go to war without a UNSC resolution is the United States. Germany would almost certainly decide to sit it out, France most probably would and the UK would probably also sit it out.

Finally, even if the top 3 NATO countries did try to get away with a limited air attack, the best response for Iran would be to sink every ship in the Persian Gulf and go on doing so until the United States invades and becomes bogged down in a quagmire far worse than Iraq or Afghanistan.

Curtis , May 12, 2018 10:47:07 AM | 35
I have to agree with those who say a direct attack on Iran is imminent. Sure, some would love this to happen whether Yahoo or Bolton but for now will be happy to apply the "squeeze" of sanctions, ostracism/propaganda. The goal seems to have been to destroy and if not that, then to set the countries back ... under the thumb as it were.

Yes, the US with some assistance could rip Iran's military apart but not take over the country. A majority are somewhat satisfied with the theocratic setup. They know the history with the US/West. And how would Iran react? Long range attacks on Israel or much closer-to-home attacks on the Gulf States and the Saudis as well as blocking at Hormuz? Saddam lobbed a few Scuds at Israel and Riyadh but didn't have much. Iran has more and better missile tech ... which TPTB are going after now ... while Yahoo still pushes "nuclear programs" since he knows (like Iraq) there are no real weapons there.

lysander , May 12, 2018 10:54:54 AM | 36
The US will do everything possible to reimpose sanctions. Hence gaining control of the IAEA and inspection process. This is designed to offer the Europeans a face saving way to back down and submit to US will regarding sanctions. It will probably succeed. Europe, whether it likes it or not, is playing good cop in the game.

War, as in an actual US attack in Iran itself, is pretty much out if the question. A false flag designed to be blamed on Iran and big enough to warrant a war will be placed under enormous scrutiny. Not by the US MSM, of course, but by the rest of the world and the alternative media.

The fact is, before anyone can attack Iran, they have to win in Syria and it doesn't look like they are going to.

As far as sanctions, Iran's best bet may be to give the EU 3 weeks to prove its intent to confront the US (which is unlikely) Then Iran can resume its civilian nuclear development at the fastest possible pace, with the offer to discontinue once the US returns to the JCPOA.

Don Bacon , May 12, 2018 11:06:27 AM | 37
Peter Beinart, the author of the "As with Iraq" piece above, gets all wound up in the details of nuclear inspections and forgets that in 2003 he supported the misbegotten Iraq invasion and war because a (supposed) peaceful aftermath would help the people of Iraq, and so the people who oppose the war were wrong.
The truth is that liberalism has to try to harness American military power for its purposes because American tanks and bombs are often the only things that bring evil to heel. Opposing this war might have helped liberals retain their purity, but it would have done nothing for the people suffering under Saddam. If liberals are betrayed a second time in the Gulf, hawkish liberalism may well go into temporary eclipse. But one day we, and they, will need it again. . . here

That's akin to the position that Trump has taken on Iran.
In this effort, we stand in total solidarity with the Iranian regime's longest-suffering victims: its own people. The citizens of Iran have paid a heavy price for the violence and extremism of their leaders. The Iranian people long to -- and they just are longing, to reclaim their country's proud history, its culture, its civilization, its cooperation with its neighbors. . . here
Old Microbiologist , May 12, 2018 11:12:51 AM | 38
IMHO what we are seeing are the last ditch efforts of a failing nation. Russia isn't sitting it out but is taking a wait and see attitude. The same for China. All the bluster and twitter tweets in the world mean nothing until someone actually does something. Israel managed to shoot off a massive strike which at best was 50% effective. This was against "old" Pantsir S-1 systems which were quite effective. No one has seen the S-300 yet in action and Russia is holding it back keeping the ECM signature still secret until it is absolutely necessary. Russia cannot fight the US or Israel in Syria. They simply doesn't have the forces present. But, what they can do is push gently and make the FUKUS+I over-commit. Don't forget that the US is working at a current $22 Trillion of debt and these debacles are going to burn money faster than they can print. In the mean time Russia/China are creating an alternate economic system to bypass the petrodollar and especially the SWIFT banking. That is in place and perhaps we will see more countries deciding to bail on the dollar and join the growing crowd.

The US has demonstrated a complete lack of respect for sovereignty and has so far reneged on every treaty. This means that the US is at best an unreliable partner. The South Koreans have wised up seeing that the US is very willing to sacrifice the entire peninsula and every soul living there to kill off the DPNK. That should scare the bejeezus out of every nation friendly to the US anywhere in the world. They are losing friends so fast now it is scary. This only forces the inevitable and the US is going to have to bet the farm to try and keep the hegemony alive. It won't work and the US has the worst record of war fighting imaginable. They can't beat the goat-herders in Afghanistan for example over a span of now 17 years. Fighting a real military such as Iran would be impossible and especially if China throws in her weight. Iran is very important to China and to a lesser extent Russia as well. There is no danger of the US or NATO winning there. However, this could break the bank if it goes south. So, what we are seeing is an existential threat to the US in the form of rebellion against the dollar. Finally, we are seeing countries that have the weight of forces (nuclear) with serious resistance. It is for this reason we are not seeing a counter-attack against Israel. As Napoleon said "Never interfere with the enemy when he is in the process of destroying himself".

james , May 12, 2018 11:15:39 AM | 39
@37 don.. peter beinart in the articles states he was wrong on iraq and this previous movement..
A P , May 12, 2018 11:18:36 AM | 40
The two FUKUS mass missile attacks on Syria, as well as Israel's latest jab, were a test of the Russian systems and general Syrian ability to interdict said missiles. If the missiles can't get through even at such short range, it is obvious Israeli/FUKUS aircraft can't either. Attempting the same "air war" stunt in Iran will just give the US MIC a big boost replacing virtually every piece of hardware sent over Iran airspace.

Again, the US soldiers/mercenaries currently in eastern Syria are in a caldron-in-making. They can no longer count on escaping via land transport through Iraq or Turkey, and without any air support/transport, they are trapped. Does anyone think the US public will tolerate the Deep State sacrificing about 5,000 soldiers/mercenaries immediately after the bombing of Iran starts? The handful of body bags from other recent US misadventures were not well-received at home, so the potential for another Vietnam?

Iran will not be the turkey-shoot Iraq was, Saddam was still under the delusion Rumsfeld's handshake gave him immunity from Deep State/Zionist machinations. Iran's leadership is under no such delusion, remembering the admitted 1953 CIA overthrow of democratically elected Mossadegh and the installation of the Shah.

Putin and Assad know time is on their side, and the longer they can delay a major FUKUS/Israeli/Saudi offensive, the better prepared they are and the less effect Zionist propaganda has worldwide. The IDF murdering unarmed Palestinians using a Gandhiesque tactic of showing how venal Nuttyyahoo's regime is... like Britain in India... there is no way to make this slaughter seem justified, and attempting to keep it out of the public consciousness has not worked.

bevin , May 12, 2018 11:20:20 AM | 41
"But it will come. Small or large, a missile attack will come to Iran. The regime is in the sights of the Hegemon."
That would be 'former Hegemon'.
The likelihood of war other than the predictable guerrilla campaigns launched from abroad, campaigns with which Iran has been successfully dealing for decades, seems to me to be low.
While everyone is watching Iran and Syria, the most important developments are those taking place in Korea, where some sort of peace agreement seems inevitable. And where anything short of war will mean an immense strengthening of the positions of Russia and China.Not least because Japan and Taiwan will be forced to adjust to the new reality.
In Korea... and in western Europe.
This is where the worst cracks in the US hegemonic facade are beginning to show: the logic of Eurasia and the illogic of Atlanticism are inescapable. The western european economies, including Germany's, France's and (the weakest link of all?) Italy's are dying for access to the eastern markets. Historically Germany has shared its technologies and culture with Russia, which has been the great source of its raw materials and food. The ending of the Iran deal seems to be the excuse needed to slip back into that relationship.
Those who rave against Putin's 'betrayal' understand nothing. It is necessary to lower the tension internationally in order for the tectonic movements, which are already well advanced, to settle.
Bolton and the warmongers depend on perpetuating war but all the momentum, internationally, is against war. The propaganda which has been their main weapon, is failing, their credibility is rapidly declining.
Outside Israel, the rump of the Saud family court which supports the Riyadh regime and the degenerated dregs of NATO trotskyism-inhabited by elderly, aethereal creatures who live in the Academy and know nothing of the world- the only people who want war are the speculators. And they are just as happy to have peace, anything that excites the market.
Those who claim that Iran could be defeated in a couple of days are, presumably, talking of nuclear weapons. Do they really believe that such an attack would not be deterred by Iran's allies?
A P , May 12, 2018 11:27:52 AM | 42
Trump is "clever", not intelligent. He is the personification of "bullshit baffles brains" methodology. Indications are he is marginally literate, as all info briefs have to be a couple pages at most and point form. It is obvious he has no patience to work through the finer details of complex situations, simply taking the position of whatever of his advisers can spread the BS in the most eloquent or forceful way.

But mostly whatever panders to his ego. Make Trumpty think he is being "the decider" (like Gerge W. Stupid) or that he is being the "tough guy" and he'll sign or say anything.

lysander , May 12, 2018 11:27:54 AM | 43
@ 33, It took NATO 73 days to bring Serbia down, and in the end it required trickery (promising Milosovich he can stay then color revolutionizing him out)

Serbia did not have the means to close the straights of Hormuz. Nor did it have a missile arsenal that could strike at several regional US bases. Nor could it destroy Saudi and Kuwaiti oil refineries. Nor did Serbia have several thousand US ground troops in easy reach.

Serbia also had the misfortune of being attacked during the weakest point in Russian history since the 1600s. Russia is quite certain to help Iran because it has a strong interest in Iran repelling a US attack. Even if you believe Russia is 100% cynical, they will have an enormously strong reason to see the US bogged down for a decade and bled white.

The Pentagon is aware of all of this and they aren't idiots. The fact is, the US was in a much better position to attack Iran in 2006 or 7, and they still didn't do it, because it was a terrible idea even back then. They will not do it now when it is a much worse idea.

Simply put, if attacking Iran were so easy, they would have done it a long, long time ago.

Now, attempts to destabilize and possibly preach rebellion to Iran's minorities, that they will do (without much success) But open war is a line they won't cross.

imo , May 12, 2018 11:30:30 AM | 44
@38 -- "This was against "old" Pantsir S-1 systems which were quite effective. No one has seen the S-300 yet in action and Russia is holding it back keeping the ECM signature still secret until it is absolutely necessary."

My reading is the S-300 has a range that would cover commercial airports in Tel-Aviv and it is probably too much risk for Putin to deliver these to Damascus in case an 'event' occurs and a civilian jet goes down. In any case, some suggest there are more effective equipment solutions for Syrian defense/response. Of course, in the wryly Russian way, Israeli destruction of "old" Pantsir S-1 systems simply opens up the rational and legal opportunity to provide a whole lot of 'new' updated replacement Pantsir S-1 systems. Background: https://sputniknews.com/military/201804171063644024-pantsir-top-facts/

psychohistorian , May 12, 2018 11:30:45 AM | 45
I think that the UN has always been mostly a circus court for empire....make it look like US is benevolent.

So now when the fig leaf comes off in public people are aghast. Empire only works like empire and when the wheels start to come off, the whole facade is exposed for the dog and pony show it has always been.

Will this be enough to change the world of global private finance? Iran, remember, refuses to become a member of the Western banking/elite cabal.

So just why might Trump be directed to attack Iran in his regular pompous manner. Is this a religious war we are fighting for Israel?

NO!!! It is all about the continuation of the Western form of social organization that has as its core religion the God of Mammon. Those at MoA who read me know that the God of Mammon that I write about have the tenets of private finance and property along with the rules of inheritance which has resulted in the elite of the past few centuries.

I continue to posit that all that is happening relates to that issue and the struggles around it not discussed in public for whatever reasons.

But carry on educating me and others about all the proxy shit going down and its relevance to how our society works....or doesn't........I want evolution and I want it this morning!!!!!!!

Jackrabbit , May 12, 2018 11:44:12 AM | 46
The coming "war on Iran" will be an excuse for all kinds of mischief. Some possibilities:
>> seizing western Iraq
further isolate Syria by blocking Iran-Syria land route

>> attack and occupation of Lebanon
to clear Hezbollah and allow for Israeli land grab up to Litani river (a goal previously expressed)

>> new round of terror attacks (from new/re-branded groups) focused on Syria, Iranian, and Russian interests (with a few attacks on the West to muddy the waters)
The psychological part of a war of attrition

>> intensified Ukraine-Russian frictions
full court press

>> ISIS expansion into Central Asia
accelerate what has already begun

>> Shut down of North Stream and Turk Stream
expect the 'cage match' with "recividist nations" to get nasty

Laguerre , May 12, 2018 11:45:50 AM | 47
Curious how things have calmed down on the Israel front. Things not gone quite as well as hoped? Or perhaps it is that they've figured out that there's nothing to do. SOHR, opposed to the Syrians, but with good telephone connections in Syria, has now come up with a list of a handful of Iranian dead. So I suppose a few Iranian camps were actually hit. But the only actual videoed strikes were against Syrians. It's what you'd call a nothing-burger, much like the 102 missile strike.

And this is the launch of a campaign against Iran?? Strange way of showing it. In my view, the US and Israel are so boxed in by their constraints, that it's very difficult to act decisively. No casualties, so no overflights of Syria, let alone Iran. No interruption of Gulf oil exports, as the Gulfies wouldn't like it. Gulf emirates not to be overturned. I'm sure I can think of some more....

imo , May 12, 2018 11:49:45 AM | 48
@40 -- "The handful of body bags from other recent US misadventures were not well-received at home, so the potential for another Vietnam?"

More likely an unlearned repeat of 'rhyming' history with Trump playing Jimmy Carter and the "5,000 soldiers/mercenaries" playing the suckers (in summer heat). How's the Big 'D' going to negotiate that deal over the mid-terms?

But that was Democrat 'smart' -- perhaps this re-mix will be closer an up-scaled rerun of Reagan's Iran–Contra scandal? Who's playing Oliver North?

fairleft , May 12, 2018 11:51:49 AM | 49
Robert Snefjella | May 12, 2018 9:18:08 AM | 20

Another great post. Thank you. Implied I think in your musings is, 'What will people remember of the U.S.' in a hundred years? The 20th century popular music. Blues, Jazz, Rock 'n Roll, and Country & Western for starters.

Anon , May 12, 2018 11:57:18 AM | 50
Ghost ship

Completely nonsense.

When have UNSC ever done to stop aggression by the same states that commit the aggression?
The topic wouldnt even raised in the UNSC.
Of course Iran wont start a "preemptive" war. Not atleast since that will be a suicide mission for themselves.

Anon , May 12, 2018 12:00:07 PM | 51
Lysander

Russia wont do anything then (us attack on iran), just look how they treated previous US wars, everytime people have said the same that RUssia will help and repel an attack, it have never happend and will never happen.

lysander , May 12, 2018 12:03:32 PM | 52
At 51...uh, you do realize Russia has an expeditionary force that is actually fighting and keeping Syria alive as we post, right? Perhaps they are not fighting as much as you would like, but they are fighting and Syria continues to exist because of it. As regards Iran, if Iran falls the Syria falls and Russian bases will be gone. Fortunately for all, that won't happen.
NemesisCalling , May 12, 2018 12:11:36 PM | 53
It is difficult to say what kind of scope the false flag would need to be to rally public opinion at home for an Iranian incursion. In many ways, pre-9/11, the antiwar movement was much stronger as was shown by the rallies against leading up to the Iraqi invasion. And yet this couldn't forestall it.

OTOH, independent media has come a long way in its reach and so cries of "false flag" have already been sounded, and, by and large, I believe America is fatigued with the ME. It is doubly ironic that dems like Schumer have been crying foul against DJT for playing soft with NoKo. I know that the current dem/lib establishment has thrown its antiwar credentials out the window, in favor of color revolutions, freedom, and LGBTQUIOGDTFBJK rights to fornicate in public spaces, but, my god, I would never have imagined the globalists to be THAT stupid in their disregard for basic human needs the world over for soverignty and national pride.

People have touched on it before, but is this whole current theater just an old money vs. new money second showing? The return of the repressed, with the globalist/neolib model being rundowned and usurped by nationalist oligarchs? It would seem the DJT has chosen to err to the old money side to the betterment of the world. And I, for one, as an American would rather have my elites localized so we would actually have access to their asses when we decide to put a pitchfork up them. It is very difficult to get past TSA with weaponized peasant tools.

Laguerre , May 12, 2018 12:13:00 PM | 54
Israel doesn't want war with Iran – it prefers crisis in Tehran . Anshel Pfeffer, Ha'aretz.

Israel's a bit late there then. The disturbances were at the beginning of the year. They're over now. The effect of the sanctions will be to swing people behind the regime, for the moment, at any rate.

Anon , May 12, 2018 12:30:10 PM | 55
lysander

No thats wrong too, Russia is not on a mission to save Syrians state, they are in Syria due takfiri threat. Nothing else, as we all see proof of past days...

As for your other statment, I am well sure that Syria have fallen long long before Iran (if they ever do that).

Lozion , May 12, 2018 12:44:53 PM | 56
@52 Lysander. I agree (btw never mind anon's trolling attempts). Simply put, the road to Tehran goes through Damascus and last I checked the Jasmine City was doing fine ;) If US/KSA/IL attempts a hot war on Iran it will only precipitate its fall..
Jose Garcia , May 12, 2018 12:55:54 PM | 57
Am reminded of the 3 Stooges, whenever I read about these warmongers, like " Bombs Away" Bolton. Moe tells a group of people, "We will fight till the last drop of.....", then points to Curly and finishes, "....your blood!" These bastards love war, but never are at the front line, fighting and dying along side our best. They sit at their plush offices and conference halls in the best hotels, sipping champagne and eating the best foods, making six or seven figure incomes. While our brothers, neighbors, fathers, sons, uncles die overseas, or come back a mental mess, and get crapped on by out government. What these no good for nothing rat bastards need is to experience the hell they unleash upon us and the rest of the world.
les7 , May 12, 2018 1:05:51 PM | 58
@32 thanks Ian for that link. good catch!
Rhisiart Gwilym , May 12, 2018 1:08:01 PM | 59
anon is clearly of the 'cakewalk', 'all be over by Christmas' school of strategic (lack of) intelligence. LOL!
john , May 12, 2018 1:09:24 PM | 60
NemesisCalling says:

I believe America is fatigued with the ME

i read this line a lot, from all spheres, and it always perplexes me. to be fatigued you'd have to be overwhelmed, inundated, and i'd wager that the ME and what's going on there hardly crosses the vast majority of minds in more than a peripheral way, you know, like beyond certain key words they hear on tv.

one thing's for sure though, the ME is most definitely fatigued with America!

james , May 12, 2018 1:16:32 PM | 61
@59 rhisiart... a broken clock is right twice a day!!

many fine posts, excluding the anons of moa, lol.. thanks..

Don Bacon , May 12, 2018 1:20:52 PM | 62
Looks like there might not be a Coalition Of The Willing in any anti-Iran military operation. Quite the opposite, it's a further lessening of US world hegemony.
. . .Cartoon of Trump giving the middle finger Goodbye, Europe! in Der Spiegel.
Don Bacon , May 12, 2018 1:23:47 PM | 63
@ Ian 32
U.N. nuclear watchdog's inspections chief quits suddenly
The IAEA is not a UN agency.
Anon , May 12, 2018 1:30:35 PM | 64
Don Bacon

Dont bet on that,

May, Trump Agree to Counter Iran's 'Destabilising Activity' - Downing Street
https://sputniknews.com/europe/201805121064380224-usa-uk-iran-sanctions-pressure/

WJ , May 12, 2018 1:31:06 PM | 65
Why are commentators assuming that, *if* the US does launch a war of aggression against Iran, it will do so in tandem with its NATO allies--and the UK, France, and Germany in particular? It is doubtful that these allies will even abide by the new US economic sanctions imposed upon Iran. Why think that they will be willing, or even politically able, to follow the US orders for war?

b is right that the neocons are setting up a replay of the 2001-2003 Iraq propaganda campaign. But the global and domestic conditions that enabled the success of that campaign no longer hold. The US is far weaker now than then; Iran is more powerful and unified than Iraq ever was; NATO countries have hundreds of billions of dollars of trade contracts in place or projected with Iran; Russia and China are far stronger. It just doesn't add up.

NemesisCalling , May 12, 2018 1:31:57 PM | 66
@60 john

I suppose what I was trying to say is that the narrative TPTB have spun over the last twenty years has gone beyond the realm of convoluted to the average American and now has completely unwound into chaos. It was only three years ago that we were being told about the surging threat of ISIS to Americans. Well...that didn't last long...and now they are back to Iran which the west knows very little about and really doesn't care to. Us Americans like the good guy/bad guy fight. But if you can't drum up a good enough backstory for the black hats, I'm afraid that the average American will simply change the channel.

That being said...a compelling backstory isn't really needed for pyschopaths to wage their war anyway.

Jackrabbit , May 12, 2018 1:33:28 PM | 67
Lorizon @56

I believe you are referring to Anon as troll.

"anon" (small 'a') makes valuable contributions.

Jackrabbit , May 12, 2018 1:34:39 PM | 68
Typo: Lozion
MIschi , May 12, 2018 1:35:05 PM | 69
Russia has probably delivered the S-300 to Syria but isn't saying.

https://sputniknews.com/military/201805111064353749-russia-s300-supplies-syria/

Also, Putin and Lavrov always talk to other parties that they aren't getting along with, hence Netanyahu's invitation to the Victory Day parade.

les7 , May 12, 2018 1:38:08 PM | 70
Several here ave wondered what kind of false flag could motivate the populace in NA and the EU to support an attack on Iran. May I propose one?

First stage - Israel (using the EW cover from AlTanf) bombs the Iranian nuclear plant. Radiation release threatens tens of thousands.

Second stage - Supposed 'Iranian' counter-attack sets oil tankers ablaze (For maximum PR effect do not sink them) in the Hormuz straights closing the gulf to shipments of Gulf sourced oil. Oil prices temporarily spike to over $200 a barrel,

Europe's supply of oil is cut drastically, industries world-wide are paralysed and the US (secure with its' supply sourced outside the gulf)is free to ride to the rescue - all while RUSSIA (and China) have NO LEGITIMATE REASON to oppose the aggression.

Don Bacon , May 12, 2018 1:39:56 PM | 71
bevin 41
The likelihood of war other than the predictable guerrilla campaigns launched from abroad, campaigns with which Iran has been successfully dealing for decades, seems to me to be low.
Yes, the US Army is demonstrably weak especially for any foreign invasion.

Historically Germany has shared its technologies and culture with Russia, which has been the great source of its raw materials and food. The ending of the Iran deal seems to be the excuse needed to slip back into that relationship.
And also China's BRI -- coming up June 28-- -- The China Germany BRI Summit 2018

As the first and third largest exporters globally, China and Germany will prove crucial drivers of trade along the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st-century Maritime Silk Road. Together these form the Belt and Road Initiative, a landmark shift in the global economic order that will touch over 65 countries across four continents.
The China Germany BRI Summit 2018 will dispel myths on what the Belt and Road Initiative means for the world, tackle the challenges for global financial institutions and corporations looking to leverage the initiative, and identify the enormous opportunities in M&A, capital markets and trade finance. here .
ninel , May 12, 2018 1:42:37 PM | 72
Iran Breaks the Rules of Engagement: Israel Takes Its Revenge, and Syria and Iran Impose the Golan Equation, May 10 2018

https://www.globalresearch.ca/iran-breaks-the-rules-of-engagement-israel-takes-its-revenge-and-syria-and-iran-impose-the-golan-equation/5640231

@ Anon 64
Dont bet on that, May, Trump Agree to Counter Iran's 'Destabilising Activity' - Downing Street
OMG, not the powerful UK military!! (heh)
Besides, haven't you heard? The UK isn't in Europe any more, or soon won't be.

Posted by: Don Bacon , May 12, 2018 1:45:05 PM | 73

@ Anon 64
Dont bet on that, May, Trump Agree to Counter Iran's 'Destabilising Activity' - Downing Street
OMG, not the powerful UK military!! (heh)
Besides, haven't you heard? The UK isn't in Europe any more, or soon won't be.

Posted by: Don Bacon | May 12, 2018 1:45:05 PM | 73 /div

WJ , May 12, 2018 1:46:54 PM | 74
Don Bacon @71,

The extremely complex entanglement of Germany with (roughly) the NATO/EU alliance on the one hand and Russia/China on the other is a prime reason why I do not believe that Germany (which is by far the biggest economy in the EU) will be able to be strong armed or enticed into signing up with another Zionist driven US war of aggression with a country as major as Iran.

xpat , May 12, 2018 1:48:26 PM | 75
Re the possibility of a "united front" of western powers confronting Iran, the truth is that no one knows for certain at this point how it this will play out.

We have to remember the deafening silence of the western media during the obvious Skripjal-Ghouta fakery, so there's a good chance the US/Israel axis will again have a relatively free hand to concoct any number of escalating false flags, not all of which will stick, but some probably will. So that is a cause for concern re any future "coalition".

As for enforcing the sanctions, I've seen people argue both ways - that this is a bridge too far for Europe, and accepting it will both do too much economic damage and make Europe appear too obviously as US toadies; and OTOH, Europe will be blackmailed into knuckling under when confronted with illegal US fines and secondary sanctions.

wenlich , May 12, 2018 1:51:06 PM | 76
@59 Lysander

> Curious how things have calmed down on the Israel front. Things not gone quite as well as hoped?

This is all that needs to be noted about the absurdity of even the idea that the US regime is capable of attacking Iran.

This delusion appears to be the same type thinking as the "Generals Always Fight the Previous War" saying.

The days of the Israeli regime flying at will over countries bombing at will are over. And the days of the US regime parking an aircraft carrier off the coast of a country and leisurely taking out its air defense network are long gone.

Russian air defense and electronic warfare tech are now being shown to be significantly superior to US regime offensive capabilities in real world combat. So much so that the most common reaction has been to try to rationalize the fact with crazy conspiracy theories about behind the scenes wink and nod agreements between the US regime and Russia.

Trump foolishly trying to attack Iran to distract from his political problems would end up as the first modern US regime leader who lost an aircraft carrier and ten dollar gas prices.

Israeli's were cowering in their sewers while their junk air defense network repeatedly failed to defend against a minor Syrian retaliatory barrage while Syrians in Damascus were cheering on their rooftops as their Russian air defense network knocked Israeli missiles from the sky.

Syria smacking down the Israeli regime is going to have Trump's military advisors sitting him down and giving him a hard dose of reality about the Israeli/Saudi/Neocon delusions about attacking Iran.

FB Ali , May 12, 2018 2:00:04 PM | 77
Old Microbiologist, @ #38, above has a good handle on the current situation in the region.

I agree with his views.

Ian , May 12, 2018 2:08:08 PM | 78
Don Bacon @63:

According to Reuters it is. :p

Don Bacon , May 12, 2018 2:19:50 PM | 79
Pompeo(US) and Zarif(Iran) are currently making the diplomatic rounds, the former looking for a new & improved plan, and the latter emphasizing that the US never adhered to the old plan and united opposition to sanctions is in everyon'e best interest.
from the Iran statement:
Since taking office, Mr. Trump has not only made explicit and official statements against the agreement in violation of its provisions, but has in practice also failed to implement U.S. practical – and not merely formal commitments under the JCPOA. The Islamic Republic of Iran has recorded these violations in numerous letters to the Joint Commission convened under the JCPOA, outlining the current U.S. Administration's bad faith and continuous violations of the accord. Thus Mr. Trump's latest action is not a new development but simply means the end of the obstructionist presence of the United States as a participant in the JCPOA. . . here

The apparent US line now, as before, is to "change the regime's malign behavior" which is ridiculous and thus doomed.
A P , May 12, 2018 2:22:57 PM | 80
@ MISchi 69: There have been Russian-operated S-400's in Syria for years. Even the US propaganda rags admit it is significant in reducing FUKUS attacks.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34976537

http://www.janes.com/article/74500/second-russian-s-400-in-syria-confirmed

So just because Russia isn't giving the SAA S-300's doesn't mean Syria has no protection. The fact the updated S-200s and Pantsirs are doing the job reasonably well will give FUKUS and Israeli/Saudi military planners pause. Note that the cowardly Israeli jets attack from Lebanese or Jordanian airspace.

And Nuttyyahoo merely crashed the Victory Day festivities, and Putin is too gracious a host to kick Nutty out. But the body language between them was obvious, Putin was not happy to see Nutty trying to capitalize on Putin's good manners.

Don Bacon , May 12, 2018 2:29:46 PM | 81
@ Ian 77
According to Reuters it is.
Reuters doesn't take comments so I'm telling you (and others), if you don't mind, because you are misleading people with something that isn't true.
Don Wiscacho , May 12, 2018 2:29:47 PM | 82
As much as Bolton and his ilk would love to attack Iran, I have to disagree that a full-fledged war is likely. USrael will ratchet up tensions all they can, hoping that Iran will take the bait and actually respond, but the only way an actual war MAY be fought is with a massive false flag attack. However, it took a massive false flag attack to allow the neocons to invade Iraq, so said black op would have to be on that magnitude. Here's the thing though, the neocons seem to be getting worse at false flags and more over the world ain't buying them like they used to.
Sure you can get your European lackeys to sign up to a few sanctions, but will anyone actually support the utter tanking of the world economy? Because that will be the end result of war with Iran and behind closed doors everyone knows this. Look up the Millennial War Games simulation that pitted the US against Iran. And how did that $200 million exercise turn out? The US had to "refloat" its fleet in order to win. Using older Chinese anti- ship missiles the Iranians decimated US naval assets. The US hasn't developed counter measures against these while the Iranians have undoubtedly improved on these missiles. No matter what happens to its ground forces and population centers, shipping in the Persian Gulf will be shut down. That one action will raise the price of oil to over $200 a barrel overnight, possibly much higher. And with that the global economy will be left in tatters. Too many of the world's leaders understand this completely and simply will not go along with the US and line up against Iran like they did with Iraq.
Mischi , May 12, 2018 2:35:20 PM | 83
no, Netanyahu was invited. I read about it a week before the parade. Lavrov always says that you don't need to negotiate with your friends, but you do with your enemies. Hence the invite.

Like the Godfather said in the eponymous movie "Keep your friends close but your enemies closer."

Anon , May 12, 2018 2:38:30 PM | 84
Don Bacon

UKs military is of course far stronger than Iran,
we will see renewed sanctions against Iran and EU will be onboard and have already mentioned they "need" to pressure Iran more.

Don Bacon , May 12, 2018 2:40:47 PM | 85
The attacks on Iran will be only financial, not military, is my guess. The big news in the military sector is often on cyber attacks. Cyber will be a "new military front."

Financial is akin to cyber. No shooting. The military experts don't discuss financial, I guess because the U.S. is the only country capable of it, controlling world finance as it does. But a full-on sanctions regime on another small country like Iran could do a lot of damage and hurt a lot of people, as it did in Iraq previously. Sort of like what the U.S. did to Japan to precipitate the war in the Pacific, except Iran's reactions must be much more limited.

So the big question is Europe, and if it is able to legislate any significant counter-sanction laws that would encourage Iran-Europe business. France looks good on this, Germany is more significant.

Laguerre , May 12, 2018 2:41:18 PM | 86
I do wish people would stop calling themselves Anon. It's very difficult to know which is which. It's easy enough to anonymise yourself with a distinctive handle. Maybe b should ban it as a handle.
Chipnik , May 12, 2018 2:56:50 PM | 87
60

Many years ago I got to hear Sir Edmond Hillary speak to the assembled students at my school, just a few years after his amazing climbing feat. No multimedia or lasers pointers or cheesy-brand tee-shirt cannons, ... just an electric performance by an incredible man that shaped my life, one foot at a time.

Several decades later, I watched SEH demonstrate Simple Green soap at REI. So incredibly sad. I'll never forget either presentation. The Man in the Moon had become another Soapy Salesman.

At the same time I first heard SEH speak, my father, an international businessman, brought home a Buddhist monk exchange student from Asia for the holiday. It was spellbinding to meet a bright and well-off monk, who knew all this amazing arcane reality, that we call the Wheel. It shaped my entire approach to the summit.

Several decades later, in fact, just recently, I watched a performance by a Tibetan monk troupe, after which they essentially begged for sponsors for the remaining exiled monks now starving in India by the 1000s. They are dying out, like the 1,000s, the 10,000s of aboriginal valley cultures that once walked the Earth.

Soapy Sales and Starving Monks, who only decades ago were both sitting on Top of the World. Kind of like everyone's experience, even John Bolton's, former UN ambassador, now a sleazy salesman-demonstrator for Death Inc, too proud to sell soap, or to busker for alms. He's pathetic.

So let me bring it on home.

A student of mine is a senior monk in Asia. His charge is to free the spirits of the just dead. Not the two monks chanting and incense and sprinkling with flower petal water in front of a cherished photo. No, he blesses the *dying*, the human roadkills from the reckless Chinese Escalades bombing through SEAsian commute traffic, the black and blue herion addicts with the needle still in their arm, bright red blood bubbling out of their noses, the raped, strangled, discarded and bloating young girls, dumped in the nearest rice paddy ditch.

He gets those calls. He never talks about his work, never shows the horror pictures or trashes the perps. He sends selfies, pics of meals, flowers and temples. So I asked him, doesn't this bother you at night, the carnal evil, the rape, the murder? Don't you wanna see justice done?

He said simply, we're all going to die, many of us soon, we have very little time away from the Wheel. We should spend every precious second of free time uplifting those who are below us, the poor, the infirm, the feeble, the indentured, the slave, ...because we're all gonna die as beggars some day. We should hold faith with the beggars.

Bolton is a sick fuck, in a pantheon of sick fucks. Why squander a nanosecond meditating on any of them? They are nothingness, the void. MoA seems to have a fascination with evil and death, and making Death's bit players into pop-idols. Selling a different brand of soap, I guess.

OJS , May 12, 2018 3:04:21 PM | 88

Israeli Air Force Strikes Gaza Strip, More Than 20 Missiles Fired

Israeli having free hands bombings not only Syria and in Gaza too. Syrians and Palestinians lives dun matter?

What if.... Regime changes in Syria and Iran will the killing stops?

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-12/israeli-air-force-strikes-gaza-strip-more-20-missiles-fired

lysander , May 12, 2018 3:06:13 PM | 89
@70, les7

Closing Hormuz would likely be the Iranian response to a sustained bombing campaign. A single strike on a nuclear facility could elicit a missile strike on the attacking party (US, Isreal or both.) Or it could involve multiple attacks on vulnerable US troops in Iraq and Syria. Iran has several rungs in its escalation ladder. It doesn't have to jump to the top one all at once.

Laguerre , May 12, 2018 3:07:58 PM | 90
re Don 84

Of course financial sanctions are the main, if not the only, US war-winning tactic available today. Mainly the control of the VISA and SWIFT exchange systems. But I'm not financially knowledgeable. It was one reason that Iran signed in 2015. I remember well, about 10 years ago, the husband of an Iranian student arriving with $20K (?) sewn into his overcoat, to pay for his wife's studies.

However, the US has used this tactic so often now, that people must be looking to ways of getting round the problem. I'm not quite sure how much success they may have had. People talk about Russia-China erecting a parallel to the SWIFT system. I hope this does happen, though it must be expensive. Non-US allies need it.

A P , May 12, 2018 3:36:24 PM | 91
@lLaguerre: Russia already has set up its version of SWIFT. As has China, as well as both agreeing to transactions in rubles/yuan first for petroleum, then recently for all other trade, to bypass the US$ SWIFT system. The US gets a "cut", every time a corporation/country converts from local currency to US$, then again when that same US$ cash is converted to the currency of the second trading partner. To avoid this, non-US countries keep US$ reserves to trade between themselves. This scam was set up at Bretton Woods after WW2 when the US economy was the only economy/industrial-base left unscathed.

https://www.rt.com/business/424108-russia-rostec-swift-alternative/

"In 2017, the head of the Central Bank, Elvira Nabiullina, said at a meeting with President Vladimir Putin that Russia is ready for disconnection from SWIFT."

Cyril , May 12, 2018 3:36:53 PM | 92
Because of their large inertia, these things, when they get moving, cannot be stopped and proceed to the inevitable. The ziocons have pushed the boulder and it's starting to roll.

That is what a lot of panicky people said in 2013, that Obama's invasion of Syria was inevitable because Assad was gassing his people in Ghouta. It didn't happen. As it turned out, the "massive momemtum" was in the Zionist propangda, hoping to sucker the U.S. into the Middle East again.

Cyril , May 12, 2018 3:40:31 PM | 93
[Bolton:] "We know where your kids live. You have two sons in New York."

What an ass Bolton is. I hope Bustani replied with "We know where you live."

Lozion , May 12, 2018 3:47:06 PM | 94
@67/68 hence @85. Agreed, using anon as a handle only lowers the signal-to-noise ratio at MoA. This isnt Reddit nor should it become, IMO..
james , May 12, 2018 3:48:57 PM | 95
i think swift and bis are linked in with imf.. unfortunately i don't know how it all works, but russias central bank is part of imf.. the way imf is set up favours the developed countries over the developing countries.. they have some other tricks to keep control over it too, but i do believe it is tricky navigating moving away from it all, which is why the financial system is the first line of action to put other countries deemed out of line - into line.. some have tried to get the imf to change without success which is why i believe brics was working towards an alternative.. of course the b in brics went thru a type of regime change under a different facade and i am not sure where they are at with that at this moment in time...
WJ , May 12, 2018 3:50:46 PM | 96

Julian Assange
@JulianAssange
There is something very odd about the Joseph Mifsud story and the role of the UK in the 2016 US presidential election:
(thread)
5:07 PM · Mar 22, 2018


DEVELOPING: A major new front is opening in the political espionage scandal. In summer 2016, Brennan with his FBI liaison Strzok, along with help from Kerry @ State, were trying to set Russian espionage traps for minor players in the Trump campaign through cultivated intel assets

-- Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) May 11, 2018

A P , May 12, 2018 3:51:01 PM | 97
@MISchi: Israel may have been "invited", but only as a standard diplomatic courtesy, not as a "guest of honour" as the MSM and Hasbara would have us beleive. The US was probably invited too... and didn't have the grace to show up? The US and EU were for sure in 2014, but "boycotted" it over the US coup in Ukraine. Nuttyyahoo was just looking for MSM cover for the illegal bombing he knew was going to happen, making it look like Putin was "in on it".

I'd guess Putin is simply giving Nutty all the rope Nutty needs to hang himself in the court of world public opinion. When I see an official statement from Putin (or any Russian senior official) saying Putin gave any approval of Israel's past and present illegal incursions in Syria, let alone the illegal occupation of the Golan, I'll believe Nutty being at the Victory Parade was some sort of endorsement by Putin of Nutty's insanity.

karlof1 , May 12, 2018 4:01:47 PM | 98
I agree with Lysander's logic. Iran will not be attacked in the "normal" manner; it will be asymmetrical. The performance of not-so antiquated air defenses in Syria are the big game changer as Iran has those and its own S-300 version. Plus all those big stationary targets. Plus, I figure Bolton has a target on his back, as do other neocons--you don't murder over a million without creating some enemies. I see lots of bluster to foment as much chaos as possible to accentuate the asymmetrical impact. But as for an actual military assault, Bolton and company are a decade plus too late.

To negate the potential effect of another Operation Northwoods, I think it wise to pull up those old pdf docs and spread them around the world via social media--a move I'm frankly surprised has yet to be made--along with some additional contemporary context.

A P , May 12, 2018 4:03:42 PM | 99
@james: The Russian central bank is a member of the IMF/World Bank/BIS/SWIFT system as are nearly every other central bank in the world. Not being "in" this club severely restricts the ability to do international trade. Russia and China are quietly spearheading the move to conduct international trade in local currencies, outside the US$-reserve-currency scam (sorry, system). Both Russia and China have set up alternative systems, which along with the SCO/AIIB offer participating countries a way to side-set US economic terrorism and sanctions. The Rothschilds may have managed to stall the BRICS for now, but that won't last long.
A P , May 12, 2018 4:04:38 PM | 100
sorry, should be "side-step".

[Apr 30, 2018] Mike Pompeo who has been responsible for the effort to stop CIA support for ISIS, on directions from Donald J. Trump and the Pentagon faction which essentially controls the White House

Apr 30, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Fec | Apr 29, 2018 9:34:08 PM | 30

@ 28 Chipnik

Another opinion was posited here recently.

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/04/syria-iraq-us-cuddles-isis-others-plan-for-the-final-fight.html#c6a00d8341c640e53ef0224e0348326200d

Recall it is Mike Pompeo who has been responsible for the effort to stop CIA support for ISIS, on directions from Donald J. Trump and the Pentagon faction which essentially controls the White House.

Mike Pompeo was President of Sentry International, an oilfield equipment company and close partner of Koch Industries. Also recall the recent meeting between the heads of the FSB and SVR, Alexander Bortnikov and Sergey Naryshkin, received by Pompeo, then director of the CIA, and Dan Coats, director of National Intelligence.

Alexander Bortnikov and Sergey Naryshkin Secretly Received in the United States

http://www.voltairenet.org/article199603.html

In hindsight this meeting appears to have been a strategy session conducted by extremely important high level individuals from Russia with their 'partners' in the United States.

The meeting occurred immediately before the firing of Rex Tillerson, an agent of the UK-Rothchild 'Octopus,' which effectively controls Exxon-Mobil (the Rockefellers sold their interest several years ago) of which Tillerson was formerly head. Tillerson, who once ran the foreign policies of multiple countries dominated by Exxon-Mobil including Qatar, was said to have been caught red-handed by the NSA under James Kelly, of assisting the UK conspiracy to launch a chemical false flag attack in Eastern Ghouta, the discovery of which led to Tillerson's unceremonious dismissal by Donald Trump via Twitter, a truly unprecedented way to fire a US Secretary of State.

[Apr 29, 2018] Pompeo's Contempt for Diplomacy and the Nuclear Deal by Daniel Larison

Trump betrayal of his voters is as staggering as Obama betrayal. May even more so.
Notable quotes:
"... It is fitting that one of the first things that will happen during Pompeo's tenure as chief diplomat is the repudiation of a successful diplomatic agreement solely for reasons of spite and ideology. That reflects the contempt for diplomacy and compromise that Pompeo shares with the president. It is an early reminder why having Pompeo in charge of U.S. diplomacy is so dangerous and why it would have been better not to confirm him. ..."
"... North Korea wasn't going to give up its nuclear weapons anyway, and now it will look at Trump's reneging on the nuclear deal as proof that they are right to keep them. ..."
"... Pompeo's recent statements are those of an ignorant and incompetent jackass. Barely two weeks in and sane Americans are already nostalgic for Tillerson. ..."
"... Instead, as Pompeo's current trip and whereabouts make very clear, he's aping the same old tired Bush/Obama Middle East crap and still running errands for the corrupt rulers of Israel and Saudi Arabia. ..."
"... And if Trump doesn't stop betraying his voters with all this pointless, staggeringly expensive Middle East crap, he'll be gone in 2020. ..."
Apr 29, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

... ... ...

It is fitting that one of the first things that will happen during Pompeo's tenure as chief diplomat is the repudiation of a successful diplomatic agreement solely for reasons of spite and ideology. That reflects the contempt for diplomacy and compromise that Pompeo shares with the president. It is an early reminder why having Pompeo in charge of U.S. diplomacy is so dangerous and why it would have been better not to confirm him.

Pompeo also said this weekend that he didn't think North Korea would care if the U.S. withdrew from the agreement:

"I don't think Kim Jong Un is staring at the Iran deal and saying, 'Oh goodness, if they get out of that deal, I won't talk to the Americans anymore,'" Pompeo told reporters traveling on his plane en route from Saudi Arabia to Israel. "There are higher priorities, things that he is more concerned about than whether or not the Americans stay in the [agreement]."

It is obvious that North Korea has bigger concerns than U.S. adherence to the JCPOA, but it doesn't follow that they won't take U.S. withdrawal as another sign that negotiating with Washington is pointless. North Korea already has other reasons to doubt U.S. trustworthiness. John Bolton's endorsement of using negotiations with Libya as a model couldn't be more tone-deaf, since North Korean officials frequently cite the overthrow and death of Gaddafi as a cautionary tale of what happens when a government makes a deal with the U.S. It is possible that North Korea won't put much stock in what happens to the JCPOA one way or another for a very different reason: unlike Iran, North Korea has no intention of making significant concessions, and it is engaged in talks with the U.S. to get as much as it can out of the fact that it is now a full-fledged nuclear weapons state.

North Korea wasn't going to give up its nuclear weapons anyway, and now it will look at Trump's reneging on the nuclear deal as proof that they are right to keep them.

Cincinnati G April 29, 2018 at 3:52 pm

Our involvement in international "diplomacy", already weird, embarrassing, and destabilizing because of Trump's random behavior, now seems to be spinning out of control. Pompeo's recent statements are those of an ignorant and incompetent jackass. Barely two weeks in and sane Americans are already nostalgic for Tillerson.

Wake me up when any senior member of this government turns out to be something other than crooked, stupid, vulgar, incompetent, or some kind of foreign agent. We voted for Trump hoping for a radical re-dedication to American interests. Instead, as Pompeo's current trip and whereabouts make very clear, he's aping the same old tired Bush/Obama Middle East crap and still running errands for the corrupt rulers of Israel and Saudi Arabia.

November 2018 is already slated to be a Republican bloodbath, in great part because our government, the Congress in particular, is serving foreign interests and Wall Street instead of America. And if Trump doesn't stop betraying his voters with all this pointless, staggeringly expensive Middle East crap, he'll be gone in 2020.

[Apr 27, 2018] Roger Stone said that he has known John Bolton since the Reagan years. Stone claims Bolton is not a neocon warmonger but a guy who is a staunch believer in the old doctrine of peace through strength.

Apr 27, 2018 | www.unz.com

Anonymous [201] Disclaimer , April 24, 2018 at 11:36 am GMT

Roger Stone said that he has known John Bolton since the Reagan years. Stone claims Bolton is not a neocon warmonger but a guy who is a staunch believer in the old doctrine of peace through strength. Interesting as Stone despises neocons. Bolton went to Yale undergrad and Yale Law. Haley has a degree in accounting from Clemson, a mediocre land grant public university in South Carolina.
Anonymous [196] Disclaimer , April 25, 2018 at 12:04 am GMT
Ok, you all, I have a personal story about John Bolton that I'm gonna drop here. This story comes from someone who used to live next door to John Bolton in Bethesda (or Chevy Chase?). Bolton's former (and current?) neighbor is a Harvard-trained medical doctor and a liberal Jewish guy. He has two daughters who are now grown. One is now a veterinarian in North Potomac. Anyway, his daughters were like 10 and 12-years old when they would water Bolton's plants when he was away on travel. One time when Bolton was traveling he asked the older girl to water his plants and he'd pay her $25. She agreed. Then a few days later she had something come up and would not be able to do it and asked her younger sister if she could take care of it she could have the full $25. The younger sister agreed. After Bolton returned from his trip the younger sister went over to Bolton and explained what happened and that she, not her older sister, had taken care and watered his plants. Bolton told her that he was not going to pay her because the agreement was strictly between him and her older sister. That was last interaction they had with Bolton. End of story.

[Apr 24, 2018] Rand Paul Caves on Pompeo

Apr 24, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Paul has made reclaiming Congress' role in matters of war one of his signature issues. Pompeo testified before the Foreign Relations Committee that he doesn't think the president needs Congressional authorization to order attacks on other states. Trump's nominee thinks that the president can start wars on his own authority, so Paul should be voting against his nomination for that reason alone. Voting to confirm Pompeo is an effective endorsement of the very illegal and unauthorized warfare that Paul normally condemns.

Mr. Hopeful April 23, 2018 at 8:08 pm

"Instead, Paul will get nothing except widespread derision for caving to pressure. "

Depressing. I thought he'd have more guts. Perhaps he's keeping his ammunition dry for some important purpose, and maybe the White House IOU he now holds has value. We'll see.

beejeez , says: April 23, 2018 at 8:58 pm
Hey, c'mon, Trump gave him assurances.
b. , says: April 23, 2018 at 9:33 pm
We owe Trump for another wonderfully clarifying moment.

No to incumbents. If we ran a lottery for Senators and Representatives we would not do much worse than what we have.

Mike , says: April 23, 2018 at 9:48 pm
Sad. However, the vote that matters is the one to confirm or reject him with the full Senate. We'll see how he votes then.
liberal , says: April 23, 2018 at 9:52 pm
Agree with BobS . I wouldn't have been shocked if Rand had voted against, but it's hardly surprising he caved.
Youknowho , says: April 23, 2018 at 11:52 pm
I have disliked Sen. Paul ever since the British Petroleum disaster, when he bemoaned that making BP pay for damages was "anti-business" as if seafood fisheries, motels, and restaurants were not businesses too.

Nothing he does or says now surprises me.

[Apr 20, 2018] The United States, fully aware it was Iraq who gased Kurds, accused Iran, Iraq's enemy in a fierce war, of being partly responsible for the attack. The State Department instructed its diplomats to say that Iran was partly to blame."

Apr 20, 2018 | discussion.theguardian.com

Andersie , 13 Apr 2018 14:45

I've just stumbled on this absolute gem, from the New York Times, 17/1/2003:

"Analysis of thousands of captured Iraqi secret police documents and declassified U.S. government documents, as well as interviews with scores of Kurdish survivors, senior Iraqi defectors and retired U.S. intelligence officers, show

(1) that Iraq carried out the attack on Halabja [a 1988 chemical attack on Kurdish villages that killed 5000 civilians], and

(2) that the United States, fully aware it was Iraq, accused Iran, Iraq's enemy in a fierce war, of being partly responsible for the attack. The State Department instructed its diplomats to say that Iran was partly to blame."

[Apr 19, 2018] Looks like Pompeo is compete idiot despite hs Harvard degree

Apr 19, 2018 | www.unz.com

RJJCDA , April 19, 2018 at 12:03 am GMT

At Sec. St. nomination hearing, Pompeo bragged that "we had killed a couple of hundred Russian contractors." As a former civilian contractor in a war zone, I note that he just put a target on the forehead of every American contractor working in a war zone. It is now open season on them. Who will have blood on their hands?

[Apr 17, 2018] The long hand of Bolton

Apr 17, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

CE , Apr 15, 2018 12:38:18 PM | 34

@16 "The long hand of Bolton"

I've posted the following deep in the previous thread, so here for those who missed it:

As to the OPCW making "political decisions", The Intercept had an interesting piece by Mehdi Hasan recently, about a certain John Bolton.

In 2001, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell had penned a letter to [OPCW head José] Bustani, thanking him for his "very impressive" work. By March 2002, however, Bolton -- then serving as under secretary of state for Arms Control and International Security Affairs -- arrived in person at the OPCW headquarters in the Hague to issue a warning to the organization's chief. And, according to Bustani, Bolton didn't mince words. "Cheney wants you out," Bustani recalled Bolton saying, referring to the then-vice president of the United States. "We can't accept your management style."

Bolton continued, according to Bustani's recollections: "You have 24 hours to leave the organization, and if you don't comply with this decision by Washington, we have ways to retaliate against you."

There was a pause.

"We know where your kids live. You have two sons in New York."

[Apr 17, 2018] John Bolton In Search of Carthage by By Michael Shindler

Looks like Iran is Carnage for Bolton and neocon fellow travelers in Trump administration such as Haley and Pompeo.
Notable quotes:
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... In that vein, it is Bolton who merits historical comparison: to Cato the Elder, a conservative-yet-eccentric Roman statesman who, according to Plutarch, would often and invariably call for the destruction of Carthage, even though the Carthaginian threat was neither imminent nor apparent. Eventually, Cato's words wended their way into the ears of power and hundreds of thousands of Carthaginians were pointlessly slaughtered. According to the Greek historian Polybius, Scipio Aemilianus, the young Roman General who led the attack, at seeing the carnage of a great people, "shed tears and wept openly." ..."
"... Michael Shindler is an Advocate with Young Voices and a writer living in Washington, D.C. Follow him @MichaelShindler . ..."
Apr 17, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Last week, John Bolton ascended to the office of National Security Advisor, following in the hurried footsteps of Michael Flynn and H.R. McMaster. Two peculiar characteristics set Bolton apart from most folks in D.C.: an unabashedly luxurious mustache and an unmatched penchant for unjustified preemptive violence.

At the University of Chicago in 2009, Bolton warned , "Unless Israel is prepared to use nuclear weapons against Iran's program, Iran will have nuclear weapons in the very near future." Thankfully, Israel didn't take Bolton's advice and, as most predicted, Iran never lived up to his expectations. Similarly, in a 2015 op-ed in the New York Times , Bolton opined , "The inescapable conclusion is that Iran will not negotiate away its nuclear program. Nor will sanctions block its building a broad and deep weapons infrastructure . Time is terribly short, but a strike can still succeed." Three short months later, a non-proliferation deal wherein Iran agreed to a 98 percent reduction in its enriched uranium stockpile and a 15-year pause in the development of key weapons infrastructure was negotiated.

More recently in February, Bolton advised in the Wall Street Journal that "Given the gaps in U.S. intelligence about North Korea, we should not wait until the very last minute . It is perfectly legitimate for the United States to respond to the current 'necessity' posed by North Korea's nuclear weapons by striking first."

By this point Bolton's record of calling for war in every possible situation had lost the ability to shock. Still, the Founding Fathers would probably be appalled.

A comparatively irenic vision pervades the philosophy of the founders. James Wilson, in his Lectures on Law, wrote that when a nation "is under an obligation to preserve itself and its members; it has a right to do everything" that it can "without injuring others." In Federalist 4, John Jay advised that the American people ought to support steps that would "put and keep them in such a situation as, instead of inviting war, will tend to repress and discourage it." And in his Farewell Address, George Washington asserted that the United States should be "always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence."

A preemptive nuclear strike justified on the flimsy basis of "gaps in U.S. intelligence" hardly seems concordant with such military restraint and "exalted justice." And lest it be thought these ideals were mere lofty notions, consider how, as American history proceeded, they became enshrined in American diplomacy.

In 1837, Canadian rebels sailing aboard the Caroline fled to an island in the Niagara River with the help of a few American citizens. British forces boarded their ship, killed an American member of the crew, and then set the Caroline ablaze before forcing it over Niagara Falls. Enraged, American and Canadian raiders destroyed a British ship. Several attacks followed until the crisis was at last ended in 1842 by the Webster-Ashburton Treaty. In the aftermath, the Caroline test was established, which stipulates that an attack made in self-defense is justifiable only when, in the words of Daniel Webster, the necessity is "instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." This principle remains the international standard, though some like Bolton think it's outdated.

With the Caroline test in mind, Bolton wrote while arguing in favor of a preemptive strike against North Korea, "The case against preemption rests on the misinterpretation of a standard that derives from prenuclear, pre-ballistic-missile times." In other words, Bolton believes that we can no longer afford to wait for the situation to be "instant" and "overwhelming," and makes an offense out of abstaining from immediate preemptive action, regardless of the potential costs involved.

Relatedly, one of Bolton's most colorful jabs at President Obama involved likening him to Æthelred the Unready, a medieval Anglo-Saxon king remembered for his tragic indecisiveness. Yet given the costs of groundless preemption, indecisiveness is often a midwife to careful contemplation and peace. Had Prime Minister Netanyahu or Obama been persuaded by Bolton's retrospectively warrantless calls for preemption in Iran, tragedy would have followed.

In that vein, it is Bolton who merits historical comparison: to Cato the Elder, a conservative-yet-eccentric Roman statesman who, according to Plutarch, would often and invariably call for the destruction of Carthage, even though the Carthaginian threat was neither imminent nor apparent. Eventually, Cato's words wended their way into the ears of power and hundreds of thousands of Carthaginians were pointlessly slaughtered. According to the Greek historian Polybius, Scipio Aemilianus, the young Roman General who led the attack, at seeing the carnage of a great people, "shed tears and wept openly."

In order that we never find ourselves standing alongside Scipio knee-deep in unjustly spilt blood, Bolton should reconsider whether the flimsy merits of rash preemption truly outweigh the durable wisdom of the Founding Fathers and the lessons of history.

Michael Shindler is an Advocate with Young Voices and a writer living in Washington, D.C. Follow him @MichaelShindler .

Janwaar Bibi April 17, 2018 at 4:28 pm

From the Wikipedia article for Bolton:

During the 1969 Vietnam War draft lottery, Bolton drew number 185. (Draft numbers corresponded to birth dates.) As a result of the Johnson and Nixon administrations' decisions to rely largely on the draft rather than on the reserve forces, joining a Guard or Reserve unit became a way to avoid service in the Vietnam War. Before graduating from Yale in 1970, Bolton enlisted in the Maryland Army National Guard rather than wait to find out if his draft number would be called. (The highest number called to military service was 195.) He saw active duty for 18 weeks of training at Fort Polk, Louisiana, from July to November 1970.

After serving in the National Guard for four years, he served in the United States Army Reserve until the end of his enlistment two years later.[1]

He wrote in his Yale 25th reunion book "I confess I had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy. I considered the war in Vietnam already lost." In an interview, Bolton discussed his comment in the reunion book, explaining that he decided to avoid service in Vietnam because "by the time I was about to graduate in 1970, it was clear to me that opponents of the Vietnam War had made it certain we could not prevail, and that I had no great interest in going there to have Teddy Kennedy give it back to the people I might die to take it away from."

Why is it that the US leads the world in production of chicken-hawks? Even these mangy ex-colonial countries like the UK and France do not have as many chicken-hawks as we do.

connecticut farmer , says: April 17, 2018 at 4:53 pm
Cato the Elder: "Carthago dalenda est!" ("Carthage Must Be Destroyed!")

John Bolton: "Syria dalenda est!" "Iran dalenda est!" Russia dalenda est!" And etc etc.

Connecticut Farmer: "Bolton dalenda est!"

Kent , says: April 17, 2018 at 5:02 pm
"In order that we never find ourselves standing alongside Scipio knee-deep in unjustly spilt blood,"

That ship sailed awhile back.

JonF , says: April 17, 2018 at 5:08 pm
Comparing Obama to Athelred is absurd. Athelred's problem was not that he was indecisive, but rather that he refused to listen to advice from anyone (the moniker "Unready" actually meant "Uncounseled" in Old English) and that he was extremely impulsive and deeply bigoted. Hence he ordered a general massacre of the Danes in England. Luckily it was only carried out in a limited region, unluckily the victims included the King of Denmark's sister and her children, leading to an open blood feud war, and also cost Aethelred any support he might have had from his wife's kinsman, the Duke of Normandy. If anyone is a good match for old Aethelred, it's Donald Trump.

[Apr 16, 2018] The Bolton-Pompeo Package

Notable quotes:
"... Given that a key function of that position is to ensure that the bureaucracy provides the relevant options and most accurate information to the president before major national security decisions, it is hard to think of anyone more ill-suited to that duty. Bolton's method of policy formation has been to try to bully any part of the bureaucracy that does not subscribe to his personal agenda, and to try to bully away any part of the truth that does not serve his objectives. ..."
"... The Senate is about to have an opportunity to weigh in on another highly important foreign policy position, that of secretary of state, for which President Trump has nominated Mike Pompeo. Senators ought to consider that nomination in tandem with the appointment of Bolton as national security adviser, even though the Senate formally has a role with only one of those appointments and not with the other. Senators should consider the two as a package deal. They should not vote to confirm Pompeo if they are uncomfortable with either part of the package. ..."
"... The main reason to approach the Pompeo nomination this way is that the nation currently has a president who, sad to say, needs restraint. He will need restraint all the more during the coming months as troubles of his own making increase the chance that he will lash out in destructive ways . ..."
"... But both Pompeo and Bolton are more likely to accentuate Trump's impulses than to restrain them. Bolton got his job because the sort of things he says on Fox are more what Donald Trump likes to hear than the briefings that H.R. McMaster gave him, which evidently were too long for Trump's taste or for his short attention span. ..."
"... Pompeo did not rise so quickly from being a relatively junior congressman functioning as a partisan attack dog to where he is now, on the verge of occupying Thomas Jefferson's chair, by telling Trump what he needs to hear rather than what he wants to hear. ..."
Apr 16, 2018 | nationalinterest.org

This week John Bolton assumes the job of national security adviser. Given that a key function of that position is to ensure that the bureaucracy provides the relevant options and most accurate information to the president before major national security decisions, it is hard to think of anyone more ill-suited to that duty. Bolton's method of policy formation has been to try to bully any part of the bureaucracy that does not subscribe to his personal agenda, and to try to bully away any part of the truth that does not serve his objectives. Bolton's objectives are characterized by never meeting a war or prospective war he didn't like. He still avows that the Iraq War -- with all the costs and chaos it has caused, from thousands of American deaths to the birth of the group that we now know as ISIS -- was a good idea. That someone with this perspective has been entrusted with the job Bolton now has is a glaring example of how there often is no accountability in Washington for gross policy malpractice.

Appointments as national security adviser are not subject to Senate confirmation. If they were, it would be appropriate for the Senate to react as it did the last time Bolton came before that body as a nominee for a job that does require confirmation. In 2005 the Senate turned down his nomination to be ambassador to the United Nations. The Senate review brought to light some of the uglier aspects of Bolton's conduct in his previous job as an undersecretary of state. President George W. Bush gave him a recess appointment to the U.N. job, but fortunately that meant there was a time limit to the destruction Bolton could wreak in that position.

https://lockerdome.com/lad/9521689830966886?pubid=ld-7032-4043&pubo=http%3A%2F%2Fnationalinterest.org&rid=nationalinterest.org&width=637

The Senate is about to have an opportunity to weigh in on another highly important foreign policy position, that of secretary of state, for which President Trump has nominated Mike Pompeo. Senators ought to consider that nomination in tandem with the appointment of Bolton as national security adviser, even though the Senate formally has a role with only one of those appointments and not with the other. Senators should consider the two as a package deal. They should not vote to confirm Pompeo if they are uncomfortable with either part of the package.

The main reason to approach the Pompeo nomination this way is that the nation currently has a president who, sad to say, needs restraint. He will need restraint all the more during the coming months as troubles of his own making increase the chance that he will lash out in destructive ways . The copious commentary during the fifteen months of the Trump presidency about having "adults in the room" to restrain the worst urges of an inexperienced and impulsive president speaks to an important truth. Whether adult supervision of this sort succeeds or fails depends on the collective impact of all of the president's senior subordinates. To the extent any one subordinate is especially influential in this regard on foreign policy, it probably is the national security adviser who is best positioned either to accentuate or to restrain Trump's impulses. Having Bolton in that job makes the restraining ability of the secretary of state all the more important.

But both Pompeo and Bolton are more likely to accentuate Trump's impulses than to restrain them. Bolton got his job because the sort of things he says on Fox are more what Donald Trump likes to hear than the briefings that H.R. McMaster gave him, which evidently were too long for Trump's taste or for his short attention span. P

Pompeo's winning of favor with Trump, during what reportedly has been lots of face time with him at the White House during the past year, has a similar dynamic. Pompeo did not rise so quickly from being a relatively junior congressman functioning as a partisan attack dog to where he is now, on the verge of occupying Thomas Jefferson's chair, by telling Trump what he needs to hear rather than what he wants to hear.

Senators hold up confirmation of nominees, and sometimes vote against them, for all kinds of reasons unrelated to the resumé of the nominee. It would be proper for them to vote against a nominee for secretary of state partly because of who the national security adviser is, given that both of them are in service to an unstable president.

There are other reasons to consider Pompeo and Bolton in tandem. In several respects they are two hazardous peas in a pod. On North Korea, Bolton's bellicose posture is matched by Pompeo's statements about seeking ways to "separate" Kim Jong Un from his nuclear weapons , suggesting a priority to regime change over keeping a volatile situation on the Korean peninsula from blowing up. Both Pompeo and Bolton, along with Trump, have sworn eternal hostility to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the multilateral agreement that closed all possible paths to an Iranian nuclear weapon. Neither man bothers to explain how destruction of the agreement, which would free Iran to produce as much fissile material as it wants and would end the intrusive international inspections of the Iranian program, could possibly

[Apr 16, 2018] To Secure Democratic Vote Pompeo Masks Regime Change Agenda

Notable quotes:
"... And if there's no chance that we can fix it I will recommend to the president that we do our level best to work with our allies to achieve a better outcome and a better deal. ..."
Apr 16, 2018 | therealnews.com

... ... ...

SPEAKER: What is your view as to whether America should withdraw unilaterally from the Iran nuclear agreement?

MIKE POMPEO: I want to fix this deal. That's the objective. I think that's in the best interest of the United States of America.

SPEAKER: But if the agreement cannot be changed. My question is pretty simple. We're running very close to a deadline on certification.

MIKE POMPEO: And if there's no chance that we can fix it I will recommend to the president that we do our level best to work with our allies to achieve a better outcome and a better deal.

SHARMINI PERIES: Pompeo is a member of the Tea Party movement, and is generally viewed as a pro-war hardliner who has previously vowed to cancel the Iran agreement ...

... ... ...

MEDEA BENJAMIN: Well, let's just take the issue of Iran, for starters. There he said at the hearing that he would not try to get out of the Iran nuclear deal, that he wants a better deal. But in the past he's talked about getting out of the Iran nuclear deal. And not only that he said that regime change is the only way to deal with Iran. And as CIA director he also downplayed the CIA's assessment that Iran was complying with the deal although at the hearing he said he has no reason to deny that Iran is complying. So he says very different things and in different places. But I think his actions and his statements in the past speak louder than the words at the hearing, which were quite deceptive, and he's trying to win over Democrats. So he was evasive on some of the issues that he has been very clear about in the past, such as striking Iran, North Korea, and certainly he was open about the president's right to bomb Syria.

... ... ...

SHARMINI PERIES: Right. Now, speaking of Syria and the tensions that are arising with Russia over the chemical attack that Russia now says, and in fact Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, is on record saying they have information that some one else, some other country, initiated this attack in Syria. This is really a heightening the tension between Russia and the United States. So let me go to you on this, Phyllis, first, and then we'll go back to Medea. But your take on this rising tension between U.S. And Russia?

PHYLLIS BENNIS: This is a very, very dangerous moment, when we have Trump, with all of his own proclivities towards war and against diplomacy, surrounding himself by what looks like a clear war cabinet. The danger of escalation in Syria is very serious. It could lead to a direct clash between the two most powerful nuclear weapon states in the world, the United States and Russia. You have completely opposite claims emerging from Washington and Moscow, with the U.S. claiming that they know, even though they also agree that they don't have information, but they know that chemical weapons were used as they were used by the regime in Syria. They seem to know a lot for a government that admits it doesn't know anything yet.

The Russians, on the other hand, have variously said that another country might be involved. Another Russian diplomat has said that there was no chemical attack at all. So for myself, I don't actually believe any of these claims by any of the governments. I'm waiting to hear what the report is of the team that's on its way to D ouma right now, the town outside of Damascus where the alleged chemical weapons attack occurred. The team of the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons. That's the the internationally acknowledged, internationally credible team that will be determining whether or not chemicals were used, what chemicals were used if there were any, who was affected, what delivery systems, et cetera. They are not mandated to determine who fired or who gave the orders to fire. That's a much more political question that will come back to the Security Council and may stall there, we don't know.

But at the moment we don't know at all what happened in Douma on that weekend 10 days ago. So I think that we need to do everything possible to ramp down this level of rhetoric. When the U.S. continues to talk about the inevitability of new strikes against Syria, knowing that this is a direct violation of both, again, international law and U.S. domestic law and threatens the possibility of retaliation against U.S. troops in the region, U.S. warships in the Mediterranean, U.S. warplanes in the skies, and, most importantly, threatens the possibility, the likelihood, of killing more Syrian civilians. We are facing a very, very urgent crisis even before we get to the possibility of serious escalation.

So this is something that Congress needs to take very seriously. And unfortunately in what we've seen in the Pompeo hearing there was simply not enough, not enough pushing for this candidate to be the supposed leader of diplomacy in the United States, to push him on the necessity not of saying well, we hoped that we could have a diplomatic solution, but if not well then nothing is off the table. That's not OK. That's not acceptable to the U.S. chief diplomat. And we are simply not hearing enough pressure to make that position known.

... ... ...

But I was going to put it in the context of remember that we have Bolton as the national security adviser, who did not have to have a confirmation hearing. This is why somebody like Jeff Merkley, a senator from Massachusetts, came out and said he will not vote for Pompeo because he recognizes it as part of this larger cabinet, that this is a war cabinet, and therefore a vote for Pompeo is a vote for war. So I would say continue the fight not to get a confirmation for Mike Pompeo.

SHARMINI PERIES: Phyllis, is that even possible?

PHYLLIS BENNIS: Absolutely. And it's crucial. This is exactly what we need to be focusing on right now. The way the votes come down, it's very, very tight. There are at least, at least one Republican, Rand Paul, who has said he will vote against Pompeo. It looks like McCain will not be there because of his illness. That cuts out two votes. So it's certainly a possibility. But it's going to take an enormous amount of work. Enormous numbers of phone calls and visits and protests and threats of not voting back those members of Congress who, who would go ahead and vote for this person as being the new head of diplomacy. This is as urgent as it gets.

SHARMINI PERIES: All right, Phyllis. I thank you so much for joining us. Phyllis is with the Institute for Policy Studies New Internationalism Project. And Medea Benjamin, thank you so much for joining us. And Medea's from Code Pink. Thank you both.

0040 • 13 hours ago ,

Nonsense lead . The regime change trope is totally bi-partisan as yesterdays air strikes clearly indicate. Pompeo etal like most American federal government officialdom are now lackeys and on the payrolls of the MIC , CIA, and banksters. There is no Iran nuclear deal , Trump is right about that . Iran has moved under Russia's nuclear umbrella as North Korea is now under China's, making the rush to develop nukes unnecessary at the present time. Obombers treaty was/is a worthless face saving effort, after the destruction of Libya.. Trump increasing represents the wishes of the duopoly, not the electorate, his latest terror attack on Syria bumped his popularity 5% across Americas, knocking down the looming Stormy scandal perhaps...

neoconbuster • 14 hours ago ,

Phyllis: "But at the moment we don't know at all what happened in Douma on that weekend 10 days ago."

We do know, because we listen daily to the other side of the story too. There was NO Chemical attack . The White Helmets filmed the deception.

These two Workers of the Douma Hospital's Emergency room, are eyewitnesses of the Lie that was sold by the Western MSM, which is a tool of the Deep State:

-Syrian Eyewitnesses Reveal How Douma Provocation Was Made- (Published by Sputnik, on Apr 13, 2018)

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

Howie Lisnoff • 15 hours ago ,

Arguing for a right-wing Congress to overturn decades of executive war making "privilege" is a bit of a lost cause at this point. Pompeo is the latest iteration in a long line of those at the State Department who have ditched diplomacy in favor of war.

gustave courbet > novychelovek

Consistent theme in caricatures of other nations/groups relates to their inherent "otherness." Be it Clapper's comment about Russians being "genetically driven" to "co-opt," or Kim Jong-un's reputation as a madman, or Iran's fundamentalist world view, they have in common the tendency to project a fundamentally irrational disposition on one's adversaries.

In reality, most governments, be they pseudo-democratic, theocratic, etc are motivated by pragmatic self-interest. In Iran's case, they can use history to compare non-nuclear states to nuclear powers in regards to US bellicosity and see a clear pattern.

[Apr 13, 2018] Pompeo Russians 'Met Their Match,' US Killed Hundreds of Them in Syria by Jason Ditz

Apr 12, 2018 | news.antiwar.com

Is President Trump tough enough on Russia? For Secretary of State-nominee Mike Pompeo, the answer comes down to simple body count, as he bragged up recent killings of Russian citizens inside Syrian territory .

At the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Pompeo boasted that "the Russians met their match. A couple hundred Russians were killed," referring to a US massacre of military contractors back in February. Pompeo insisted these killings prove Trump's toughness on Russia.

The comments threaten to make this incident a bigger diplomatic row. The February 7 incident came after the US claimed Kurds had come under attack. In reality, an artillery barrage landed half a kilometer from a Kurdish base, and the US reacted by killing in excess of 200 pro-Syrian government fighters, declaring the killings "self-defense."

At the time, there were concerns Russian citizens were among the slain, and US officials ultimately said "scores" of the dead may have been Russian. Now, Pompeo appears to be insisting they were all Russians, and that the killings were about being "tough" of the Russian government.

Russia's government denied any knowledge of the incident at the time, and it appears the slain were private contractors working for the Syrian government, and not in concert with Russia's government itself. That makes targeting them on the basis of their nationality potentially even more problematic.

[Apr 02, 2018] Trump has shown that he'll bend quickly to neocon pressure, with increased interest in foreign war

Notable quotes:
"... North Korea's negotiating position has not really changed with the announcement. They have repeatedly said for years they are willing to agree to denuclearization of the Peninsula in return for security guarantees. I find the media trumpeting this as a new development rather vexing. Anyways, China has been putting the screws on them since about September/October (Apparently, they told Kim Jongun they know they can't overthrow the DPRK government, but they can get rid of him personally), which is also why there have not been any new nuclear tests. ..."
"... I think Yves has got it right: USA threatens PRC with tariffs, so PRC pressures NK to make concessions to the USA. i.e. Two big guys screwing the little guy. ..."
"... In the USA, imperialist machtpolitik is a thoroughly bipartisan affair. It doesn't matter how faithfully NK or PRC might fulfill obligations. Trump's successors, whoever they may be, will simply apply more pressure and demand more concessions. They won't stop until somebody else stops them. ..."
Apr 02, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Larry , March 30, 2018 at 8:04 am

I believe Trump could negotiate a deal. But I also believe he could blow up the whole talk before it even happens. He has shown that he'll bend quickly to neocon pressure, with increased interest in foreign war (Bolton hiring) and the ramping up of hostilities by bouncing Russians from the U.S. over the phony poisoning story in the UK.

a different chris , March 30, 2018 at 8:48 am

I don't disagree with your comment, but not comfortable with the term "bend to". Trump gets enamored with different people at different times, but he always is looking down at them. They may get enough rope to scare the rest of us, but they are still on a rope.

Bolton is horrible, but a lot of other horrible people have come and gone in this really quick year.

cocomaan , March 30, 2018 at 11:15 am

Bolton is horrible but probably won't last long. Nobody at Trump's ear has, including his own children.

Trump just announced that we're withdrawing from Syria. That's more than Obama ever did.

Part of being a nationalist demagogue is that you're not as interested in foreign wars unless they enrich the country. Not a single one of our wars does that. There's nothing interesting in mercantilism, for instance, that we can't do at home (drill baby drill).

I'm not saying I agree with that view, I'm just saying that if he's a nationalist demagogue, it only follows that he's not interested in, uh, "non-for-profit warmaking".

sgt_doom , March 30, 2018 at 2:57 pm

I am NO Trump fan or voter, but it does appear that he's the first one to apply sanctions to those specific Chinese banks handling the trade with North Korea.

Arizona Slim , March 30, 2018 at 6:32 pm

Uh-oh, I find myself agreeing with something that Trump is doing. Does that make me a backward deplorable?

Al Swearengen , March 30, 2018 at 8:45 am

(Somewhat) OT, but it strikes me that the best way to look at Trump is through the lense of what he is – the US version of Sylvio Berlusconi. A sleazy billionaire Oligarch with no core principles and a fondness for Bunga Bunga parties.

Rather than as LITERALLY HITLER as per the verbiage of hashtag the resistance.

Thus, rather than as a crazed madman bent on "evil" at all times one wonders whether Mr. Bunga Bunga would do a deal with Lil' Kim. Sure he would, assuming that the ruling military Junta allows him to. It might be in the interest of the latter to de-escalate this particular hotspot (as NK crisis/hype fatigue may set in) and simply push Iran as the next flashpoint to hype.

sgt_doom , March 30, 2018 at 2:59 pm

Indeed! They even sound quite similar -- I recall in a speech that Berlusconi gave when he was still the Italian president and the Italian left was screaming for his resignation, Sylvio claimed such demands were making him uneasy, since if he was to go home, and he had 20 homes, it would be difficult for him to decide which house or mansion to go to!

Brooklin Bridge , March 30, 2018 at 9:05 am

It seems the bottom line for negotiations with North Korea have little to do with this article which covers Trump's thoughts on nuclear proliferation between major powers that have massive stockpiles.

North Korea is mainly interested in protecting itself from regime change and from becoming a US outpost (as in target) butt up against China. It is hard to believe that Kim Jong-Un would get any advantage whatsoever out of dismantling his nuclear arsenal, however small. One assumes he is aware of Gaddafi in particular and US's track record on keeping it's promises – particularly over the span of different administrations – in general.

Brooklin Bridge , March 30, 2018 at 9:13 am

The above comment assumes full disarmament as the minimum condition of any "negotiation" since Trump has gone so far out of his way to make that clear.

Yves Smith Post author , March 30, 2018 at 12:06 pm

Oh, and now see the lead story at the Financial Times, China uses economic muscle to bring N Korea to negotiating table:

China virtually halted exports of petroleum products, coal and other key materials to North Korea in the months leading to this week's unprecedented summit between Kim Jong Un, the North Korean leader, and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping.

The export freeze -- revealed in official Chinese data and going much further than the limits stipulated under UN sanctions -- shows the extent of Chinese pressure following the ramping up of Pyongyang's nuclear testing programme. It also suggests that behind Mr Xi's talk this week of a "profound revolutionary friendship" between the two nations, his government has been playing hard ball with its neighbour.

https://www.ft.com/content/8a2b2696-33f7-11e8-ae84-494103e73f7f

Yves Smith Post author , March 30, 2018 at 11:24 am

I would normally agree but Kim Jong-Un was just summoned to China. Not even given a state visit. The Chinese announced North Korea would denuclearlize:

North Korea's leader Kim Jong Un pledged his commitment to denuclearization and to meet U.S. officials, China said on Wednesday after his meeting with President Xi Jinping, who promised China would uphold friendship with its isolated neighbour.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-china/china-says-north-koreas-kim-pledged-commitment-to-denuclearization-idUSKBN1H305W

China has heretofore pretended that it couldn't do anything about North Korea. It looks like Trump's tariff threat extracted China jerking Kim Jong-Un's chain as a concession. I don't see how Kim Jong-Un can defy China if China is serious about wanting North Korea to denuclearlize. Maybe it will merely reduce its arsenal and stop threatening Hawaii (even though its ability to deliver rockets that far is in doubt) and just stick to being able to light up Seoul instead.

Brooklin Bridge , March 30, 2018 at 2:25 pm

Agree. I wasn't aware of the details you mention above regarding the export freeze. (I won't use Google and my normal 'trick' doesn't work to get around FT's paywall – and I won't use the trial membership either). I'm hopeless.

Anyway, you make a very convincing case. I can only imagine that Kim Jong Un is one miserable scared rat. My point about a "silk noose" below was perhaps on the mark.

neo-realist , March 31, 2018 at 12:47 am

Kim might agree on paper or through an insincere promise to denuclearize, but I don't see a closed authoritarian regime like the North agreeing to an inspection regime that would insure that such a pledge would be lived up to. Reduction, but build-up on the sly w/o inspections.

China may be interested in a deal to the extent that it prevents a bloody war breaking out that they'll probably expend manpower to help clean up and it insures the security of a North Korean buffer that keeps American troops off their border; After all, they've got to keep the powder dry for "reunification" with Taiwan.

I also don't believe that the US would agree to concessions, such as removing American troops from the peninsula. the pentagon wouldn't like it, the hawks around Trumps wouldn't like it, and I believe the SK leadership would not be too crazy about the potential ramifications for their security with such an agreement.

Travis Bickle , March 30, 2018 at 9:19 am

But, can Trump (by extension, the US), make an agreement that can be relied on over its term?

For any hope of NK trusting any deal with the US he would have to stand by the Iranian deal. Then there's Bolton and the Neocon Will To War, for deeply pathological reasons which by nature cannot be debated.

In this case, the mere possibility of a "deal" is possible, but only if there is a third party to hold both of them to it.

Hello China?

ambrit , March 30, 2018 at 10:02 am

Did the Chinese call Kim to Beijing to reassure him? Carrot AND stick.

Brooklin Bridge , March 30, 2018 at 10:43 am

Presentation of a silk noose perhaps?

Brooklin Bridge , March 30, 2018 at 11:05 am

That's the crazy thing about this. What possible inducement could Kim Jong-Un have gotten to attend his own funeral? Why would anyone trust the US an inch?

I suppose if he can keep his own people in a suspended state of extreme propaganda, then he might be vulnerable to his own medicine, but that seems at odds with his behavior so far (such as the assassination of his uncle). If anything, he would be especially leery of anything coming out of the US.

And then can he really be that psyched out by Bolton, Pompeo and Torture Lady so that good cop Trump can hand him is own death certificate with a space for his signature?

Travis Bickle , March 31, 2018 at 2:15 pm

Whatever happened during this China trip, the overarching theme must have been how to manage the US. Here's one rough scenario:

NK 'disarms' to some definition, under the auspices of China, acquiring in return an explicit Chinese security umbrella for the buffer it presents between them and SK. Nobody really wants a unified Korea in any case. In return, the US vacates SK militarily, ever so discretely and over time.

Done correctly, and with the finesse necessary for Trump, China is in a position to extract all sorts of concessions from the US on other fronts as well. Nothing positive is going to happen here without China, and they hold most of the cards. If nothing positive happens, we have to consider the pressure that'd build on Trump to do something, anything, and that probably being something rash. (Better a big disaster over there than a mammoth one over here thinking).

gearandgrit , March 30, 2018 at 9:46 am

"he can't go willy nilly and set nukes a-flying just because it struck him as a good idea that day."

I mean sure. His "button" isn't literally connected to a missile somewhere, but he sure as hell can ask that nukes be fired whenever and wherever he wants. You could argue that someone in the chain of command would prevent that from happening, but that's more of a hope than a guarantee. For a really good read on how this all works and the history of the nuclear program I highly recommend https://www.amazon.com/Command-Control-Damascus-Accident-Illusion/dp/0143125788

With Bolton on board and seemingly everyone with half a brain, a little logic and the ability to hold their tongue for more than about 5 seconds out, I highly doubt anything will come of these negotiations. In fact, I'm more worried that the US will get steamrolled by China and NK.

Yves Smith Post author , March 30, 2018 at 11:13 am

That isn't true. See the link I provided, which you clearly did not bother to read. Various people can refuse his order as illegal. Former Secretary of State Jim Baker, in a Financial Times, before Trump was elected, said the same thing. Bolton is the National Security Adviser. He may have a lot of informal power by having direct access to the President, but he does not tie in to the formal chain of command, either at the DoD or State.

gearandgrit , March 30, 2018 at 12:09 pm

Oh I read it and I've read many other articles and a lot of non-fiction on the issue. Again, I would call your position and the position of this article hopeful at best. Trump has the football, he has the codes in his jacket pocket and everyone responsible for carrying out the order to launch has been raised up through a military system that ensures no one questions an order from their superior. Relying on various people to refuse his order as illegal in this system is not a fail-safe I feel comfortable with. I do find it interesting that you just assume I didn't read the article as if this one article is the end all be all on the subject.

David , March 30, 2018 at 12:31 pm

The article seems a bit confused about what it's trying to say. Stopping nuclear proliferation has been a major policy priority of the US and other western governments since the 1960s, and if I recall correctly it was one of Bolton's priorities when he was in Bush the Lesser's administration. It's something in which all of the declared nuclear powers have an interest, because the smaller the number of nuclear powers in the world, the greater the difference between them and the rest. This is much more important than wild fantasies about rogue attacks: if N Korea becomes a de facto nuclear power like India, Israel and Pakistan, then all sorts of other countries might be tempted to have a go, starting with S Korea (which has the capacity and has been caught cheating before). Whilst this risk is objectively small, an end to the NK programme would make it even smaller. I suspect the deal will be that NK denuclearizes and China guarantees its security: a non-nuclear NK will be even more of a client state than it is now.
Nuclear competition among the superpowers is quite different and involves a whole set of different issues.

Synoia , March 30, 2018 at 1:18 pm

since one of Trump's salient characteristics is to have no enduring principles

I beg to differ. He most certainly has enduring principles:

1. My Children
2. Me
3. My current wife.
4. My money

The exact order is debatable, situational, and probably not provable.

Edward E , March 31, 2018 at 3:20 pm

5. My Wall

Less warfare = more wall
But remember the last time Trump said something in Syria's favor? A chemical attack happened in small village for no logical reason and the hawks immediately took to framing Assad. Trump then backed off and took harder line on Assad, launching missiles into Syria.

So I'm inclined to think he wants a deal. But look out for screaming hawks immediately trying to scuttle anything.

Tomonthebeach , March 30, 2018 at 2:15 pm

Perhaps 30 years ago, Trump was an international defense luminary, but I see little evidence of the boasted emotional control and cool Trump claimed. He is unarguably a successful grifter. Is that what it takes to make peace? What happens when the other guy realizes he has been lied to by a congenital liar? Back to square 1.

In my take, the recent meeting between the heads of China and N Korea just Trumped any leverage the US might have had in peace talks. Trump will be there only if a scapegoat is needed. Both S. Korea and Japan have expressed doubts about our reliability as a defense shield against powerful China – Japan and the Koreans' neighbor. What Little Rocketman has likely achieved is diplomatically checkmating the US. Now Trump's tariff threats serve only to push US allies in the region closer to China. Should that turn out to be the case, the economic repercussions are as dangerous and unpredictable as nukes in the air or as Trump himself. I sure hope I got this all wrong.

RBHoughton , March 30, 2018 at 7:51 pm

"no enduring principles" is a feature of politicians everywhere today. Their concern is to represent the rich and their qualification is to present those biased arguments in a way that beguiles the electorate into supposing its a good idea for them as well. Step Two is the "who would have thought it?" response after the country catches on.

In former times the candidate for public office would assert his principles on the hustings and the voters would remember what they knew of him before voting. Sure, there were ambitious unreliable people who were willing to exchange their reputations for office but they were few. We should get back to those days.

We allowed our merchants and spooks to drive USSR to the precipice without any thoughts about the nukes they had. It appeared then that warheads supposedly in Ukraine were missing. We will likely discover what happened to them in due course. It is possible that surveillance of communications is the main reason they are not a thread for the time being but that does not mean they have dropped out of existence.

Thank you NC for introducing an issue that should concern economists as much as everyone else.

Coldhearted Liberal , March 30, 2018 at 8:57 pm

North Korea's negotiating position has not really changed with the announcement. They have repeatedly said for years they are willing to agree to denuclearization of the Peninsula in return for security guarantees. I find the media trumpeting this as a new development rather vexing. Anyways, China has been putting the screws on them since about September/October (Apparently, they told Kim Jongun they know they can't overthrow the DPRK government, but they can get rid of him personally), which is also why there have not been any new nuclear tests.

Don't forget the United States has itself promised to denuclearize, under the NPT.

Plenue , March 31, 2018 at 2:08 am

It would certainly bring me great pleasure if Trump of all people were to bring about some great positive change in regards to the Forever War with North Korea. Imagine all the whining liberals if Trump, unlike Obama, actually did something worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize.

Roland , March 31, 2018 at 3:42 pm

I think Yves has got it right: USA threatens PRC with tariffs, so PRC pressures NK to make concessions to the USA. i.e. Two big guys screwing the little guy.

PRC and NK leaders might think that all they have to do is get through a short patch of bad weather until 2020. If so, they are badly kidding themselves.

In the USA, imperialist machtpolitik is a thoroughly bipartisan affair. It doesn't matter how faithfully NK or PRC might fulfill obligations. Trump's successors, whoever they may be, will simply apply more pressure and demand more concessions. They won't stop until somebody else stops them.

[Mar 30, 2018] Bolton Is the Opposite of an 'Honest Broker' The American Conservative

Mar 30, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Sebastian Rotella reports on how many of the people that worked with Bolton remember his tendency to distort intelligence and ignore facts that contradicted his assumptions:

"Anyone who is so cavalier not just with intelligence, but with facts, and so ideologically driven, is unfit to be national security adviser," said Robert Hutchings, who dealt extensively with Bolton as head of the National Intelligence Council, a high-level agency that synthesizes analysis from across the intelligence community to produce strategic assessments for policymakers. "He's impervious to information that goes against his preconceived ideological views." [bold mine-DL]

That assessment lines up with what I understood about Bolton, and it points to one of the biggest problems with his appointment. I wrote this shortly before Trump announced that he was choosing Bolton:

The real danger is that he is such an ideologue that he would keep information from the president that contradicts his views and prevent Trump from getting the best available advice. Trump is poorly informed to begin with, and having Bolton as his main adviser on matters of national security and foreign policy would make sure that he stays that way.

Trump is especially susceptible to being manipulated by his advisers into endorsing the policies they want because he knows so little and responds so favorably to flattery, and he has shown that he is already more than willing to select a more aggressive option when he is told that it is the "presidential" thing to do. We should expect that Bolton will feed Trump bad or incomplete information, present aggressive options in the most favorable light while dismissing alternatives, and praise Trump's leadership to get him to go along with the hard-line policies Bolton wants. Bolton will run a very distorted policy process and he will be the opposite of an honest broker. That won't serve Trump well, and it will be terrible for our foreign policy.

[Mar 30, 2018] Donald Trump s Appointment Of John Bolton Means Regime Change Is Coming To Iran Sheep Media

Notable quotes:
"... It should also be noted that Bolton is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations , an organization whose members have influenced the state of geopolitics for the last few generations. Bolton was also a member of the neo-conservative, warhawk think tank, "Project for the New American Century," which was enthusiastically promoting the lie about Saddam Hussein possessing weapons of mass destruction. ..."
"... In 2000, PNAC released a report titled Rebuilding America's Defenses which outlined a strategy of regime change in Iraq and beyond. Under a section titled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force," the think tank wrote the following controversial line: ..."
"... "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." ..."
Mar 29, 2018 | asheepnomore.net

Donald Trump's Appointment Of John Bolton Means Regime Change Is Coming To Iran

March 29, 2018 By Sheep Media

This article was written by Derrick Broze and originally published at Activist Post

The latest neo-conservative warmonger to join the Trump Administration does not bode well for the people of Iran.

On Thursday Donald Trump announced that John Bolton, a former official in George W. Bush's administration and former ambassador to the UN, would be his new National Security Advisor. Bolton is a warhawk who called for the invasion of Iraq in search of non-existent weapons of mass destruction and has for years called for the invasion of Iran.

Middle East Eye collected a number of quotes from Bolton over the years that indicate his plans for Iran and other nations viewed as a threat to national security of the U.S. government. And by that I mean the people who secretly wield control of corporate and state power.

In 2009, Bolton said that regime change is "ultimately, the only thing that will stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons." As recent as 2015 Bolton call for a U.S./Israel joint bombing campaign."Such action should be combined with vigorous American support for Iran's opposition, aimed at regime change in Tehran."

Meanwhile, Senator Rand Paul questioned the appointment. "It concerns me that Trump would put someone in charge who is unhinged as far as believing in absolute and total intervention," Paul stated. Bolton's appointment was also criticized by Trita Parsi, leader of the National Iranian American Council.

Further, it seems that Bolton and former Mayor of New York Rudy Giuliani have already promised the regime change would be happening within the next year. "Just eight months ago, at a Paris gathering, Bolton told members of the Iranian exile group, known as the Mujahedeen Khalq, MEK, or People's Mujahedeen, that the Trump administration should embrace their goal of immediate regime change in Iran and recognize their group as a 'viable' alternative," The Intercept reports.

"The behavior and the objectives of the regime are not going to change and, therefore, the only solution is to change the regime itself," newly appointed National Security Advisor John Bolton told the crowd. The Intercept also noted that Iranian expatriate journalist Bahman Kalbasi reported that Bolton ended his talk by promising, "And that's why, before 2019, we here will celebrate in Tehran!"

At a recent celebration of the Persian New Year, Rudy Giuliani promised the audience that "if anything, John Bolton has become more determined that there needs to be regime change in Iran, that the nuclear agreement needs to be burned, and that you need to be in charge of that country." Disturbingly, Giuliani reportedly led the crowd in a chant of "regime change!".

It should also be noted that Bolton is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations , an organization whose members have influenced the state of geopolitics for the last few generations. Bolton was also a member of the neo-conservative, warhawk think tank, "Project for the New American Century," which was enthusiastically promoting the lie about Saddam Hussein possessing weapons of mass destruction.

In 2000, PNAC released a report titled Rebuilding America's Defenses which outlined a strategy of regime change in Iraq and beyond. Under a section titled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force," the think tank wrote the following controversial line:

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

Less than a year later, 10 of the 18 men who signed the paper became members of the Bush administration. The attacks of 9/11 would come soon after and the neocons had their "catastrophic and catalyzing event" and an excuse to invade Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and soon possibly, Iran.

The men included Bush's Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, John Bolton, Zalmay Khalilzad, the White House liaison to the Iraqi opposition; William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard magazine, and Richard Perle, chairman of the advisory Defense Science Board.

In addition to the well-known Pearl Harbor quote, the paper goes on to describe the eventual outcome of the initial regime change. "Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change – transition and transformation – over the coming decades." If the last 15 years of war, violence, and death in the Middle East have been the "transition" phase, John Bolton and Trump may be preparing to shift gears and move into the "transformation" phase – beginning with the invasion of Iran. However, based on PNAC's track record, they might be looking for a new catastrophic event to generate support for intervention in Iran.

So much for draining the swamp

H/T: Alt- Market.com

[Mar 27, 2018] Here's John Bolton Promising Regime Change in Iran by the End of 2018

Mar 27, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Richardstevenhack Reply 26 March 2018 at 06:35 PM

Humans are primates. Thus, they are stupid, ignorant, malicious and fearful - mostly the latter. Pretty much explains everything in human history.

I subscribe to the concept of survival at any cost. But in a rational society that would entail being aware of the long-term consequences. This, however, is not a rational society.

Off topic - or maybe not given the topic of human heartlessness - here we have John Bolton:

Here's John Bolton Promising Regime Change in Iran by the End of 2018
https://theintercept.com/2018/03/23/heres-john-bolton-promising-regime-change-iran-end-2018/

Apparently he told the M.E.K. cult that the US would end Iran's leadership before the 40 year anniversary which is February 11, 2019.

That of course is absurd unless somehow the US manages to decapitate the Iranian leadership with an airstrike or nuclear attack. What actually will happen if the US attacks Iran is that Iran will fight for the next several decades until the US backs off. There is no chance short of nuclear bombardment for the US to "defeat" Iran. The US couldn't even "defeat" Iraq in less than five years and hasn't defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan in 17 years. Iran will be a far harder nut to crack than either of those.

Lobe Log has published a "John Bolton: The Essential Profile" which covers this lunatic.
http://lobelog.com/john-bolton-the-essential-profile/

Of note in that piece is how many diplomats both within the US State Department and the EU explicitly state they can't stand the guy.

[Mar 27, 2018] John Bolton Tapped for NSA What Does It Mean for US-Russia Relations

Mar 27, 2018 | www.strategic-culture.org

John Bolton Tapped for NSA: What Does It Mean for US-Russia Relations?

John Bolton, a Yale-educated lawyer known as a foreign policy hawk , has been appointed National Security Adviser (NSA), in a major reshuffle of President Trump's administration. He officially takes office on April 9. No Senate confirmation is required. Welcome back, Mr. Straight Talker!

Mr. Bolton has a long history of government service, including in the positions of Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and ambassador to the UN, the organization he once described as "no such thing" and wants to be defunded . John Bolton scorns international institutions and does not believe that engaging much with the world is in keeping with US interests.

This soon-to-be NSA is an experienced lawyer and "think tanker," as well as a foreign-policy pundit who has written a multitude of books and articles. He's a deft and ready speaker whose gift of gab can win over an audience at any time. The National Security Advisor-designate even considered entering the presidential races in 2012 and 2016.

In his frequent television commentaries , Mr. Bolton has always advocated tough approaches and never missed an opportunity to support using force rather than wasting time on fruitless diplomacy. For instance, he has advocated for a military option to solve the problem with North Korea and for boosting cooperation with Taiwan in order to irk China. He takes a very hard line on Iran. " To stop Iran's bomb, bomb Iran ," sums up his position.

Mr. Bolton believes the JCPOA was a blunder. He wants the US to push Iran out of Syria and topple President Assad's Tehran-friendly government. With his appointment, the chances of the US certifying the Iran nuclear deal appear to be somewhere between zero and zilch. Mr. Bolton has always been pro-Israel and backed the idea of a unilateral Israeli strike against Iran to knock out the facilities there related to its nuclear program.

The late Jesse Helms, a well-known hawk, once claime d Mr. Bolton would be the right man "to stand with at Armageddon."

The newest appointee has championed the idea of raising tariffs to unleash trade wars.

With these two very hawkish Republicans -- John Bolton and Mike Pompeo -- Donald Trump will be under strong pressure to adopt a get-tough approach to all major issues. Gina Haspel, another hawk, will have frequent access to Donald Trump in her role as the newly appointed CIA director. The spirit of Barry Goldwater lives on.

John Bolton has always been critical of Moscow and it is almost unanimously believed that his appointment does not augur well for US-Russia relations.

In response to President Putin's speech in which he unveiled the existence of his new super weapons, Bolton emphasized the need for "a strategic response ." He has called on NATO to offer a strong reaction to what is known as the Scripal case, expressing his conviction that the POTUS was considering such a response. The latest choice for National Security Advisor endorses the idea of providing Ukraine with lethal weapons and wants the West to take a much tougher stance on Russia. John Bolton will certainly advocate for expediting Georgia's and Ukraine's membership in the North Atlantic alliance, as well as granting those nations the status of Major Non–NATO ally of the US.

He strongly criticized President Obama's "reset policy." Yet despite all that, he never launched personal attacks against Vladimir Putin. He always seemed to genuinely enjoy his visits to Russia, including press conferences and visits to think tanks. Despite his tough talk, he has always been amicable and ready to communicate. He has a long list of personal acquaintances, including many in senior government positions and academia. John Bolton worked with Sergey Kiriyenko, Russia's First Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Administration, back when the latter headed Russia's State Commission on Chemical Disarmament.

Mr. Bolton is an experienced negotiator on strategic arms-control issues. John Bolton was a strong advocate of the US withdrawal from the 1972 BM Treaty. He took part in the talks over the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT) that was in effect until the New START went into force. John Bolton sees the New START as a unilateral disarmament agreement that is at odds with US interests. President Trump has also decried that treaty.

Being a hawk does not make him a hopeless prospect. He views the interests of his nation in his own way, but he wants America to lead, not perish in a war it can't win. His experience in strategic arms talks is invaluable. Mr. Bolton has a good understanding of security-related issues.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan was a Russia hawk, a tough guy no one could make a deal with. Remember his " joke " about dropping bombs on the USSR in five minutes? Or his "Evil Empire" speech? During his second term, the landmark INF Treaty was signed and the friendly environment of the US-USSR summits were proof that that bilateral relationship had clearly evolved beyond its Cold War roots.

The former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev believes that "He has already entered history as a man who was instrumental in bringing about the end of the Cold War." President Reagan ended the Cold War and made it possible to ease the nuclear tensions in the 1990s.

Agreements will remain elusive on many issues and negotiations on some key matters may even break down, but dialog on arms control will probably continue because it meets vital US interests and Mr. Bolton knows that well.

In the end, the decisions are made by the president, and while advisers may have influence, they only advise. President Trump has many people around him to help him see issues from different viewpoints.

Tags: NSA Bolton

[Mar 25, 2018] John Bolton is in all likelihood a Zionist asset due to the Israelis having some very powerful kompromat on him

Mar 25, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Outrage Beyond , 23 March 2018 at 09:04 AM

John Bolton is in all likelihood a Zionist asset due to the Israelis having some very powerful kompromat on him.

Numerous sources allege that Bolton forced his wife (now ex-wife) into group sex at a swinger's club. Did someone get it on film, tape, or some other recording media?

Given the extreme fervor of Bolton's Zionism, the answer seems obvious.

Dr. Puck -> LondonBob... , 23 March 2018 at 12:14 PM
Bolton, to me, is worse than McMaster, is decidedly a neocon, and may well end up being the intellectual impetus behind a shiny new war in the ME or the Korean peninsula.

Although Trump the candidate offered a sketch of his FP views, including his well known declaration about the catastrophic Iraq war, today one can itemize where the US military is currently robustly engaged.

If Bolton can dial back his hawkishness with respect to Russia, not mention--too much--Iraq, he and POTUS may likely find alignment about which will be the first regime to be targeted by our standoff capabilities. imao

Anna -> falcemartello ... , 23 March 2018 at 03:01 PM
Bolton is a dead hand of Cheney. "They are dead before they go..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0Wn3Eey6dY
catherine -> semiconscious... , 23 March 2018 at 03:02 PM
I agree, people shouldn't imply, they should say straight out what they think.
So allow me.

It appears that the uber Israeli Sheldon Adelson who was the largest campaign donor to Trump and Nikki Haley and also employs John Bolton is dictating US policy to Trump.

If it trots and barks like an Adelson, then its a Adelson poddle.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/13/nikki-haley-trump-iran-whisperer-243772

[Mar 25, 2018] Don't forget that Bolton was the one who immediately blamed the Hariri assassination on Syria

Mar 25, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Petri Krohn | Mar 24, 2018 11:37:39 AM | 79

@Rusty Pipes , Mar 24, 2018 8:09:45 AM | 75

Don't forget that Bolton was the one who immediately blamed the Hariri assassination on Syria.

Immediately assigning blame is one of the signs of a false-flag operation. If Mossad killed Hariri, Bolton would know about it. He would also know if Mossad whacked the Skripals.

The political dividing line in America may not be Left vs. Right or Democrats vs. Republicans or anti-war vs. pro-war but Russiagate believers vs. realist who know it is all a false-flag.

Thierry Meyssan believes that Rex Tillerson fell for the Skripal hoax and that is why Trump fired him. I said something similar here on MoA

[Mar 25, 2018] Hawks Always Fail Upwards by Daniel Larison

This is about American Imperialism and MIC. Neocons are just well-laid MIC lobbyists. Some like Bolton are pretty talented guys. Some like Max Boot are simply stupid.
Notable quotes:
"... What sort of political system allows someone with his views to serve in high office, where he helps talk the country into a disastrous war, never expresses a moment's regret for his errors, continues to advocate for more of the same for the next decade, and then gets a second chance to make the same mistakes again? [bold mine-DL] ..."
"... So by all means worry. But the real problem isn't Bolton -- it's a system that permits people like him to screw up and move up again and again. ..."
"... National Review ..."
Mar 25, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

The conclusion of Stephen Walt's column on John Bolton is exactly right:

Don't get me wrong: I'm not trying to "normalize" this appointment or suggest that it shouldn't concern you. Rather, I'm suggesting that if you are worried about Bolton, you should ask yourself the following question: What sort of political system allows someone with his views to serve in high office, where he helps talk the country into a disastrous war, never expresses a moment's regret for his errors, continues to advocate for more of the same for the next decade, and then gets a second chance to make the same mistakes again? [bold mine-DL]

So by all means worry. But the real problem isn't Bolton -- it's a system that permits people like him to screw up and move up again and again.

There is a strong bias in our foreign policy debates in favor of "action," no matter how stupid or destructive that action proves to be. That is one reason why reflexive supporters of an activist foreign policy will never have to face the consequences of the policies they support. Bolton has thrived as an advocate of hard-line policies precisely because he fills the assigned role of the fanatical warmonger, and there is always a demand for someone to fill that role. His fanaticism doesn't discredit him, because it is eminently useful to his somewhat less fanatical colleagues. That is how he can hang around long enough until there is a president ignorant enough to think that he is qualified to be a top adviser.

Bolton will also have reliable supporters in the conservative movement that will make excuses for the inexcusable. National Review recently published an article by David French in defense of Bolton whose conclusion was that we should "give a hawk a chance." Besides being evasive and dishonest about just how fanatical Bolton is, the article was an effort to pretend that Iraq war supporters should be given another chance to wreck U.S. foreign policy again. It may be true that Bolton's views are "in the mainstream of conservative foreign-policy thought," but that is an indictment of the so-called "mainstream" that is being represented. Bolton has been wrong about every major foreign policy issue of the last twenty years. If that doesn't disqualify you from holding a high-ranking government position, what does?

Hawks have been given a chance to run our foreign policy every day for decades on end, and they have failed numerous times at exorbitant cost. Generic hawks don't deserve a second chance after the last sixteen-plus years of failure and disaster, and fanatical hard-liners like Bolton never deserved a first chance.

French asserts that Bolton is "not extreme," but that raises the obvious question: compared to what?Bolton has publicly, repeatedly urged the U.S. government to launch illegal preventive wars against Iran and North Korea, and that just scratches the surface of his fanaticism. That strikes me as rather extreme, and that is why so many people are disturbed by the Bolton appointment. If he isn't "extreme" even by contemporary movement conservative standards, who is? How psychopathic would one need to be to be considered extreme in French's eyes? If movement conservatives can't see why Bolton is an unacceptable and outrageous choice for National Security Advisor, they are so far gone that there is nothing to be done for them and no point in listening to anything they have to say.

[Mar 25, 2018] Pompeo is on the record to bomb Iran with 2000 sorties

Mar 25, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

col from oz | Mar 23, 2018 11:27:59 PM | 68

Greived 52

Pompeo is on the record to bomb Iran with 2000 sorties

https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2018/03/iran-deal-advocates-prepare-battle-pompeo-nomination.html

Bolton would be on with this idea. I expect Trump go ahead with a military bombing of nuclear reactor sites and Government/military sites as envisage by Pompeo. They dare not try for a full invasion as they will most likely lose. What will be Iran's reaction be?

What could Iran do? They might get Hezbollah to initiate contact with Israel. Try to sink US navy assets where ever they are. Spread the campaign to Afghanistan. Attack Saudi Arabia with missiles. However if the US peruses this course I believe it will be a brief attack lassting 2/3 weeks, whereby a brokered peace to stop US action. But I could be wrong.

[Mar 24, 2018] I have to laugh at the people trying to portray Bonkers Bolton as somehow less insane than he is.

Mar 24, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Richardstevenhack 24 March 2018 at 06:03 PM

I have to laugh at the people trying to portray Bonkers Bolton as somehow less insane than he is.

Yesterday in my Youtube recommended list was at least half a dozen channels with headlines expressing horror at the appointment of Bolton as National Security Adviser. Clearly there has been a backlash in quite a few quarters that this appointment is simply lunatic - of a lunatic.

So naturally today we see people trying to play down the absolute stark insanity of Trump appointing this clown.

The only thing we can hope for is that before Bolton does too much damage that Trump gets tired of him, as he has everyone else in his administration, and fires him. But given Trump's history, all we can expect then is that he appoints Nikki Haley to the same post.

Russia, ever patient, issued a statement saying they're ready to work with Bolton. Privately they must be wondering why they didn't develop Novichok so they could use it on him.

Meanwhile the Democrats are trotting out all the hot women they claim had affairs with Trump. Hello, Democrats! Anyone remember Bill Clinton? At least Trump has a wife good-looking enough to maybe keep him home at night.

[Mar 24, 2018] Does Bolton appointment means the return to Monroe doctrine?

Mar 24, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

bevin | Mar 24, 2018 2:28:24 PM | 82

The more I think about it the more convinced I am that the real danger from Bolton is that, in Trumpian fashion, he will return to those good old days when the Cold War was ending and the US went hog wild in Central America.

Like a bruised and beaten bully who's just had his come-uppance in the pub who, returning home, angry and impotent beats up the wife and kids and threatens the neighbours, Uncle Sam is returning, his tail between his legs, from the middle east to his home turf.

Look out Cuba! Look out Venezuela!

The Contras are back in business. Ecuador-sorry Julian- looks about to crumble. Honduras, Paraguay, Haiti, Brazil and Argentina have all been rescued from their own people. Things are beginning to look like the 80s again except that this time there are hardly any 'communists' left to kill. Military dictatorships are back, death squads are bigger than ever.

And, best of all, from the Bolton/Trump viewpoint, the dangers of running into Russian or Chinese backed resistance is negligible, the money to be made is infinite. One Continent from north pole to south, run by a mafia based in Washington.

Its what Making America Great Again means-a return to the Monroe Doctrine and letting up on the mad dream of global hegemony. There's plenty of poor suckers for everyone to exploit a billion or so.

There's only one caveat-Israel. Israel undoubtedly wants a war with Iran, just as it wants to smash up Syria (or get the US to do it for them) but I just can't see the many local interested parties allowing it. Perhaps moving the Embassy to Jerusalem and getting the Guatemalans, Hondurans and Solomon Islanders to do the same, is all that they are going to get from Trump- a gesture without meaning. A con from the grifter himself.

[Mar 24, 2018] John Bolton: The Angriest Neocon by Adam Zagorin

Nov 16, 2007 | content.time.com

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice may have become accustomed to taking flak from Democratic (and even some G.O.P.) legislators when she testifies on Capitol Hill, but some of the most ferocious criticism she has recently faced comes from an unlikely source: John Bolton, the fiery conservative who served under Rice as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. In his new memoir, Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad, Bolton -- known to be close to Vice President Dick Cheney -- outlines some of the internal foreign policy battles in the Administration of George W. Bush, and paints President Bush himself as betraying his own gut instinct.

Bolton's book covers his childhood as the son of a Baltimore fireman, his days at Yale Law School and his service in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. But it's the brickbats he reserves for Rice and fellow diplomats and civil servants in the current Administration that grab the most attention. First as Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and then as U.N. ambassador, Bolton emerges as an outspoken unilateralist and an opponent of treaties and international institutions ranging from the Kyoto climate convention to the International Court of Criminal Justice. And he has been a vocal opponent, both inside and outside the Administration, of negotiations with North Korea and Iran over their nuclear programs.

Bolton's outspoken policy views have long been familiar, but what's most interesting about his new book is the sheer enthusiasm with which he has adopted the mantle of the most vocal neoconservative critic of the Bush Administration's foreign policy, only months after resigning from the Bush team when the Senate for the second time refused to confirm his nomination to the U.N. post.

Bolton accuses the Administration of laxity in dealing with a nuclear-armed North Korea and an Iran intent on obtaining the bomb, not to mention its efforts to arrange a Middle East peace conference. But implicit in Bolton's bomb-throwing is a startling admission: that his never-ending battle against "pragmatists" and those less ideologically committed inside the most conservative administration in decades has been lost. In an interview with TIME, Bolton said: "Secretary Condoleezza Rice is the dominant voice on national security and there is no one running even a close second; her ascendancy is undisputed."

So where does that leave Bolton allies like Cheney and his hard-line advisers, and the few remaining neocons scattered through the national security bureaucracy? "You will never know what the VP's exact interaction with the President is," says Bolton, "But the VP is still closer to the President's basic instincts than anyone else." Bolton's explanation for the shift in White House policy: "The President may be distracted by the Iraq war or other events... but there's no doubt that the President has moved heartbreakingly away from his own deepest impulses on the three principal issues of controversy (North Korea, Iran and Middle East peace); what is happening now is contrary to his basic instincts."

On Iran, Bolton says former Secretary of State Colin Powell was too intent on mollifying U.S. allies like France, Britain and Germany. This caused Powell to offer Iran too many "carrots" -- trade and commercial inducements -- if Tehran would rein in its pursuit of atomic materials. To a large degree Rice, in Bolton's view, perpetuated this strategy even though, he believes, there is almost no chance that Iran will give up its nuclear ambitions. As a result, he says, the U.S. has wasted time on "four and half years of failed diplomacy" indulging Iran with unnecessarily accommodationist negotiations, a period Iran has used to advance its nuclear acquisitions and research.

On North Korea, Bolton cites (unconfirmed) reports of the Hermit Kingdom's collaboration with Syria on a secret nuclear facility as evidence that the denuclearization deal between the U.S. and North Korea is not working. Talks with North Korea continue, he notes, and the U.S. looks set to invite Syria to its Middle East peace conference later this month. Uncomfortable issues are not being raised, Bolton charges, for fear of disrupting negotiations that he sees as pointless to begin with.

So what are the prospects for a return to the muscular unilateralism that Bolton favors? "There's a possibility that events in the external world will validate our position and give the President a means to return to his gut," the former U.N. ambassador told TIME. "But until and unless external events prove that current policies are on the wrong track, there is no countervailing or obvious force inside this administration that is going to produce a course correction. "

[Mar 24, 2018] Bolton plans to fire dozens of White House officials

Notable quotes:
"... The Wall Street Journal ..."
Mar 24, 2018 | www.veteranstoday.com
John Bolton, US President Donald Trump's incoming hawkish national security adviser, is reportedly planning a massive dismissal of staff at the National Security Council, aiming to remove dozens of White House officials.

Sources aware of the changes told Foreign Policy that Bolton is preparing to "clean house" and remove nearly all of the political appointees brought in by his predecessor.

"Bolton can and will clean house," one former White House official told Foreign Policy. One other source said, "He is going to remove almost all the political [appointees] McMaster brought in."

Another former official said that any National Security Council officials appointed under former President Obama "should start packing their shit."

Trump and Bolton see eye to eye on their hawkish foreign policy, especially when it comes to North Korea and Iran, and are equally averse to multilateral diplomacy, whether that means the UN or working with the European Union.

A history of bellicosity

Bolton, an outspoken advocate of military action who served in the administration of former US president George W. Bush, has called for action against Iran and North Korea.

  • While serving under Secretary of State Colin Powell, Bolton was also both a cheerleader and early architect of the Iraq war.
  • In a February op-ed for The Wall Street Journal , Bolton made the "legal case for striking North Korea first" to stop what he deems an "imminent threat" from the nation's nuclear program.
  • Bolton is also strongly opposed to the Iran nuclear deal and has been obsessed for many years with going to war against the Islamic Republic.

"He is unabashed about this," said Mark Groombridge, a former top adviser to Bolton at the State Department and United Nations pointing to his views on preemptive warfare.

"He has no problems with the doctrine of preemption and feels the greatest threat that the United States faces is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction."

The Washington Post reports that at the White House, Bolton is likely to reinforce Trump's "America First" view of the world. Both Trump and Bolton share a long-standing animosity toward any treaties, international laws or alliances that limit America's freedom to act on the world stage.

[Mar 24, 2018] Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, who pressured intelligence officers to endorse his views of other rogue states, especially Syria and Cuba.

Notable quotes:
"... When the relevant analyst in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) refused to agree with Bolton's language, the undersecretary summoned the analyst and scolded him in a red-faced, finger-waving rage. ..."
"... The director of INR at the time, Carl Ford, told the congressional committee considering Bolton's nomination that he had never before seen such abuse of a subordinate ..."
Mar 24, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

outthere 24 March 2018 at 04:50 PM

Paul Pillar says:

> The most egregious recent instances of arm twisting arose in George W. Bush's administration but did not involve Iraq. The twister was Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, who pressured intelligence officers to endorse his views of other rogue states, especially Syria and Cuba. Bolton wrote his own public statements on the issues and then tried to get intelligence officers to endorse them.

According to what later came to light when Bolton was nominated to become ambassador to the United Nations, the biggest altercation involved Bolton's statements about Cuba's allegedly pursuing a biological weapons program. When the relevant analyst in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) refused to agree with Bolton's language, the undersecretary summoned the analyst and scolded him in a red-faced, finger-waving rage.

The director of INR at the time, Carl Ford, told the congressional committee considering Bolton's nomination that he had never before seen such abuse of a subordinate -- and this comment came from someone who described himself as a conservative Republican who supported the Bush administration's policies -- an orientation I can verify, having testified alongside him in later appearances on Capitol Hill.

> When Bolton's angry tirade failed to get the INR analyst to cave, the undersecretary demanded that the analyst be removed. Ford refused. Bolton attempted similar pressure on the national intelligence officer for Latin America, who also inconveniently did not endorse Bolton's views on Cuba. Bolton came across the river one day to our National Intelligence Council offices and demanded to the council's acting chairman that my Latin America colleague be removed.

http://lobelog.com/how-john-bolton-handles-diverse-viewpoints-and-expert-analysis/

[Mar 23, 2018] 'Trump lining up war cabinet' Bolton's elevation to NSC adviser fuels alarm

Notable quotes:
"... "With the appointments of Mike Pompeo and John Bolton, @realDonaldTrump is successfully lining up his war cabinet. Bolton played a key role in politicizing the intel that misled us into the Iraq War. We cannot let this extreme war hawk blunder us into another terrible conflict," ..."
"... "John Bolton supports proactively bombing Iran & striking North Korea with nuclear weapons first without provocation. Appointing him to be Nat Sec Advisor is a grave danger to the American people & a clear message from @realDonaldTrump that he is gearing up for military conflict," ..."
"... "If you're always wrong on security, you're the wrong person to be National Security Advisor," ..."
"... "drumbeats of war." ..."
"... "absolutely the wrong person to be national security advisor now," ..."
"... "John Bolton was part of the effort to mislead the US into the disastrous Iraq war and has supported military action against North Korea and Iran. He was too extreme to be confirmed as UN ambassador in 2005 and is absolutely the wrong person to be national security advisor now," ..."
"... "John Bolton is a dangerous radical. President Trump's decision to make Bolton his National Security Advisor is deeply disturbing," ..."
"... "John Bolton has spent his entire career pushing fringe conspiracy theories, espousing radical ideas about multilateralism, and undermining key alliances across the world." ..."
"... Like this story? Share it with a friend! ..."
Mar 23, 2018 | www.rt.com

Donald Trump's cabinet reshuffles have fueled concerns, not least after the latest appointment of hawkish John Bolton as national security adviser, just days after installing a former CIA chief as the new secretary of state. On Thursday afternoon Donald Trump decided to sack Gen. HR McMaster from his national security adviser post, replacing him with John Bolton. The former US envoy to the United Nations will assume office on April 9 – just days after Mike Pompeo is set to replace Rex Tillerson as the new secretary of state.

READ MORE: Trump replaces national security adviser McMaster with John Bolton

The newly formed doublet has caused shockwaves among the Democrats, who have alleged that Trump seems to be preparing for war. Democratic Senator from Massachusetts Ed Markey warned that Trump is creating a "war cabinet," warning of "grave danger" following Bolton's appointment.

John Bolton supports proactively bombing Iran and conducting a first strike on North Korea without provocation. Appointing him to be Nat Sec Advisor is a grave danger to the American people and a clear message from @realDonaldTrump that he is gearing up for military conflict.

-- Ed Markey (@SenMarkey) March 22, 2018

"With the appointments of Mike Pompeo and John Bolton, @realDonaldTrump is successfully lining up his war cabinet. Bolton played a key role in politicizing the intel that misled us into the Iraq War. We cannot let this extreme war hawk blunder us into another terrible conflict," he tweeted.

"John Bolton supports proactively bombing Iran & striking North Korea with nuclear weapons first without provocation. Appointing him to be Nat Sec Advisor is a grave danger to the American people & a clear message from @realDonaldTrump that he is gearing up for military conflict," Senator Markey added.

John Bolton:
Wanted war w Cuba, arguing wrongly that Cuba had WMD
Wanted war w Iraq, arguing – wrong again – that Iraq had WMD
Believes – wrongly – that Islamic law is taking over America

If you're always wrong on security, you're the wrong person to be National Security Advisor

-- Senator Jeff Merkley (@SenJeffMerkley) March 22, 2018

The choice of Bolton as the national security adviser has also been questioned by Senator Jeff Merkley from Oregon, who has pointed out many flaws with the new appointee's policies. "If you're always wrong on security, you're the wrong person to be National Security Advisor," Merkley tweeted.

This is dangerous news for the country and the world. John Bolton was easily one of the most extreme, pro-war members of the Bush Administration.

Imagine what havoc he could wreak whispering in Donald Trump's ear...I hear the drumbeats of war. https://t.co/A6ZIyORAM7

-- Rep. Barbara Lee (@RepBarbaraLee) March 22, 2018

Rep. Barbara Jean Lee of California's 13th congressional district was also disappointed by Trump's choice, claiming she is hearing the "drumbeats of war."

The President is surrounding himself with combative lawyers. He's replacing Tillerson and McMaster with Pompeo and Bolton.

It's almost like the President is preparing to go to war in the legal and foreign relations sense...

-- Bradley P. Moss (@BradMossEsq) March 22, 2018

Fears expressed by some Capitol Hill members and the public seem justified. The notoriously hawkish former United Nations ambassador was a chief architect of the George W. Bush administration's justification for the war in Iraq in 2003, that was based on false accusations that Baghdad possessed weapons of mass destruction.

This is one of the most dangerous developments I've seen in our foreign and nat'l security policy. Period. #Bolton #McMaster . https://t.co/aEl5aRn9fA

-- Steve Israel (@RepSteveIsrael) March 22, 2018

Trump's choice of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director Mike Pompeo as the new secretary of state also made many in Washington uneasy. Unlike his predecessor, Rex Tillerson, Pompeo seems better aligned with Trump's confrontational foreign policy, namely on the Iran nuclear deal, on North Korea, and on the shift of the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Besides politicians, the American public also expressed concern about the feasibility of a looming armed conflict.

John Bolton was part of the effort to mislead the US into the disastrous Iraq war and has supported military action against North Korea and Iran. He was too extreme to be confirmed as UN ambassador in 2005 and is absolutely the wrong person to be national security advisor now.

-- Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) March 22, 2018

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders called Bolton "absolutely the wrong person to be national security advisor now," recalling how he deceived the public about the Iraq war.

"John Bolton was part of the effort to mislead the US into the disastrous Iraq war and has supported military action against North Korea and Iran. He was too extreme to be confirmed as UN ambassador in 2005 and is absolutely the wrong person to be national security advisor now," Sanders tweeted.

"John Bolton is a dangerous radical. President Trump's decision to make Bolton his National Security Advisor is deeply disturbing," Congressman Brendan F. Boyle (PA-13) said in a written statement. "John Bolton has spent his entire career pushing fringe conspiracy theories, espousing radical ideas about multilateralism, and undermining key alliances across the world."

Like this story? Share it with a friend!

[Mar 23, 2018] So on the 15th anniversary of the Iraq debacle, a neocon who cheered it on is rewarded with a national security post where he can cue up the attack on Iran that was always the ultimate prize for Israel's US stooges?

Mar 22, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Jim Haygood , , March 22, 2018 at 7:31 pm

So on the 15th anniversary of the Iraq debacle, a neocon who cheered it on is rewarded with a national security post where he can cue up the attack on Iran that was always the ultimate prize for Israel's US stooges?

Guess we'll be out marching again, just like last time. Bolton's walrus mustache is the 21st century version of Adolph H's toothbrush mustache. Down with the Persian Untermenschen! /sarc

Carolinian , , March 22, 2018 at 8:50 pm

Of course while working for Cheney Bolton was pretty confident about getting Dubya to start a war with Iran and that didn't happen. Here's a backgrounder that suggests that Bolton is tight with both Adelson and the Mossad so one way of looking at this has Russia fading as a target and Iran falling under the bulls eye. Trump's recent friendly phone call with Putin was contrary to instructions from his NSC and therefore presumably McMaster.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-a-john-bolton-appointment-is-scarier-than-you-think-mcmaster-trump/

Looked at optimistically it could be out of the frying pan and into a smaller frying pan (for us if not for Iran but that remains to be seen).

Of course looked at pessimistically it's terrible news but if the public and Congress are afraid of Trump gratuitously starting a new war then perhaps they should take away his power to do so. Seems the Constitution did have something to say about that.

barrisj , , March 22, 2018 at 10:21 pm

Tol'ja so these miserable wretches simply cannot die resurrection a promise any time a misfit administration takes power all that audition time on FoxNews paid off Trump stripping the cable channels of right-wing bloviators "best people for the jawb", don't you know.

[Mar 23, 2018] The worst thing about the appointment of anti-Iran hawk John Bolton is that the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party 100% supports war with Iran.

Mar 23, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

fairleft | Mar 23, 2018 12:37:30 AM | 72

The worst thing about the appointment of anti-Iran hawk John Bolton is that the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party 100% supports war with Iran. In fact Hillary was attacking Trump from the war hawk right on this issue in 2016 (of course alienating key voters as she did so). So, just like in 2002 with Iraq, the two-party mainstream and all the mainstream media will be overwhelmed by pro-war voices, and the arguments in favor of peace and basic sanity will be ostracized. Note in the RT piece below that the only Democrats expressing real, concrete concern/revulsion are the usual, sheepdog leftie suspects.

'Trump lining up war cabinet'? Bolton's elevation to NSC adviser fuels alarm

https://www.rt.com/usa/422084-trump-bolton-war-cabinet-reaction/

[Mar 23, 2018] Say what you will about Bolton he is a shrewd political animal. Here it looks as though he is trying to appear sane and reasonable....perhaps even likeable.

Mar 23, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

dh , Mar 23, 2018 12:13:22 AM | 69

@66 Say what you will about Bolton he is a shrewd political animal. Here it looks as though he is trying to appear sane and reasonable....perhaps even likeable.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/john-bolton-fires-back-against-004800253.html

[Mar 23, 2018] MoA - John Bolton - The Man With A Hammer Is Looking For Nails

Notable quotes:
"... Kelly and, only later on Mattis will likely be the next to get fired. That will eliminate the last people with access to Trump who have some marginal sanity on war and peace issues. Trump will be completely isolated and easy to manipulate. ..."
"... Fortunately the media in the US has had it's credibility with just about everyone, including anti-Trump people, shredded and I don't think they'll be able to prepare people for a war like they did before the 2016 election, people are finally awake or have a sense of agency. ..."
"... If Mattis will be out at some point along with Kelly, thus destroying the tempering influence of these generals, who hated Iraq as much as Vietnam, the next question is how Trump's apparent judgment on Iraq as disastrous will play out with a Bolton crowd (Bolton one of the first signatories of PNAC in 1998) on what to do when the North Koreans say fuck you loudly and clearly. ..."
"... Trump has surrounded himself with real men who want to go to Tehran. Syria, not so much anymore. Besides, Ukraine 3.0 will be great until the Russians show up. The CIA's Dark Prince is already there. ..."
"... global oligarchy live in harmony while concocting massive Orwellian propaganda of great enemies that must be defeated at all cost, cost of your freedom and your purse. ..."
"... Face it b, Bolton is just a impotent loud barking dog to scare ordinary people for his temporary owner , a flaccid clown of global oligarchy. ..."
Mar 23, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

...He is also an exceptionally avid bureaucrat who knows how to get the things he wants done. That quality is what makes him truly dangerous. Bolton is known for sweet-talking to his superiors, being ruthless against competitors and for kicking down on everyone below him.

Soon Netanyahoo will have the cabinet in place in DC he always dreamed of. A hawkish Pompeo at State, a real torturer as head of the CIA and now Bolton are already sufficient to protect Israel's further expansion. Kelly and, only later on Mattis will likely be the next to get fired. That will eliminate the last people with access to Trump who have some marginal sanity on war and peace issues. Trump will be completely isolated and easy to manipulate.

Bolton has a hammer and he will find lots of nails. Like Hillary Clinton he will want to fight with Iran, North Korea, Russia, China and others in no particular order. He will want to destroy Syria. He is cozy with the Kurds and the Iranian terror cult MEK. He addressed (vid) their congress eight years in a row and made lots of money for saying things like this :

"[B]efore 2019, we here will celebrate in Tehran."

Bolton has little concern for U.S. allies except, maybe, for Israel.

His first priority will be to prevent the announced summit between Trump and Kim Jong-un. He will want more sanctions on North Korea and may argue for a 'preventive' strike against it. He does not care that such a strike will certainly kill tens of thousands of Koreans in the north and south and several thousand U.S. soldiers and civilians.

New sanctions on North Korea are problematic as Trump has just put additional tariffs on $60 billion of U.S. imports of Chinese goods. (The Chinese response is smart: Tariffs on U.S. agricultural goods from states that Trump won.) Why should China and Russia (and South Korea) help the U.S. to strangulate North Korea when they themselves are under fire? To prevent a U.S. strike that may come anyway the very next day?

The Europeans who were part of the nuclear agreement with Iran have to answer a similar question . Why offer Trump a 'compromise' over the JCPOA when the chances are now high that he will destroy it anyway?

What will Bolton do on Syria? Will he try to find a new agreement with Erdogan and drag Turkey away from endorsing Russia's polices in Syria? If he manages to do so, Syria's north will become a shared Turkish-U.S. entity and will be lost for a long time. New attacks on the Syrian government, from the north, south and east, where the U.S. re-trains ISIS into a new 'moderate rebel' army, would then open the next phase of the war.

So far the mean time of survival for Trump appointees is some six to eight months. Let us hope that John Bolton's appointment will - in the end - lower that average.

Posted by b on March 23, 2018 at 11:50 AM | Permalink

Comments

HnH , Mar 23, 2018 12:05:22 PM | 1

Trump wants war with Iran. The reasons are unknown to me, but the intention is very, very clear. The choices of Pompeo and Bolton confirm this.

If Trump gets this war, the short and medium term effects on world trade, and the oil trade in particular, will be absolutely devastating.

Iran will close the strait of Hormuz. The oil shipments will stop. Saudi Arabia may burn, Israel may get attacked. The US homeland may get attacked.

When the oil shipments stop, fuel shortages will occur, supermarkets will get empty, food prices will rocket.

God help us all.

harrylaw , Mar 23, 2018 12:10:50 PM | 2

Bomb Iran, is what Bolton advocated several years ago, this article 'The untold story of John Bolton's campaign for war with Iran' indicates he has not changed his mind http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-a-john-bolton-appointment-is-scarier-than-you-think-mcmaster-trump/
Altai , Mar 23, 2018 12:13:20 PM | 3
These appointments are weird. Ultimately Trump doesn't seem to have an appetite for large-scale war. What does seem like a dangerous possibility is if Bolton can et al can provoke a situation that traps Trump in his responses, maybe with a tight timeframe to respond and leads to a conflict starting that way.

Fortunately the media in the US has had it's credibility with just about everyone, including anti-Trump people, shredded and I don't think they'll be able to prepare people for a war like they did before the 2016 election, people are finally awake or have a sense of agency.

Ultimately it doesn't seem like Trump's election has changed much in terms of foreign policy among prospective successors. So it seems like eventually they will get their war with Iran during Trump's term or afterwards. It's utterly incredible how implacable the neo-cons are despite constant exposure over the last 15-20 years and with at least one President being elected on the basis of disgust with them. (Obama, could maybe include Trump too)

Tom Welsh , Mar 23, 2018 12:36:14 PM | 4
Kim Jong-un has no good reason for a "summit" with Trump. Indeed, there is no reason for him or his country to have anything to do with the USA or its catamites.

The best path for Korea is for North and South to plan reunification, as early as possible. They might as well retain the North's nuclear weapons, just in case anyone cuts up rough. If the Americans try to interfere, the nuclear weapons are there. Any American attempt to escalate, right on China's and Russia's front door, would meet with an extremely frigid response from them.

We must always remember that there was never any "North" or "South" Korea until President Truman's bureaucrats conjured them up out of thin air - apparently with the aid of a school atlas - to avoid the hideous tragedy of the whole of Korea "going communist". South Korea is an occupied nation, and should take immediate steps to kick the American occupiers out. By force if necessary.

Sid2 , Mar 23, 2018 12:38:17 PM | 5
Optimism on Bolton as relatively harmless in yesterday's thread is given an interesting perspective by this piece (from today), adding to b's pessimism above:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/bolton-and-the-north-korea-summit/

It seems the apparently contradictory move by Trump to appoint Bolton after getting rid of McMaster, who had a similar view to Bolton (North Korea had to be attacked because it is too late for diplomacy, their rocket programs too advanced), could be part of a scheme for a "big victory" effort by Trump who is, according to this view, amidst an artful deal-making moment of allowing faux-optimism re South-North Korean negotiations.

Bolton calls this "diplomatic shock and awe":

Bolton said Trump had short-circuited North Korea's plan of obtaining the capability to strike the United States with a nuclear weapon and then stretching out negotiations for months that could distract the American government before making an official announcement about achieving the capability. Bolton envisioned the meeting between Trump and Kim as an opportunity to deliver a threat of military action:

"I think this session between the two leaders could well be a fairly brief session where Trump says, 'Tell me you have begun total denuclearization, because we're not going to have protracted negotiations, you can tell me right now or we'll start thinking of something else.' "

Trump, who only a few weeks back condemned (again) the Iraq War as disastrous, may be thinking Bolton is just the man to nail down a quivering retreat of the North Koreans into denuclearizing or else, now that they've had a nice taste of how sweet it could be in talking with Moon and the South.

If Mattis will be out at some point along with Kelly, thus destroying the tempering influence of these generals, who hated Iraq as much as Vietnam, the next question is how Trump's apparent judgment on Iraq as disastrous will play out with a Bolton crowd (Bolton one of the first signatories of PNAC in 1998) on what to do when the North Koreans say fuck you loudly and clearly.

This analysis also points out how disturbed Asia is over this appointment, and indicates that despite his views McMaster had been working with South Korea on the problem, and now has been jerked. This sounds like what happened in Iraq also, jerking out people who were building relationships and replacing them with hardnose "bring 'em on" thinking from the brilliant leadership in that war.

p has surrounded himself with real men who want to go to Tehran. Syria, not so much anymore. Besides, Ukraine 3.0 will be great until the Russians show up. The CIA's Dark Prince is already there.

Posted by: Fec , Mar 23, 2018 12:38:24 PM | 6

Trump has surrounded himself with real men who want to go to Tehran. Syria, not so much anymore. Besides, Ukraine 3.0 will be great until the Russians show up. The CIA's Dark Prince is already there.

Posted by: Fec | Mar 23, 2018 12:38:24 PM | 6 /div

Kalen , Mar 23, 2018 12:54:25 PM | 8
I understand that Syrian situation can drive people insane but unfortunately it was and is interpreted wrongly as a preparation to nuke war, it is not. It is same old same old thing, it is just more exposed by internet.

US military is in shambles what they showed in Iraq and Syria last year is all they got, nothing more but a capability of a chicken hawk and D.C. is run by chicken hawks whose business is intimidation not war about which they have no idea and they know that US military can only take on shoeless peasants with dilapitated AK 47 and call it even like in Afghanistan which was utter defeat no one even here want to talk about.

Like Roman Empire before US emporium is an empty shell, and its myth is maintained by US INSTALLED ELITES to control their own populations.

Recent military posturing on all sides of a global country club dinner table is just nothing but bail out of MIC and its wall street backers .

Open your even globalization has been accomplished and global oligarchy live in harmony while concocting massive Orwellian propaganda of great enemies that must be defeated at all cost, cost of your freedom and your purse.

Face it b, Bolton is just a impotent loud barking dog to scare ordinary people for his temporary owner , a flaccid clown of global oligarchy.

Show must go on. 160 years after collapse of Roman Empire Roman circuses and theater continued like Nothing happened.

We are watching such a circus.

Sid2 , Mar 23, 2018 1:03:51 PM | 9
@7 James:

I see this confusing sentence--

"Bolton said Trump had short-circuited North Korea's plan of obtaining the capability to strike the United States with a nuclear weapon and then stretching out negotiations for months that could distract the American government before making an official announcement about achieving the capability."

--as, Bolton believes the North Koreans are playing around with negotiations only to delay toward capability, that Trump knows this, and all of it's a game toward resurrection of the hostilities.

This attitude suggests a foregone conclusion that the Trump-Kim meeting will fail, which could set up the next step at (from Bolton): "You see, it's hopeless, we just have to attack and take out this country, as we did with Iraq and are trying to do with Syria."


Charles Misfeldt , Mar 23, 2018 1:08:52 PM | 10
Israel has the Epstein tapes which show Trump having sex with underage girls, Saudi Arabia has billions of dollars to bribe Trump with arms deals, both of these immoral nations want Iran eliminated as an threat to their agendas. Israel and Saudi Arabia demand that Trump try and neutralize Iran before Trump is removed from office which will happen before his first term is up if this nation has any sense of self preservation. Trump is replacing those opposed to a war against Iran with those who support it. Trump is seriously compromised by foreign agendas.
Harry , Mar 23, 2018 1:09:52 PM | 11
My two cents:

1. Iran nuclear deal is dead, EU poodles will fall in line (but not entirely) with sanctions against Iran. I'm curious how Iran will respond, IMHO will restart all centrifuges and raise enrichment level? I still think its unlikely Iran would go for the nukes as ultimate deterrent.

2. US will be more involved in Syria. We can most definitely expect more false flag CW attacks and "retaliation" missiles. The big question mark if Russia will live up to its promise to retaliate on launch sites or US planes.

3. There will be no overt war against Iran, Pompeo/Bolton or not, US simply cannot win it. Covert - most definitely. More sabotage, assassinations, sanctions, etc.

It will be hard to do Libya 3.0 as well, but USrael might try anyway. Arm kurds and baluchis radicals, activate MEK network, it wont be anywhere as bad as in Syria, but some damage would be done. Thats the most what they can do.

Hoarsewhisperer , Mar 23, 2018 1:19:40 PM | 12
Bolton is a fruitcake. Imo Trump only hired him to expose his nuttiness and fire him. When he does, the World will breathe a sigh of relief and Trump's popularity will improve.
Bolton's Achilles Heel is that he doesn't do low-profile and talks too much.
james , Mar 23, 2018 1:25:51 PM | 13
@9 sid.. thanks.. i get that... i am more inclined to view bolton like @8 kalen.. it really does seem that way to me and if so, suggests trump is still in control and happy to have these bozos talk the talk, while knowing they are not able to walk the walk.. trump would throw a real monkey wrench in the spanner if he was to engage in the talks and come away with a positive resolution.. it would be a a nightmare for the military industrial complex and neo cons.. i still think he is capable of this...

@11 harry.. i hope you are wrong, but it is completely conceivable and tends to be the usa/israels pattern when confronted with a loss..

Fec , Mar 23, 2018 1:28:22 PM | 14
@ 12 When you're powerless, give the opposition what they want and hope they choke on it. Trump is being underestimated. Dunford, Mattis, Pompeo and Kelly lined up
behind Trump against Tillerson and the White Helmets in Ghouta.
Mike Maloney , Mar 23, 2018 1:48:20 PM | 15
Let's not forget about Venezuela. Story from McClatchy's D.C. bureau says Bolton considers Venezuela low-hanging fruit ripe for the plucking.
Emily , Mar 23, 2018 2:12:09 PM | 16
Bolton was named as one of Trump's very earliest supporters.
Right at the beginning.
Sounding alarm bells for many.
A few links to refresh some memories.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/john-bolton-state-trump-232573
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/international/310197-giving-bolton-place-at-state-would-undermine-trumps-own
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-john-bolton-isnt-part-of-the-trump-administration/
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/29/politics/bolton-iran-deal-cancel/
DonFromWyoming , Mar 23, 2018 2:12:53 PM | 17
"libertarian hawk" is an oxymoron, kind of like saying "a peace-loving bomb-thrower".
Pnyx , Mar 23, 2018 2:21:12 PM | 18
"Trump will be completely isolated and easy to manipulate."
This is nonsense. And you know it B. But you still fancy your idea about a non-interventionistic Trump, and now, by the time this belief is definitely shattered, you try a reasoning dangerously near to 'wenn das der Führer wüsste'.
Sid2 , Mar 23, 2018 2:35:10 PM | 19
thanks to b for this excellent link and extensive discussion of Mattis:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/03/23/james-mattis-defense-secretary-how-to-succeed-in-trump-cabinet-without-getting-fired-217699

This discussion suggests why Mattis has been successful with a naïve blowhard president, including the following interesting comment:

John Bolton's arrival in April as the president's new national security adviser will give Mattis a more ardent and skillful adversary at the National Security Council. Mattis outranked McMaster in military terms and always considered him his junior, even though Mattis is retired. He likely won't view Bolton that way, and Bolton prizes his ability to corral the bureaucracy for his purposes.

We're looking at an upcoming contest Mattis vs. Bolton on such matters as wars with Iran, North Korea, and whoever.

Glad to see all the optimism here on how harmless Bolton is but would like a little more substance versus the automatic dismissals.

Jef , Mar 23, 2018 2:39:05 PM | 20
I don't see the financial thread in all of this and I seriously believe that is #1 on Trumps mind. He would love for his legacy to be the POTUS that turned around the global economic collapse and opened the door big business everywhere.

That is his history wrt foreign relations and he could care less for the "blow shit up" mentality. Not saying that he can't be talked into it, just saying he would prefer the headline "Trump opens up the world for more US business". I honestly think that he believes that a trade war (business by other means) leads to US becoming a Mfg powerhouse again. Those around him might convince him that blowing shit up will have the same outcome.

Banking/finance learned a long time ago that you are better off keeping your customers around to continue borrowing than imprisoning or kill them off. The world is a market place and Trump wants to "make deals-not war" as long as America gets the better part of the deal.

Only other thing that makes since is what CM @ 10 proposes, that Trump is compromised.

bevin , Mar 23, 2018 2:39:59 PM | 21
Kalen @8 you must have followed the Bolton divorce case.
Iran doesn't need nuclear weapons it just needs a treaty with Russia and China. It might be of assistance to the dimwitted in Washington if the treaty specifically stated that Iran is under a nuclear umbrella.
We ought to acknowledge that, as the camarilla of generals surrounding Trump turns into a junta of bullshitters and blowhards, the dictatorship in DC has never been anything more than an alliance between billionaires, bullshitters and the American Gestapo.
jayc , Mar 23, 2018 2:41:38 PM | 22
Bolton's presence will accelerate Europe's move away from the U.S. This is probably inevitable now.
dh , Mar 23, 2018 3:02:14 PM | 23
@20 Trump may be all about deals but he's having a terrible effect on the stock markets. If a trade war with China wasn't bad enough now they have Bolton to worry about.
Jose Garcia , Mar 23, 2018 3:17:23 PM | 24
What you mean about Bolt-man is he'll be safe in his office, while YOUR father, mother, son, uncle, brother, sister or other family member dies for HIS idea of how the world should be. "We will fight fight "till the last drop of.....your blood!" The "inside the Beltway" gangsters sicken me.
TJ , Mar 23, 2018 3:19:34 PM | 25
Bolton is not a libertarian, libertarians believe in the "non-aggression principle" -

https://www.theadvocates.org/2016/10/aggression/

Please correct this.

Augustin L , Mar 23, 2018 3:20:38 PM | 26
@ 10 Charles,
In New-York Trump's been known as The FRONT GOY even before the Atlantic city heist. Without Kompromat tapes they can bury him six million different ways before sunday...
Charles Michael , Mar 23, 2018 3:37:29 PM | 27
Pat lang SST was horrified by the prospect of Bolton nomination: Not Bolton! not him !

Yesterday Alastair Crooke published on Strategi Culture:
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/03/22/is-north-korea-deal-stalking-horse-trump-mid-east-makeover.html

A day before Bolton got the job, still a very interesting read as usual, up to the end, because Nothing can go wrigth in DC those days, in fact nothing can be done.

Peter AU 1 , Mar 23, 2018 3:51:55 PM | 28
The Trump meeting with KJU, if it comes off, will give an indication of where Trump is headed. Much showtime shock and awe and hyperbole leading up to his suddenly agreeing to the meeting which caught all the US political animals on both sides of the fence by surprise.
Haley constantly yapping like an annoying little dog has achieved what? Haley seems be just another prop in the shock and awe show.
At the same time, Trump could miscalculate and stumble into major war, or he may be actually planning a war. Always room for both pessimism and optimism with Trump, depending on the day.
Laguerre , Mar 23, 2018 4:02:08 PM | 29
I rather agree with Kalen. Trump is genuinely a blowhard - loud mouth and little action.

Bolton is an unpleasant warmonger, though he didn't get much through before. He was never confirmed by the Senate as ambassador to the UN. Since then he's had various sidelined positions as thinktank fellow.

My impression of Trump is that he is too lazy to get the US into a major war. A major war would be a lot of work, and, whatever the advice from the help, I don't think he'd go for it. Especially he wouldn't like months or years in a nuclear bunker. He couldn't dandle young thighs at Mar-a-Lago. That would be a major argument.

An important issue with Trump is that he is unable to keep staff. He must be running out of potential candidates. That's why Bolton.

Don Bacon , Mar 23, 2018 4:24:18 PM | 30
re: "libertarian hawk" is an oxymoron . .Bolton is not a libertarian

Libertarianism (from Latin: libertas, meaning "freedom") is a collection of political philosophies and movements that uphold liberty as a core principle. There are various interpretations of what libertarianism means to various people, such as the freedom to do as one pleases.
Bolton is a libertarian in a national sense. His liberty is national liberty. He is anti-globalist and unilateralist, believing that the country's values should never be superseded by international agreements and treaties. This thinking coincides with Trump's position declared during the campaign. "We will no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of globalism," Trump said in his defining foreign policy speech as a candidate in the spring of 2016. "The nation-state remains the true foundation for happiness and harmony. I am skeptical of international unions that tie us up and bring America down."
Following from this concept of national libertarianism, Bolton goes further to the ready and unilateral use of armed force to advance foreign policy, without bilateral or multilateral agreement. He's a hawk, but that's not unusual for Americans in government.

Lester , Mar 23, 2018 4:37:44 PM | 31
The planet isn't going to survive much longer with Americans and the Tribe infesting it. Fumigation is in order. Pack the Americans and the antisemite semites into an ICBM and send them flying into the heart of the sun. A solution as good as any other.
Sid2 , Mar 23, 2018 4:39:20 PM | 32
@ 27 and 20: thanks Charles re link to the Alastair Crooke article which reflects Jef's earlier comment: that is, Trump would likely say: me for war? hell no I'm a peace lover but I'll drive the good bargain including war threat as needed in my "art of making a deal"(hence tools to this end such as Pompeo and Bolton). Crooke makes a good point that Tillerson was too much a conventional diplomat; Trump likes tough, unpredictable guys like Mattis to model himself after.

But all this is in the fundamentals of the same megalomaniacal type thinking that drove/drives PNAC and smart-ass know-it-all-ism of the Iraq Invasion and continuation of this mindset (see Bremer) after "mission accomplished."

This mind-set at base is the problem. I call it megalomania, others might call it hubris on steroids, or daydreams of the psychopath. For me it's difficult to pull Trump out of this mindset, because he's essentially the same. At the same time HIS version of it clashes with State Department Egomania--possibly toward doing some good at times (as with changing the course of US action in Syria last year; as with low-key response to the Skripal nonsense at this time) but nonetheless presenting the possibility of a new set of tripwires a la invasion of Iraq 2003, in terms of North Korea-Iraq.

It seems apparent at this time that Trump is clueless that for North Korea to denuclearize that would mean a quid pro quo of US forces leaving South Korea--which will never be acceptable to the neocons or Trump.

Jason , Mar 23, 2018 5:18:16 PM | 33
I wonder if there are people in the military thinking about resigning before WW3? There is isn't even a believable narrative put forward in bombing Damascus nor Tehran except for murder, destruction and conquest, there is literally zero self defensive aspect. I wonder how special forces troops in Syria who are about to attack the Syrian army and Syrian people on the side if HTS, Al Qaeda, IS, Nouri al Zinki, FSA feel about their mission; many must know they are basically committing treason.
Lester , Mar 23, 2018 5:31:07 PM | 34
"Murder, destruction and conquest". That's as American as apple pie. Why would Americans be committing treason doing the Tribe's work?
worldblee , Mar 23, 2018 5:39:20 PM | 35
Bolton may or may not be a blowhard but the malignant idiocy that billows forth from his mouth is frightening in its combination of willful ignorance and unrestrained rage. He is the new National Insecurity Advisor--that would be his more accurate title.
Blessed Economist , Mar 23, 2018 5:43:29 PM | 36
How long will he last. There cannot be many rooms in the Whitehouse big enough to hold the ego of Trump and the ego of Bolton at the same time.
bevin , Mar 23, 2018 5:43:59 PM | 37
From Off Guardian:
"...as of today, it appears that long battle for Jobar and its neighboring suburbs is finally over after an agreement was put in place with the primary militant groups there.

"According to a military report from Damascus, the Syrian Army and Faylaq Al-Rahman have agreed to peace terms in four East Ghouta suburbs, with the latter agreeing to leave to Idlib.

"Based on the agreement, Faylaq Al-Rahman will surrender all of their weapons, except for their small arms; they will release all Syrian Army prisoners from their jails; they will inform the government of all explosives they placed around the suburbs of Zamalka, Jobar, 'Ayn Tarma, and Arbin; and agree to exit these suburbs on Saturday.

"The militants are now scheduled to leave these four East Ghouta suburbs by noon tomorrow..."

ashley albanese , Mar 23, 2018 5:46:05 PM | 38
Bhadrakumar writes bigger ' war in Syria is imminent ' .
Laguerre , Mar 23, 2018 6:16:30 PM | 39
It is evident that US policy in Syria is failing. The original plan was to divide Syria into weak independent cantons, much as the French wanted in the 1920s. The French didn't succeed. It would be surprising of the US did.

The only parts which remain, are the jihadis in Idlib, and the Kurds in Jazira. Two elements which are opposed to one another.

Supposing that the US wants to revive the war in Syria, as the Neocons do, what are they going to do? Decapitation of the regime in Damascus was a way of getting the Jihadis into power (you have to wonder about US support for jihadis). Unfortunately, the Russians put troops into Damascus a few weeks ago to prevent that. Otherwise it's a bit of a nothing. The Kurds can stay in Jazira, Nobody's going to stop them.

Du , Mar 23, 2018 6:39:55 PM | 40
Great analysis - as usual. The thing missing is that this guy is a rabid zionist and the White House is now a governorate of the AN orthodox American province of Israel.

[Mar 23, 2018] Hawks Resurgent in Washington by Philip Girald

Notable quotes:
"... Reprinted with permission from Strategic Culture Foundation ..."
Mar 22, 2018 | ronpaulinstitute.org

One of the most discouraging aspects of the musical chairs being played among the members of the White House inner circle is that every change reflects an inexorable move to the right in foreign policy, which means that the interventionists are back without anyone at the White House level remaining to say "no." President Donald Trump, for all his international experience as a businessman, is a novice at the step-by-step process required in diplomacy and in the development of a coherent foreign policy, so he is inevitably being directed by individuals who have long American global leadership by force if necessary.

The resurgence of the hawks is facilitated by Donald Trump's own inclinations. He likes to see himself as a man of action and a leader, which inclines him to be impulsive, some might even say reckless. He is convinced that he can enter into negotiations with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un with virtually no preparations and make a deal that will somehow end the crisis over that nation's nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs, for example. In so doing, he is being encouraged by his National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster and his Pentagon chief James Mattis, who believe that the United States can somehow prevail in a preemptive war with the Koreans if that should become necessary. The enormous collateral damage to South Korea and even Japan is something that Washington planners somehow seem to miss in their calculations.

The recent shifts in the cabinet have Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State. A leading hawk, he was first in his class of 1986 at the United States Military Academy but found himself as a junior officer with no real war to fight. He spent six years in uniform before resigning, never having seen combat, making war an abstraction for him. He went to Harvard Law and then into politics where he became a Tea Party congressman, eventually becoming a leader of that caucus when it stopped being Libertarian and lurched rightwards. He has since marketed himself as a fearless soldier in the war against terrorism and rogue states, in which category he includes both Iran and Russia.

Pompeo was not popular at the CIA because he enforced a uniformity of thinking that was anathema for intelligence professionals dedicated to collecting solid information and using it to produce sound analysis of developments worldwide. Pompeo, an ardent supporter of Israel and one of the government's leading Iran haters, has been regularly threatening Iran while at the Agency and will no doubt find plenty of support at State from Assistant Secretary of State for the Near East David Satterfield, a former top adviser of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Pompeo has proven himself more than willing to manipulate intelligence produce the result he desires. Last year, he declassified and then cherry picked documents recovered from Osama bin Laden's compound in Pakistan that suggested that al-Qaeda had ties with Iran. The move was coordinated with simultaneous White House steps to prepare Congress and the public for a withdrawal from the Iran nuclear arms agreement. The documents were initially released to a journal produced by the neocon Foundation for Defense of Democracies, where Pompeo has a number of times spoken, to guarantee wide exposure in all the right places.

Pompeo's arrival might only be the first of several other high-level moves by the White House. Like the rumors that preceded the firing of Secretary of State Tillerson two weeks ago, there have been recurrent suggestions that McMaster will be the next to go as he reportedly is too moderate for the president and has also been accused of being anti-Israeli , the kiss of death in Washington. Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton has been a frequent visitor at the White House and it is believed that he is the preferred candidate to fill the position. He is an extreme hawk, closely tied to the Israel Lobby, who would push hard for war against Iran and also for a hardline position in Syria, one that could lead to direct confrontation with the Syrian Armed Forces and possibly the Russians.

Bolton, who has been described by a former George W. Bush official as "the most dangerous man we had during the entire eight years," will undoubtedly have a problem in getting confirmed by Congress. He was rejected as U.N. Ambassador, requiring Bush to make a recess appointment which did not need Congressional approval.

Reprinted with permission from Strategic Culture Foundation

[Mar 23, 2018] John Bolton's Incompetence May Be More Dangerous Than His Ideology by Heather Hurlburt

Notable quotes:
"... President Trump was said to complain that Tillerson disagreed with him and McMaster talked too much. Bolton seems likely to combine both of those traits in one pugnacious, mustachioed package. ..."
"... Bolton may find that in this job, he's the midlevel munchkin. Remember, the national security adviser is supposed to be the coordinator, conciliator, and honest broker among Cabinet officials, managing a process by which all get a fair say and the president makes well-informed decisions. Outgoing National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster reportedly lost favor with Defense Secretary Mattis and Chief of Staff John Kelly for failing to defer to them, and for being too emotional . ..."
Mar 23, 2018 | nymag.com

John Bolton has been one of liberals' top bogeymen on national security for more than a decade now. He seems to relish the role, going out of his way to argue that the Iraq War wasn't really a failure, calling for U.S.-led regime change in Iran and preventive war against North Korea, and writing the foreword for a book that proclaimed President Obama to be a secret Muslim. He is a profoundly partisan creature, having started a super-PAC whose largest donor was leading Trump benefactor Rebekah Mercer and whose provider of analytics was Cambridge Analytica, the firm alleged to have improperly used Facebook data to make voter profiles, which it sold to the Trump and Brexit campaigns, among others.

Recently Bolton's statements have grown more extreme, alarming centrist and conservative national security professionals along with his longtime liberal foes. He seemed to say that the United States could attack North Korea without the agreement of our South Korean allies, who would face the highest risk of retaliation and casualties; just two months ago he called for a regime change effort in Iran that would allow the U.S. to open a new embassy there by 2019, the 40th anniversary of the Iranian Revolution and the taking of Americans hostage in Tehran. His hostility toward Islam points toward a set of extreme policies that could easily have the effect of abridging American Muslims' rights at home and alienating America's Muslim allies abroad.

As worrying as these policies are, it's worth taking a step back and thinking not about Bolton, but about his new boss, Donald Trump. Trump reportedly considered Bolton for a Cabinet post early on, but then soured on him, finding his mustache unprofessional. His choice of Bolton to lead the National Security Council reinforces several trends: right now, this administration is all about making Trump's opponents uncomfortable and angry. Internal coherence and policy effectiveness are not a primary or even secondary consideration. And anyone would be a fool to imagine that, because Bolton pleases Trump today, he will continue to do so tomorrow.

Yes, Bolton has taken strong stances against the policies of Russian President Vladimir Putin (though he has also been quoted praising Russian "democracy" as recently as 2013). That's nothing new: Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, incoming Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and outgoing National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster have called for greater pushback on Russia as well. But there's every reason to think that, rather than a well-oiled war machine, what we'll get from Bolton's National Security Council is scheming and discord – which could be even more dangerous.

President Trump was said to complain that Tillerson disagreed with him and McMaster talked too much. Bolton seems likely to combine both of those traits in one pugnacious, mustachioed package. Their disagreements are real – Bolton has famously pooh-poohed the kind of summit diplomacy with North Korea that Trump is now committed to. While Trump famously backed away from his support for the 2002 invasion of Iraq, courting the GOP isolationist base, Bolton continues to argue that the invasion worked, and seldom hears of a war he would not participate in. Trump attempted to block transgender people from serving in the military, but Bolton has declined to take part in the right's LGBT-bashing, famously hiring gay staff and calling for the end of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

That's all substance. What really seems likely to take Bolton down is his style, which is legendary – and not in a good way. His colleagues from the George W. Bush administration responded to Trump's announcement with comments like "the obvious question is whether John Bolton has the temperament and the judgment for the job" – not exactly a ringing endorsement. One former co-worker described Bolton as a "kiss up, kick down kind of guy," and he was notorious in past administrations for conniving and sneaking around officials who disagreed with him, both traits that Trump seems likely to enjoy until he doesn't. This is a man who can't refrain from telling Tucker Carlson that his analysis is "simpleminded" – while he's a guest on Carlson's show. Turns out it's not true that he threw a stapler at a contractor – it was a tape dispenser. When Bolton was caught attempting to cook intelligence to suggest that Cuba had a biological weapons program, he bullied the analyst who had dared push back, calling him a " midlevel munchkin ." How long until Trump tires of the drama – or of being eclipsed?

Bolton may find that in this job, he's the midlevel munchkin. Remember, the national security adviser is supposed to be the coordinator, conciliator, and honest broker among Cabinet officials, managing a process by which all get a fair say and the president makes well-informed decisions. Outgoing National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster reportedly lost favor with Defense Secretary Mattis and Chief of Staff John Kelly for failing to defer to them, and for being too emotional .

Love Bolton or hate him, no one imagines he will be a self-effacing figure, and no one hires him to run a no-drama process. It's also hard to imagine that many of the high-quality professionals McMaster brought into the National Security Council staff will choose to stay. McMaster repeatedly had to fight for his team within the Trump administration, but Bolton seems unlikely to follow that pattern, or to inspire the kind of loyalty that drew well-regarded policy wonks to work for McMaster, regardless their views of Trump.

So even if you like the policies Bolton espouses, it's hard to imagine a smooth process implementing them. That seems likely to leave us with Muslim ban-level incompetence, extreme bellicosity, and several very loud, competing voices – with Twitter feeds – on the most sensitive issues of war and weapons of mass destruction.

[Mar 22, 2018] Bad news: Trump just picked John Bolton to be the new National Security Advisor.

Mar 22, 2018 | www.unz.com

Seamus Padraig , Next New Comment March 22, 2018 at 11:17 pm GMT

OT, but related.

Bad news: Trump just picked John Bolton to be the new National Security Advisor.

https://www.rt.com/usa/422081-trump-security-adviser-mcmaster-bolton/?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=push_notifications&utm_campaign=push_notifications

[Mar 22, 2018] McMaster to Resign as National Security Adviser, and Will Be Replaced by John Bolton - The New York Times

Mar 22, 2018 | www.nytimes.com

WASHINGTON -- Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, the battle-tested Army officer tapped as President Trump's national security adviser last year to stabilize a turbulent foreign policy operation, will resign and be replaced by John R. Bolton, a hard-line former United States ambassador to the United Nations, White House officials said Thursday.

General McMaster will retire from the military, the officials said. He has been discussing his departure with President Trump for several weeks, they said, but decided to speed up his departure, in part because questions about his status were casting a shadow over his conversations with foreign officials.

The officials also said that Mr. Trump wanted to fill out his national security team before his meeting with North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un. He replaced Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson with the C.I.A. director, Mike Pompeo, last week.

Officials emphasized that General McMaster's departure was a mutual decision and amicable, with none of the recrimination that marked Mr. Tillerson's exit. They said it was not related to a leak on Tuesday of briefing materials for Mr. Trump's phone call with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.

In the materials, Mr. Trump was advised not to congratulate Mr. Putin on his re-election, which the president went ahead and did during the call.

Advertisement Continue reading the main story

Mr. Bolton, who will take office April 9, has met regularly with Mr. Trump to discuss foreign policy, and was on a list of candidates for national security adviser. He was in the West Wing with Mr. Trump to discuss the job on Thursday.

[Mar 22, 2018] The Untold Story of John Bolton's Campaign for War With Iran by Gareth Porter

Another chickenhawk in Trump administration. Sad...
Notable quotes:
"... Bolton's high-profile advocacy of war with Iran is well known. What is not at all well known is that, when he was under secretary of state for arms control and international security, he executed a complex and devious strategy aimed at creating the justification for a U.S. attack on Iran. Bolton sought to convict the Islamic Republic in the court of international public opinion of having a covert nuclear weapons program using a combination of diplomatic pressure, crude propaganda, and fabricated evidence. ..."
"... Despite the fact that Bolton was technically under the supervision of Secretary of State Colin Powell, his actual boss in devising and carrying out that strategy was Vice President Dick Cheney. Bolton was also the administration's main point of contact with the Israeli government, and with Cheney's backing, he was able to flout normal State Department rules by taking a series of trips to Israel in 2003 and 2004 without having the required clearance from the State Department's Bureau for Near Eastern Affairs. ..."
"... During multiple trips to Israel, Bolton had unannounced meetings, including with the head of Mossad, Meir Dagan, without the usual reporting cable to the secretary of state and other relevant offices. Judging from that report on an early Bolton visit, those meetings clearly dealt with a joint strategy on how to bring about political conditions for an eventual U.S. strike against Iran. ..."
"... Unfortunately, John Bolton is not just your typical neocon pathological liar and warmonger. Even by their abysmal standards he's pretty unhinged. He is one of the most dangerous people around these days. ..."
"... Bolton, Gen. Jack Keane, Lt. Col. Ralph Peters and the whole warmongering crowd that frequent the air waves at FOX will not rest until they have us at war with Iran and Russia. ..."
"... So Trump is thinking of hiring a loudmouthed incompetent who is a known conduit for botched Israeli spy service forgeries used to gin up war with Iran. What a sick farce. ..."
"... Bolton is a cancer for the US. As a warmonger, he thrives in hostile environnements so no wonder Bolton wants to create them with no regards for consequences. ..."
"... I doubt anyone will be surprised to learn that Bolton was duped by Israeli forgers (very droll story, by the way). You'd think that no serious person would consider giving him a National Security Council post, particularly given the current level of concern about "foreign meddling". ..."
"... I do not agree that Iran could prevent a conventional bombing/invasion of their country. But they could make it sooo expensive, the dollar ceases to be the world reserve currency, and if they do that, they will have done mankind a favor. ..."
"... But after the conquest, imagine the guerrilla war! The US basically had to fight an insurgency from amongst 5 million Sunni Arabs in Iraq. Iran is much more ethnically homogeneous. So even if you get some minorities to turncoat and work for the occupiers, you are still left with about 60 million ethnically Persian Shiites. That is a 12 times larger insurgency than what you had in Iraq. ..."
"... Bolton and Cheney must have been livid about Stuxnet, for all the wrong reasons ..."
"... Hiring a ghoul like Bolton will mark a new low even for the Trump administration. And that's saying something. These chickenhawk bastards should all be required to fight on the front lines of the wars they push. That was true, I'll guarantee you Bolton would shut up in a hurry. ..."
"... Gareth Porter is an investigative reporter and regular contributor to ..."
"... . He is also the author of ..."
"... Follow him on Twitter @GarethPorter . ..."
Mar 22, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Everyone knows Bolton is a hawk. Less understood is how he labored in secret to drive Washington and Tehran apart. By Gareth Porter • March 22, 2018

John Bolton (Gage Skidmore/Flikr) In my reporting on U.S.-Israeli policy, I have tracked numerous episodes in which the United States and/or Israel made moves that seemed to indicate preparations for war against Iran. Each time -- in 2007 , in 2008, and again in 2011 -- those moves, presented in corporate media as presaging attacks on Tehran, were actually bluffs aimed at putting pressure on the Iranian government.

But the strong likelihood that Donald Trump will now choose John Bolton as his next national security advisor creates a prospect of war with Iran that is very real. Bolton is no ordinary neoconservative hawk. He has been obsessed for many years with going to war against the Islamic Republic, calling repeatedly for bombing Iran in his regular appearances on Fox News, without the slightest indication that he understands the consequences of such a policy.

His is not merely a rhetorical stance: Bolton actively conspired during his tenure as the Bush administration's policymaker on Iran from 2002 through 2004 to establish the political conditions necessary for the administration to carry out military action.

More than anyone else inside or outside the Trump administration, Bolton has already influenced Trump to tear up the Iran nuclear deal. Bolton parlayed his connection with the primary financier behind both Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump himself -- the militantly Zionist casino magnate Sheldon Adelson -- to get Trump's ear last October, just as the president was preparing to announce his policy on the Iran nuclear agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). He spoke with Trump by phone from Las Vegas after meeting with Adelson .

It was Bolton who persuaded Trump to commit to specific language pledging to pull out of the JCPOA if Congress and America's European allies did not go along with demands for major changes that were clearly calculated to ensure the deal would fall apart.

Although Bolton was passed over for the job of secretary of state, he now appears to have had the inside track for national security advisor. Trump met with Bolton on March 6 and told him, "We need you here, John," according to a Bolton associate. Bolton said he would only take secretary of state or national security advisor, whereupon Trump promised, "I'll call you really soon." Trump then replaced Secretary of State Rex Tillerson with former CIA director Mike Pompeo, after which White House sources leaked to the media Trump's intention to replace H.R. McMaster within a matter of weeks.

The only other possible candidate for the position mentioned in media accounts is Keith Kellogg, a retired lieutenant general who was acting national security advisor after General Michael Flynn was ousted in February 2017.

Bolton's high-profile advocacy of war with Iran is well known. What is not at all well known is that, when he was under secretary of state for arms control and international security, he executed a complex and devious strategy aimed at creating the justification for a U.S. attack on Iran. Bolton sought to convict the Islamic Republic in the court of international public opinion of having a covert nuclear weapons program using a combination of diplomatic pressure, crude propaganda, and fabricated evidence.

Despite the fact that Bolton was technically under the supervision of Secretary of State Colin Powell, his actual boss in devising and carrying out that strategy was Vice President Dick Cheney. Bolton was also the administration's main point of contact with the Israeli government, and with Cheney's backing, he was able to flout normal State Department rules by taking a series of trips to Israel in 2003 and 2004 without having the required clearance from the State Department's Bureau for Near Eastern Affairs.

Thus, at the very moment that Powell was saying administration policy was not to attack Iran, Bolton was working with the Israelis to lay the groundwork for just such a war. During a February 2003 visit, Bolton assured Israeli officials in private meetings that he had no doubt the United States would attack Iraq, and that after taking down Saddam, it would deal with Iran, too, as well as Syria.

During multiple trips to Israel, Bolton had unannounced meetings, including with the head of Mossad, Meir Dagan, without the usual reporting cable to the secretary of state and other relevant offices. Judging from that report on an early Bolton visit, those meetings clearly dealt with a joint strategy on how to bring about political conditions for an eventual U.S. strike against Iran.

Mossad played a very aggressive role in influencing world opinion on the Iranian nuclear program. In the summer of 2003, according to journalists Douglas Frantz and Catherine Collins in their book The Nuclear Jihadist , Meir Dagan created a new Mossad office tasked with briefing the world's press on alleged Iranian efforts to achieve a nuclear weapons capability. The new unit's responsibilities included circulating documents from inside Iran as well from outside, according to Frantz and Collins.

Bolton's role in a joint U.S.-Israeli strategy, as he outlines in his own 2007 memoir , was to ensure that the Iran nuclear issue would be moved out of the International Atomic Energy Agency and into the United Nations Security Council. He was determined to prevent IAEA director general Mohamed ElBaradei from reaching an agreement with Iran that would make it more difficult for the Bush administration to demonize Tehran as posing a nuclear weapons threat. Bolton began accusing Iran of having a covert nuclear weapons program in mid-2003, but encountered resistance not only from ElBaradei and non-aligned states, but from Britain, France, and Germany as well.

Bolton's strategy was based on the claim that Iran was hiding its military nuclear program from the IAEA, and in early 2004, he came up with a dramatic propaganda ploy: he sent a set of satellite images to the IAEA showing sites at the Iranian military reservation at Parchin that he claimed were being used for tests to simulate nuclear weapons. Bolton demanded that the IAEA request access to inspect those sites and leaked his demand to the Associated Press in September 2004. In fact, the satellite images showed nothing more than bunkers and buildings for conventional explosives testing.

Bolton was apparently hoping the Iranian military would not agree to any IAEA inspections based on such bogus claims, thus playing into his propaganda theme of Iran's "intransigence" in refusing to answer questions about its nuclear program. But in 2005 Iran allowed the inspectors into those sites and even let them choose several more sites to inspect. The inspectors found no evidence of any nuclear-related activities.

The U.S.-Israeli strategy would later hit the jackpot, however, when a large cache of documents supposedly from a covert source within Iran's nuclear weapons program surfaced in autumn 2004. The documents, allegedly found on the laptop computer of one of the participants, included technical drawings of a series of efforts to redesign Iran's Shahab-3 missile to carry what appeared to be a nuclear weapon.

But the whole story of the so-called "laptop documents" was a fabrication. In 2013, a former senior German official revealed the true story to this writer: the documents had been given to German intelligence by the Mujahedin E Khalq, the anti-Iran armed group that was well known to have been used by Mossad to "launder" information the Israelis did not want attributed to themselves. Furthermore, the drawings showing the redesign that were cited as proof of a nuclear weapons program were clearly done by someone who didn't know that Iran had already abandoned the Shahab-3's nose cone for an entirely different design.

Mossad had clearly been working on those documents in 2003 and 2004 when Bolton was meeting with Meir Dagan. Whether Bolton knew the Israelis were preparing fake documents or not, it was the Israeli contribution towards establishing the political basis for an American attack on Iran for which he was the point man. Bolton reveals in his memoirs that this Cheney-directed strategy took its cues from the Israelis, who told Bolton that the Iranians were getting close to "the point of no return." That was point, Bolton wrote, at which "we could not stop their progress without using force."

Cheney and Bolton based their war strategy on the premise that the U.S. military would be able to consolidate control over Iraq quickly. Instead the U.S. occupation bogged down and never fully recovered. Cheney proposed taking advantage of a high-casualty event in Iraq that could be blamed on Iran to attack an IRGC base in Iran in the summer of 2007. But the risk that pro-Iranian Shiite militias in Iraq would retaliate against U.S. troops was a key argument against the proposal.

The Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were also well aware that Iran had the capability to retaliate directly against U.S. forces in the region, including against warships in the Strait of Hormuz. They had no patience for Cheney's wild ideas about more war.

That Pentagon caution remains unchanged. But two minds in the White House unhinged from reality could challenge that wariness -- and push the United States closer towards a dangerous war with Iran.

Stephen J. March 21, 2018 at 10:37 pm

I believe "War With Iran" is on the agenda. I wrote the article below some time ago. "Will There Be War With Iran"? Is it now Iran's turn to be subjected to the planned and hellish wars that have already engulfed Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan and other countries? Will, the gates of hell be further opened to include an attack on Iran?

[read more at link below]

http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2017/02/will-there-be-war-with-iran.html

See also: Will the War Agenda of the War Criminals Result in Nuclear War? http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2017/02/will-war-agenda-of-war-criminals-result.html

Clyde Schechter , , says: March 21, 2018 at 11:37 pm
Unfortunately, John Bolton is not just your typical neocon pathological liar and warmonger. Even by their abysmal standards he's pretty unhinged. He is one of the most dangerous people around these days.
Procivic , , says: March 22, 2018 at 12:35 am
The re-emergence of Bolton is the result of Trump's electoral victory, a phenomenon that resembles the upheavals that followed when an unhinged hereditary ruler would take the reins of power in bygone empires.
Duglarri , , says: March 22, 2018 at 1:16 am
There's a big difference between the wars with Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and Somalia, and a war with Iran. The difference is, this is a war the United States could lose. And lose very, very badly. As Pompeo remarked, it would take "only" 2000 airstrikes to eliminate the Iranian nuclear facilities. But what will it take to land 20,000 marines on the northern coast of the Persian Gulf to secure the straits, and there fend off 1.7 million Iranian regulars and militia on the ground? How will the navy cope with hundreds and hundreds of supersonic cruise missiles fired in volleys? What about the S-300 missiles that are by now fully operational in Iran?

A look at the map shows that this is a war that the US simply cannot win.

Unless it uses nuclear weapons and simply sets out to kill every last man, woman, and child in Iran, all 80 million of them.

Which I suppose is not out of the question. As all options are sure to be on the table.

Minnesota Mary , , says: March 22, 2018 at 1:54 am
"Everyone worshipped the dragon because he had given his authority to the beast. They worshipped the beast also, saying, 'Who is like the beast? Who can fight against it?'" Revelation 13:4

Who can fight against the U.S/NATO? Bolton, Gen. Jack Keane, Lt. Col. Ralph Peters and the whole warmongering crowd that frequent the air waves at FOX will not rest until they have us at war with Iran and Russia.

wrap , , says: March 22, 2018 at 3:43 am
So Trump is thinking of hiring a loudmouthed incompetent who is a known conduit for botched Israeli spy service forgeries used to gin up war with Iran. What a sick farce.
Hanson , , says: March 22, 2018 at 4:58 am
The Boltons, Frums, and Boots of the world never have to fight the wars they start.
Julien , , says: March 22, 2018 at 5:54 am
Bolton is a cancer for the US. As a warmonger, he thrives in hostile environnements so no wonder Bolton wants to create them with no regards for consequences.
EliteCommInc. , , says: March 22, 2018 at 9:03 am
Well, we need the John Bolton's of this world for times in which a uncompromising use of force is required. But I don't need background to know that advocating for wars that serve little in the way of US interests because we simply are not in any "clear and present danger".

Odd that so many "old schoolers" have abandoned some general cliche's that serve as sound guide.

the freakshow (cont'd) , , says: March 22, 2018 at 9:41 am
Just when you think you've heard the last of the various catastrophes, blunders, and odd capering about involving Bolton, you hear that voice from the old late night gadget commercials barking "wait, there's more !!"

I doubt anyone will be surprised to learn that Bolton was duped by Israeli forgers (very droll story, by the way). You'd think that no serious person would consider giving him a National Security Council post, particularly given the current level of concern about "foreign meddling".

rta , , says: March 22, 2018 at 10:25 am
I wonder if people will finally realize that Trump was only draining the swamp so he could replace it with a cesspool.
Chris Mallory , , says: March 22, 2018 at 11:16 am
"The Boltons, Frums, and Boots of the world never have to fight the wars they start."

Hey now, Bolton's service in the Maryland National Guard made sure the North Vietnamese never landed in Baltimore. Can you imagine the horror if the Russians had captured our supply of soft shell crab?

Esther Haman , , says: March 22, 2018 at 11:27 am
John Bolton a 75 year old loser, a has Never-been, which is the mouth piece of the Zionists who keep him on the pay roll. He likes to hear his own voice and to feel important because he wants war with Iran or all the Middle East. He's actions and speeches are all emotional and lack logic and reasoning. So, what is he good for?!
Egypt Steve , , says: March 22, 2018 at 11:29 am
Re: "Well, we need the John Bolton's of this world for times in which a uncompromising use of force is required."

Not sure about that. We definitely need Roosevelts and Lincolns, Grants and Shermans and Eisenhowers and Pattons. I'm not clear on what function the likes of Bolton serve.

Kent , , says: March 22, 2018 at 12:16 pm
This article fails to address the why. Why does Bolton want war with Iran?
Steve , , says: March 22, 2018 at 12:38 pm
I do not agree that Iran could prevent a conventional bombing/invasion of their country. But they could make it sooo expensive, the dollar ceases to be the world reserve currency, and if they do that, they will have done mankind a favor.

But after the conquest, imagine the guerrilla war! The US basically had to fight an insurgency from amongst 5 million Sunni Arabs in Iraq. Iran is much more ethnically homogeneous. So even if you get some minorities to turncoat and work for the occupiers, you are still left with about 60 million ethnically Persian Shiites. That is a 12 times larger insurgency than what you had in Iraq.

And if the Iranians had any sense RIGHT NOW, they would make sure every family had a stock of 10 powerful anti-vehicle mines, REALLY powerful mines. Make sure all are safely buried with locations memorized. And make sure everyone had the training to use them, even older children (who will be the front-line guerrillas in 5 years).

So if that devil Bolton gets his way, his own country will pay a price too, and deservedly too. I want my country to be peaceful and friendly to the world like the Germans are now. But it may take the same type of "WWII treatment" to get my hateful war-loving countrymen to walk away from their sin.

Steve , , says: March 22, 2018 at 12:47 pm
The guerrilla war in Iraq was fought against only 5 million Sunni Arabs, the US occupiers having successfully pealed away the Kurds and Shia to be collaborators, or at least stay uninvolved with the insurgency.

But Iran is not just bigger than Iraq, but much more ethnically and religiously homogeneous. Imagine what kind of insurgency you might get from 60 million ethnically Persian Shiites?

My advice to the Iranians RIGHT NOW is to mass-produce the most lethal anti-vehicle mines possible and distribute them to the entire civilian population. Train everyone how to use them, then once trained, bury maybe 20 mines per family, all in known but hidden locations.

THAT will stop the Bolton/Zionist plan dead in its tracks.

b. , , says: March 22, 2018 at 1:46 pm
"Why does Bolton want war with Iran?"

Maybe it was a career-enhancing move. It is a legitimate question, along with "follow the money"? Regardless of why sociopaths like Keith Payne or John Bolton become obsessed with "winning nuclear war" or "bombing Iran" . How do they make a living? Who would bankroll somebody – over many decades – to not just consider or plan, but actively provoke illegal acts of aggressive war, against declared policy of the government and the demands of the Constitution they have sworn an oath to uphold?

It is also educational to see that the fabrications and other "war-program related activities" in regards to Iran resemble the same stovepipelines that provide the Iraq 2003 pretexts – with Powell reprising his role as useful idiot – which clashes badly with the "blunder" narrative that anybody in the US government actually believed Iraq had WMD – was beyond "the point of no return".

This also bodes ill for a Bolton-formulated policy on Korea, and any "National Security Advice" he would see fit to fabricate and feed to the Bomber In Chief.

Furthermore, we learn just how unhinged Cheney et.al. really were – expecting Iraq to be a mere stepping stone along their adventures on the "Axis of Evil" trail. If these are our gamblers, nobody would suspect them of counting cards.

b. , , says: March 22, 2018 at 2:04 pm
Bolton and Cheney must have been livid about Stuxnet, for all the wrong reasons
PAX , , says: March 22, 2018 at 2:49 pm
We must look into our very national soul and ask why are we entertaining a war with Iran? The answer is clear. It is to further the goals of a fanatical, right-wing, group of Zionists. When a truthful history is written about this era of endless wars, the errant and disgraceful behavior of this group will be clearly identified and they will not have anywhere to hide. You may fool some of the folks, some of the time, but not all the folks, all of the time.
Buzz Man , , says: March 22, 2018 at 3:21 pm
Hiring a ghoul like Bolton will mark a new low even for the Trump administration. And that's saying something. These chickenhawk bastards should all be required to fight on the front lines of the wars they push. That was true, I'll guarantee you Bolton would shut up in a hurry.
marvin , , says: March 22, 2018 at 3:32 pm
John "FIVE DEFERMENTS" Bolton is a filthy yellow bellied coward. Drag her/him to Afghanistan amd make IT serve in the Front Lines for the duration.
Tulsa Ron , , says: March 22, 2018 at 3:43 pm
Israel and the Zionists are exactly the "foreign entanglements" that George Washington warned us about. Bolton is a neocon-Zionist who wants the United States blood and taxes to ensure Israel's dominance of the Middle East.
Jeeves , , says: March 22, 2018 at 5:14 pm
So Gareth Porter cites his own Truthout article as authority for the assertion that the "laptop documents" are fabrications. Most of the cited article seems to be devoted to "Curveball", the impeached source of Iraqi intelligence, in order to prop up the bona fides of the German who claims the Iranian intelligence is a forgery. Any other sourcing for this allegation available?

Judging from a quick look at what else Truthout has on offer, I'm not sure about the credibility of Mr. Porter.

pirouz moghaddam , , says: March 22, 2018 at 7:41 pm
Thank you Mr. Porter for your insightful and intelligent articles, being that I am from Iran Originally brings tears to my eyes to even imagine such tragedy, I pray this will never happen. Having lived in America more than half of my life and having children that are Americans makes these thoughts even more horrifying . I am however thankful to read all the comments from so many intelligent , decent and true Americans and that gives me hope that such disaster will not take place. The people of Iran are decent and kind and cultured , I am hopeful that they will find their way and bring about a true democracy soon and again become a positive force to the humanity.
Gareth Porter is an investigative reporter and regular contributor to TAC . He is also the author of Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare . Follow him on Twitter @GarethPorter .

[Mar 18, 2018] Pompeo's All-or-Nothing View of Diplomacy by Daniel Larison

Notable quotes:
"... Iran yielded a great deal, but they were never going to give up their entire nuclear program. That is not just because Iran is permitted to have such a program under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), but also because Iran had already invested so many resources at significant cost that retaining some part of it was a matter of national pride. ..."
Mar 18, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Uri Friedman reviews Mike Pompeo's hard-line foreign policy views. Here he quotes Pompeo's criticism of the negotiations leading up to the nuclear deal with Iran:

The Obama administration failed to take "advantage of crushing economic sanctions to end Iran's nuclear program," he declared when the deal was struck. "That's not foreign policy; it's surrender."

Pompeo's statement is ridiculous, but it does provide us with a useful window into how he understands foreign policy issues. Like many other Iran hawks, he opposes the nuclear deal because it "failed" to bring an end to Iran's nuclear program. He dubs Iran's major concessions on the nuclear issue as "surrender" by the U.S. because they were not forced to give up absolutely everything. That reflects the absurd all-or-nothing view of diplomacy that prevails among hard-line critics of the JCPOA.

Iran yielded a great deal, but they were never going to give up their entire nuclear program. That is not just because Iran is permitted to have such a program under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), but also because Iran had already invested so many resources at significant cost that retaining some part of it was a matter of national pride. If the Obama administration had insisted on the elimination of Iran's nuclear program, the negotiations would have failed and the restrictions on that problem that are now in place would not exist. There would have been no nuclear deal if the U.S. had insisted on maximalist demands. What Pompeo calls surrender is what sane people call compromise. Putting someone so inflexible and allergic to compromise in charge of the State Department is the act of a president who has nothing but disdain for diplomacy, and Pompeo's all-or-nothing view of the nuclear deal bodes ill for talks with North Korea.

Procivic March 18, 2018 at 3:10 pm

Zero sum games are for the infantile and the Trump administration is infested with them.

[Mar 16, 2018] Pompeo is seen as moderate towards Russia but as a hawk regarding Iran. The British noise about the alleged nerve gas agent is then nothing more but another attempt to force Washingtons s hand to increase hostility towards Russia.

Notable quotes:
"... The FAZ angle (and therefore the angle of Germans in Washington) is, that Tillerson was displaced because he was too bellicose towards Russia. Pompeo is seen as moderate towards Russia but as a hawk regarding Iran. The British noise about the alleged nerve gas agent is then nothing more but another attempt to force Washingtons´s hand to increase hostility towards Russia. ..."
Mar 16, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Tom 15 March 2018 at 06:51 AM

For what its worth: there was a very long and detailed analysis by the Frankfurter Allgmeine Zeitung yesterday regarding Tillersons dismissal. You can take this analysis as something like the "official" German position as FAZ journalists are the equivalent of Pravda journalists. That is fully in the know but only writing what is desired.

The FAZ angle (and therefore the angle of Germans in Washington) is, that Tillerson was displaced because he was too bellicose towards Russia. Pompeo is seen as moderate towards Russia but as a hawk regarding Iran. The British noise about the alleged nerve gas agent is then nothing more but another attempt to force Washingtons´s hand to increase hostility towards Russia.

Interestingly enough today Germany´s defense minister who is a close confident of Merkel echoed the outrage about the alleged nerve gas attack but called for a "UN investigation". That is she didn´t endorse the British claim.

Another background to the British provocation might be the Nord Stream gas pipeline from Russia to Germany. Construction is to start now and once it is finished Ukraine can´t blackmail Europe anymore by holding up gas delivery. Poland, the Baltics, the US and of course Ukraine are violently opposed to Nord Stream 2.


[Mar 16, 2018] Will the State Department Become a Subsidiary of the CIA

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... is an ex-geek turned writer and editor. He hails from Boston and writes about whatever distortions of reality strike his fancy. Currently, he's pedaling a novel chronicling the lives and times of members of a cell of terrorists in Europe, completing a collection of essays on high technology delusions, and can be found barking at progressivepilgrim.review. ..."
Mar 16, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

March 15, 2018 Will the State Department Become a Subsidiary of the CIA? by Geoff Dutton

Photo by Mark Taylor | CC BY 2.0

I wonder how Rex Tillerson feels about being the first high-level federal official to be fired publically and online, in one brutal tweet. I'm sure he expected the hammer to come down on him, but not like that. And I wonder if he will come forward to describe what led up to it. Unlikely, as he's an extremely wealthy and still influential corporate player who would have little to gain from telling all. Still, some intrepid journalist should take Rex to lunch and encourage him to cry in his beer.

The events unfurled in typical chaotic Trumpian fashion. According to The Atlantic,

The White House said Tuesday that Tillerson was informed last Friday that he would be replaced as secretary of state. But the statement released Tuesday by Steve Goldstein, the undersecretary of state for public diplomacy, suggested Tillerson did not see it coming until he saw the president's tweet Tuesday morning that he would be replaced by Mike Pompeo, the CIA director. Goldstein himself has been fired since making the statement.

Chief of Staff John Kelly claimed to have informed Tillerson three days previously that a tweet would be forthcoming, and let it hang. That's how long it took for the triumvirate behind the throne (Kelly, DoD Secretary James Mattis, and National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster) to line up a B team. These military officers have become Trump's minders, nudging him toward decisions that implement deep state war plans. John Grant writes in CounterPunch :

The ex-Nixon dirty trickster Roger Stone, who Kelly blocked from Trump access, is cited in Michael Wolff's Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House as telling people, "Mattis, McMaster and Kelly had agreed that no military action would ever be taken unless the three were in accord -- and that at least one of them would always remain in Washington if the others were away."

And so, here we have a junta minding the store whose collective wisdom had determined that State under Tilllerson wasn't accommodating US bellicosity as enthusiastically as it should. Their solution? Elevate CIA Chief Mike Pompeo to replace Tillerson. Pompeo, whom NPR glowingly described as having "an extraordinary résumé. He graduated at the top of his class at West Point. He served as a tank officer in Europe. He went to Harvard Law School." He's also a bombastic Tea-Party Republican and a national security hawk who takes a hard line no matter what crisis is at hand. I'm sure that résumé will be useful in convincing North Korea to disarm and Putin to back off from Syria. At least, that seems to be the troika's current calculus. Trump seems amenable to their choice: "With Mike, we've had a very good chemistry from the beginning," he told reporters. And Pompeo says he's equally chill with the Tweeter-in-Chief: "We have a half-hour, 40 minutes every day. He asks lots of hard questions as any good intelligence consumer would. He's very engaged."

Before that hammer hit Tillerson, they had already cleared the way to replace Pompeo with seasoned spook Gina Haspel, who proved her loyalty to the Company by destroying evidence of systematic torture. "She ran the 'black site' prison in Thailand where al-Qaida suspect Abu Zabaydah was waterboarded 83 times," NPR reported last winter. "Those sessions were videotaped but the tapes were destroyed in 2005, two years after a member of Congress called on the CIA to preserve such tapes." Who ordered or at least expedited their destruction? Gina Haspel herself. Running a torture center was a "dirty job," John Bennett, the chief of the CIA's clandestine service at the time later told NPR, but Gina bravely stepped up to do it. " it was not only legal but necessary for the safety of the country. And they did it – Gina did it – because they felt it was their duty."

Obama apparently felt that way, since he declined to prosecute any CIA officials for engaging in torture. Had he had the guts to go after them, Gina might be wearing a jumpsuit now instead of a business suit. As Dexter Filkins wrote in the New Yorker last year after Trump named Haspel Deputy Director,

When Obama took office, in 2009, he declared that he would not prosecute anyone involved in the C.I.A.'s interrogation programs, not even senior officers, among whom Haspel was one. At the time, Obama said he wanted to look forward and not back. But the past, as Obama well knows, never goes away. With the prospect of American torture looming again, I wonder if Obama regrets his decision. After all, people like Haspel, quite plausibly, could have gone to prison.

When Edward Snowden heard of her advancement, he tweeted ( March 13, 2018 )

Interesting: The new CIA Director Haspel, who "tortured some folks," probably can't travel to the EU to meet other spy chiefs without facing arrest due to an @ECCHRBerlin complaint to Germany's federal prosecutor. Details: https://t.co/7q4euQKtm7

Such team spirit clearly deserves a promotion. A round of applause, then, for Gina Haspel, someone who has known no calling besides black ops, winner of the George H. W. Bush Award for excellence in counterterrorism, and the first of her sex to crash through CIA's bulletproof glass ceiling to the Director's office. Her résumé implies she must have been born at Langley HQ. There's no paper trail for her prior to 1985, when she joined the agency.

The one bright spot is that both Pompeo and Haspel will have to testify before Congress votes of on their appointments. John McCain and Ron Wyden are already on record as being opposed to Haspel's appointment. Intense public pressure may help to drag skeltons of torture victims out of the agency's closet, but don't expect it to matter. The deep state is used to getting what it wants and doesn't let things like due process get in the way.

Now that the Department of State is to be a wholly owned subsidiary of the CIA, America can rest easy. No more mister nice guy. Diplomacy is for wimps. Let's show all those upstart nations and that upstart commander-in-chief who's boss. Join the debate on Facebook More articles by: Geoff Dutton

Geoff Dutton is an ex-geek turned writer and editor. He hails from Boston and writes about whatever distortions of reality strike his fancy. Currently, he's pedaling a novel chronicling the lives and times of members of a cell of terrorists in Europe, completing a collection of essays on high technology delusions, and can be found barking at progressivepilgrim.review.

[Mar 15, 2018] Latter Day America: The 911 myth is the basis for all US foreign policy.

Mar 14, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

kralizec -> Conscious Reviver Wed, 03/14/2018 - 07:59 Permalink

Jeepers Cripes, y'all need to get a room and ass-hammer it out!

Latter Day America, there are no pristine people to choose from to populate any goddamned post in government, period! Everybody has baggage, everybody is compromised.

This is the latter days of Rome 2.0 dipshits, got it? It is why one batch of clowns find it impossible to see one thing Trump (or anybody in any country...except Czar Valdimir Putin in Russia...for whatever reason...default/nobody else to pick...when the real answer even there is none of the above though many people refuse to see it) can do right and while the other batch is mystified at those incapable of seeing (albeit sometime thin) distinctions between evils in the era of this-is-as-good-as-it'll-get. Cue the inevitable endless circle jerk.

... ... ...

shortonoil -> Bes Wed, 03/14/2018 - 08:51 Permalink

Trump, and all of DC have as much power to affect what is coming as a flea does trying to bench press 300 lbs. Those of them who are aware of the true situation are scared shit less. Pompeo's appointment is just validating what is really about to come down! When they can't intimidate the public into submission, they will try using a club.

CatInTheHat -> crossroaddemon Tue, 03/13/2018 - 23:29 Permalink

Thanks for saying that. I detest Clinton and I want JUSTICE for what the evil treasonous psychopaths did in 2016, but I also know Bibi and MBS have Trump on a short leash and Islamaphobes fill his home and cabinet.

The soft coup is now complete and a war with Iran inevitable.

Clinteastwood -> Gaius Frakkin' Tue, 03/13/2018 - 22:17 Permalink

Hmmmm.....let's see. Pompeo hates Julian Assange. Assange has told us a lot of truth but won't even consider that 911 was an inside job. Pompeo hates Iran and Assad, but he's not about 911 truth at all either. The 911 myth is the basis for all US foreign policy. Trump hates Rosie O'Donnell, who seems to be about the only media figure who'll admit that the Trade Centers came down by controlled demolition. In the midst of all these powerful world leaders, if Rosie O'Donnel is the only person speaking the truth, i'd say we are royally fucked. And I don't even especially like Rosie O'Donnell. Doesn't seem likely we will avoid a catastrophic war. What a world.

Lost in translation -> Clinteastwood Tue, 03/13/2018 - 22:31 Permalink

"The 911 myth is the basis for all US foreign policy."

^ eminently quote worthy ^

sarz -> Clinteastwood Wed, 03/14/2018 - 05:48 Permalink

Trump hates Rosie O'Donnell, who seems to be about the only media figure who'll admit that the Trade Centers came down by controlled demolition.In the midst of all these powerful world leaders, if Rosie O'Donnel is the only person speaking the truth, i'd say we are royally fucked.

One Donald J Trump was interviewed on TV on the day of 9/11. He said that's not the way planes hit buildings. There were explosives of some sort involved. Moreover, the same Donald J Trump as a contender for the Republican nomination in the debate in South Carolina in February 2016 stated that if he won the presidency he would publish the secret documents about 9/11.

You have to be paying attention to figure out who Trump really is. Why is that? It is because Judaia as a conscious policy of that quasi-state has for long had total control of the minds of the whole West. The brains of Americans have been turned to oatmeal (as Russians put it) and most of what Trump says has to be oatmeal-to-oatmeal. Trump's brilliance is never challenging directly the memes (such as 9/11 or the Holocaust or false flag shootings) that Judaia has so laboriously constructed. That would be foolish. Rather, he takes one strand of received discourse and short circuits it with another under high voltage. Only rarely and briefly does Trump address clued-in supporters directly (perhaps he's doing it indirectly through Q Anon). You have to be paying attention.

A lot of Trump administration double-talk is a game, his way of strongly playing a weak hand. The anti-Iran bit seems to be a key gambit, going all the way back to Flynn co-authoring an anti-Iran book with Neocon Ledeen. But Tillerson seems to have turned traitor by taking over the script. Declaring that America was going go hang on to territory in Syria was not a 'globalist' gambit in the script. Trump had to tweet that defeating ISIS was America's only aim in Syria and that had been almost accomplished. Similarly, a limited anti-Russia posture is necessary to deal with the Muller caper. But supporting the Empire's Russian poisoning absurdity seems not to be where Trump wants America to be. Tillerson had to go.

If Pompeo is talking a load of shit, and sounding surprisingly uneducsted for someone who was number one at West Point and an editor (unlike Obama, under his own steam) at the Harvard Law Review, be sure there is a game involved.

I instinctively like Trump, and have over a long period, Maybe Trump is at the head of a huge world-historical change. It's looking good, actually, and I'm willing to wait and see.

[Mar 15, 2018] Donny boy sure has a strange way of "draining the swamp."

Mar 14, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Oh, and the person Trump picked to head the CIA to replace Pompeo is Gina Haspel, a 33-year CIA careerist who ran a torture black site in Thailand .

... ... ...

Donny boy sure has a strange way of "draining the swamp."

Bes -> Gaius Frakkin' Tue, 03/13/2018 - 22:33 Permalink

meh,

a desperate country

throwing a hail mary

caught by a charlatan

nothing new under the sun

or wait..... were you distracted by a strong sounding alpha tweet???

hahaha pathetic

[Mar 15, 2018] Julian Assange The CIA director is waging war on truth-tellers like WikiLeaks

Notable quotes:
"... All this speech to stifle speech comes in reaction to the first publication in the start of WikiLeaks' "Vault 7" series. Vault 7 has begun publishing evidence of remarkable CIA incompetence and other shortcomings. This includes the agency's creation, at a cost of billions of taxpayer dollars, of an entire arsenal of cyber viruses and hacking programs -- over which it promptly lost control and then tried to cover up the loss. These publications also revealed the CIA's efforts to infect the public's ubiquitous consumer products and automobiles with computer viruses. ..."
"... President Theodore Roosevelt understood the danger of giving in to those "foolish or traitorous persons who endeavor to make it a crime to tell the truth about the Administration when the Administration is guilty of incompetence or other shortcomings." Such "endeavor is itself a crime against the nation," Roosevelt wrote. President Trump and his officials should heed that advice ..."
Mar 15, 2018 | www.washingtonpost.com

Julian Assange is editor of WikiLeaks.

Mike Pompeo, in his first speech as director of the CIA, chose to declare war on free speech rather than on the United States' actual adversaries. He went after WikiLeaks, where I serve as editor, as a "non-state hostile intelligence service." In Pompeo's worldview, telling the truth about the administration can be a crime -- as Attorney General Jeff Sessions quickly underscored when he described my arrest as a "priority." News organizations reported that federal prosecutors are weighing whether to bring charges against members of WikiLeaks, possibly including conspiracy, theft of government property and violating the Espionage Act.

All this speech to stifle speech comes in reaction to the first publication in the start of WikiLeaks' "Vault 7" series. Vault 7 has begun publishing evidence of remarkable CIA incompetence and other shortcomings. This includes the agency's creation, at a cost of billions of taxpayer dollars, of an entire arsenal of cyber viruses and hacking programs -- over which it promptly lost control and then tried to cover up the loss. These publications also revealed the CIA's efforts to infect the public's ubiquitous consumer products and automobiles with computer viruses.

When the director of the CIA, an unelected public servant, publicly demonizes a publisher such as WikiLeaks as a "fraud," "coward" and "enemy," it puts all journalists on notice, or should. Pompeo's next talking point, unsupported by fact, that WikiLeaks is a "non-state hostile intelligence service," is a dagger aimed at Americans' constitutional right to receive honest information about their government. This accusation mirrors attempts throughout history by bureaucrats seeking, and failing, to criminalize speech that reveals their own failings.

President Theodore Roosevelt understood the danger of giving in to those "foolish or traitorous persons who endeavor to make it a crime to tell the truth about the Administration when the Administration is guilty of incompetence or other shortcomings." Such "endeavor is itself a crime against the nation," Roosevelt wrote. President Trump and his officials should heed that advice .

[Mar 15, 2018] Having further researched Mike Pompeo's history it seems he is a war hawk

Mar 15, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

CitizenOne Reply

Well I said: "I hope that this is true but I cannot discount the other possibility that Trump has once again been fooled by the intelligence and the media into appointing a tool of the deep state to replace Tillerson. He was fooled in Syria and the World applauded or rather the World media applauded loudly. Hopefully he was not fooled by that contrived story. If that is the case then it is bad news for all of us and might lead to further hostilities against Russia."

Having further researched Mike Pompeo's history it seems he is a war hawk who will align to blame Russia for the attack on Sergei Skripal and his daughter. Further he has been a strong critic of the nuclear deal with Iran forged under Obama and has also been a strong republican supporter of every republican strategy for national defense including keeping Guantanamo Bay open indefinitely etc. This would support my doubts that the appointment of Secretary of State Pompeo would do much to ratchet down international tensions in the hot spots around the World where the US has chosen to portray our "enemies" as military targets to be conquered rather than other nations with their own sovereign rights to be dealt with through diplomacy.

The most alarming idea is to launch a war with Iran since they have negotiated a nuclear disarmament strategy with the Obama administration leaving them in a precarious situation of being vulnerable to a change in strategy by the US of negotiation towards a threat of armed force intervention coming from the US. Trump calls the Iran deal a terrible deal and so does Pompeo. How it is a terrible deal seems to be the same accusation that the US launched against Saddam Hussein in Iraq. It is only a terrible deal for Iran as it was for Iraq to believe that they could disarm under UN supervision in the hopes it would prevent an attack by the US.

I fear that the lessons of the potential new anti Iranian strategy to cancel out our deals with Iran will only convince the North Koreans that any pursuit of a peace with the USA will ultimately result in our reneging on the deal at the first arrival of our stated goals to get NK to disarm and will turn on them even if they comply with western demands that they must dismantle their nuclear arsenals.

The Iranian Nuclear deal is in peril with the appointment of Pompeo and the result will be that North Korea will see no advantage in cooperating with an adversary which on the one hand forges peace treaties and on the other hand revokes them by the politically shifting winds in Washington headed by a president who cannot see the forest from the trees and is easily influenced by people he "connects with" as though that is reason enough to surround himself with those people and appoint them to high positions.

The politically shifting instability in Washington with the firings of high officials alone would be reason enough for any foreign nation to doubt the credibility of any policy being put forth. Stability is what is essential to create the foundation for trust. Without an honest and consistent foreign policy it will be impossible to gain the trust of foreign leaders. As long as the administration is led by the nose by the media and acts in unpredictable ways there can be no shared basis for trust which is essential for peace.

What we have in Washington is the expansion of domestic political unrest and the contention of our national elections flaring over into blame of foreign influences and the externalization of blame for our current sociopolitical divide.

This is the fertile ground laced with the fertilizer for war or at the least a military buildup to war.

There is no greater threat than a World Superpower nation that shifts almost weekly on its policies and has open disputes with its appointed leaders which results in that nation repeatedly reshuffling the cards and changing its positions on foreign policy. I pray that the current leadership will come to grips with its own internal struggles and find a reasoned path towards maintaining the fragile peace that we all depend on.

[Mar 14, 2018] Latter Day America

Mar 14, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

kralizec -> Conscious Reviver Wed, 03/14/2018 - 07:59 Permalink

Jeepers Cripes, y'all need to get a room and ass-hammer it out!

Latter Day America, there are no pristine people to choose from to populate any goddamned post in government, period! Everybody has baggage, everybody is compromised.

This is the latter days of Rome 2.0 dipshits, got it? It is why one batch of clowns find it impossible to see one thing Trump (or anybody in any country...except Czar Valdimir Putin in Russia...for whatever reason...default/nobody else to pick...when the real answer even there is none of the above though many people refuse to see it) can do right and while the other batch is mystified at those incapable of seeing (albeit sometime thin) distinctions between evils in the era of this-is-as-good-as-it'll-get. Cue the inevitable endless circle jerk.

... ... ...

shortonoil -> Bes Wed, 03/14/2018 - 08:51 Permalink

Trump, and all of DC have as much power to affect what is coming as a flea does trying to bench press 300 lbs. Those of them who are aware of the true situation are scared shit less. Pompeo's appointment is just validating what is really about to come down! When they can't intimidate the public into submission, they will try using a club.

CatInTheHat -> crossroaddemon Tue, 03/13/2018 - 23:29 Permalink

Thanks for saying that. I detest Clinton and I want JUSTICE for what the evil treasonous psychopaths did in 2016, but I also know Bibi and MBS have Trump on a short leash and Islamaphobes fill his home and cabinet.

The soft coup is now complete and a war with Iran inevitable.

[Mar 14, 2018] Krieger It's Impossible To Overstate How Terrible Mike Pompeo Is Zero Hedge

Mar 14, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Unfortunately, it gets worse. Much worse. For all his flaws, Rex Tillerson had a surprisingly sane take on the Middle East, at least relatively. He was known for being against the idiotic Saudi-UAE attempt blockade of Qatar, as well as in favor of keeping the Iran deal active. Pompeo shares no such sentiments.

As CNBC reported :

Pompeo, named as his pick for secretary of state by Trump on Tuesday shortly after he announced Tillerson's departure on Twitter, has taken a notoriously tough stance on Iran in the past in his erstwhile role as director of the CIA.

Not only has Pompeo likened Iran to the Islamic State (ISIS) militant group , calling the country a "thuggish police state" in a speech in October, he has also promised to constrain Iran's investment environment and "roll back" its 2015 nuclear deal.

"Thuggish police state." Similar to Saudi Arabia then, which Pompeo had no problem bestowing with a CIA medal last year.

back" its 2015 nuclear deal.

"Thuggish police state." Similar to Saudi Arabia then, which Pompeo had no problem bestowing with a CIA medal last year.

... ... ...

But there's more

In November 2016, when Pompeo was appointed to lead the CIA, he warned that Tehran is "intent of destroying America" and called the nuclear deal "disastrous." He added that he was looking forward to "rolling back" the agreement.

Differences of opinion over how Iran should be treated are said to be the source of discord between Trump and Tillerson, whose firing followed a clash over the nuclear deal, the president said Tuesday.

"If you look at the Iran deal I think it's terrible and I guess he thought it was OK We weren't really thinking the same," Trump said in a statement outside the White House. He said he and Tillerson got on "quite well" but had "different mindsets."

Iran has been increasingly marginalized during the Trump administration, which has sided with Saudi Arabia in the regional battle for influence in the Middle East.'

Here's the bottom line. As I outlined multiple times last year, Trump is determined to have a war with Iran and Rex Tillerson was standing in the way. Putting unhinged war hawk Pompeo in place as Secretary of State is simply Trump getting his ducks in a row ahead of confrontation. Watch as the sales pitch for another war in the Middle East picks up considerably in the months ahead.

I believe this forthcoming war against Iran will have almost no international support. Probably just autocratic regimes in the Middle East like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, as well as Israel and possibly the UK depending on who's Prime Minister when it gets going. The rest of the world will be against it, which will lead to spectacular failure.

It's become increasingly clear that a huge military error, such as a new major confrontation in the Middle East is what will spell the end of the U.S. empire. Such a confrontation is now increasingly likely with Tillerson out of the picture

Oh, and the person Trump picked to head the CIA to replace Pompeo is Gina Haspel, a 33-year CIA careerist who ran a torture black site in Thailand .

... ... ...

Donny boy sure has a strange way of "draining the swamp."

* * *

If you liked this article and enjoy my work, consider becoming a monthly Patron , or visit our Support Page to show your appreciation for independent content creators.

[Mar 14, 2018] Donny boy sure has a strange way of "draining the swamp."

Mar 14, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Oh, and the person Trump picked to head the CIA to replace Pompeo is Gina Haspel, a 33-year CIA careerist who ran a torture black site in Thailand .

... ... ...

Donny boy sure has a strange way of "draining the swamp."

[Mar 14, 2018] Pompeo strikes me as a Narcissist and pro-Israel lobbist

Mar 14, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

The Beaver , 14 March 2018 at 11:34 AM

Colonel,

Like the Heritage Foundation pipsqueaker Haley, Pompeo has his admirers in Israel:

http://www.jpost.com/American-Politics/Pompeo-very-positively-disposed-to-Israel-strong-critic-of-Iran-deal-545010

J , 14 March 2018 at 04:15 PM
Colonel,

Pompeo is in for a rude awakening in the diplomatic arena if he tries to spar with Lavrov. Lavrov IMO will bloody Pomepo's nose before he knows what hit him.

Pompeo strikes me as a Narcissist.

[Mar 14, 2018] Indeed, apparently these heroes (and their leaders) needed to be protected from that odd and unpleasant "liberal game" called 'prosecution for crimes'.

Mar 14, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

confusedponderer said in reply to J ... 14 March 2018 at 02:22 AM

J,
Haspel isn't alone in her views on torture - according to your link Mattis, Trump and Pompeo also think waterboarding is an excellent intelligence tool.

According to your article Pompeo answered to Feinstein's torture criticism that agents who had tortured people were " heroes, not pawns in some liberal game. "

*sob* ... poor heroes ... *sob*

Apparently it was all that heroism that made Haspel destroy evidence about the CIA torture site in Tailand which she led.

One of the men, known as Abu Zubayda, was waterboarded 83 times in one month and was slammed into walls by the head. He was deprived of sleep and kept in a coffin-like box. Interrogators later decided he didn't have any useful information.

ProPublica found that Haspel personally signed cables to CIA headquarters that detailed Zubayda's interrogation.

CIA videos of the torture were destroyed in 2005, on the orders of a cable drafted by Haspel.

Indeed, apparently these heroes (and their leaders) needed to be protected from that odd and unpleasant "liberal game" called 'prosecution for crimes'.

[Mar 14, 2018] Given the degree of effort Pompeo's used in pushing Russiagate, I can't wait for his first meeting with Lavrov or Putin.

Mar 14, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 , Mar 14, 2018 3:56:37 PM | 6

Great work b!

Where's Jim Jones when you need him to serve up some of his koolaid to the numerous politicos and propagandists pushing the Russiagate Big Lie, for they surely deserve several pitchers full each.

Given the degree of effort Pompeo's used in pushing Russiagate, I can't wait for his first meeting with Lavrov or Putin.

The sooner Corbyn is able to become British PM, the better for all excepting the corrupt.

[Mar 13, 2018] The transition of Pompeo from CIA to the State Department is a logical step as both are intelligence agencies serving global neoliberal empire, not the USA as a country

Looks like another Cold War warrior...
Notable quotes:
"... He has cultivated ties with Charles and David Koch, the billionaire industrialists who are patrons of conservative causes. They invested in Thayer Aerospace, a company Pompeo started with friends from West Point in 1998. He turned to Koch Industries, the Wichita-based conglomerate which has holdings in oil and other sectors, to help bankroll his 2010 congressional race. Pompeo was criticized by liberals for hiring a Koch Industries lawyer as his chief of staff and for introducing legislation that would benefit Koch interests. ..."
"... Pompeo has hawkish views on a range of policy issues, including torture, surveillance and the National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden. ..."
Mar 13, 2018 | www.theguardian.com

Pompeo graduated from both the United States Military Academy at West Point and Harvard and served three terms as a representative for Kansas's fourth district. As a member of the House select committee on intelligence, he was an aggressive critic of US foreign policy under the Obama administration, particularly regarding the nuclear deal with Iran.

... ... ...

He has cultivated ties with Charles and David Koch, the billionaire industrialists who are patrons of conservative causes. They invested in Thayer Aerospace, a company Pompeo started with friends from West Point in 1998. He turned to Koch Industries, the Wichita-based conglomerate which has holdings in oil and other sectors, to help bankroll his 2010 congressional race. Pompeo was criticized by liberals for hiring a Koch Industries lawyer as his chief of staff and for introducing legislation that would benefit Koch interests.

Pompeo has hawkish views on a range of policy issues, including torture, surveillance and the National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden.

... ... ...

He has, however, diverged from Trump on Russia. In his confirmation hearing, he appeared to share with CIA staff an adversarial view of Russia and Vladimir Putin.

The Senate approved his nomination 66-32. The Democratic minority leader, Chuck Schumer, who voted to confirm Pompeo, said in a statement on Tuesday: "If he's confirmed [as secretary of state] we hope that Mr Pompeo will turn over a new leaf and will start toughening up our policies towards Russia and Putin."

... ... ...

[Feb 17, 2018] Iran is already being attacked from West and East in the North

Feb 17, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Posted by: ninel | Feb 11, 2018 3:59:15 PM

Here is an interesting article that points to the new American strategy with respect to Iran and central Asia. Iran is already being attacked from West and East in the North. And central Asia is next. This might force Iran to pull back some forces from Syria and Iraq.

No end to the wars.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/02/06/us-isis-nexus-afghanistan-becomes-hot-topic.html

[Dec 16, 2017] Mohammed bin Salman's ill-advised ventures have weakened Saudi Arabia, by Patrick Cockburn - The Unz Review

Notable quotes:
"... We are the ones who have been fomenting destabilization all throughout the region some of whom would have been allies of the Saudis in some common cause. ..."
"... I think there are more effective choices concerning Yemen and Qatar. But figuring out what the choices are is not going to be easy. And harder still perhaps is implementing them. As for backfire -- we are just not in a position to judge, at the moment. Anyone hoping that another major state collapses in that region is probably miscalculating the value of instability. ..."
Dec 16, 2017 | www.unz.com

Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) of Saudi Arabia is the undoubted Middle East man of the year, but his great impact stems more from his failures than his successes. He is accused of being Machiavellian in clearing his way to the throne by the elimination of opponents inside and outside the royal family. But, when it comes to Saudi Arabia's position in the world, his miscalculations remind one less of the cunning manoeuvres of Machiavelli and more of the pratfalls of Inspector Clouseau.

Again and again, the impulsive and mercurial young prince has embarked on ventures abroad that achieve the exact opposite of what he intended. When his father became king in early 2015, he gave support to a rebel offensive in Syria that achieved some success but provoked full-scale Russian military intervention, which in turn led to the victory of President Bashar al-Assad. At about the same time, MbS launched Saudi armed intervention, mostly through airstrikes, in the civil war in Yemen. The action was code-named Operation Decisive Storm, but two and a half years later the war is still going on, has killed 10,000 people and brought at least seven million Yemenis close to starvation.

The Crown Prince is focusing Saudi foreign policy on aggressive opposition to Iran and its regional allies, but the effect of his policies has been to increase Iranian influence. The feud with Qatar, in which Saudi Arabia and the UAE play the leading role, led to a blockade being imposed five months ago which is still going on. The offence of the Qataris was to have given support to al-Qaeda type movements – an accusation that was true enough but could be levelled equally at Saudi Arabia – and to having links with Iran. The net result of the anti-Qatari campaign has been to drive the small but fabulously wealthy state further into the Iranian embrace.

Saudi relations with other countries used to be cautious, conservative and aimed at preserving the status quo. But today its behaviour is zany, unpredictable and often counterproductive: witness the bizarre episode in November when the Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri was summoned to Riyadh, not allowed to depart and forced to resign his position. The objective of this ill-considered action on the part of Saudi Arabia was apparently to weaken Hezbollah and Iran in Lebanon, but has in practice empowered both of them.

What all these Saudi actions have in common is that they are based on a naïve presumption that "a best-case scenario" will inevitably be achieved. There is no "Plan B" and not much of a "Plan A": Saudi Arabia is simply plugging into conflicts and confrontations it has no idea how to bring to an end.

MbS and his advisers may imagine that it does not matter what Yemenis, Qataris or Lebanese think because President Donald Trump and Jared Kushner, his son-in-law and chief Middle East adviser, are firmly in their corner. "I have great confidence in King Salman and the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, they know exactly what they are doing," tweeted Trump in early November after the round up and confinement of some 200 members of the Saudi elite. "Some of those they are harshly treating have been 'milking' their country for years!" Earlier he had tweeted support for the attempt to isolate Qatar as a supporter of "terrorism".

But Saudi Arabia is learning that support from the White House these days brings fewer advantages than in the past. The attention span of Donald Trump is notoriously short, and his preoccupation is with domestic US politics: his approval does not necessarily mean the approval of other parts of the US government. The State Department and the Pentagon may disapprove of the latest Trump tweet and seek to ignore or circumvent it. Despite his positive tweet, the US did not back the Saudi confrontation with Qatar or the attempt to get Mr Hariri to resign as prime minister of Lebanon.

For its part, the White House is finding out the limitations of Saudi power. MbS was not able to get the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas to agree to a US-sponsored peace plan that would have given Israel very much and the Palestinians very little. The idea of a Saudi-Israeli covert alliance against Iran may sound attractive to some Washington think tanks, but does not make much sense on the ground. The assumption that Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and the promise to move the US embassy there, would have no long-term effects on attitudes in the Middle East is beginning to look shaky.

It is Saudi Arabia – and not its rivals – that is becoming isolated. The political balance of power in the region changed to its disadvantage over the last two years. Some of this predates the elevation of MbS: by 2015 it was becoming clear that a combination of Sunni states led by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey was failing to carry out regime change in Damascus. This powerful grouping has fragmented, with Turkey and Qatar moving closer to the Russian-backed Iranian-led axis, which is the dominant power in the northern tier of the Middle East between Afghanistan and the Mediterranean.

If the US and Saudi Arabia wanted to do anything about this new alignment, they have left it too late. Other states in the Middle East are coming to recognise that there are winners and losers, and have no wish to be on the losing side. When President Recep Tayyip Erdogan called a meeting this week in Istanbul of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, to which 57 Muslim states belong, to reject and condemn the US decision on Jerusalem, Saudi Arabia only sent a junior representative to this normally moribund organisation. But other state leaders like Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, King Abdullah of Jordan and the emirs of Kuwait and Qatar, among many others, were present. They recognised East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital and demanded the US reverse its decision.

MbS is in the tradition of leaders all over the world who show Machiavellian skills in securing power within their own countries. But their success domestically gives them an exaggerated sense of their own capacity in dealing with foreign affairs, and this can have calamitous consequences. Saddam Hussein was very acute in seizing power in Iraq but ruined his country by starting two wars he could not win.

Mistakes made by powerful leaders are often explained by their own egomania and ignorance, supplemented by flattering but misleading advice from their senior lieutenants. The first steps in foreign intervention are often alluring because a leader can present himself as a national standard bearer, justifying his monopoly of power at home. Such a patriotic posture is a shortcut to popularity, but there is always a political bill to pay if confrontations and wars end in frustration and defeat. MbS has unwisely decided that Saudi Arabia should play a more active and aggressive role at the very moment that its real political and economic strength is ebbing. He is overplaying his hand and making too many enemies.

Svigor , December 16, 2017 at 6:24 am GMT
The only hope someone as cloistered as a Saudi crown prince can have of being an effective ruler is either by being an extraordinary person (very curious, love learning for its own sake, etc), or be at least moderately intelligent, and listen to consensus.

For its part, the White House is finding out the limitations of Saudi power. MbS was not able to get the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas to agree to a US-sponsored peace plan that would have given Israel very much and the Palestinians very little.

Lies and Jew-hatred. Everyone knows that despite their infamous sharpness in business dealings, the world's longest history of legalism, a completely self-centered and ethnocentric culture, and their longstanding abuse of the Palestinians, every single deal the Jews try to sign with the Palestinians heavily favors the Palestinians, and the only reason the Palestinians won't sign is because they're psychotic Jew-haters.

The idea of a Saudi-Israeli covert alliance against Iran may sound attractive to some Washington think tanks, but does not make much sense on the ground. The assumption that Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and the promise to move the US embassy there, would have no long-term effects on attitudes in the Middle East is beginning to look shaky.

Hey, you skipped the part where you did anything to support the idea that a Zionist-Saudi alliance doesn't make sense.

K, let's all wait for Art Deco to come in and spew some Hasbara then tell us he's not a Zhid.

Avery , December 16, 2017 at 6:28 am GMT
{Mohammed Bin Salman's Ill-Advised Ventures Have Weakened Saudi Arabia}

GREAT news. Hopefully the evil, cannibalistic terrorism spreading so-called 'kingdom' of desert nomads will continue on its path of self destruction, and disappear as a functioning state.

Tammy , December 16, 2017 at 9:51 am GMT
Once more a Saudi Firster was detained in KSA. This time the owner of Arab Bank, a Jordanian with dual Jordan and KSA citizenship. Saad Hariri a Lebanese was the first one who was dual Lebanon and KSA citizens and who lost his diplomatic immunity in KSA.

I wonder if the Israel Firster who are dual citizens are now sweating? Wonder, if Netanyahu is still an USA citizen? Happy days are coming back .

Jake , December 16, 2017 at 12:31 pm GMT
"Saudi relations with other countries used to be cautious, conservative and aimed at preserving the status quo. But today its behaviour is zany, unpredictable and often counterproductive:"

Saudis allied with Israelis, backed by the wealth and might of the US? Guaranteed to bring out the worst in Saudis (which is bad enough at base) and Israelis and Americans.

cbrown , December 16, 2017 at 1:07 pm GMT
Machiavellian skills really ? I'd see 6 months ahead if this was true. MBS just made a show that they are a de facto Mafia not a businessman to the whole world. I'd bet he just quashed a lot of efforts and money spent on raising the racing horses of the saud monarch and in turn destroyed some serious connection that were vital but aren't readily available to them. Just how potent money they thought it would be ? Sure all is businesses and it will work so long you can pay the right person. The problem is where to find the right person.
Joe Hide , December 16, 2017 at 1:53 pm GMT
Come on Cockburn, look at the Big Picture, not the little one. This the old fallacy of looking at the trees and not seeing the forest. What is happening in Saudi Arabia is a piece of the much bigger puzzle being put together over years, decades, and maybe generations.

The psychopaths at the top of the power pyramid have been engaged in this hidden global game for generations, it's always been part of their longterm strategy.

Very recently Highly intelligent, realistic, morally and ethically centered, and practically oriented individuals, have also formed secret powerful groups to arrive at beneficial goals for humanity. These truly Good Guys have learned that the criminal, murderous, lecherous, degenerate, deviate, psychopaths in positions of great power are irredeemable and should be eliminated where possible. What you see in Saudi Arabia is merely a tree, not the forest. Just the same, to the author, keep writing but research the subject much much more before you put pen to paper, as you do have apersuasive and talented style.

EliteCommInc. , December 16, 2017 at 2:25 pm GMT
I am going to come to the defence here.

1. We have been screaming about the unintended consequences of Saudi giving to charities since 2004.

2. We removed the buffer of Iraq from Iranian ambitions (as unclear as it may be debated) creating issues not only for Saudi Arabia, but others in the region as well.

3. We are the ones who have been fomenting destabilization all throughout the region some of whom would have been allies of the Saudis in some common cause.

4. No one is escaping the negative consequences of our Iraq invasion.

5. We have been complaining about rogue and irresponsible wealthy Muslims ad naseum.

Now when someone steps up the plate to meet the challenges many caused by the US – our first complaint is not astute counsel but rather a series of articles highlighting failure. I would not contend that I support every choice. But I think we should at least take a wait and see perspective. He is operating in a region rife with intrigue and ambitions, not to mention -- Muslims bent on spreading Islam as one would expect a muslim to do. Frankly I am not sure how one governs in the arena of the middle east – especially now – it's a region in major shift.

I think there are more effective choices concerning Yemen and Qatar. But figuring out what the choices are is not going to be easy. And harder still perhaps is implementing them. As for backfire -- we are just not in a position to judge, at the moment. Anyone hoping that another major state collapses in that region is probably miscalculating the value of instability.

DESERT FOX , December 16, 2017 at 2:39 pm GMT
The Saudis are the U.S. and ISISRAELS puppet, they do what the Zionist neocons tell them to do, which is to be the Zionist agent provocateur in the Mideast.

The Saudis have helped the U.S. and ISISRAEL create and finance ISIS aka AL CIADA and for this the Saudis can rot in hell, and by the way the reason for the attack on Yemen is that the Saudis oil reserves are diminishing and so the Saudis figured they would take Yemens oil.

The main creators of ISIS aka AL CIADA are the U.S. and ISISRAEL and BRITAIN ie the CIA and the MOSSAD and MI6.

Anon , Disclaimer December 16, 2017 at 4:55 pm GMT
The irony is that Saudis, before MbS and during his dominance, are making exactly the same suicidal blunders as the US. No enemy could have damaged the US and its positions in the world more than its Presidents and the Congress in the last 17 years. The same is true for KSA, with the same mistakes being made: undermining the financial system of the country, global over-reach that forces all opposition to unite, crazy military expenses, etc.
Art , December 16, 2017 at 5:57 pm GMT
Sorry, but these people dressed in 14 century robes and garb, cannot be taken seriously. They look like play-people feigning a furious grandeur. Without their petrochemicals – they would be laughed at by everyone – including their own kind. They should not be respected because they are religious – they are old world tribalist thugs hiding behind a religion. They use and abuse their people – holding them back from modernity.

Think Peace -- Art

Anon , Disclaimer December 16, 2017 at 6:17 pm GMT
@Z-man

Thing is, Saudi regime was rotten through and through before MbS, remains rotten under his rule, and will remain rotten when some other jerk kicks him out and establishes himself at the helm.

neutral , December 16, 2017 at 6:31 pm GMT
It does not matter how smart Saudi Arabia is with their foreign policy now, they became allies with Israel, that means Saudi Arabia can never claim to be a power working for the interests of Islam. MBS is a marked man, no matter how many purges he undertakes in his army, or even if he just hires Pakistani soldiers, if he has Muslims fighting in his army he will always be carrying the risk of being assassinated by somebody who has seen him cross the red line and become pro jewish.
Svigor , December 16, 2017 at 6:51 pm GMT
I don't really understand the constant hopes that the Saudi regime will fall. How is that any different from cheering Bush's disastrous regime change in Iraq? How will the fallout be any better in Arabia than it was in Iraq, Libya, etc?
cbrown , December 16, 2017 at 7:43 pm GMT
@Svigor

It's not that there's a constant hope it's just they'd fall in the near future and fortunately it will balance the geopolitical power in the future. Their fallout aren't going to be as bad unless the people pulling their string persistent in keeping them in power.

neutral , December 16, 2017 at 8:14 pm GMT
@Svigor

It will be better because it means Israel loses an ally, also with the Saudis gone Egypt will also be unable to keep their population in check. The fall of the Saudis means that Israel will be surrounded by regimes that oppose it...

someone , December 17, 2017 at 12:14 am GMT
Another Junior Gaddafi that is going to ruin his entire nation while intoxicated with NYT or other Western media coverage. He talks of corruption after spending 1.1 Billion dollars on a yacht and a painting.
Netenyahu is much the same. He has weakened Israel immensely by playing the scary wolf.
anon , Disclaimer December 17, 2017 at 12:33 am GMT
@neutral

South Africa was never in danger from their hostile neighbors . They committed suicide. Egypt cannot control its own territory let alone start wars , ditto for Syria and Lebanon. Jordan is a client state of Israel and lacks a functioning army. ...

[Dec 09, 2017] The great Middle East energy game Winners and losers - Opinion

Dec 09, 2017 | www.jpost.com

Simultaneously, it has managed to develop fairly profitable, albeit at times tense relationships with other major or rising world powers. Those include Russia, China and Turkey. At the same time it is engaging a large number of European countries, South Korea, India, and others in assorted trade agreements. Iran has managed to place itself front and center – not only as a bad actor bent on colonization of the "Shi'a Crescent" and possibly beyond – it has also gained increasing political and economic legitimacy among its former adversaries.

Iran has even managed to get the United States under the Trump administration to wage limited war against ISIS, first in Iraq and Syria and to a lesser extent in Afghanistan, despite conflicts and occasional confrontations between US forces and the terrorist group's own militias. While Iran's various financial deals are to some extent being tracked, what remains noteworthy is the issue of energy control in the region, a factor that fuels the numerous conflicts, or at least finances them.

... ... ...

The US has miscalculated by believing other countries are incapable of pursuing independent interests without its involvement, or by thinking such nations cannot use energy markets effectively to marginalize any state that is not already in an active leadership position. The US should take stock of the way the energy assets are being played by various states. It should either separate the authoritarian regimes which only grow stronger with the greater access and interconnections such valuable assets provide, or by outplaying those states at their own game.

[Nov 22, 2017] An attack on Iran would probably result in the oil supplies through the Persian Gulf being blocked.

Nov 22, 2017 | www.unz.com

Tsar Nicholas , November 20, 2017 at 3:07 am GMT

An attack on Iran would probably result in the oil supplies through the Persian Gulf being blocked.

That wouldn't just affect the ability of westerners to drive. Their holidays would be wrecked, industry would go on short time, food supplies would be disrupted. We live in a very complex world with most businesses reliant on just-in-time delivery. This is not 1917 or 1940.

[Oct 17, 2017] Trumps tough talk on Iran could end in a big, blame-evading dodge

Effect of Trump move on energy market remains to be seen... Might well be another step toward fiscal collapse...
Notable quotes:
"... Better refresh. The United States is by definition, an empire. Has been since December 10, 1898. Not all empires have or have had emperors. At least, as an official title. We even still possess a few de facto colonies, Puerto Rico being the most populous. The Philippines were part of the American empire from December 10, 1898 to July 4, 1946. ..."
"... The Philippines' colonial history has been described by one historian as "500 years in a convent, followed by 50 years at Disneyland." ..."
"... This is the result of our long string of wars since Reagan took on Grenada. Then Bush in Panama. And on and on until today. We've chosen to do battle with small weak countries that don't have a hope in hell of winning or even inflicting major harm. ..."
Oct 13, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

-> Ponderbelle , 13 Oct 2017 02:21

Saudis bought 15 billion dollars antirocket system. Its one deal only. Just to get Trump to stop messing around and crash the Persians they also bought Russian system.

, 12 Oct 2017 23:32

"A peculiar pattern of Trumpian behavior is emerging. First, his fragile ego forbids him to ever take responsibility for anything. Ever. Second, because he craves the adulation of his base, he will to shift blame or throw any and all supporters and allies under the bus."

He also has a tendency to want to take revenge for any imagined or real slight that bruise his fragile ego. Not a statesman or leader by any strength of the imagination.

-> ghstwrtrx7 , 12 Oct 2017 22:51

The good news is that ALL empires, throughout history, have fallen. Looking forward to the fall of the American Empire.

-> Fred Fawcett , 12 Oct 2017 22:46

Yes laughable and tragic all at the same time. Even the guy whose nickname actually is "Mad Dog" (James Mattis) has gone on record with some intelligent comments on why the Iran nuclear deal should be kept in place.

I'm not surprised you got so much hate on that comment board. The Neo-Nazis seem to loiter where they know they can get away with crap that isn't monitored properly.

, 12 Oct 2017 20:45

US citizens who believe they're 'victims' of a 'deep state' have no idea how their war-mongering nation is viewed abroad...

-> lefttheleft , 12 Oct 2017 18:25

He's the best shot that the USA becomes truly 3rd world.

-> Rigobertus , 12 Oct 2017 17:25

Trump is the antidote. You may not like it but he's the best shot at pulling the USA from the brink of ruin.

-> Abigailgem , 12 Oct 2017 17:20

America's been piling on the bad karma since Vietnam. It could well cause the world egregious trauma, but no one will shed a tear when the beast is brought low by its episodic-tho-predictable bouts of cluster-fuck. Methinks they've hit the Big One.

And aren't its politicians infinitely grateful for a citizenry so simply and quickly distracted by Hollywood shenanigans (as awful as they are in this instance) whilst a) 3 million of its own have been blown into third world living standards; b) 528 took a bullet from a shooter in the span of less than 10 minutes; and c) Californians are being roasted alive in the latest indication that something's gone screwy in our biosphere? The Oaf and Chief considers Weinstein as nothing more than relief.

Riddle: What's the difference between a President and a leader?

A: There shouldn't be difference, but now there is.

-> GatesOfRome , 12 Oct 2017 16:08

Iran is a danger to the region and the world.

I know enough of Iran to respectfully disagree. In many respects, Iran is similar to China, 30 years ago. Under the right leadership, it has the potential of becoming an economic engine for the South-West Asia, helping economic growth of itself and many of its neighboring countries.

Iran has a well-educated population that does not like the US, mainly because of the past US behaviour both in their country and in the surrounding region. The people there revolted against a US-installed government and used religion as a unifying ideology. Now they should be left alone to sort out the problems that religion has brought to them.

In case of China, Napoleon Bonaparte is quoted to say:

Let China Sleep, for when she wakes, she will shake the world

As the journal Economist once suggested, it is also better to leave the Persian Lion alone. Indeed, the Bonaparte's quote can be restated to apply to Iran; it could read:

Let the Persian Lion Sleep, for when it wakes, it will never live like a sheep

For those interested in military mind-set, it is worth mentioning here that Afghans and Iranians are in fact the same people and approach war and fighting in the same manner. The difference between the two is the cunning and sophistication of the latter.

, 12 Oct 2017 14:53

Mr. McLean's analysis is largely on the mark. Indeed much of it is supported by Mr. Trump's behavioral pattern, which has been witnessed by the world public during the past 11 months. There is, however, an area where - like many others - Mr. McLean tries to play safe. When he says::

But he promised his loyal base, Fox News and Steve Bannon, he would dump the accord

he is apparently leaving out an important - and probably the most critical - constituency of Mr. Trump. When Mr. McLean says:

He has Bannon and Breitbart howling on his heels, along with most of the rabid rightwing noise machine.

he is getting close; but, then then he shies away from identifying who are the people behind that "rabid rightwing noise machine.".

Many believe that Mr. Trump decisions are influenced by this "rabid rightwing machine" more than anything or anyone else. He has been reported to call many of the machine's "operators" after hours, from the WH as well as his Mar-a-Lago palace, in every opportunity he gets. As examples of the power of this machine, they refer to its ability:

1. To undo the harm of Pope Francis condemnation of candidate Trump, clling him "not being Christian", after his pledge to deport undocumented immigrants and build a wall between US and Mexico. The machine undermined Vatican's moral authority by overnight flooding of the world media with the old story of Pope John Paul II having a close relationship with a Polish women;

2. To pump out billions of dollars into the US futures market on the night of Mr. Trump's election victory to reverse its steep drop of almost 1000 points .

Now the "rabid rightwing machine" wants US decertification of the nuclear treaty with Iran. Mr. Trump is a businessman and no doubt understands how transactional relationships work. He is indebted to this machine, and has to reciprocate its favours in order to receive more of the same in future. Note that he has already registered as a canadidate, to be re-elected the US president for his second term!

-> Durangotang , 12 Oct 2017 11:43

And the US did not attack North Korea?

-> GatesOfRome , 12 Oct 2017 05:23

Iran is a danger to the region and the world.

The facts don't support this assumption. Clearly and without a doubt by far the most dangerous, the most destructive, the most deadly player in the region has been the United States. This fact is indisputable to the sincere.

-> Daniel Berg , 12 Oct 2017 05:15

Better refresh. The United States is by definition, an empire. Has been since December 10, 1898. Not all empires have or have had emperors. At least, as an official title. We even still possess a few de facto colonies, Puerto Rico being the most populous. The Philippines were part of the American empire from December 10, 1898 to July 4, 1946.

The Philippines' colonial history has been described by one historian as "500 years in a convent, followed by 50 years at Disneyland."

, 12 Oct 2017 05:02

Trump makes a big medicine show of cancelling "the worst deal ever" (Man! Trump can go from 0 - Hyperbole in no time flat, eh?) but that's easier said than done. The United States simply cannot arbitrarily walk away from the deal. Not legally. Aside from that Trump no longer enjoys the support of the GOP to cancel the agreement.

Oh! Make no mistake. These very same Republicans were all for walking away from the deal when Obama made it and they didn't control all three branches of government (although I'm not sure who or what controls the executive at the moment). Now that they do, having nothing but years of obstructionism to bring to the table, the GOP, lacking any governing skills whatsoever, is as impotent as ever and tearing itself apart from the inside besides.

I tell ya'. The GOP, already severely weakened by the Koch Brothers'-funded grassroots Tea Party movement, may very well just not survive the cancer of Trump.

-> GatesOfRome , 12 Oct 2017 04:50

Again, not the topic. The question is asked: Is Iran in compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action? The answer, of course, is yes. Trump's entire domestic and foreign policy decisions appear to be based entirely on if Obama had anything to do with it, then it has to go. Bad or good. Right or wrong . This is not a viable method of sound government. It is petty, however. Childish and puerile, to say the least.

At any rate, if Trump renegades on this deal as he has on so many since he's been in office, then it will be the United States which will be in noncompliance with the treaty and it will be the reputation of the United States which will suffer yet another blow delivered by none other than our Buffoon-in-Chief.

Besides, Iran is not the only other nation muckraking about in the region. There are other players in the game. I hear rumors of another, more powerful, more destructive, far more deadlier entity stomping about the place, making a mess of just about everything. Been doing it for decades now. Just keeps making matters worse.

-> Fred Fawcett , 11 Oct 2017 22:37

I know it's sexy to blame Rethugs for everything, but American wars against weak countries didn't begin with Reagan. From the halls of Montezuma...

-> phubar , 11 Oct 2017 21:38

North Korea might just decide that it's own best interests would be served by selling Iran a working bomb. With Trump's sanctions interfering with North Korea obtaining oil, Iran might just pay the tab that way. The world could very quickly become a much more dangerous place because of Trump's antics.

-> ID4752094 , 11 Oct 2017 21:32

Israel is probably mentioned because Netanyahu is an active partner in Trump's war on the Iran Deal.

-> zolotoy , 11 Oct 2017 21:25

This is the result of our long string of wars since Reagan took on Grenada. Then Bush in Panama. And on and on until today. We've chosen to do battle with small weak countries that don't have a hope in hell of winning or even inflicting major harm.

With each new painless war the American people have been conditioned to believe that because it hasn't caused personal suffering that war is somehow painless. Now we've worked our way up to North Korea and Iran. Both of them a whole different ball game. War with either or both would likely result in a return of the draft.

Trump's scumbag supporters would quickly be singing a different tune as soon as they found themselves being forced to participate.

-> Stranger1548 , 11 Oct 2017 21:09

Well said.

[Oct 17, 2017] For War Hawks, Iran Deal Dump Is Music to the Ears

As one commenter aptly said: " 'Moron', as Tillerson would say." and as another noted "Don the Neocon.. We can keep the military in the end-stateless, goal-less, sinkhole known as Afghanistan for decades, STILL subsidize the defense of rich EU and Asian countries, fight the latest "Al Qaeda offshoot" everywhere on the African continent but we can't afford universal healthcare like US welfare baby Israel or about every other developed country, or restore power or drinking water in a US territory."
Notable quotes:
"... the question is, who are these people all excited about Iran? Other than politicians who may be working for foreign lobbies? ..."
"... This is pure lawlessness. We are breaking an agreement and by advocating regime change against a govt that has not attacked us or even threatened us in a serious manner are breaking the U.N. charter. ..."
"... Screw Trump. I mean really, screw him. He got my vote because I thought he was going to first crush ISIS and then get us out of the Middle East. Instead he's intensifying nearly every aspect of our Middle East entanglements. ..."
"... Now he's creating a new mess of his own. And this crap he's pulling with Iran is for Saudi Arabia and Israel. America First really? ..."
"... Of all of the Obama-era foreign policy decisions Trump could pull back, he's hell-bent on crushing one of the only good ones. I'd be shocked if he has even an elementary understanding of the agreement. "Moron", as Tillerson would say. ..."
"... "Cotton is one of the biggest Israel money guys in the Senate, if not the biggest. Really whopping contributions – "the Swamp" personified. In return for Israel money he has tirelessly pushed the core Israeli policy of hostility to Iran, so much so that it hardly makes sense to think of him as an American senator anymore." ..."
"... It appears that Trump's strategy is to insult and ruin Ran's economy to the point where he can get Iran to do something that will allow him to declare war against Iran because they attacked us. ..."
"... And how many countries has Iran invaded in the last 200 years? And how many countries has Israel invaded in the last 80 years? ..."
"... We will really find out who the Swamp creatures are now. Any congressman or Senator who votes for new sanctions against Iran – a country that poses virtually no threat to the United States – exposes himself as a bought-and-paid-for tool of Saudi Arabia and the jihadist fanatics the Saudis support. ..."
"... it's less that Trump wants to undo what Obama did and more that he wants to do what Netanyahu wants. ..."
"... Any notion of American excellence has now been erased. Our country will not soon recover all that Trump has tossed away and as citizens, we cannot absolve ourselves from blame. We have elected the most odious leader in our history and have allowed (mostly) a Republican Party to participate in government without having made a single contribution to the welfare of the American republic. Cotton is not alone in his folly that dismisses all real national interest. Like others, there have been many times I have despaired at the state of affairs in our Country, but this is different. Trump and his vandal allies I believe have inflicted permanent and irreversible damage to our country. Joe F , says: October 13, 2017 at 5:07 pm One follow up to earlier post: with this action, Trump has proven beyond doubt that the Mullah regime in Iran is a far more trustworthy nation than the United States. Well done Donald ..."
Oct 13, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Fran Macadam , says: October 13, 2017 at 12:48 am

Making war in other people's countries is what an American government captured by globalist financial elites is all about. For elites, such wars, paid for by the deplorable ordinary Americans they loathe, have no downside and carry no risk to them. Lose-lose for the American public is win-win for them, they cannot lose, especially since wars that can't be won will never end, perfect profit streams.
80 Percent Polyester , says: October 13, 2017 at 5:39 am
"Cotton was among the fiercest and loudest opponents of the agreement before it was made, and he has continued to look for ways to sabotage it."

Cotton is one of the biggest Israel money guys in the Senate, if not the biggest. Really whopping contributions – "the Swamp" personified. In return for Israel money he has tirelessly pushed the core Israeli policy of hostility to Iran, so much so that it hardly makes sense to think of him as an American senator anymore.

He's more like a member of the Netanyahu government who somehow ended up in one of Arkansas's US Senate seats.

Early To Rise , says: October 13, 2017 at 5:58 am
Does anyone here know any real Americans who are pushing for this policy against Iran? My family and friends are nearly all real Americans, and not one of them has any interest in ending the deal with Iran. Most of them wish we would get out of the Middle East altogether.

So the question is, who are these people all excited about Iran? Other than politicians who may be working for foreign lobbies?

Christian Chuba , says: October 13, 2017 at 7:16 am
This is pure lawlessness. We are breaking an agreement and by advocating regime change against a govt that has not attacked us or even threatened us in a serious manner are breaking the U.N. charter.

We are doing this while condemning other countries for not following a 'liberal, rules based world order' (whatever that is, oh, wait, it is following Caesar's decrees). Our Hubris will catch up to us, whether it will be by the Almighty that the Haley's and Cotton's claim to serve or just the law of reciprocity, I don't know. No one is more blind than those corrupted by power.

John Quincy Adams, "But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force . She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit."

He was able to see this because we were not yet intoxicated by power.

Everything Must Go , says: October 13, 2017 at 8:01 am
Screw Trump. I mean really, screw him. He got my vote because I thought he was going to first crush ISIS and then get us out of the Middle East. Instead he's intensifying nearly every aspect of our Middle East entanglements.

Now he's creating a new mess of his own. And this crap he's pulling with Iran is for Saudi Arabia and Israel. America First really?

Frederick Martin , says: October 13, 2017 at 9:38 am
Of all of the Obama-era foreign policy decisions Trump could pull back, he's hell-bent on crushing one of the only good ones. I'd be shocked if he has even an elementary understanding of the agreement. "Moron", as Tillerson would say.
Fred Bowman , says: October 13, 2017 at 10:14 am
What seem to be missing here is anybody talking about Israel nuclear capability. That's the "dirty little secret" that nobody talks about. Imho, as long as Iran is in compliance the deal should. Of course Trump and the Hawks in Congress are going to do everything to scuttle it and bring about a war with Iran which will end up being a World War and will necessitate the US returning to a military draft to fight this war. It will be a sad way to "wake up" America to what is being done militarily in their name. But perhaps when they see their little "Johnny and Jill" marched off to war, they'll see what has been done in these endless, unwinnable wars in the Middle East.
AR complaint , says: October 13, 2017 at 10:31 am
[Tom Cotton gets] "Really whopping contributions – "the Swamp" personified."

He got a $700,000 check from a single Israel donor in 2014. You think anybody in Arkansas not named "Walton" can match that? No sir. Tom Cotton does what Israel tells him to do. Scuttle the Iran deal? No problem.

It's time that my fellow Arkansans did for Tom Cotton what those upstanding Virginians did for Eric Cantor back in 2014, and for the same reason: we want our government back from corrupt politicians working for foreign interests.

SDS , says: October 13, 2017 at 11:53 am
I second EVERYTHING said above by all –
Steve Waclo , says: October 13, 2017 at 11:53 am
" the president made clear over the summer, he didn't "believe" Iran was in compliance and would not certify again."

Wait, what?! What does Trump know that the IAEA has been unable to learn and at the risk of compromising intelligence sources, why has he not shared that knowledge? As with many of the man's "beliefs", such attitudes do not make issues remotely true. We don't need to stir the Iran pot, for goodness sake. Has not this man kicked enough hornets nests around the world?

Stephen J. , says: October 13, 2017 at 11:58 am
I believe the "War Hawks"are leading Trump into another war. Therefore, I asked on: February 4, 2017 Will There Be War With Iran?
http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2017/02/will-there-be-war-with-iran.html
Steve in Ohio , says: October 13, 2017 at 12:35 pm
"Cotton is one of the biggest Israel money guys in the Senate, if not the biggest. Really whopping contributions – "the Swamp" personified. In return for Israel money he has tirelessly pushed the core Israeli policy of hostility to Iran, so much so that it hardly makes sense to think of him as an American senator anymore."

Cotton is wrong on this issue, but he's hardly a Swamp politico. He understands the dangers of mass immigration and looks likely to replace Jeff Sessions as the leading immigration hawk in the Senate. Unfortunately, I suspect he has presidential ambitions and being pro Israel is a must in GOP primaries.

Rand Paul, on the other hand, like his dad, is good on foreign policy, but doesn't get the immigration issue. People like me who want a non interventionist FP and low immigration seldom have candidates that believe in both to support. I had high hopes for Trump, but he seems to have too many generals around him telling him the wrong things.

the times they are a'changing , says: October 13, 2017 at 1:23 pm
"Cotton is wrong on this issue, but he's hardly a Swamp politico. He understands the dangers of mass immigration and looks likely to replace Jeff Sessions as the leading immigration hawk in the Senate. Unfortunately, I suspect he has presidential ambitions and being pro Israel is a must in GOP primaries. "

No it's not. It was a litmus test for the old neocon Establishment GOP, and it's gone the way of Eric Cantor. You have to go to New York, DC, or some left coastal city to find anyone who gives a goddamn about it, and those places don't vote Republican anyway.

Politicians who take the Israel dollar care about it a lot, naturally. And Cotton's near the top of the list.

jk , says: October 13, 2017 at 2:04 pm
Don the Neocon.. We can keep the military in the end-stateless, goal-less, sinkhole known as Afghanistan for decades, STILL subsidize the defense of rich EU and Asian countries, fight the latest "Al qaeda offshoot" everywhere on the African continent but we can't afford universal healthcare like US welfare baby Israel or about every other developed country, or restore power or drinking water in a US territory.

"NO KIN IN THE GAME": STUDY FINDS MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WITHOUT DRAFT-AGE SONS WERE MORE HAWKISH"

https://theintercept.com/2017/10/11/congress-war-hawkish-policies-study/

That explains "lifetime bachelor" Graham's behavior!

Kent , says: October 13, 2017 at 3:09 pm
To our neocon friends:

1. Even though Iran and Iraq are 4 letter words and share the first 3, they are very, very different animals. Iran is an industrial state of 85 million capable of designing and building effective rockets. It is highly unlikely the US can defeat Iran in a conventional war on its own turf.

2. Even if we did defeat them, there is nobody there yearning for American style pseudo-democracy. While they are not perfectly happy with their own government, they'll be dammed if they're going to accept one from us. So you'd have to put millions of American troops in harms way against the civilian population essentially forever.

And a note on the President. I don't believe he knows or cares a thing about Iran or their capabilities. What he does know, after watching Fox News for the last 8 years is: Obama bad. So the only reason, I'm certain, that Trump cares about this is because it was an Obama initiative.

Robert Charron , says: October 13, 2017 at 3:34 pm
It appears that Trump's strategy is to insult and ruin Ran's economy to the point where he can get Iran to do something that will allow him to declare war against Iran because they attacked us.

And how many countries has Iran invaded in the last 200 years? And how many countries has Israel invaded in the last 80 years?

As I recall we made a regime change in the Iranian government when we had the CIA along with the English intelligence by replacing the elected Prime Minister of Iran with the despotic, tyrannical Shah.

As an American, Trump has desecrated our flag with his flat out lies, not the NFL athletes who simps knelt during the National Anthem.

simon94022 , says: October 13, 2017 at 3:54 pm
We will really find out who the Swamp creatures are now. Any congressman or Senator who votes for new sanctions against Iran – a country that poses virtually no threat to the United States – exposes himself as a bought-and-paid-for tool of Saudi Arabia and the jihadist fanatics the Saudis support.

Let them be counted!

Ollie , says: October 13, 2017 at 4:26 pm
No president in history has been more feckless and reckless than Trump. The danger demands that the 25th amendment be asserted.
Why Does The Heathen Rage? , says: October 13, 2017 at 4:49 pm
"So the only reason, I'm certain, that Trump cares about this is because it was an Obama initiative."

I've heard this before, but if it were true than why is Trump helping the Saudis wreck and starve Yemen? That was an Obama initiative too. That's why I now think that it's not really the Obama connection so much as the Netanyahu connection that drives Trump. In other words, it's less that Trump wants to undo what Obama did and more that he wants to do what Netanyahu wants.

Joe F , says: October 13, 2017 at 5:05 pm
Any notion of American excellence has now been erased. Our country will not soon recover all that Trump has tossed away and as citizens, we cannot absolve ourselves from blame. We have elected the most odious leader in our history and have allowed (mostly) a Republican Party to participate in government without having made a single contribution to the welfare of the American republic.

Cotton is not alone in his folly that dismisses all real national interest. Like others, there have been many times I have despaired at the state of affairs in our Country, but this is different. Trump and his vandal allies I believe have inflicted permanent and irreversible damage to our country.

Joe F , says: October 13, 2017 at 5:07 pm
One follow up to earlier post: with this action, Trump has proven beyond doubt that the Mullah regime in Iran is a far more trustworthy nation than the United States. Well done Donald
Liam , says: October 13, 2017 at 5:21 pm
Regarding the 25th amendment option: how far down the line of succession must one go to find someone who has solid, bona fide cred to stop this inanity?
picture window , says: October 13, 2017 at 5:45 pm
The Economist today opines that Xi Jinping has more clout than Donald Trump.

And I read on TAC that Trump is p***ing away our wealth and power doing favors for Israel and Saudi Arabia in the Middle East, like scuttling the Iran deal and picking fights with the Iranian government. And I conclude that the reason that the Economist may be right about Xi Jinping is because Trump is doing what I read about in TAC, wasting our time, blood, money, and focus on appeasing a bunch of goddamn foreigners in the form of the Israel and Saudi lobbies.

Pretty damn grim.

[Oct 17, 2017] Rerry on attempt to destuct Iran economy by blocking purchases of oil from China and India

Oct 16, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 | Oct 15, 2017 5:22:59 PM | 12

In the final days of the Iran Deal negotiations, August 2015, I completely missed the interview Kerry did with Reuters, https://2009-2017.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2015/08/245935.htm that Mercouris parses for his detailed article proving the Outlaw US Empire's Imperial Policy is now "irrational"--utterly I'd say since for me it's been irrational for decades when weighing the actual interests of the United States's populous. The key excerpt:

"But if everybody thinks, 'Oh, no, we're just tough; the United States of America, we have our secondary sanctions; we can force people to do what we want.' I actually heard that argument on television this morning. I've heard it from a number of the organisations that are working that are opposed to this agreement. They're spreading the word, 'America is strong enough, our banks are tough enough; we can just bring the hammer down and force our friends to do what we want them to.'

"Well, look – a lot of business people in this room. Are you kidding me? The United States is going to start sanctioning our allies and their banks and their businesses because we walked away from a deal and we're going to force them to do what we want them to do even though they agreed to the deal we came to? Are you kidding ?

"That is a recipe quickly, my friends, for them to walk away from Ukraine, where they are already very dicey and ready to say, 'Well, we've done our bit.' They were ready in many cases to say, 'Well, we're the ones paying the price for your sanctions.' We – it was Obama who went out and actually put together a sanctions regime that had an impact. By – I went to China. We persuaded China, 'Don't buy more oil.' We persuaded India and other countries to step back.

"Can you imagine trying to sanction them after persuading them to put in phased sanctions to bring Iran to the negotiating table, and when they have not only come to the table but they made a deal, we turn around and nix the deal and then tell them you're going to have to obey our rules on the sanctions anyway?

"That is a recipe very quickly, my friends, businesspeople here, for the American dollar to cease to be the reserve currency of the world – which is already bubbling out there .." (Bold italics in original.)

[Oct 17, 2017] Trump Decertifies Iran Deal, Vows New Sanctions by Jason Ditz

The immediate costs of decertification for the USl include the loss of the trust of allies, increased tensions with Iran, and much greater skepticism from all other governments. It also create additional difficulties the next time America wants to negotiate a major international agreement as some countries will view the USA as a rogue nation which is unable to keep its word. If decertification leads to the U.S. breaching its obligations under the nuclear deal, as seems likely, that the costs will increase even more, and so will the chances of war with Iran.
It might well be that Trump made a step increasing the probability of his removal from the current position by cabinet members.
Looks like Trump focus on appeasing a bunch of foreigners in the form of the Israel and Saudi lobbies.
Pretty damn grim.
Oct 13, 2017 | news.antiwar.com

President Trump started his long-anticipated anti-Iran speech by complaining about the 1979 hostage situation. What followed was an increasingly fantastical and absurd accounting of Iran's history, before finally announcing he is decertifying the nuclear deal for "violations," and announcing new sanctions.

The allegations against Iran went from things that happened a generation ago to treating things like the specious "Iranian plot" to attack a DC restaurant as not only the government's fault, but absolute established fact. Beyond that, he blamed Iran for the ISIS wars in Iraq and Syria, repeatedly accused them of supporting al-Qaeda, and claimed Iran was supporting the 9/11 attackers.

The allegations were so far-fetched by the end, that even President Trump appeared cognizant that many won't be taken seriously. Later in his speech, he insisted that the claims were "factual."

When addressing "violations" of the P5+1 nuclear deal, Trump similarly played fast and loose with the facts, citing heavy water claims that are really more the international community's violation than Iran's (Iran was guaranteed an international market for the water, but after Congress got mad the US has refused to buy any more, meaning Iran's totally non-dangerous stock grew), and accusing them of "intimidating" inspectors, insinuating that was the reason there aren't investigations at Iranian military sites.

In reality, Iranian military sites are only subject to investigation in the case of a substantiated suspicion of nuclear activities, and there simply are none. The IAEA has in recent days clarified multiple times that they don't need or want to visit any military sites right now. The only allegations about the sites are from the Mujahedin-e Khalq, which has been the source of repeated false accusations in the past.

And while this was supposed to be a speech about the nuclear deal, Trump closed it off with comments that very much sound like his goal is regime change, saying Iran's people want to be able to interact with their neighbors (despite Iran being on very good terms with most of its neighbors already), and suggesting that whatever he's going to do will lead to "peace and stability" across the Middle East.

[Oct 16, 2017] Trump Looks Set to Start Blowing Up the Iran Deal by Eli Clifton

Notable quotes:
"... Despite the potential pitfalls of Cotton and Netanyahu's plan, UN Ambassador Nikki Haley embraced the approach. Haley, a possible replacement for embattled Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, tweeted yesterday, "[Sen. Tom Cotton] has clear understanding of the Iranian regime & flaws in the nuclear deal. His [CFR] speech is worth reading." ..."
"... The United States must cease all appeasement, conciliation, and concessions towards Iran, starting with the sham nuclear negotiations. Certain voices call for congressional restraint, urging Congress not to act now lest Iran walk away from the negotiating table, undermining the fabled yet always absent moderates in Iran. But, the end of these negotiations isn't an unintended consequence of Congressional action, it is very much an intended consequence. A feature, not a bug, so to speak." ..."
"... Any agreement that advances our interests must by necessity compromise Iran's -- doubly so since they are a third-rate power, far from an equal to the United States. The ayatollahs shouldn't be happy with any deal; they should've felt compelled to accept a deal of our choosing lest they face economic devastation and military destruction of their nuclear infrastructure. That Iran welcomes this agreement is both troubling and telling. ..."
"... Ben Armbruster, writing for LobeLog last week, detailed the ways in which Mark Dubowitz , CEO of the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies , pushes for a so-called "better deal" while explicitly calling for regime change in Tehran. ..."
"... But perhaps a bigger pressure on Trump to de-certify comes from three of his biggest political donors : Sheldon Adelson , Paul Singer , and Bernard Marcus . All three have funded groups that sought to thwart the negotiations leading to the JCPOA, including Dubowitz's FDD, and have given generously to Trump. ..."
"... Adelson has also financed Israel's largest circulation daily newspaper, whose support for Netanyahu and his right-wing government earned it the nickname "Bibiton." ..."
Oct 16, 2017 | fpif.org

The Post credits Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) with this "fix it or nix it" approach to U.S. compliance with the JCPOA. Indeed, Cotton laid out essentially this very strategy in a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in which he proposed that the president should decertify Iran's compliance with the nuclear deal based on Iran's actions in unrelated areas and toughen key components of the agreement, arguing that the deal fails to serve U.S. national security interests.

This plan has a low likelihood of success because Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif says that the JCPOA will not be renegotiated and European governments have urged Trump to stick with the pact.

Despite the potential pitfalls of Cotton and Netanyahu's plan, UN Ambassador Nikki Haley embraced the approach. Haley, a possible replacement for embattled Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, tweeted yesterday, "[Sen. Tom Cotton] has clear understanding of the Iranian regime & flaws in the nuclear deal. His [CFR] speech is worth reading."

But Cotton has been clear that renegotiating the nuclear deal isn't his actual intention. In 2015, he made no secret of his desire to blow up diplomacy with Iran, saying :

The United States must cease all appeasement, conciliation, and concessions towards Iran, starting with the sham nuclear negotiations. Certain voices call for congressional restraint, urging Congress not to act now lest Iran walk away from the negotiating table, undermining the fabled yet always absent moderates in Iran. But, the end of these negotiations isn't an unintended consequence of Congressional action, it is very much an intended consequence. A feature, not a bug, so to speak."

Later that same year, Cotton explained his terms for any agreement with Iran, qualities that more closely resemble a surrender document than anything the Iranians would agree to in a negotiation. Cotton said :

Any agreement that advances our interests must by necessity compromise Iran's -- doubly so since they are a third-rate power, far from an equal to the United States. The ayatollahs shouldn't be happy with any deal; they should've felt compelled to accept a deal of our choosing lest they face economic devastation and military destruction of their nuclear infrastructure. That Iran welcomes this agreement is both troubling and telling.

Indeed, Cotton and his fellow proponents of the president de-certifying Iranian compliance, despite all indications that Iran is complying with the JCPOA, have a not-so-thinly-veiled goal of regime change in Tehran, a position in which the JCPOA and any negotiations with Iran pose a serious threat. Ben Armbruster, writing for LobeLog last week, detailed the ways in which Mark Dubowitz , CEO of the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies , pushes for a so-called "better deal" while explicitly calling for regime change in Tehran.

But perhaps a bigger pressure on Trump to de-certify comes from three of his biggest political donors : Sheldon Adelson , Paul Singer , and Bernard Marcus . All three have funded groups that sought to thwart the negotiations leading to the JCPOA, including Dubowitz's FDD, and have given generously to Trump.

"I think that Iran is the devil," said Marcus in a 2015 Fox Business interview . Adelson told a Yeshiva University audience in 2013 that U.S. negotiators should launch a nuclear weapon at Iran as a negotiating tactic. Adelson may hold radical views about the prudence of a nuclear attack on Iran, but he appears to enjoy easy access to Trump. Adelson and his wife, Miriam, who were Trump's biggest financial supporters by far during his presidential run, met with the president at Adelson's headquarters in Las Vegas recently, ostensibly to discuss the recent mass shooting there.

But Andy Abboud, senior vice president Government Relations for Adelson's Sands Corporation, told the Adelson-owned Las Vegas Review Journal that the meeting was "pre-arranged and set to discuss policy," according to the paper .

Adelson has also financed Israel's largest circulation daily newspaper, whose support for Netanyahu and his right-wing government earned it the nickname "Bibiton."

Eli Clifton reports on money in politics and U.S. foreign policy. He's previously reported for the American Independent News Network, ThinkProgress, and Inter Press Service.

[Oct 16, 2017] President Trump Beats War Drums For Iran by Ron Paul

Notable quotes:
"... Nearly every assertion in the president's speech was embarrassingly incorrect. Iran is not allied with al-Qaeda, as the president stated. The money President Obama sent to Iran was their own money. Much of it was a down-payment made to the US for fighter planes that were never delivered when Iran changed from being friend to foe in 1979. The president also falsely claims that Iran targets the United States with terrorism. He claims that Iran has "fueled sectarian violence in Iraq," when it was Iranian militias who prevented Baghdad from being overtaken by ISIS in 2014. There are too many other false statements in the president's speech to mention. ..."
"... Unfortunately the American people are being neoconned into another war. Just as with the disastrous 2003 US attack on Iraq, the media builds up the fear and does the bidding of the warmongers without checking facts or applying the necessary skepticism to neocon claims. ..."
Oct 16, 2017 | www.unz.com

President Trump has been notoriously inconsistent in his foreign policy. He campaigned on and won the presidency with promises to repair relations with Russia, pull out of no-win wars like Afghanistan, and end the failed US policy of nation-building overseas. Once in office he pursued policies exactly the opposite of what he campaigned on. Unfortunately Iran is one of the few areas where the president has been very consistent. And consistently wrong.

In the president's speech last week he expressed his view that Iran was not "living up to the spirit" of the 2015 nuclear agreement and that he would turn to Congress to apply new sanctions to Iran and to, he hopes, take the US out of the deal entirely.

Nearly every assertion in the president's speech was embarrassingly incorrect. Iran is not allied with al-Qaeda, as the president stated. The money President Obama sent to Iran was their own money. Much of it was a down-payment made to the US for fighter planes that were never delivered when Iran changed from being friend to foe in 1979. The president also falsely claims that Iran targets the United States with terrorism. He claims that Iran has "fueled sectarian violence in Iraq," when it was Iranian militias who prevented Baghdad from being overtaken by ISIS in 2014. There are too many other false statements in the president's speech to mention.

How could he be so wrong on so many basic facts about Iran? Here's a clue: the media reports that his number one advisor on Iran is his Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley. Ambassador Haley is a "diplomat" who believes war is the best, first option rather than the last, worst option. She has no prior foreign policy experience, but her closest mentor is John Bolton – the neocon who lied us into the Iraq war. How do these people live with themselves when they look around at the death and destruction their policies have caused?

Unfortunately the American people are being neoconned into another war. Just as with the disastrous 2003 US attack on Iraq, the media builds up the fear and does the bidding of the warmongers without checking facts or applying the necessary skepticism to neocon claims.

Like most Americans, I do not endorse Iran's style of government. I prefer religion and the state to be separate and even though our liberties have been under attack by our government, I prefer our much freer system in the US. But I wonder how many Americans know that Iran has not attacked or "regime-changed" another country in its modern history. Iran's actions in Syria are at the invitation of the legitimate Syrian government. And why won't President Trump tell us the truth about Iranian troops in Syria – that they are fighting ISIS and al-Qaeda, both of which are Sunni extremist groups that are Iran's (and our) mortal enemies?

How many Americans know that Iran is one of the few countries in the region that actually holds elections that are contested by candidates with very different philosophies? Do any Americans wonder why the Saudis are considered one of our greatest allies in the Middle East even though they hold no elections and have one of the world's worst human rights records?

Let's be clear here: President Trump did not just announce that he was "de-certifying" Iran's compliance with the nuclear deal. He announced that Iran was from now on going to be in the bullseye of the US military. Will Americans allow themselves to be lied into another Middle East war?

Jim Christian , October 16, 2017 at 4:31 pm GMT

"Will Americans allow themselves to be lied into another Middle East war?"

The die was cast the minute they ended the draft and mandatory service. What the hell does anyone in this country care about the next war? Maybe some realize it's a theft, a looting, but as long as it isn't THEIR blood being spilt, nothing goes nuclear, they don't care. Few outside our little venue here even understand, they think it's still Rah! Rah! And then, I suppose if I were in Congress, I might demand votes on these deals. Civilian control of the military, funding the wars, etc. Of course, if I pushed the point, they'd put a bullet in my HEAD . Just because. And headline me, my Mistress and my wife on the front page of the Post. Because NSA just KNOWS shit. Probably set me up with my Mistress to begin with so they'd have something on me, heh. This is the dilemma the Hill has on a personal level. We don't vote on wars, we gave em a blank check after 9/11 and that's that. Keeping it all going? That's all private. None-ya.

No one can talk about it, they just do it.

[Oct 16, 2017] Trump acts like the proverbial bull in a china shop. Which might be the symptom of floundering, weakened, posturing US Empire -- decending into empty threats (Iran, NK) which are often rightly dismissed by others. Which make this historical period very dangerous indeed.

Notable quotes:
"... The reality is that the above situation outlined by Kerry two years ago has only worsened with Trump's inability to understand that reality leading to the current irrationality in policy-- unless --Trump is actually trying to further the Neocon policy of Full Spectrum Dominance. ..."
"... "Have you met America? That's the country that needs "lives matter" movements because of its prevailing culture of utter indifference to human welfare, but which trips over itself in its eagerness to wage war in defense of the petrodollar." ..."
"... I can easily envision a joint announcement by Russia, China and Iran that all trade conducted with them must be transacted in Yuan, Ruble, Rial, or Euro--that the dollar is no longer welcomed. And given the utter stupidity of the Republican controlled US Congress, more sanctions will be applied to Iran thus sealing the onset of the Outlaw US Empire's international isolation. ..."
"... Imho, the US political establishment, as publically projected, is moving closer to a realm where words, be they snide remarks, lofty pronouncements, declarations of intent, or vile accusations, become substitutes for action. ..."
"... US overt behavior is hapless unless entered into with cold calculation, a specific hidden aim in mind, and levers of control somewhere. Not the case imho, but dismissing Trump as a fool is not useful. We see symptoms of floundering, weakened, posturing Empire -- imho empty sorts o' threats (Iran, NK) are often dismissed by others, rightly so, but that is dangerous too: the US has to play the military domination position combined with the unpredictability card. Extremely volatile situation. ..."
"... Remember when Trump said he would never do a first nuke strike? :) ..."
Oct 16, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 | Oct 15, 2017 5:22:59 PM | 12

In the final days of the Iran Deal negotiations, August 2015, I completely missed the interview Kerry did with Reuters, https://2009-2017.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2015/08/245935.htm that Mercouris parses for his detailed article proving the Outlaw US Empire's Imperial Policy is now "irrational"--utterly I'd say since for me it's been irrational for decades when weighing the actual interests of the United States's populous. The key excerpt:

"But if everybody thinks, 'Oh, no, we're just tough; the United States of America, we have our secondary sanctions; we can force people to do what we want.' I actually heard that argument on television this morning. I've heard it from a number of the organisations that are working that are opposed to this agreement. They're spreading the word, 'America is strong enough, our banks are tough enough; we can just bring the hammer down and force our friends to do what we want them to.'

"Well, look – a lot of business people in this room. Are you kidding me? The United States is going to start sanctioning our allies and their banks and their businesses because we walked away from a deal and we're going to force them to do what we want them to do even though they agreed to the deal we came to? Are you kidding ?

"That is a recipe quickly, my friends, for them to walk away from Ukraine, where they are already very dicey and ready to say, 'Well, we've done our bit.' They were ready in many cases to say, 'Well, we're the ones paying the price for your sanctions.' We – it was Obama who went out and actually put together a sanctions regime that had an impact. By – I went to China. We persuaded China, 'Don't buy more oil.' We persuaded India and other countries to step back.

"Can you imagine trying to sanction them after persuading them to put in phased sanctions to bring Iran to the negotiating table, and when they have not only come to the table but they made a deal, we turn around and nix the deal and then tell them you're going to have to obey our rules on the sanctions anyway?

"That is a recipe very quickly, my friends, businesspeople here, for the American dollar to cease to be the reserve currency of the world – which is already bubbling out there .." (Bold italics in original.)

The reality is that the above situation outlined by Kerry two years ago has only worsened with Trump's inability to understand that reality leading to the current irrationality in policy-- unless --Trump is actually trying to further the Neocon policy of Full Spectrum Dominance. If that is indeed the case, then Trump's behavior is rational in that the only alternative facing the Outlaw US Empire in its drive to enslave the planet is to launch a non-proxy hot war to achieve its goals.

Or... Trump's smarter than any of us as he expects the neocons to fold when faced with the possibility of escalating the ongoing Hybrid Third World War into one that's no longer Hybrid and promises to bring horrendous amounts of death and destruction to The Homeland.

karlof1 | Oct 15, 2017 5:23:58 PM | 13
Oops, forgot link to Mercouris article, http://theduran.com/donald-trump-decertifies-iran-us-foreign-policy-becomes-irrational/
Grieved | Oct 15, 2017 6:10:34 PM | 18
@12 karlof1

yes, I just read that Mercouris piece and I was excited to read about that Kerry interview, that everyone seems to have missed. So here's what seems to be the authoritative background on the the Iran deal.

b said in his last piece - October 14 , linked in his article above:

Obama pushed sanctions onto sanctions to make Iran scream. But the country did not fold. Each new U.S. sanction step was responded to with an expansion of Iran's nuclear program. In the end Obama had to offer talks to Iran to get out of the hole he had dug himself.

For me this was the first time I'd seen an explanation of why the Iran deal happened, and I really wanted to know more. Now this retrospective by Mercouris shows exactly how accurate b's assessment was, but fills in the detail to show that the EU was already on the verge of a major split from the dollar. Only the deal, which allowed EU to grow its trade with the huge market of Iran, saved this potential run from the dollar by Europe.

I read the full Reuters interview , and I find it debatable how much of Kerry's statement was applied to Russia and China and how much to Britain, France and Germany. I'll parse it as, Asia will say it out loud, Europe will think it silently - the unthinkable, that is. Mercouris seems sure it was Europe:

In other words the US was pushed into the JCPOA somewhat against its will at the insistence of its European allies, who were considering lifting sanctions on Iran unilaterally if the US rejected the deal which was on offer. The US submitted to their demands because it feared that the alternative – threatening economic war on its European allies by imposing sanctions on them – would have hastened the ending of the reserve currency status of the US dollar.

It is rare to say the least for US officials to so much as contemplate in public the possibility of the US dollar losing its reserve currency status. The fact that in August 2015 Secretary of State Kerry actually did so shows the pressure that the US was under.

Astonishing. Here we are two years later trying to think that if Trump does whatever nonsense he does with the Iran deal, it will encourage a rift between the US and the EU - but actually this has already come to be the situation, and two years ago at that.

This is some serious shit, that we all seem to have missed. EU leaders may be craven, but European business wants to trade with Iran, and it's simmering around the point of breaking away from the dollar in order to do it. Surely this calls for a large re-calculation of the situation.

What happens if Iran starts to negotiate payments settled in Yuan? Hezbollah can take down Israel militarily. But perhaps Iran can take down the US financially?

ben | Oct 15, 2017 7:27:42 PM | 19
karlof1 @ 13: Thanks for the link. Good read. Actually gives a little hope that the adults in the world can reign in the morons now running the U$A.
ben | Oct 15, 2017 7:32:32 PM | 20
From TRNN: "Decertifying Iran Deal, Trump Escalates His War"

http://therealnews.com/t2/story:20220:Decertifying-Iran-Deal%2C-Trump-Escalates-His-War

Peter AU 1 | Oct 15, 2017 8:19:51 PM | 21
Part of Obama speech.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/05/text-obama-gives-a-speech-about-the-iran-nuclear-deal/?utm_term=.aac92dd70db9
..."Moreover, our closest allies in Europe or in Asia, much less China or Russia, certainly are not going to enforce existing sanctions for another five, 10, 15 years according to the dictates of the U.S. Congress because their willingness to support sanctions in the first place was based on Iran ending its pursuit of nuclear weapons. It was not based on the belief that Iran cannot have peaceful nuclear power, and it certainly wasn't based on a desire for regime change in Iran.

As a result, those who say we can just walk away from this deal and maintain sanctions are selling a fantasy. Instead of strengthening our position, as some have suggested, Congress' rejection would almost certainly result in multi-lateral sanctions unraveling.

If, as has also been suggested, we tried to maintain unilateral sanctions, beefen them up, we would be standing alone. We cannot dictate the foreign, economic and energy policies of every major power in the world. In order to even try to do that, we would have to sanction, for example, some of the world's largest banks. We'd have to cut off countries like China from the American financial system. And since they happen to be major purchasers of our debt, such actions could trigger severe disruptions in our own economy, and, by way, raise questions internationally about the dollar's role as the world's reserve currency. That's part of the reason why many of the previous unilateral sanctions were waived."...


Another time when Obama was covincing US to pass the Iran deal, he stated bluntly that not passing the deal would put the US dollar at risk. Have not been able to find it as yet.

Perimetr | Oct 15, 2017 10:44:48 PM | 26
RE: karlof1 | Oct 15, 2017 5:22:59 PM | 12 You write: "Or... Trump's smarter than any of us . . ."

Probably not

see: Donald Trump bodyslams, beats and shaves Vince McMahon at Wrestlemania XXIII
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMKFIHRpe7I

psychohistorian | Oct 15, 2017 11:38:03 PM | 28
I just read this comment by Oh Homer at another site and felt motivated to share it here.

"Have you met America? That's the country that needs "lives matter" movements because of its prevailing culture of utter indifference to human welfare, but which trips over itself in its eagerness to wage war in defense of the petrodollar."

karlof1 | Oct 16, 2017 11:30:57 AM | 38
Grieved @18-

Good questions! The extremely rare candor shown by Kerry, as Mercouris notes, isn't being shared by the Trumpsters and is likely responsible for their outward state of high anxiety and knee-jerk reactions to just about anything.

Iran says it has a plan: "Speaker of Iran's parliament Ali Larijani said that Iran 'had a developed plan and a certain law,' should the United States withdraw from the agreement on Tehran's nuclear program, adding that Washington would 'regret it.'" https://sputniknews.com/world/201710161058275364-iran-plan-us-nuclear-deal/

RT reports Larijani thusly: "' We have a plan We've recently approved in parliament what we should do given the Americans undertake certain steps, ' Larijani told reporters Monday on the sidelines of the Inter-Parliamentary Union meeting in St. Petersburg.

' We will take steps so that the Americans will regret it. '" (Emphasis in original.) https://www.rt.com/news/406851-iran-has-plan-if-us-withdraws-nuclear/ If that is so, then what Iran plans to do ought to be discerned by looking at its parliamentary actions on the subject by those able to read Farsi. I rather doubt it's bluff and bluster.

And the EU won't support Trump's decertification: "After a closed-door meeting [of EU Foreign Ministers at Luxembourg] chaired by EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini on how best to proceed on the Iran issue, ministers issued a joint statement saying that the 2015 deal was key to preventing the global spread of nuclear weapons." https://www.rt.com/newsline/406844-iran-eu-us-mogherini/

I can easily envision a joint announcement by Russia, China and Iran that all trade conducted with them must be transacted in Yuan, Ruble, Rial, or Euro--that the dollar is no longer welcomed. And given the utter stupidity of the Republican controlled US Congress, more sanctions will be applied to Iran thus sealing the onset of the Outlaw US Empire's international isolation.

Noirette | Oct 16, 2017 1:21:55 PM | 40
Imho, the US political establishment, as publically projected, is moving closer to a realm where words, be they snide remarks, lofty pronouncements, declarations of intent, or vile accusations, become substitutes for action.

Likewise, minor symbolic moves like withdrawing, "quitting" which is ambiguous, from e.g. UNESCO - *US didn't pay dues in any case.*

Trump is not alone, all the Dem. Russia-bashing/blaming leads nowhere, the Trump denigration as well, Trump threatening NK is similar.

The word is sufficient to itself! As are incantatory spells, religious appeals, etc. All one clumsy step beyond the Rovian "when we act, we create our own reality.." which rests on the power to act and transform reality (sometimes with sleight of hand, mirages..) transferring that power to symbols with hope and 'belief'... That's the comforting take.

US overt behavior is hapless unless entered into with cold calculation, a specific hidden aim in mind, and levers of control somewhere. Not the case imho, but dismissing Trump as a fool is not useful. We see symptoms of floundering, weakened, posturing Empire -- imho empty sorts o' threats (Iran, NK) are often dismissed by others, rightly so, but that is dangerous too: the US has to play the military domination position combined with the unpredictability card. Extremely volatile situation.

Remember when Trump said he would never do a first nuke strike? :)

[Oct 14, 2017] Trump Is Signaling an Unprecedented Right Turn on Foreign Policy by John Feffer

Notable quotes:
"... The Washington Post ..."
"... By handing off any real decision to Congress, [Trump] can avoid having to make a hard decision himself. And by picking a fight with Corker, he has a scapegoat if his supporters grow frustrated with a lack of action in Congress. It seems plausible that Trump's allies are simply being prepared for another legislative failure. ..."
Oct 14, 2017 | fpif.org

For Trump's critics, including virtually all Iran policy experts at the moment, this attempt at scuttling the world's most sophisticated arms control agreement sends absolutely the wrong signal to Iran. Trump is essentially saying, "It doesn't really matter whether you have adhered to the letter of the agreement, we're still going to break our commitment because, honestly, we just don't like you. And by the way, you can't count on the United States to keep its word in the future."

Trump is sending an even more damaging message to the rest of the world: "We as a country suffer from mood swings so severe and delusions so enduring that we can no longer be a responsible member of the international community."

After deep-sixing the Trans-Pacific Partnership and pulling the United States out of the Paris climate agreement, the Trump administration is making good on this one campaign promise even as all the others stall in Congress or the courts. Trump will make America First even if it means going against obvious American national interests, even those defined by the Chamber of Commerce.

This is not the first time that other countries have witnessed the political instability of the United States. But in the past, some underlying continuity provided a measure of reassurance to other countries. Voters might choose vanilla or chocolate, but the world still expects in the end to get some variety of ice cream.

What makes the Trump era different is the lack of that underlying continuity.

... ... ...

It's not just the North Koreans. The democratic world, for instance, found the transition to the George W. Bush years particularly bewildering. Even before the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration announced that it wouldn't implement the Kyoto Protocol on global warming. After the attacks, the administration broke with international law by embarking on a "preventive" war, violating the Geneva Conventions on treatment of captured combatants, and engaging in torture. The administration also backed away from the Rome statute establishing the International Criminal Court in May 2002 and withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with the Russia in June 2002. All of these actions profoundly troubled America's allies.

... ... ...

In other words, even with its sharp turn toward unilateralism, the Bush administration held to a bipartisan consensus in favor of multilateral initiatives that benefit the United States. In some ways Bush offered only a variation on the Clinton theme of "a la carte multilateralism" in which the United States picks and chooses the international structures with which it wants to cooperate.

This kind of Bush-style unilateralism wrapped in a-la-carte multilateralism has returned to the White House. It's represented by most of the top administration officials involved in foreign affairs: Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Pentagon chief James Mattis, and National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster. These are the so-called adults in the room .

But Trump is something different. And that's what has thrown Republicans like Bob Corker (R-TN) into a tizzy.

... ... ...

Bob Corker is not a moderate Republican. He has an 80 percent ranking from the American Conservative Union for 2016 (by comparison, Susan Collins of Maine clocks in at 44 percent). He's no softie on Iran, either. Last year, he continued to try to pile on additional sanctions against Iran. Ultimately, he had to content himself with an extension of the Iran Sanctions Act for another 10 years. During the presidential campaign, Corker advised Donald Trump on foreign policy and was even in the running for secretary of state.

Corker is cut from the same cloth as Rex Tillerson. They're conservative Republicans who believe in "America First." But they're also committed to preserving a measure of professionalism, if nothing else, when it comes to U.S. foreign policy. They want to preserve U.S. alliances. They want to advance the interests of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

They're not isolationists, and they're not exactly internationalists either. They occupy the right wing of the underlying foreign policy consensus that encompasses the think tanks, lobby shops, and mainstream media in DC. They play ball whether it's a Democrat or a Republican in the White House and whichever party controls Congress. They are part of the continuity in American foreign policy that transcends the elections.

So, when Bob Corker takes aim at Donald Trump, it represents a serious breach not just within the Republican Party but within the foreign policy establishment. Over the weekend, Corker charged that Trump was making threats toward other countries that could send the United States reeling toward "World War III." Later, Corker tweeted in response to Trump, "It's a shame the White House has become an adult day care center. Someone obviously missed their shift this morning." Having decided not to run for re-election, Corker is now free to speak truth to power.

... ... ...

So, why pick a fight with Corker just when the president will need him most on the congressional battle over any new Iran sanctions? Writes Adam Taylor in The Washington Post :

By handing off any real decision to Congress, [Trump] can avoid having to make a hard decision himself. And by picking a fight with Corker, he has a scapegoat if his supporters grow frustrated with a lack of action in Congress. It seems plausible that Trump's allies are simply being prepared for another legislative failure.

In other words, it's all about the war that Trump and his still-loyal lieutenant Steve Bannon, assisted by UN ambassador Nikki Haley, have declared on the "deep state." They want to dismantle the foreign policy establishment that has presided over America's engagement in the world. A progressive might find much to rejoice in this attack, given that America's engagement with the world has often been through war and corporate penetration. But the establishment is more than that, and Trump/Bannon also want to unravel everything of diplomatic and humanitarian value as well.

John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus and the author of the dystopian novel Splinterlands .

[Oct 14, 2017] The United States and Iran Two Tracks to Establish Hegemony by James Petras

You can't analyze the USA foreign policy toward Iran without analyzing the needs of the US led neoliberal empire... Interests of Israel are secondary to the interests of empire.
Notable quotes:
"... 'salami tactics' ..."
"... "color revolution" ..."
"... 'terrorist state' ..."
"... 'responsibility to protect (R2P) ..."
"... Iran responded by developing economic, technical and military agreements with Russia and China in order to counter the US-Israeli-Saudi threats and sanctions. Russia provides advanced defensive weapons systems. China signs large-scale, long-term trade agreements while including Iran in its huge Central Asian infrastructure projects. Most importantly, Iran has succeeded in defending the legitimate government of Syria, while aiding Iraq and Yemen. ..."
"... President Trump is facing a serious coup d'état involving the political-intelligence elite, with the military looking warily on the chaos. The masses are increasingly polarized or disgusted. ..."
"... 'national-capitalist ideology' ..."
"... The Trump regime is full of contradictions: It threatens to end the nuclear agreement with Iran but allows Boeing to sell billions of dollars of civilian aircraft to Teheran. It signs a $300 billion dollar arms sales agreement with Saudi Arabia (business for the for military industries) while losing political influence in the US, where the Saudis are widely despised. ..."
"... And yet the US destroyed Iran's most useful enemy, Saddam's Iraq. Sometimes I wonder whether US foreign policy has any guiding intelligence at all. Maybe it consists only of stupid, reckless flailing. ..."
"... How many Americans and Europeans realize that all Islamic terrorism in the West is Sunni and none of it is Shia, and that all the demonization of Iran and Hezbollah is solely for the benefit of Israel? ..."
"... Bottom line is that most American people are kept under-educated by design and they are being fooled and mislead by the ZIOMSM about the rest of the world! ..."
"... Trump administration has promised to one of many fans of MEK that it has been looking and will continue to look into ways to change the Iranian regime . One of the ways is to harness the terrorism that is embodied by MEK. ..."
"... Next generation might end up repeating 'God forgive America' instead of chanting ad nauseam – ' God bless America' . ..."
"... The younger generation is just as corrupt and unthinking as their teachers -- maybe even more corrupt: for most of the young professionals -- such as a group I met recently -- the primary concern is networking/career building, and if it means acquiescing to regime change, so be it. ..."
"... Hey S2 and KA, how about the [regime change] color revolution that's happening here, with the drive to impeach Trump? Only it's not really regime change, is it. It's the Deep State (with its useful idiot Pussy Brigade) desperate to maintain status quo. ..."
"... Some people think I'm a Trump supporter. Well, I support that he's our duly elected President, and I'm grateful for his disruption (God Bless him for "the system is rigged" and "fake news"), but I don't like most of his policy, and he abandoned the part I did like. But it was just so euphoric to dodge Hilmonster bullet. ..."
"... What's happening now, however, is bigger than persons or parties. The fraudulent accusations of collusion with Russia, intended to derail this administration, are an attack on our democracy and an exercise in persuasion and mind-control of our citizenry. This was underscored for me by a dreadful conversation in church this morning. When I said that I didn't believe that "17 intelligence agencies" had proved that the Russians interfered [directly, by hacking, was the point] in our election, my interlocutor was aghast. Unable to answer in a "Christian" manner, she threw back her head and laughed. It was quite a Hillaryesque gesture. ..."
"... What preceded this was my bringing up the collaboration of the DNC, Crowdstrike, and Ukraine to slander and taint Donald Trump via accusations against Paul Manafort. Rather than cross-examine me about that or discuss it, she came back with, "How about Trump and the Russian oligarchs " and "How about Jared Kushner meeting the Russians.." – IN THE RUSSIAN EMBASSY !!! seemed to be enormously unforgivable in her mind – and a few other 'How abouts.' When none of this impressed me, she was visibly exasperated and went to the '17 agencies,' hoping for a knock-out blow, I guess. ..."
"... Sadly, I turn to anonymous commenters for solace. Also, I encourage all to see the significance of the DNC chicanery, of Crowdstrike not allowing the FBI to see the DNC computers, of Ukraine collaboration. I'm not an unqualified endorser of all Lee Stranahan's views, but he's doing a terrific job investigating this – and he's the only one who is! What he doesn't say in this video: the Dems should be careful what they wish for! After Comey hearing, there will be investigation of Loretta Lynch. ..."
"... The US can only operate in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria (and try for Iran) because of Zionist Neo-con dominance of the US government. The public actually voted against ME wars so it's clear that further wars are illegitimate. ..."
Oct 13, 2017 | www.unz.com

US policy in the Middle East and South Asia is shaped by several basic considerations:

US Imperialism is the force of global domination US imperial policy in the Middle East focuses on encircling, destroying and dismantling Iran's allies (Syria, Lebanon (Hezbollah), Iraq (Shi'a Militia), Qatar and Yemen with the intent of overthrowing the government and installing a client regime in Teheran. The return of Iran to the status of puppet regime will advance Washington's ultimate goal of encircling and isolating Russia and China. The US overthrow of the Islamic Republic of Iran will facilitate Israel's final seizure of Palestine, including Jerusalem, and establish Tel Aviv as the dominant regional power in the Middle East.

Washington's 'Two Track' Policy for Domination

US strategic planners rely on a two-track policy , combining and blending military and ideological weapons.

Its military strategy relies on slicing up the Middle East - 'salami tactics' – invading and conquering of each and every country and government, which shares the Islamic Republic of Iran's policy of national sovereignty and independence. US military success or failure depends on its alliances in the Middle East, North Africa and Europe. The US, Saudi Arabia and Israel all sponsor terrorist groups which have attacked Iran's scientists, its elected representatives and military leaders, as well as its sacred sites – inside Iran as well as abroad. The political and ideological strategy involves the penetration and organization of domestic forces to destabilize and weaken Iran's internal security, defense capability and overseas alliances. Ideological warfare involves: (1) exploiting regional, ethnic, class and religious differences to undermine stability and fragment the country; and (2) converting legitimate social critics and political opposition parties into imperial collaborators.

Ideological attacks are designed to attract Iranian writers, academics, intellectuals and artists who choose to ignore the history of US imperialism in fomenting bloody coups (Mossadegh 1954), launching proxy wars via Saddam Hussain's invasion (1980- 88) and the terrorist attacks by Israel and Saudi Arabia, as well as the terrorists backed by Iraq's former dictator.

US propaganda intervention in Iran's electoral process has been designed to promote a so-called "color revolution" regime change favored by neo-liberal, pro-West parties and candidates who seek US sponsorship in their ascent to power. The imperial collaborators and various Western 'human rights' NGOs hide the sordid history of Washington's overt and proxy wars/coups and occupations in Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Palestine.

Modern imperialist policies include:

diplomatic and cyber warfare against Iran's defense and security systems; economic sanctions and the assassination of highly skilled scientists and engineers to undermine economic growth; political propaganda labeling Iran a 'terrorist state' in order to intimidate and weaken overseas and domestic allies; and the financing and arming of terrorists from Europe, the Middle East and North Africa to attack the Islamic Republic.

Linguistic and Conceptual Perversions

Imperial warfare depends on perverting political language and concepts. The US refers to invasion, which have killed and maimed millions of Muslims and Christians in Iraq (2003-2017) and Syria (2011-2017) as 'humanitarian interventions'. In reality its policy described an ongoing 'holocaust' – the massive genocidal violation of the human rights of scores of millions of people to sovereignty, peace and security of home, life, limb, culture and faith.

The millions of victims of the West's current holocaust in the Middle East reject and scorn Washington's imperialist claim of defending 'democratic values' and its so-called 'responsibility to protect (R2P) ' as pronounced by a series of US Administrations through their mouthpieces in the United Nations.

In contrast, US support for the Saudi monarch's brutal bombing and blockade of Yemen has led to an entire population facing starvation and a massive, cholera epidemic, which now threatens over 26 million Yeminis. The campaign against Yemen by the brutal Saudis and their US-EU allies is the very definition of crimes against humanity and international law.

Sanctions: A Tool of Conquest

US sanctions against Iraq, Syria, Iran and Yemen have been designed to starve working people into submission while capturing the support of some middle class consumers. US policy of invading Libya and brutally murdering President Gadhafi and his family members was designed to systematically destroy a prosperous, independent republic and turn it into a backward, impoverished fiefdom of tribal warlords, exploited by Western oil companies. Saudi Arabia joined the European Union in financing terrorists, many trained in the destroyed remnants of Libya, who later killed innocent civilians in Paris, Nice, London, Manchester and other parts of Europe.

The strategic goal of the US invasion of Iraq, Syria and Yemen has been to violently divide these independent republics and turn them into ethnically cleansed, impoverished, mini-states – in the imperial tradition of 'divide and conquer'. Such tribal fiefdoms are easily dominated by imperial powers.

Regional and Global Strategy

Washington's imperial strategists have arrived at the conclusion that they cannot conquer independent states, like Iran, in a single attack, given its size, defense capability, internal cohesion and regional alliances.

Their strategy is to surround Iran by destroying its allies, one nation at a time.

The first phase of the US invasion, occupation and systematic destruction of Iraq and its entire governmental infrastructure was designed to overthrow the Baathist state, then neutralize the Shi'a militia and impose a servile client regime in Baghdad. The second step was to encourage Sunni tribal warlords to seize control of central Iraq. The third step was to arm the Kurds to form a mini-state in northern Iraq (so-called "Kurdistan"). This would entail large-scale ethnic cleansing, the total destruction of Iraq's ancient Christian community, the extermination of its multiethnic modern educated, scientific, cultural and technocratic work force. In other words, the US strategy was to obliterate any remnant of the Iraqi Republic in its war to 'remake the Middle East'.

After Iraq and Libya, the next target for US-EU aggression has been the government of the Syrian Arab Republic, Iran's ally. The EU, USA, Saudi Arabia and Turkey sponsored an invasion by mercenary Salafi forces under a network of Daesh-ISIS-al Queda terrorists. Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates have provided military, logistical and financial support to the terrorists.

After Syria, the fourth target of Anglo-American-Saudi-Israeli military strategy would be to undermine the national sovereignty of Lebanon and destroy the armed political Hezbollah Party, the powerful Lebanese resistance organization (allied with Iran). It was consistent with this strategy for the West to support Israel's brutal air and ground attacks against the civilian population and infrastructure of Beirut, Lebanese port cities and villages. Tens of thousands of Lebanese Christians were not spared the Israeli terror bombing campaign.

If a Lebanese campaign were successful and Hezbollah was destroyed, the 'final' Israeli conquest of Palestine, the fifth objective, could commence: US and world Zionism would unconditionally celebrate Israel's massive ethnic purge of Palestine's native peoples and finish off the total confiscation of the homes, mosques, churches, land and resources of millions of Muslim and Christian Palestinians and other peoples. This would create history's first 'pure Jewish' state.

The sixth imperial objective would be to disarm Iran's military and security structure and weaken its economy in order to isolate the Islamic Republic and undermine its Middle Eastern alliances. This strategic objective explains why Washington promotes its one-sided nuclear arms agreement with Iran, while the nuclear-armed Israel is excluded! Despite Iran's abiding by the terms of the agreement, there have been no reciprocal lifting of economic sanctions or the normalization of trade and diplomatic relations.

Beyond Iran, the global strategy would be to weaken, encircle and isolate the US's big power rivals, China and Russia and re-establish the US as the uncontested world imperial power.

Iran Counters the US Global Military Threat

Iran responded by developing economic, technical and military agreements with Russia and China in order to counter the US-Israeli-Saudi threats and sanctions. Russia provides advanced defensive weapons systems. China signs large-scale, long-term trade agreements while including Iran in its huge Central Asian infrastructure projects. Most importantly, Iran has succeeded in defending the legitimate government of Syria, while aiding Iraq and Yemen.

Iran undermined official US sanctions by signing multi-billion dollar agreements with the giant Boeing Corporation for the purchase of passenger airplanes as well as developing further agreements with US banks and agro-business exporters and oil companies. These profitable agreements with the US agro-business export sector can weaken the Pentagon-Zionist sanctions.

Iran has the diplomatic support of the Non-Aligned Movement opposing Israeli-US Zionist military threats.

Iran's principled opposition to Saudi Arabia's massive arms purchases, as well as the Kingdom's vicious alliance with Israel and its genocidal assault against the Yemeni people, has gained the support of world public opinion – especially the masses of independent Muslims throughout the world.

Iran's educational, scientific, military and political-electoral advances provide the basis for national security, economic growth, cultural enrichment, international alliances and the deepening of social democracy for its people. It provides an alternative independent vision for many millions of Muslims living under harsh monarchies, military dictators and imperial oppression.

Conclusion

Since the US and its allies launched their 'hot war' by surrounding, threatening and destabilizing Iran, Washington's strategy has suffered serious military defeats and political retreats. Iraq is no longer encircled by the US. Shia-based militias have regional control, especially south of Baghdad and beyond. Syria, Iran's ally, has fought hard to finally liberate many towns, cities and territory taken by the terrorist mercenaries despite the EU-US-Saudi-Israel's initial advances.

Rival rebel forces and mercenary gangsters besiege the US puppet governments in Libya, Somalia and South Sudan. The classic CIA term, 'blowback', means these terrorists are now turning their guns on the West. Washington has lost control of Afghanistan. Over a third of the Afghan military and police recruits defect to the resistance fighters. The central 'government' in Kabul influences less than a quarter of the country

Despite spending trillions of dollars on wars and propaganda over the past two decades, US military strategy to encircle and conquer Iran has been a military, diplomatic and economic failure. The American people have suffered thousands of casualties and its domestic economy is in permanent crisis with massive unemployment, poverty, recession and stagnation.

Despite US congressional, Presidential and Pentagon support for Israel's Jewish colonization of Palestine, more countries, trade unions and social movements, around the world, support the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel than ever before. Manu are speaking up despite government threats to outlaw 'criticism of Israel' as a 'hate crime'.

The turmoil and deep political divisions in the United States between the oligarchs allied to President Trump and the opposition oligarchs have created a profound institutional crisis, which has undermined domestic governance and disrupted US global alliances, US-EU relations and US-Asian trade links.

Despite the bizarre and often theatrical presentation by the US mass media, the American Congress and President Trump are fighting over fundamental issues, including control of the national security agencies (CIA, NSA, FBI, Homeland Security, etc.), foreign and military policy, the economy and environmental agenda, the federal budget, judiciary and the Presidency.

The political crisis has paralyzed the capacity of the US to start new wars and negotiate international agreements. President Trump is facing a serious coup d'état involving the political-intelligence elite, with the military looking warily on the chaos. The masses are increasingly polarized or disgusted.

In an attempt to deflect from his domestic problems, President Trump deepened the US alliance with Saudi Arabia and reiterated threats against Iran. Nevertheless he declined pressure to move the US embassy to Jerusalem. The inconsistent and ad hoc nature of current US policy alienates friends and foes – with no redeeming features.

The domestic opposition demands an end of President Trump's diplomatic overtures to Russia. It uses the fake pretext of Russian interference in the US presidential election to move toward the president's impeachment.

The US faces a CLANDESTINE CIVIL WAR among its elite!

A financial bubble accompanies the American domestic political crisis. The economic elite, the banks and stock market have benefited through speculation, despite or because of, the paralysis among rival political oligarchs!

The emergence of Trump's so-called 'national-capitalist ideology' means a decline in US multi-lateral agreements, such as NATO, the EU, NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership (TPP). This explains Trump's effort to renegotiate bilateral agreements, which have failed

Trump's stated policy objectives have fallen between two chairs: the multi-lateral agreements have not been replaced by lucrative bilateral deals. Trump relies on big business offerings and 'nationalist' ideology to minimize his diplomatic failures and ideological isolation. Trump wants to win contracts for greater US exports and investment. This has been weakened by the previous administration's pursuit of economic sanctions and expanding wars, as well as his feckless propaganda.

The Trump regime is full of contradictions: It threatens to end the nuclear agreement with Iran but allows Boeing to sell billions of dollars of civilian aircraft to Teheran. It signs a $300 billion dollar arms sales agreement with Saudi Arabia (business for the for military industries) while losing political influence in the US, where the Saudis are widely despised.

At least, Trump does not blather on about humanitarian wars; he would prefer signing business deals. He mentions the need for 'regime change' in Syria and sending more troops to Afghanistan but does little to implement these goals.

President Trump is fighting for his own political (and personal) survival and to prevent his impeachment (via a Congressional coup). His strongest defense would be to strengthen the domestic economy and show some overseas economic successes.

Essentially, Trump's economic agenda depends on his avoiding politically and militarily costly wars. That was one of his campaign promises that resonated with the nation's core electorate.

Trump would like to balkanize Syria, while avoiding new troop commitments to Afghanistan. He would prefer profitable trade relations with Russia and China and perhaps, Iran, over war.

The impediments to any Trump policy success are massive: Trump's Administration includes zealous neo-conservative Russophobes and Zionist-Iranophobes. These are militarists who would provoke eventual armed conflict with Moscow and Teheran. Their current focus is on expanding the war in Syria, sending more US troops to Afghanistan and forging deeper ties with Israel and Saudi Arabia.

The current internal political contradictions between the Trump regime and the 'Deep' State apparatus, and between the Trump-allied business elite and the Zionist-neoconservative warmongers, preclude the development of a consequential Trump foreign policy.

In the meantime, domestic political warfare and the deepening divisions between the US and EU will create opportunities for Russia, China and Iran to join together in historic economic political and alliances, which might help re-balance a world on the brink of 'world war', economic collapse and environmental disaster.

The divisions among NATO countries undermine the establishment of a united front for greater imperial wars. The fragmentation of the European Union (Brexit, the collapse of Greece, the EU-sponsored putsch in Ukraine) lessens its global economic influence. The division between the US Presidential regime and the Opposition Security State apparatus paralyzes the US push for new imperial wars.

Divisions and conflicts within the imperial camp presents favorable opportunities for anti-imperialist countries in the Middle East, like Iran, Syria and Lebanon.

The strategic Russo-Chinese economic alliance may create a new global economy based on peaceful co-existence and greater economic co-operation.

This essay is dedicated to the memory of the innocent martyrs of the recent brutal terrorist attacks against the Iranian Parliament and the holy shrine and to honor the brave survivors and family members of the victims.

(Republished from The James Petras Website by permission of author or representative)

Of Related Interest The Demolition of U.S. Global Power Donald Trump's Road to Debacle in the Greater Middle East Alfred McCoy July 16, 2017 4,200 Words 106 Comments Trump Presidency --- First SNAFUs Already The Saker February 3, 2017 2,000 Words 225 Comments Autopilot Wars Sixteen Years, But Who's Counting? Andrew J. Bacevich October 8, 2017 2,100 Words 71 Comments disturbed_robot >, June 24, 2017 at 6:14 am GMT

Mr. Petras, my hats off to you. This is the most to-the-point, honest assessment of what's going on I've read in a long time.

My only complaint is the use of the term "Middle East". We should all drop this British colonial era term and just call it what it is: Southwest Asia. Please don't take that as being nit-picky and looking for fault (not my intention at all) your article is brilliant. But we have to start somewhere.

jilles dykstra >, June 24, 2017 at 6:15 am GMT

@Joe Levantine

Is it possible that many representatives know quite well what's going on, but have reasons, their own political survival, to pretend they do not know ?

Senator Hollings just dared to speak the truth shortly before he resigned, in 2004.

Hans Vogel >, June 24, 2017 at 7:14 am GMT

With respect to Israel's supposedly assigned role, I beg to differ. The US, like Russia and Iran, is an assimilative empire, established on the basis of welcoming and incorporating any group or individual willing to adopt the imperial culture and language. In other words, these are non-exclusive states.

Israel, on the other hand, is built on rigid and comprehensive racial and religious exclusiveness. Only Jews can join. Israel is the quintessential nation state, built on an antiquated, romantic 19th-century idea. The self-defeating and ultimately untenable model of the nation state was demonstrated unequivocally in 1945, but ignoring historical proof, Israel resuscitated it in 1948.

Therefore, it would seem to me Israel can never become the dominant force in the Middle East. Even if it somehow succeeds in attaining this position, it will definitely be of a very short duration. It is a bit like what Guizot once remarked: you can do anything with a bayonet, except sit on it.

Durruti >, June 24, 2017 at 10:27 am GMT

A Nicely Written Article by Petras:

Could have used a bit of information on the Rothschilds and other dominant Jewish Banking Family Oligarchs, including their role in the assassination of John F. Kennedy (the last Constitutional President of the United States ), on November 22, 1963, in the Coup D'etat in Dallas, (the first successful Modern Arab Spring ). Could have benefitted by references to the horrors of Vietnam and Indonesia (1965), 9/11, and the attack on the Liberty, among other dark pages of recent history, which would have taken a sentence. Could have used a bit of a VISION advocacy of how to Cure this Zionist imperialist plague so nicely described by Petras. The Restoration of the Republic, destroyed on November 22, 1963, is the Revolutionary Cure so ignored by the earnest and not so earnest critics of the Zionist New World Order.

Oh for our own Decembrists! God Bless America! Restore the Republic!

Durruti for The Anarchist Collective

jacques sheete >, June 24, 2017 at 11:07 am GMT

The strategic Russo-Chinese economic alliance may create a new global economy based on peaceful co-existence and greater economic co-operation.

Let's hope so. I, for one, am more than fed up with the one trick parasite, gangster politics.

Sergey Krieger >, June 24, 2017 at 11:16 am GMT

As USA internal rot accelerates she is becoming increasingly erratic and desperate in her international policy. It increasingly looks like biten by white shark seal trashing desperately in the water while life along with blood leaving it's body. Others should keep their cool and patiently wait.

dearieme >, June 24, 2017 at 11:37 am GMT

"2) US imperial policy in the Middle East focuses on encircling, destroying and dismantling Iran's allies (Syria, Lebanon (Hezbollah), Iraq (Shi'a Militia), Qatar and Yemen with the intent of overthrowing the government and installing a client regime in Teheran."

And yet the US destroyed Iran's most useful enemy, Saddam's Iraq. Sometimes I wonder whether US foreign policy has any guiding intelligence at all. Maybe it consists only of stupid, reckless flailing.

fnn >, June 24, 2017 at 2:19 pm GMT

How many Americans and Europeans realize that all Islamic terrorism in the West is Sunni and none of it is Shia, and that all the demonization of Iran and Hezbollah is solely for the benefit of Israel?

Rurik >, Website June 24, 2017 at 6:26 pm GMT

Excellent article and analysis, kudos and gratitude

If I were to offer any suggestion, I'd just prefer that the author amend the abbreviation of the US to the Z US (Zionist occupied US), as all of the things he mentions that the US is doing, are all in direct contravention of the principles and interests and people of the actual US, and are, rather, all being done to benefit the most sinister and intractable enemy of the of the US (and so many others including Iran); the Z US.

The American people have suffered thousands of casualties and its domestic economy is in permanent crisis with massive unemployment, poverty, recession and stagnation.

Trump's economic agenda depends on his avoiding politically and militarily costly wars. That was one of his campaign promises that resonated with the nation's core electorate.

I spell out my case for calling it the ZUS here:

(which I invite the moderators to including under a blue 'more' link so as not to clutter up the comment section)

[MORE]

saying US, by which I do not mean ordinary US people then the rotten elite running the show.

I sort of know that, but I hope you (and others) can understand why that distinction is so important to us genuine Americans who're horrified at the conduct of the US government on the world's stage.

The interests of the US government vs. the people of the US, could not be more diametrically opposed. They're looting our Treasury and our future to fund eternal wars for Israel- that do nothing but destroy any kind of long-term hope for this country. They're creating hatred for the American people that will reverberate over generations. They're systematically dismantling our sacred codified rights (earned in blood) going all the way back to the Magna Carta. They assassinate our citizens if they prove inconvenient to the regime, when they aren't burning them alive at places like Waco or the World Trade Center. There seems to be nothing too demonic that this government will do to us American citizens if they suspect that by doing so it will somehow augment their power to dominate us even more.

Today in America is much like the Russians during the Bolshevik / Soviet regime. Our government is our most intractable and dangerous enemy on the planet. We Americans have nothing to fear from Russia or Iran. That's laughable. But we have everything to fear from Washington DC. The drooling fiend that inhabits those think tanks and J-Street and K-Street and CFR and PNAC and CIA and all the other acronyms of Satan are our worst enemy on this planet, just as they threaten and menace the rest of the people of the planet, intending to use our children as cannon fodder even as they commit endless atrocities and war crimes in our name.

So I guess my point is just that the interests of the US [zio-government], vs. the interests of the US people are so wildly at odds, that it would be nice if others could see this as glaringly as those of us American citizens, watching with horror- as our government perpetrates monstrous crimes all over the globe, and here at home.

The banking cartels are not run by patriotic American citizens, they're run by our enemies.

The Pentagon is not run by patriotic American citizens, it's run by our enemies.

the FBI and CIA and DEA and NSA are all operated by the enemies of the American people.

the media are the most sinister and committed enemy we have. No one hates our guts more.

the universities are nothing but kosher Marxist indoctrination centers, telling our young people (among other things) that the "US" liberated the people of Kosovo. (is that what happened?). They tell our students that our participation in the world wars was honorable and noble. They tell them that what we are doing in the Middle East today is honorable and noble. They even are attempting to make any criticism of Israel a crime on the universities and campuses. Outlawing any expression of support for the BDS movement. Does that sound like our universities are run by and for Americans?!

there are two entities here in the good ol' US of A. There is the ZUSA, that is an enemy to all of mankind, including the people of the US. And then there are the people of the US; represented by those who still cling to quaint notions like the Rule of Law, and our traditions like freedom of speech and fair play. People like Michael Hastings. People like Seth Rich. People like Pat Tillman or Ron Paul or all of his supporters. People like the ones that voted for Obama to end the wars, and who voted for Trump to end the wars. People like Ken O'keefe, who are Americans to the core, and still represent the spirit of what being an American was all about, until our nation was hijacked in 1913 for the greater glory of $atan.

the US goal in former Yugoslavia was primarily a rejuvenation of NATO which has lost its meaning with the demise of SU. Also, the Demoncrats have a natural propensity to package their imperialism into "humanitarian" interventions, the Republicans are much less sleazy – the Republicans just say you are with us or against us, no matter whether what we do is legal or illegal. Therefore, it was a perfect little war for the Clintons:
1) breath a new life into NATO,
2) clean up the Southern Europe of any residual Russia and/or socialist influence and
3) do a dress rehearsal for attacking Russia (using NATO).

sounds like a perfectly excellent analysis to me.

I remember how we scrambled at the time to make sense of it. WTF were they up to?!

why were they bombing a nation that had been 'our' ally during WWII, and seemingly so that some KLA terrorists could lay claim to their ancient and sacred lands? Hard won from the same Muslim hoards that had drenched Kosovo in Christian, Serbian blood for centuries.

Some of us figured it was kind of a payback for Palestine. 'Yes, we zio-scum are ravaging your people in Palestine, but as payback, we'll give you Kosovo!

We even wondered if there wasn't some secret, high-level negotiations going on between the representatives of Islam and the Zionists. 'OK, what do you want for Palestine?' / 'We'll take Kosovo'.

Then there was general Clarks quote regarding the necessity of bombing Serbia:

"Let's not forget what the origin of the problem is. There is no place in
modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That's a 19th century idea and we are trying to transition into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with multi-ethnic states."

- General Wesley Clark

so it's been a conundrum, but your analysis sounds like the best so far.

travelling NGO EcoSystem

yes we see it all over the place. But also please keep in mind that the original NGO that $ubverted and corrupted is the one that took control of the US. The actions of the 'US' (ZUSA) today are no more a representation of the people of the US, than those in Kyiv or Kabul represent the typical Ukrainian or Afghan. Washington DC no more represents the 300+ million people here than did the actions of Mubarak represented the Egyptian people, or Yeltsin represented the Russian people, or Tony Blair represented the people of England. We have all of us been NGO'd by the Fiend, and none more so than us here in the US, where they declare from their pulpits that there is 'zero daylight between Israel and the ZUSA!'

So it stings to read about how this or that benefits the US, when all the benefits are going to the very same Beast that is drooling its putrid saliva all over US too.

Durruti >, June 24, 2017 at 10:19 pm GMT

@Rurik

My fine feathered friend:

I have little to parse in your lengthy essay.

However, in your selfish – sectarian way , you manage to blather on without a passing referral to comment # 6, directly above, which deals similarly with the same material,

And Includes: A suggestion #3, for a Cure to the Illness we are discussing. The Cure, which you in your 'brilliant' analysis, manage to avoid – ignore – or, suggest your own. Whining is OK, but Curative Change, apparently, is Verboten.

Of Necessity, I repeat : " a VISION advocacy of how to Cure this Zionist imperialist plague so nicely described by Petras. The Restoration of the Republic, destroyed on November 22, 1963, is the Revolutionary Cure so ignored by the earnest and not so earnest critics of the Zionist New World Order ."

Monty Ahwazi >, June 24, 2017 at 10:55 pm GMT

Great job Mr James Petras! Excellent summary of the past generation and the possibilities for near future of the Southwest Asia!

I wished you would have elaborated more about the US and Israeli Zionists pulling the west particularly the US into the Israel's illegal conflicts in the Southwest Asia! Now and in the near future the Israelis have more freedom to grab more land freely and without any challenges!

The US government has fallen for this crap at the expense of the American people! But I don't blame the Israelis to take advantage of the American government! I do blame however the American people who don't give damn about what their government is doing abroad as long as they have a job, place to live, food to eat, beer and pop to drink and a couch to sit on and watch Foux no news!

Bottom line is that most American people are kept under-educated by design and they are being fooled and mislead by the ZIOMSM about the rest of the world!

KA >, June 25, 2017 at 3:39 am GMT

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/23/all-signs-point-to-trumps-coming-war-with-iran/

Trump administration has promised to one of many fans of MEK that it has been looking and will continue to look into ways to change the Iranian regime . One of the ways is to harness the terrorism that is embodied by MEK.

Let's unpack it. America ,few months back apologized or regretted for destroying the regime of Mossadegh.
America few months back apologized to Guatemalan for changing the regime ( easily violently ) in 50s.

Is there anything to learn here that gives hope? Absolute power corrupts absolutely .

Next generation might end up repeating 'God forgive America' instead of chanting ad nauseam – ' God bless America' .

It is nauseating .

SolontoCroesus >, June 25, 2017 at 9:00 pm GMT

@KA

It is nauseating . The even greater tragedy, KA, is that the next generation are being indoctrinated by the same folks who on one day apologize and on the next day plan/carry out another regime change, without learning the lessons.

The younger generation is just as corrupt and unthinking as their teachers -- maybe even more corrupt: for most of the young professionals -- such as a group I met recently -- the primary concern is networking/career building, and if it means acquiescing to regime change, so be it.

RobinG >, June 26, 2017 at 3:50 am GMT

@SolontoCroesus

Hey S2 and KA, how about the [regime change] color revolution that's happening here, with the drive to impeach Trump? Only it's not really regime change, is it. It's the Deep State (with its useful idiot Pussy Brigade) desperate to maintain status quo.

Some people think I'm a Trump supporter. Well, I support that he's our duly elected President, and I'm grateful for his disruption (God Bless him for "the system is rigged" and "fake news"), but I don't like most of his policy, and he abandoned the part I did like. But it was just so euphoric to dodge Hilmonster bullet.

What's happening now, however, is bigger than persons or parties. The fraudulent accusations of collusion with Russia, intended to derail this administration, are an attack on our democracy and an exercise in persuasion and mind-control of our citizenry. This was underscored for me by a dreadful conversation in church this morning. When I said that I didn't believe that "17 intelligence agencies" had proved that the Russians interfered [directly, by hacking, was the point] in our election, my interlocutor was aghast. Unable to answer in a "Christian" manner, she threw back her head and laughed. It was quite a Hillaryesque gesture.

What preceded this was my bringing up the collaboration of the DNC, Crowdstrike, and Ukraine to slander and taint Donald Trump via accusations against Paul Manafort. Rather than cross-examine me about that or discuss it, she came back with, "How about Trump and the Russian oligarchs " and "How about Jared Kushner meeting the Russians.." – IN THE RUSSIAN EMBASSY !!! seemed to be enormously unforgivable in her mind – and a few other 'How abouts.' When none of this impressed me, she was visibly exasperated and went to the '17 agencies,' hoping for a knock-out blow, I guess.

Did all this mean that she considers the DNC malfeasance insignificant? DC, and Bethesda, where this took place, are overwhelmingly Blue. Around here it's poorly tolerated to defend Trump, or to criticize his detractors. But I didn't realize it was verboten to expose the DNC. After all, they already know the DNC and DWS stole the primary from Bernie.

Sadly, I turn to anonymous commenters for solace. Also, I encourage all to see the significance of the DNC chicanery, of Crowdstrike not allowing the FBI to see the DNC computers, of Ukraine collaboration. I'm not an unqualified endorser of all Lee Stranahan's views, but he's doing a terrific job investigating this – and he's the only one who is! What he doesn't say in this video: the Dems should be careful what they wish for! After Comey hearing, there will be investigation of Loretta Lynch.

What to look for in establishment reaction to the story about Ukrainian election interference

Hans Vogel >, June 26, 2017 at 2:01 pm GMT

@Joe Levantine

I do not agree. Germany (1933-1945) was a nation state carried to its extreme consequences. Moreover, the fundamental concept of the nation is a romantic fallacy. There is no reason why people speaking the same language would share the same values. How else do you think civil wars could come about? Switzerland may be many things, but not a nation state. It is a federation of wildly different entities (Kantons): most speak a German dialect. some French, one Italian and one Romance. Some are calvinist. some Roman Catholic, some Lutheran etc. If language be your yardstick, only two states in Europe qualify as nation states: Portugal and Iceland. I would agree with Rousseau (a Swiss, by the way): the smaller a state, the more rights (democratic etc.) the citizens tend to have. And indeed, Iceland is the freest and most democratic state in Europe, and therefore, also in the world.

Miro23 >, June 27, 2017 at 1:12 am GMT

This article covers a lot of ground but I would have emphasized more what 's happening internally in the US.

The US can only operate in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria (and try for Iran) because of Zionist Neo-con dominance of the US government. The public actually voted against ME wars so it's clear that further wars are illegitimate.

It would have been easier for the Zio-cons if HRC had been elected, but she wasn't, so the emphasis is now on the face-off between Trump's voters (maybe or maybe not represented by Trump) and the Zio-con/SJW alliance.

It goes without saying that the Zio-con/SJW alliance and the Deep State aren't Democratic, so they'll probably make another grab for absolute power since their first Coup attempt (9/11) failed.

How this works out seems to be the prime determinant of future ME action.

RobinG >, June 27, 2017 at 1:42 am GMT

@Miro23

Right. SOROS / CLINTON OVERTHROW: Seeing The Matrix OR What is "Civil Society?"

Miro23 >, June 27, 2017 at 1:48 am GMT

@Miro23

And a suspicious aspect are all the recent MSM "Russia" stories.

9/11 needed MSM preparation with Iraq WMD and Al Qaeda stories, so when the "Event" happened, the outrage could be pointed in the right direction.

Now it looks like preparation for some Russian "Event" / False Flag – probably this time with a fabricated "Russian surprise attack" on the US military, aimed at legitimizing a US Emergency Regime dictatorship run by the Zio/Neo-con crowd.

Chris Chuba >, June 27, 2017 at 5:38 pm GMT

Iran has transitioned away from terrorism and its harsh rhetoric of the 80′s and early 90′s and is attempting to claim the mantel of being a stabilizing influence in the M.E. They are contrasting this to the U.S. who they claim (rather convincingly) are agents of chaos. The kool-aid drinkers in the U.S. can bray 'terrorist state' all they want but this only plays in Peoria not to anyone who lives in the M.E. and sees what is actually happening.

The Qatar situation demonstrates this beautifully, while the KSA was asking Qatar to become a vassal and making a not so subtle threat of invasion, Iran was emphasizing the right of free commerce, sovereignty, and dialogue regarding differences.

Is Iran taking over the M.E.? yes, but not in the way that Neocons think, they are gaining influence by showing restraint.

[Oct 13, 2017] Trump threatens to rip up Iran nuclear deal unless US and allies fix 'serious flaws'

If Washington takes action without consulting its allies, the alliances could fray.
Oct 13, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

Trump says he will not recertify deal but stops short of pulling out entirely President says US participation 'can be cancelled by me at any time'

... ... ...

For European diplomats seeking to salvage the JCPOA, the days leading up to Trump's long-awaited speech were a roller-coaster. Initially fearful that Trump could immediately trigger a possible collapse of the deal, the Europeans were buoyed when they were briefed that Trump would not call for the reimposition of sanctions by Congress .

However, in the wake of the president's speech on Friday, the JCPOA's survival looked tenuous.

In the speech, Trump declared: "I am directing my administration to work closely with Congress and our allies to address the deal's many serious flaws so the Iranian regime can never threaten the world with nuclear weapons."

He noted that congressional leaders were already drafting amendments to legislation that would include restrictions on ballistic missiles and make the curbs on Iran's nuclear programme under the 2015 deal permanent, and to reimpose sanctions instantly if those restrictions were breached.

However, any such changes would need 60 votes in the US Senate to pass, and Democrats are high unlikely to give them their backing. Even if they did pass into law, the restrictions would represent a unilateral effort to change the accord that would not be acceptable to the other national signatories.

Hours earlier, the US secretary of state, Rex Tillerson had acknowledged that it was very unlikely that the JCPOA agreement could be change, but suggested that the issue of Iran's ballistic missile programme and the time limits on some of the nuclear constraints in the deal, could be dealt with in a separate agreement that could exist alongside the JCPOA.

[Jul 25, 2017] Often overlooked the story of the anti-soviet Afghan war is the fact that the insurgency was pan-Islamic: there were eight Shi'i groups, trained and funded by Iran

Notable quotes:
"... The fact is that the young Shah was not an "autocrat" before 1953. Per his own claims he was watchful of the chaotic events in Iran but did not wish to overstep the constitutional bounds placed on the monarchy. ..."
"... It is good to read others confirmation of my understanding about the sick tenets of our form of social organization.....private money and ongoing private ownership of property maintained by unfettered inheritance......It is not people that need to be eliminated but the tools that they use to exert power and control over the rest of us. ..."
"... It is of critical importance for the Resistance to respect the integrity of the language you use to think and reason about the world. ..."
"... Political Islam was and is supported by US geopolitical rationale . ..."
"... Often overlooked in retelling the story of this particular Afghan war is the fact that the insurgency was pan-Islamic: there were eight Shi'i groups, trained and funded by Iran. ..."
"... About those "bizarre political fights." It sounds a lot like divide and conquer with all the fighters on the losing end expending themselves and resources while one group gets rich in the meantime. ..."
"... US MSM does not discuss the debt or what it really means or how to address it. During the Geithner/Bernanke protect the Fed tour, Geithner said it was most important that the US keep paying interest on the debt with no mention of paying the debt itself. ..."
"... took some time to dig up but, as noted earlier, any effort at industrialization by the Pahlavi Kings, was always viewed as a threat by the West. It was Reza Shah that built the first Iranian Railroad ..."
Jul 25, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

nobody | Jul 23, 2017 8:02:08 AM | 64

Posted by: somebody | Jul 23, 2017 6:40:48 AM | 63

" ... to restore the Shah's autocracy ..."

I'll get back to you on your OP but just wanted to note that little bit of misinformation from your first source.

The fact is that the young Shah was not an "autocrat" before 1953. Per his own claims he was watchful of the chaotic events in Iran but did not wish to overstep the constitutional bounds placed on the monarchy. Per other critical points of view, he was a playboy king who neglected his duties and was doing the Riviera chacha and living up the La Dolce Vita scene. A middle of the road view would summize that there was some truth to both points of view, but would add that he was in no position to assume "autocratic" rule.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/autocrat

--

It is good to read others confirmation of my understanding about the sick tenets of our form of social organization.....private money and ongoing private ownership of property maintained by unfettered inheritance......It is not people that need to be eliminated but the tools that they use to exert power and control over the rest of us.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Jul 22, 2017 7:35:30 PM | 58

---

It is of critical importance for the Resistance to respect the integrity of the language you use to think and reason about the world.

somebody | Jul 23, 2017 9:29:18 AM | 65
64) It does not matter how small or great the Shah was, monarchy is not a viable option for modern governance.

Political Islam was and is supported by US geopolitical rationale .

Often overlooked in retelling the story of this particular Afghan war is the fact that the insurgency was pan-Islamic: there were eight Shi'i groups, trained and funded by Iran.
Curtis | Jul 23, 2017 9:42:27 AM | 66
nobody 50
About those "bizarre political fights." It sounds a lot like divide and conquer with all the fighters on the losing end expending themselves and resources while one group gets rich in the meantime.

US MSM does not discuss the debt or what it really means or how to address it. During the Geithner/Bernanke protect the Fed tour, Geithner said it was most important that the US keep paying interest on the debt with no mention of paying the debt itself.

Curtis | Jul 23, 2017 9:51:59 AM | 67
nobody 61
Thanks for that link/story. I lived there from 70 to 72 as a young boy. Modernization vs the islamists vs student protests was going on. Even now there is a virtual divide of the capital north and south. My brother climbed Tochal (Tehran) and wanted to climb Demavand. During any religious holidy we were told to keep a very low profile and my father told me to avoid buildings with the black flag (with arabic writing) hanging. Shahanshah did good in spite of himself.
Peter AU. | Jul 23, 2017 10:03:12 AM | 68
took some time to dig up but, as noted earlier, any effort at industrialization by the Pahlavi Kings, was always viewed as a threat by the West. It was Reza Shah that built the first Iranian Railroad : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Iranian_Railway and http://www.k-en.com/gonagon/National_Geography_April_1921.pdf
Curtis | Jul 23, 2017 10:55:39 AM | 69
My family once traveled the route from Tehran to the Caspian that ran along the rail route for a while. Desert east of Tehran but once in the mountains it's very lush and green. There are lots of tunnels and switchbacks along the rail route: Veresk Bridge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veresk_Bridge Austrian designed the bridge. But Germany was partners in the rail effort. The wiki version of the legend says the engineers were under the bridge for the first crossing. The legend we heard was that they rode the train across to prove its sturdiness.

[Jul 19, 2017] On Crapified News And Foreign Policy

Notable quotes:
"... The diminishing capacity to get a proper look at global affairs is related to the rise in Imperial Hubris of the Outlaw US Empire, which I turn degrades your ability to properly respond to events--particularly those created by Empire policy. I think this is a part of what b's writing about here. ..."
"... It is more than just rise, however correctly pointed out by you, of Imperial Hubris--the whole panoply of the "tools" of military-political analysis is plain and simple wrong. This failure is based on a metaphysical mistake -- wrong reading of history, especially of the 20th Century, which led to an ultimate failure in understanding the issues of scales and proportions. What was merely a once in a lifetime window of opportunities due to a specific combination of geopolitical, military, economic etc. factors in the immediate wake of WW II was perceived as a dialectic and inevitable march of history in favor of messianic USA, not a gift to be cherished. Sand castles on the beach, however, do not live long, the high tide has arrived some time ago. ..."
"... As in the US DOJ, FBI, CIA etc., are organizations aimed directly to protect oligarchic rule, IRG protects ruling class of clerics in Iran, in both countries under guise of protecting constitution and law and order, earthly or heavenly. ..."
"... Unfortunately, "What was merely a once in a lifetime window of opportunities due to a specific combination of geopolitical, military, economic etc. factors in the immediate wake of WW II was perceived as a dialectic and inevitable march of history in favor of messianic USA," this "metaphysical mistake" had already ingrained itself into the Outlaw US Empire's Mythos as Manifest Destiny and quickly found its way into all realms of discourse by the mid-1840s. The creation and perpetuation of such a grandiose mythos can only be done though lies and the deliberate falsification of history. ..."
"... While I don't disagree with you, it has to be well understood that any big "player" by 19th Century had its own version of Manifest Destiny e.g. Russia as a Third Rome. But it was namely through WW II where US could claim a "victory" over Nazism (hence a vast field of Anglo-American WW II history falsifiers) and thus realize itself as a continental power that the issue of exceptionalism really have got into over-drive and resulted in US literally running itself into the ground. When one has a political class (and population) not conditioned by continental warfare--it is almost inevitable. ..."
"... I get the impression the situation is typically less a matter of, "the editors demand a fast one on some less familiar issue", than certain intelligence operatives tasked with gaming the media echo chamber, feed well placed assets prioritized talking points to create the illusion of a 'thing'. ..."
"... Just look at the media shitstorm regarding Russia, different crap, same difference! ..."
Jul 19, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
Significant parts of the Trump administration , Congress and the general Zionist borg would love to start a war between the U.S. and Iran.

A war is unlikely. Iran's geography and strategic position is unassailable. Its global political standing has increased during the last decades. Any war with Iran would be extremely costly yet unwinnable.

But with U.S. pressure again increasing on Iran it is important to learn and understand what happens inside of country. Unfortunately most reporting about politics within Iran is bit of a mess. Considers the piece below from the Washington Post. Written from Turkey by a journalist who (to my best knowledge) does not speaks Farsi nor has any special knowledge of the country: With U.S. scholar's conviction, power struggle escalates between Iran's president and hard-liners

ISTANBUL -- A high-stakes power struggle between Iran's moderate president and his hard-line opponents in the judiciary appeared to escalate with the arrest of the president's brother and the conviction of an American student for espionage this weekend -- rulings that seemed timed to embarrass the Iranian leader at home and abroad

The piece should be classic foreign reporting. But who is speaking here?

  • ... Nader Hashemi, director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Denver, said ...
  • ... Khamenei said in a speech this month, according to the Center for Human Rights in Iran, an independent nonprofit based in New York
  • ... said Alex Vatanka, an Iran expert at the Middle East Institute in Washington
  • ... said Behnam Ben Taleblu, an Iran analyst at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington
  • ... [a]ccording to Suzanne Maloney, a senior fellow and expert on Iran at the Brookings Institution ...

There is certainly no reason to lambast the journalist, Erin Cunningham, for being lazy. Getting five telephone or email interviews and authorized quotes for the piece was surely a day's work. But how come there is no voice from Iran? The only quote from an Iranian person, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, is in translation of a lobby shop in New York which does not reveal its sponsors. Is the quote correct? The other "expert" are all from outlets that are more or less adverse to Iran's system of governance.

The piece makes the recent dispute and judicial action look extraordinary and sensational. It connects it to actions in Washington DC:

The tensions come as Iran and the United States spar over the terms of a nuclear deal struck with world powers to limit Iran's nuclear weapons program.
...
The Trump administration has taken a much harsher stance on Iran, threatening to abandon the deal, and the Treasury Department on Tuesday announced new sanctions primarily targeting Iran's ballistic missile program.
...
The arrest and conviction of Wang, a 37-year-old scholar at Princeton, appeared to target Rouhani's wider foreign policy and engagement with the West. Although Wang was detained in August 2016, the timing of the verdict is suspect, analysts say.

"Why did they keep it a secret as long as they did? Timing is important," said Alex Vatanka, an Iran expert at the Middle East Institute in Washington.

Conflicts between the executive and the judiciary in Iran are legend and reoccur at least every other year. They are independent of the president being "moderate" or "hard-line" himself. Consider the obvious similarities between the above lede and this one from 2012 :

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- The head of Iran's judiciary lashed out at the country's president Wednesday, the latest salvo in an escalating political conflict that has undermined much of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's political clout

The Iranian constitution and political system is build on the principal of Vilayat-e Faqih, the guardianship of the (Islamic) jurists. The undecided question is how absolute the primacy of the jurists is supposed to be. The interpretations vary widely and often depend on the issue at hand. The executive will naturally assert primacy wherever it can, while absolute principalists in the judiciary will always assert that their jurisprudence is prime. The conflict is daily bread in Tehran and it makes no sense to sensationalize it.

The arrest of the president's brother for corruption may well be justified. It should astonish no one. It could be timed to assert pressure but we have no way to know that. It would be mere speculation to say so. Experience has show that effective coordination within the Iranian state machinery is way less than western authors tend to assume.

The U.S. student/spy had already been imprisoned for eleven months. That he was convicted now is likely not related to any Trump tantrum or epiphany. Washington's capers are less important in Tehran as the U.S. would like them to be.

All together the piece shows the typical pitfalls of U.S. reporting on Iran (and many other countries).

  • Original and relevant voices from the ground are absent. None of the people involved in the issues is questioned. "Expert" quotes from often partisan western think thanks are the sorry substitute.
  • Cultural and historic characteristics are neglected. The current dispute between Rouhani and the judiciary has its background in a century old discussion in Iran about the limits of vilayat-e faqih. (The importance of this is comparable to conflicts about "executive privilege" or "state rights vs. federal rights" in U.S. politics.) With that background the spat between Rouhani and the judiciary is simply the marking of territories for his now beginning second term.
  • Most of the issues happening in a foreign country's politics are NOT related to whatever happens in Washington DC. U.S. writers love to draw such causal connections. But not every hiccup in Moscow is in response to some fart in DC. More often then not there is no connection at all.

One original voice from within Tehran's ruling circuit would have been more valuable to the above piece than the five think tank quotes. A few more words about the historic role of the judiciary would have helped to set some perspective. Connecting the political theater in Tehran to Trump's zigzags makes it easier to write the lede. But there is no justification for it without evidentiary backing.

Despite the nitpicking I don't regard the Cunningham piece as bad at all. Each day there are way worse reports in the papers and on cable TV. It is probably the best one can do when the editors demand a fast one on some less familiar issue. Over the last years many experienced foreign correspondents were fired or paid to leave. Main-stream media replaced serious foreign reporting with childish "listicals", high school level "explainers" and cat pictures.

When a few dailies and news shows drive foreign policy making the lack of in-depth reporting becomes a serious issue. Members of Congress and the administration get much of their foreign policy knowledge from U.S. media reports. It is no wonder that they are clueless when those reports lack insight and details. The crapification of high decision making is probably directly related to the crapification of the news media. Trump taking his clues from Fox News (and others) is bad. Fox News (and others) having no well reported clues at all is even worse.

Posted by b on July 19, 2017 at 11:36 AM | Permalink

Freespirit | Jul 19, 2017 12:14:14 PM | 1

Yeh, sure I am going to believe an, in effect, "ALL-AMERICAN" stooges reporting about anything stated as FACT from or about Iran

Keep in mind what ,who and Chacteristics of WHOM we are dealing with:

Perpetual WAR, ISRAEL , CHRISTIANS, JEWS, Muslims and the CONNECTION: https://boblivingstonletter.com/alerts/america-perpetual-war/

AND

Psychopathy by James Corbett: https://youtu.be/DPf5i84BqcA

AND

Trump's NEW WORLD ORDER, run by Jews, with him as Temporary Chief Stooge : http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=1222

karlof1 | Jul 19, 2017 12:18:08 PM | 2
Southfront has a report about a just released stink tank study: "A new study conducted by members of the U.S. military establishment has concluded that the U.S.-led international global order established after World War II is "fraying" and may even be "collapsing" as the U.S. continues to lose its position of "primacy" in world affairs." https://southfront.org/us-military-establishment-study-american-empire-collapsing/ https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=1358

The diminishing capacity to get a proper look at global affairs is related to the rise in Imperial Hubris of the Outlaw US Empire, which I turn degrades your ability to properly respond to events -- particularly those created by Empire policy. I think this is a part of what b's writing about here.

Willy2 | Jul 19, 2017 12:28:28 PM | 3
- One doesn't have to occupy Iran in its entirety. One can simply occupy the Khuzestan oil province in the west of Iran to cripple the Iranian government.
Yul | Jul 19, 2017 12:42:28 PM | 4
@b

http://www.irdiplomacy.ir/en/page/1970219/All+Rumors+about+Hassan+Rouhani%E2%80%99s+Recently+Arrested+Brother+Hossein+Fereidoun.html

somebody | Jul 19, 2017 12:49:32 PM | 5
3
that is why Iran has specialized in all types of missiles for the last decades or so.
Pnyx | Jul 19, 2017 12:59:03 PM | 6
Important background. Thank you B.
Yul | Jul 19, 2017 1:16:32 PM | 7
@2 karlof1

Nafeez Ahmed did a good job dissecting the 145 pages report:
https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/pentagon-study-declares-american-empire-is-collapsing-746754cdaebf

Mike Maloney | Jul 19, 2017 1:36:03 PM | 8
Believe it or not, NYT's Tehran correspondent, Thomas Erdbrink, is pretty good. I remember seeing a video a couple years ago where Erdbrink profiles Najiyeh Allahdad, a daughter of a martyr in the Iran-Iraq War I believe. It was very sympathetic to the revolution. In the bio of Allahad NYT published they included this:
How do you describe yourself? I'm an Iranian Muslim who uses any opportunity to improve her country and who protects her country's reputation in the world. I love life, and I love peace. I feel that what people have lost in this world is spirituality. I've devoted my life to trying to find this spirituality for myself first and then to help others enjoy it.

Have you traveled outside of Iran? Where? What did you think? I have traveled to India, China, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Malaysia, the United Arab Emirates, Italy, the United States and Syria. I found some Eastern countries like India and China to be very civilized, but they have not used their civilization to improve their daily lives. On the other hand, I found the Western countries to be detached from their histories and stepping into a new world that has an unclear future. Some Arab countries like Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. seemed too dependent on Western countries and would be nothing without help from the U.S. And a country like Iraq has always been hampered by circumstances throughout its history.

There is a strong body of opinion within the U.S. national security state that believes along with b that Iran cannot be defeated militarily. Trump is doing the bidding of his buddies in Jeddah and Tel Aviv.
Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 19, 2017 1:50:12 PM | 9
A beautiful piece of analytical, sequential surgery, b.
I was watching a doco at the weekend and #Occupy was mentioned, reminding me that we can thank #Occupy for the introduction of 1%/99% into the lexicon, and the #Occupiers for the meme...

The America dream
You have to be asleep
To believe it.

Similarly, I'm grateful to Trump for linking the terms "Fake News" and "Mainstream Media" and making each an autonomic reminder of the other.

james | Jul 19, 2017 2:23:52 PM | 10
thanks b... msm is superficial at best... unfortunately they are beholden to israel's agenda which is the same as the military, financial and neo-con industries... until that changes, it will be playing fast with facts in order to perpetuate more war... good to know what the msm is really about... it isn't about anything in depth, that's for sure!
karlof1 | Jul 19, 2017 2:54:20 PM | 11
Yul @7--

Thanks! I noted Southfront cited him and linked to his article.

To continue my thought on this: Garbage in leads to garbage out. In the process of propagandizing and indoctrinating the populous, you dumb them down to the point that to be effective analysts and policy makers people must be reeducated. My #1 example is Trump. He's been fed so much Crappola his entire life that it negatively affects his thought processes and judgment. At least he's willing to call such crappola for what it is, although he in turn produces his own version of it often.

A very good example of the change in the elite's philosophy from 1776 to today is found in this clause from the Outlaw US Empire's Declaration of Independence:

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

And then compared to this exemplary expression of hubris from Karl Rove:

"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

In other words, we don't give a damn about what anybody else thinks or what the law says--pretty much the same sentiments uttered by every megalomaniac that ever existed.

How to return to the prudent, moral, and law-based philosophy penned by Jefferson that seems to guide the Multipolar Alliance? Where was it reported in the Western media that Iran sanctioned the Outlaw US Empire for its overwhelmingly obvious support for terrorism that I noted yesterday:

"In view of the overt support provided to terrorist groups by the US government and the country's military and intelligence forces and repeated confessions by American officials to having created terrorist groups and offered them all-out support, from the standpoint of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the entirety of the United States' military and intelligence forces are considered as supporters of terrorist groups in the region." http://theduran.com/us-iran-sanctions-are-a-tit-for-tat-measure-that-is-part-of-a-wider-geo-strategic-reality/

Just how many Outlaw US Empire citizens are aware of the fact that it was deemed necessary by a member of congress to introduce a bill entitled the Stop Arming Terrorists Act that affirms the Iranian Parliament's decision to sanction such behavior. And how many citizens are aware that their government's behavior flaunts numerous UNSCRs and is thus in violation of International Law--the very same International Law it championed in 1940--Atlantic Charter--which resulted in the UN Charter and UN organization? As someone who was trained to teach US History, I can tell you I was never taught a huge amount of very important facts about the Outlaw US Empire--indeed, many of my presentations and essays resulted in educating my professors! And some talk of colonizing Mars! That's a huge howler! And I haven't even touched upon Junk Economics and its related Randian Crappola.

SmoothieX12 | Jul 19, 2017 3:15:59 PM | 12
@2, karlof1
The diminishing capacity to get a proper look at global affairs is related to the rise in Imperial Hubris of the Outlaw US Empire, which I turn degrades your ability to properly respond to events--particularly those created by Empire policy. I think this is a part of what b's writing about here.

It is more than just rise, however correctly pointed out by you, of Imperial Hubris--the whole panoply of the "tools" of military-political analysis is plain and simple wrong. This failure is based on a metaphysical mistake -- wrong reading of history, especially of the 20th Century, which led to an ultimate failure in understanding the issues of scales and proportions. What was merely a once in a lifetime window of opportunities due to a specific combination of geopolitical, military, economic etc. factors in the immediate wake of WW II was perceived as a dialectic and inevitable march of history in favor of messianic USA, not a gift to be cherished. Sand castles on the beach, however, do not live long, the high tide has arrived some time ago.

TimmyB | Jul 19, 2017 3:55:08 PM | 13
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that a country's executive branch has clashed with its judiciary branch. Errr, isnt that the entire point of separating these two government functions, so they will clash instead of having the judicary act as a rubber stamp for the executive? In the US, we call it the "Separation of Powers Doctrine." What is so wrong when other countries, such as Iran, have the same policy our Founding Fathers wanted us to have?
Kalen | Jul 19, 2017 4:04:21 PM | 14
Of course there is nothing sensational to write about, everyday occurrence elbowing for influence peddling and positioning within grid of political power.
But more interesting is what such a common, for US Iran and most of other countries, occurrences really mean, namely political game within strictly limited range of moves mostly for benefit of electoral audience entertainment while constitutional and judicial framework makes sure that Deep state and Rulling elite interests, political and economic are satisfied no matter what.

As in the US DOJ, FBI, CIA etc., are organizations aimed directly to protect oligarchic rule, IRG protects ruling class of clerics in Iran, in both countries under guise of protecting constitution and law and order, earthly or heavenly.

Unfortunately, the overall collapse of civilization corrupted by money and power in a unprecedented global dimension of mass mental enslavement, extereme radical consumerism, religion,nationalism or delusional psychotic cult of globalism and suicidal growth of social cancers is ubiquitous within societies crazed by fetish of material or immaterial social products or commodities, monetizing everything including most of all human flesh, relations, culture, religion, and humanist egalitarian societies. Such a decomposing ocean of human flesh spawned an mercenary army of human looking zombies conditioned and ready to violently defend their own enslavement for whatever reason was fed into their rotten brains.


karlof1 | Jul 19, 2017 4:17:43 PM | 15
SmoothieX12 @12--

Thanks for your reply! Unfortunately, "What was merely a once in a lifetime window of opportunities due to a specific combination of geopolitical, military, economic etc. factors in the immediate wake of WW II was perceived as a dialectic and inevitable march of history in favor of messianic USA," this "metaphysical mistake" had already ingrained itself into the Outlaw US Empire's Mythos as Manifest Destiny and quickly found its way into all realms of discourse by the mid-1840s. The creation and perpetuation of such a grandiose mythos can only be done though lies and the deliberate falsification of history. As Hoarsewhisperer @9 intoned:

"The America dream
You have to be asleep
To believe it."

SmoothieX12 | Jul 19, 2017 5:17:29 PM | 16
@15, Karlof1
Outlaw US Empire's Mythos as Manifest Destiny and quickly found its way into all realms of discourse by the mid-1840s. The creation and perpetuation of such a grandiose mythos can only be done though lies and the deliberate falsification of history

While I don't disagree with you, it has to be well understood that any big "player" by 19th Century had its own version of Manifest Destiny e.g. Russia as a Third Rome. But it was namely through WW II where US could claim a "victory" over Nazism (hence a vast field of Anglo-American WW II history falsifiers) and thus realize itself as a continental power that the issue of exceptionalism really have got into over-drive and resulted in US literally running itself into the ground. When one has a political class (and population) not conditioned by continental warfare--it is almost inevitable.

spinworthy | Jul 19, 2017 5:43:58 PM | 18
Regarding, "crapification".

I get the impression the situation is typically less a matter of, "the editors demand a fast one on some less familiar issue", than certain intelligence operatives tasked with gaming the media echo chamber, feed well placed assets prioritized talking points to create the illusion of a 'thing'.

Any western reporting on America's/Israel's numero uno enemy du jour cannot be anything other than psyops. The strategy of 'full spectrum' BS necessitates that the media become the biggest (and most cost effective) venue for conducting psyops.

Just look at the media shitstorm regarding Russia, different crap, same difference!

karlof1 | Jul 19, 2017 6:12:07 PM | 19
SmoothieX12 @16--

"The issue of exceptionalism"

Yes, on the international stage I must agree with you, although it would've occurred earlier if the US government hadn't censored George Seldes's interview with Hindenburg shortly after the Armistice. Hindenburg: "The American infantry won the World War in battle in the Argonne." (p 24; You Can't Print That ; George Seldes; Payson & Clarke, Ltd; New York; 1929)

Arguably, however, if the interview hadn't been censored and been published as the world-wide scoop that it was, then the "Stab in the Back" propaganda charge wouldn't have had anything to uphold it and Hitler's movement wouldn't have happened, although it's very likely the Pacific War would've occurred regardless. Censorship and Propaganda always have unforeseen consequences.

nobody | Jul 19, 2017 7:00:42 PM | 20
a century old discussion

Posted by b on July 19, 2017 at 11:36 AM | Permalink

Not sure where you are getting that number from. The doctrine was introduced by Khomeini, at some point after his exile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hokumat-e_Islami_:_Velayat-e_Faqih_%28book_by_Khomeini%29

It is also not a "discussion", b. It is a thought-crime to criticize this doctrine in the Islamic Republic.

Laguerre | Jul 19, 2017 7:20:15 PM | 23
re 3 willy2
- One doesn't have to occupy Iran in its entirety. One can simply occupy the Khuzestan oil province in the west of Iran to cripple the iranian government.
That was what Saddam thought in 1980. I suppose that's a bit too much like ancient history for you to know anything about that war.
nobody | Jul 19, 2017 7:56:58 PM | 24
messianic USA

Posted by: SmoothieX12 | Jul 19, 2017 5:17:29 PM | 16

Is it not true that (some) Russians believe that ("Holy") Russia has a messianic role to play in the history of mankind?

To what extent would you say this self perception is prevalent among the Russian people and the Russian ruling elite?

George Smiley | Jul 19, 2017 7:57:45 PM | 25
https://mobile.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-trump-orders-cia-halt-financial-military-aid-rebels-syria/

WOW

nobody | Jul 19, 2017 8:05:15 PM | 26
[The New York Times] was very sympathetic to the revolution.

Posted by: Mike Maloney | Jul 19, 2017 1:36:03 PM | 8

No shit. Afterall, the West provided assistance at every turn to the "revolutionaries" -- many of whom are now residents of USA -- to topple the Shah of Iran. Most of you know zip about Iran, "1953", and the role of Soviet Union, UK, France, Germany, and United State of America in the concerted effort to topple the uber nationalist Shah of Iran. You will not write our history for us, I assure you.

Curtis | Jul 19, 2017 8:06:02 PM | 27
For any planned future for Iran, look at the pictures from Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Gaza. As to the usual suspects, it's funny that they're Mideast experts but mostly connected to Israel.

George Smiley 25

The break in US support for the rebel factions is interesting in that it hasn't been public in US MSM. This includes the new coalition that doesn't want to attack Syrian government forces.

nobody | Jul 19, 2017 8:13:58 PM | 28
WOW

Posted by: George Smiley | Jul 19, 2017 7:57:45 PM | 25

Is "WOW" a neologism for Déjà vu?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boland_Amendment

Liam | Jul 19, 2017 9:22:07 PM | 34
Just released and there is nothing else like it - Truth of Ukraine War Revealed: Watchdog Media Releases Definitive Chronological Timeline Video of Ukrainian War From Euromaidan to MH-17 https://clarityofsignal.com/2017/07/19/truth-of-ukraine-war-revealed-watchdog-media-institute-releases-definitive-chronological-timeline-video-of-ukrainian-war-from-euromaidan-to-mh-17/
Temporarily Sane | Jul 19, 2017 10:29:27 PM | 37
@29 ben

Concise and spot-on summary that sums up the state of "journalism" in 2017.

@18 spinworthy

Remember 911 hero Ashleigh Banfield ? Her "fall from grace" is a typical example of what happens to American journalists who try to tell tell the truth about the empire's wars.

[May 25, 2017] EconoSpeak Some Saudi-US History

May 25, 2017 | econospeak.blogspot.com
Given Donald Trump's new commitment to support military adventurism by Saudi Arabia in Yemen and more generally against Iran, it might be worth reconsidering how this alliance developed.

The beginning for Saudi Arabia was in 1744 when a wandering radical cleric, Mohammed bin Abdel-Wahhab met up with a local chieftain, Mohammed bin Saud in the village of Diriyah, whose ruins are now located in the suburbs of the current Saudi Arabian capital, Riyadh. Wahhab converted Saud to his cause of spreading the strictest of the four Sunni shari'as, the Hanbali code, throughout the world, and this remains to this day the ideology of the House of Saud, the ruling family of Saudi Arabia, with this ideology widely known as Wahhabism. The territory ruled by the early Saudis expanded to cover a fair amount of the Nejd, the central portion of the Arabian peninsula, but when they threatened control of Mecca in 1818, ruled by Egyptians under the Ottomans who collected the moneys gained from pilgrims visiting there, the Egyptian leader, Muhammed Ali, invaded the Nejd and destroyed Diriyah. The Saud family moved to the next village over, Riyadh, and reconstructed their small state, which expanded again in the mid-1800s, although near the end of the century they were defeated and exiled to Kuwait by the rival Rashid family from Hail to the north of Riyadh.

In 1902 the 27 year old family leader, Abdulaziz bin al-Rahman bin Faisal al Saud, reconquered Riyadh and would eventually establish the modern Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) through marital and martial conquests, with its modern boundaries established in 1932, and Abdulaziz (known in the West as "Ibn Saud") bearing the title of King and Protector of the Two Holy Places (Mecca and Medina), which he had conqurered in 1924. He would have 43 sons, and today's king, 81-year old Salman, is one of the last of them, and Abdulaziz would die in 1953. It should be noted that Saudi Arabia was independent of the Ottoman Empire, and was one of the few parts of the Muslim world that did not fall under the rule of a European power, along with Turkey, Persia/Iran, and Afghanistan.

In the early years, especially in the 1920s, he sought outside advice and support from the British, especially St-John Philby, the rival at Whitehall of T.E. Lawrence, and the first European to cross the Empty Quarter of the Arabian peninsula. Philby was especially helpful during the revolt by the combined forces of the Rashidi and the Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) whom Abdulaziz managed to defeat in 1929, with the rebels pushing an ultra-fundamentalist line against Abdulaziz (an replay of this revolt occurred 50 years later in 1979, with the Ikhwan seizing control of the Grand Mosque in Mecca for a time). Philby would convert to Islam and take several wives. He was also the father of later Soviet spy, Kim Philby.

The first interest by anybody in the US came out of two agreements in 1928 and 1929, the Red Line Agreement that gave the territories of the former Ottoman Empire to a set of British and French companies, and then the As Is agreement of 1929 between Sir Henri Deterding of Royal Dutch Shell, Baron John Cadman of Anglo-Persian (now BP), and Walter Teagle of New Jersey Standard (now Exxon Mobil) at Deterding's Achnacarry Castle in Scotland. These agreements amounted to an early effort to divide up the oil producing world in a cartel. Out of this, Jersey Standard got Saudi Arabia, although at the time oil had not been discovered there. It would be in 1938 by geologists from Jersey Standard, and agreements for production with cash payments for Abdulaziz in gold bars were made. In 1948, Abdulaziz would become the first leader of an oil-producing nation to succeed in getting a 50-50 profit sharing agreement, and as oil production surged there in the 1950s and after, the money would begin to flow into Saudi Arabia providing the basis for its modernization, even as it retained its highly traditional and strict version of Wahhabist Islam and Hanbali shari'a law code.

While Saudi Arabia initially favored Nazi Germany at the beginning of World War II, much like Iran then, it gradually shifted to the Allied side, with FDR declaring the protection of Saudi oil reserves a US national interest in 1943, and the Saudis officially declaring war on Germany in early 1945. It is widely viewed in KSA that the alliance was sealed in 1945 when FDR was returning from Yalta shortly before his death and met briefly on a boat in the Suez Canal with King Abdulaziz, producing a famous photograph of the two of them smiling and shaking hands, shortly before FDR's death. And indeed, despite some ups and downs, the alliance has held since, with oil at its center.

Given that, the nature of the relationship has changed substantially over time. One major change, signaled initiallly by that 50-50 profit sharing agreement in 1948, was an increase in Saudi control over the oil aspect of it, with OPEC founded in 1960, which would impose a quadrupling of oil prices in 1973 in the wake of the Saudi oil export embargo against the US for the US supporting Israel in the Yom Kippur war of that year. Prior to that embargo, KSA had managed to nationalize ARAMCO, the Arabian-American Oil Company, which produced the oil in Saudi Arabia, the original owners of ARAMCO being Jersey Standard, New York Standard (Mobil, now merged with Exxon), Texaco, and California Standard (now Chevron). These companies, especially Exxon Mobil, continue to have an active relationship with ARAMCO, but the Saudis have been in control of their oil and their oil industry since the beginning of the 1970s. This shifted the relationship to being one more of the US becoming the protector of KSA, providing it with arms as the petrodollars poured in, and this aspect of the relationship has reached a new height with this latest visit and arms deal, arranged by former Exxon Mobil CEO and now SecState, Tillerson.

It is worth noting also that for most of the postwar period probably the major irritant in the Saudi-US relationship has been Israel, which even now KSA does not recognize, and Trump's flight from Riyadh to Tel Aviv was the first such direct flight on that route ever. Israel supporters for many years complained about "Arabists" in the US State Department who were more oriented to worrying US oil interests in the Middle East and especially in Saudi Arabia. But today there is now an alliance of convenience between KSA and Israel in their mutual dislike of Iran.

Which brings us to the current situation. I personally think that the current Saudi leadership has gone off the rails in their anti-Iran attitudes. The differences are both sectarian and ethnic, Sunni versus Shi'i Islam and Semitic Arabs versus Indo-European Iranians, with this manifesting itself in a regional power struggle. But this is a relatively recent conflict, only getting going since the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran, and only getting really hot with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein by the US under George W. Bush. It was the Saudis who convinced Bush's dad not to go to Baghdad to overthrow Saddam in the 1991 Gulf War, arguing that he kept a balance of power as a Sunni Arab leader against Iran. And they argued with Bush, Jr. not to go in for the same reason, although they would support the US effort modestly once it happened, even though it aggravated Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda against the Saudi monarchy for supporting the US so openly (even though the US had supported the decision by then Saudi intel chief, Turki bin Faisal, to send bin Laden to Pakistan to aid in the anti-Soviet campaign in Afghanistan). But the replacement of a Sunni-led regime in Iraq by a Shi'i led one supported by Iran has upset the Saudis greatly. They also do not like Iranian support of Assad in Syria, who appears to have won his war against largely Sunni rebels, many of them supported by KSA, and now the Saudis are bogged down in a war in Yemen against local Zaydi Shi'a, whom they claim (not with full credibility) are being supported by Iran. So they, and the Israelis, want the US to join them in an anti-Iran crusade.

I think we are at a dangerous moment here. The nuclear deal with Iran is the most importantdeal that Obama made, and even the Saudis and Israelis know it. What they do not like about it is that it meant that the economic sanctions on Iran were relaxed. But most of those sanctions were only put on to get Iran to the nuclear negotiating table. There is no way they can be reimposed without Iran returning to having a nuclear program. The most influential person in KSA now appears to be the son of King Salman, 31-year old Mohammed bin Salman, Deputy Crown Prince and Defense Minister, who gets lots of good press in the US. But for all the talk of reform, he has not moved to let women drive or to desegregate workplaces by gender. He seems to be a warmongering hothead who has pushed this so far fruitless and destructive war in Yemen, which has led to incipient famine in that nation as well as its likely falling apart into pieces. He has even talked about "taking the war to Iran," which we can only hope that he will not be tempted to do with all those fancy arms that he is buying from the US. Trump, or whoever is in charge of US foreign policy in the near term, will really have to both defend the nuclear deal with Iran and resist this warmongering push by our longtime erstwhile ally. Let us hope that this is done.

Barkley Rosser Posted by [email protected] at Email This BlogThis! Share to Twitter Share to Facebook Share to Pinterest 6 comments:

Peter T said...
I'm not sure what the drivers of the US hate on Iran are, beyond beltway irritation at a smallish country that refuses to acknowledge US supremacy. War is, I think, unlikely - Iraq nearly broke the US army, and Iran would be much worse; Iran has an open backer in Russia, and a silent one in China, and reasonable relations with all its neighbours (so nowhere to base an invading force). It's also quite careful diplomatically - it does what it feels to be in its interests, but does not go out of its way to provoke.

KSA could panic as the Shi'a consolidate power in Iraq and Syria and their prestige rises across the Islamic world but, again, they lack the access, forces and local allies to do much - and can they afford a defeat?

btw, Iran did not have a nuclear weapons program, and is unlikely to start one even if the US reneges on the deal. Aside from religious objections, Russia and China would not approve, and it would deprive Iran of a chance to split the EU from the US.

All that said, Bush II was staffed by some of the dumbest fucking guys on the planet, and they were geniuses compared to Trump's picks.

May 24, 2017 at 6:14 AM
bbk said...
Good stuff. But while Ikhwan means "Brethren" or "Brotherhod" and the Muslim Brotherhood's name in Arabic contains the word "Ikhwan", I don't think the Saudi Ikhwan is related to the modern Muslim Brotherhood in any way other than both using the word in their name.

The Ikhwan was the part of the Al-Saud military forces in the early 20th century who eventually revolted against the Saudi regime when the Ikhwan felt the Saudi's had gone too "soft" in their religion and refused to spread the Wahhabi creed via Jihad to the Trans-Jordan, Kuwait, and other areas controlled by the British. When the Ikhwan raided British areas the Brits retaliated and the Saudis didn't want trouble with the British so they fought the Ikhwan with the help of the British. The Ikhwan were defeated with the help of British airplanes and military vehicles.

According to wikipedia the remnants of the Ikhwan formed what is today the Saudi Arabian National Guard which is apparently tasked with protecting the royal family and crushing internal dissent.

May 24, 2017 at 11:25 AM
[email protected] said...
Actually they had a nuclear weapons program that dated to the time of the Shah and that was initially supported by, well, the US. It was shut down after the Islamic Revolution. Then it was started up again under Rafsanjani in the late 1990s, only to be shut down about the time the US invaded Iraq, arguably one of the few positive things to come out of that invasion. Official US National Intelligence Estimates (NIE)s after then agreed that there was no active Iranian nuclear weapons program. In effect what the Iran nuclear deal did was to scale back their capability to have one, although they still have such a capability, and, of course, they have a civilian nuclear power program that is very popular in Iran.
May 24, 2017 at 11:27 AM
Peter T said...

No argument - although I think the program under Rafsanjani was more exploration than active development. Iranians are touchy about the civil nuclear program because for them it's a touchstone for respect for their rights as an independent nation. In their view, they joined the IAEA, signed up to the NPT, abided by all the rules and got sanctions, theft of frozen money and threats.

If the US priority were fighting terrorism, then Iran (and even Syria) would be better allies than Saudi (or Pakistan). But history has its own inertia...

May 24, 2017 at 9:37 PM
Unknown said...
Total agreement with Peter T that if fighting terrorism is a priority, hostility to Iran makes little sense. All the major terror groups are Shia with the exception of Hezbollah, but it not a threat to the US or Europe.
May 25, 2017 at 8:22 AM
Elwailly said...
Unknown said...
... All the major terror groups are Shia with the exception of Hezbollah, but it not a threat to the US or Europe.

He means they are all Sunni with the exception of Hezbollah, which is Shia.

(In reality Hezbollah was never a terrorist group in the traditional sense of fostering attacks against civilians. Their sin was fighting the Israelis.)

May 25, 2017 at 6:07 PM

Recommended Links

Google matched content

Softpanorama Recommended

Top articles

[Nov 06, 2020] Did the Iraq War Cause the Great Recession?' Published on Apr 07, 2013 | marknesop.wordpress.com

[Oct 21, 2020] How Trump Got Played By The Military-Industrial Complex by Akbar Shahid Ahmed Published on Oct 21, 2020 | www.huffpost.com

[Sep 28, 2020] No wonder Pompey and his friend Jeffries won't give up on Syria! No wonder Published on Sep 28, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

[Sep 25, 2020] US standard "negotiating" techniques Published on Sep 25, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

[Jul 06, 2020] US claim of 'Russian Bounty' plot in Afghanistan is dubious and dangerous - The Grayzone Published on Jul 06, 2020 | thegrayzone.com

[Jul 01, 2020] Three Glaring Problems with the Russian Taliban Bounty Story by Barbara Boland Published on Jul 01, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

[Jul 01, 2020] Control freaks that cannot even control their own criminal impulses! Published on Jul 01, 2020 | www.unz.com

[Jun 21, 2020] Paul R. Pillar who pointed out that U.S. sanctions are frequently peddled as a peaceful alternative to war fit the definition of 'crimes against peace'. Published on Jun 21, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

[Jun 14, 2020] Jeane J. Kirkpatrick 30 Years Unheeded Published on Jun 14, 2020 | nationalinterest.org

[May 19, 2020] America: "We demand an coronavirus origin investigation, but the investigators must agree on the outcome that we specify before they begin investigating!" Published on May 19, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

[May 13, 2020] Dramatic change of direction for Syrian envoy Published on May 13, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

[Apr 29, 2020] Trump, despite pretty slick deception during his election campaign, is an typical imperialist and rabid militarist. His administration continuredand in some areas exceeded the hostility of Obama couse against Russia Published on Apr 29, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

[Mar 13, 2020] Daffy Duck. cartoon was made in 1953 and like many Looney Tune cartoon's, they are an extreme parody of life. It dawned on me that this cartoon is an almost perfect description of US Military policy and action. Published on Mar 13, 2020 | thesaker.is

[Feb 29, 2020] Secret Wars, Forgotten Betrayals, Global Tyranny. Who s Really In Charge Of The US Military by Cynthia Chung Published on Jan 21, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

[Feb 09, 2020] The Deeper Story Behind The Assassination Of Soleimani Published on Jan 09, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

[Feb 02, 2020] The most interesting issue is the role of NSC in this impeachment story Published on Feb 02, 2020 | angrybearblog.com

[Jan 31, 2020] Trump excoriates Bolton in tweets this morning Published on Jan 31, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

[Jan 27, 2020] The end of Trump? Trump betrayed all major promises of his 2016 election campaign. Trump needs to go... Published on Jan 27, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

[Jan 24, 2020] How Are Iran and the "Axis of the Resistance" Affected by the US Assassination of Soleimani by Elijah J. Magnier Published on Jan 22, 2020 | www.globalresearch.ca

[Jan 24, 2020] Lawrence Wilkerson Lambasts 'the Beast of the National Security State' by Adam Dick Published on Jan 13, 2020 | ronpaulinstitute.org

[Jan 12, 2020] MIC along with Wall Street controls the government and the country Published on Jan 12, 2020 | angrybearblog.com

[Jan 09, 2020] Opposing War With Iran: Three Reasons by Anthony DiMaggio Published on Jan 09, 2020 | www.counterpunch.org

[Jan 08, 2020] I can't quite understand how gratuitous US piracy and adventurism in places on the globe beyond the knowledge and reach of most Americans could possibly be compared to Iranian actions securing their immediate regional borders and interests. Published on Jan 08, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

[Jan 08, 2020] Iraqi Journalist: Killing Soleimani "Ended An Era In Which Iran And The United States Coexisted In Iraq" by Tim Hains Published on Jan 06, 2020 | www.realclearpolitics.com

[Jan 08, 2020] Do you really want to be a one term president? Pompeo can talk big now and then go back to Kansas to run for senator. Where will you be able to take refuge? Published on Sep 18, 2019 | turcopolier.typepad.com

[Jan 08, 2020] If we assume that Pompeo persuaded Trump to order to kill a diplomatic envoy, Trump is now a dead man walking as after Iran responce Pelosi impeachment gambit now have legs Published on Jan 06, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

[Jan 06, 2020] Diplomacy Trump-style. Al Capone probably would be allow himself to fall that low Published on Jan 06, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

[Jan 06, 2020] I am tired of giving Trump a free pass, just because Hillary would have been worse. Trump needs to go. Published on Jan 06, 2020 | www.unz.com

[Jan 06, 2020] How To Avoid Swallowing War Propaganda by Nathan J. Robinson Published on Jan 05, 2020 | www.currentaffairs.org

[Jan 06, 2020] Neocon Pompeo pushed Trump to kill Soleimani; Looks like West Point educated military contactor mafia to which Pompeo and Esper belongs controls the President, although Trump malleability and recklessness are inexcusable Published on Jan 06, 2020 | www.washingtonpost.com

[Jan 06, 2020] The Soleimani Assassination by Philip Giraldi Published on Jan 06, 2020 | www.unz.com

[Jan 06, 2020] The threat of General Soleimani - TTG Published on Jan 06, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

[Jan 05, 2020] The USA is now at war, de-facto and de-jure, with BOTH Iraq and Iran (UPDATED 6X) The Vineyard of the Saker Published on Jan 05, 2020 | thesaker.is

[Jan 05, 2020] Trump is wholly responsible for his own actions, but he -- just like the Ayatollah -- is being pushed in a direction where it's impossible to back down and still "save face". Neither men can afford to do so by Andrew Korybko Published on Jan 05, 2020 | astutenews.com

[Jan 04, 2020] Trump Is Doing the Bidding of Washington's Most Vile Cabal Published on Jan 03, 2020 | theintercept.com

[Jan 04, 2020] Will Trump welcome the ejection of the US from Iraq - He should by Colonel Lang Published on Jan 03, 2020 | turcopolier.typepad.com

[Jan 04, 2020] Talking about revenge is stupid and juvenile: Iran needs to pull back and focus on making themselves stronger in economy and technology and for strong ties with other responsible players Published on Jan 04, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

[Dec 07, 2019] Why the foreign policy establishment consensus is neocon by default. Published on Dec 07, 2019 | www.unz.com

[Jul 17, 2019] Oil Is Driving the Iran Crisis by Michael T. Klare Published on Jan 11, 2019 | thenation.com

[Jul 06, 2019] Why is Iran such a high priority for US elite? Because Iran successfully booted out the CIA and CIA-imposed regime out of their country and successfully remained independent since then Published on Jul 06, 2019 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

[Jun 28, 2019] Tulsi Gabbard vs Bolton Published on Jun 28, 2019 | www.unz.com

[Jun 27, 2019] 'The Ugly Americans' From Kermit Roosevelt to John Bolton Iran Al Jazeera Published on Jun 27, 2019 | www.aljazeera.com

[Jun 26, 2019] Pompeo is a MIC lobbyist, not a diplomat Published on Jun 26, 2019 | www.globaltimes.cn

[Jun 22, 2019] Why The Empire Is Failing The Horrid Hubris Of The Albright Doctrine by Doug Bandow Published on Jun 18, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com

[Jun 22, 2019] Bolton Calls For Forceful Iranian Response To Continuing US Aggression Published on Jun 22, 2019 | politics.theonion.com

[Jun 22, 2019] Why a U.S.-Iran War Could End Up Being a Historic Disaster by Doug Bandow Published on Jun 22, 2019 | nationalinterest.org

[Jun 21, 2019] Russia accuses U.S. of pushing Iran situation to brink of war RIA - Reuters Published on Jun 21, 2019 | www.reuters.com

[Jun 20, 2019] The Trump regime wants another pointless war by Ryan Cooper Published on Jun 18, 2019 | theweek.com

[Jun 20, 2019] The Trump-Bolton Duo Is Just Like the Bush-Cheney Duo Warmongers Using Lies to Start Illegal Wars by Prof Rodrigue Tremblay Published on Jun 18, 2019 | www.globalresearch.ca

[May 12, 2019] Is rabid warmonger, neocon chickenhawk Bolton a swinger? That is a mental picture that s deeply disturbing yet funny at the same time Published on May 12, 2019 | www.unz.com

[Nov 11, 2018] Trump's Iran Policy Cannot Succeed Without Allies The National Interest by James Clapper & Thomas Pickering Published on Nov 09, 2018 | nationalinterest.org

[Oct 25, 2018] Putin jokes with Bolton: Did the eagle eaten all the olives Published on Oct 25, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

[Mar 16, 2018] Will the State Department Become a Subsidiary of the CIA Published on Mar 16, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

Sites

US Saber-Rattling Over North Korea Aims to Cripple China's Global Economic Plans (Podcast) by April 28, 2017

The Neoconservative Influence on US Foreign Policy and the 2003 Iraq War

The U.S. is at last facing the neocon captivity

2019 Iran Military Strength

Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran - Wikipedia

Iran′s military power What you need to know Middle East News and analysis of events in the Arab world DW 06.08.2018

What is Iran′s Revolutionary Guard Middle East News and analysis of events in the Arab world DW 05.04.2019

Etc

Society

Groupthink : Two Party System as Polyarchy : Corruption of Regulators : Bureaucracies : Understanding Micromanagers and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers :   Harvard Mafia : Diplomatic Communication : Surviving a Bad Performance Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience : Who Rules America : Neoliberalism  : The Iron Law of Oligarchy : Libertarian Philosophy

Quotes

War and Peace : Skeptical Finance : John Kenneth Galbraith :Talleyrand : Oscar Wilde : Otto Von Bismarck : Keynes : George Carlin : Skeptics : Propaganda  : SE quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes : Random IT-related quotes :  Somerset Maugham : Marcus Aurelius : Kurt Vonnegut : Eric Hoffer : Winston Churchill : Napoleon Bonaparte : Ambrose Bierce :  Bernard Shaw : Mark Twain Quotes

Bulletin:

Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks The efficient markets hypothesis : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2013 : Unemployment Bulletin, 2010 :  Vol 23, No.10 (October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments : Slightly Skeptical Euromaydan Chronicles, June 2014 : Greenspan legacy bulletin, 2008 : Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan (Win32/Crilock.A) : Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers as intelligence collection hubs : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : Inequality Bulletin, 2009 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Copyleft Problems Bulletin, 2004 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Energy Bulletin, 2010 : Malware Protection Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 26, No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2011 : Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05 (May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method  : Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law

History:

Fifty glorious years (1950-2000): the triumph of the US computer engineering : Donald Knuth : TAoCP and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman : Linus Torvalds  : Larry Wall  : John K. Ousterhout : CTSS : Multix OS Unix History : Unix shell history : VI editor : History of pipes concept : Solaris : MS DOS :  Programming Languages History : PL/1 : Simula 67 : C : History of GCC development :  Scripting Languages : Perl history   : OS History : Mail : DNS : SSH : CPU Instruction Sets : SPARC systems 1987-2006 : Norton Commander : Norton Utilities : Norton Ghost : Frontpage history : Malware Defense History : GNU Screen : OSS early history

Classic books:

The Peter Principle : Parkinson Law : 1984 : The Mythical Man-Month :  How to Solve It by George Polya : The Art of Computer Programming : The Elements of Programming Style : The Unix Hater’s Handbook : The Jargon file : The True Believer : Programming Pearls : The Good Soldier Svejk : The Power Elite

Most popular humor pages:

Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society : Ten Commandments of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection : BSD Logo Story : The Cuckoo's Egg : IT Slang : C++ Humor : ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? : The Perl Purity Test : Object oriented programmers of all nations : Financial Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related Humor : Programming Language Humor : Goldman Sachs related humor : Greenspan humor : C Humor : Scripting Humor : Real Programmers Humor : Web Humor : GPL-related Humor : OFM Humor : Politically Incorrect Humor : IDS Humor : "Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church : Richard Stallman Related Humor : Admin Humor : Perl-related Humor : Linus Torvalds Related humor : PseudoScience Related Humor : Networking Humor : Shell Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2012 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2013 : Java Humor : Software Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor : Education Humor : IBM Humor : Assembler-related Humor : VIM Humor : Computer Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer Humor

The Last but not Least Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt. Ph.D

Copyright © 1996-2021 by Softpanorama Society. www.softpanorama.org was initially created as a service to the (now defunct) UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) without any remuneration. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License. Original materials copyright belong to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only in compliance with the fair use doctrine.

FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.

This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free) site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...

 You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors of this site

Disclaimer:

The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or referenced source) and are not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society. We do not warrant the correctness of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without Javascript.

Last modified: January, 20, 2021